Masters in Architecture by emilia borowik

University of Strathclyde Master’s Dissertation in Architecture 19/08/2019

“I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and has been composed by myself. It contains no unacknowledged text and has not been submitted in any previous context. All quotations have been distinguished by quotation marks and all sources of information, text, illustration, tables, images etc. have been specifically acknowledged. I accept that if having signed this Declaration my work should be found at Examination to show evidence of academic dishonesty the work will fail and I will be liable to face the University Senate Discipline Committee.”

I would like to express my gratitude to Mike Grant, whose readiness to start a chat on the corridor gave this dissertation a good sense of direction since the beginning, as a tutor – his relaxed and very responsive aptitude, made the whole process as easy and stress free as it can be.

Abstract This dissertation examines impacts of demolition and new build and retrofitting in three criteria: economy, environment and society. Assessing both options against every criterion will determine which option is overall more beneficial. Building industry hugely contribute to wealth generation. Demolition and new build is an exceptional opportunity to create a positive financial outcome. Moreover, big construction sides have wider positive impact on economy – creating employment and new activities. Through energy efficiency improvement, it is possible to make retrofitting economically feasible. Investing in increasing energy efficiency, financially pays off. It does however require a significant upfront investment, so alternative financial structures will be analysed. Environmental impact of the building industry is huge – mostly due to consumption of raw materials and carbon footprint – both issues are analysed in context of retrofitting and demolition and new build. Current legislation is restrictive on new build, imposing high environmental standards, there are however examples of exceptional retrofitting projects obtaining environmental results as good as new build. The future demolitions could become much more environmentally friendly, if more buildings materials and wastes were to be recycled and they life cycle extended. Social impact of build environment is hard to quantify. Qualitative assessment has been conducted analysing residential and non-residential buildings across Scotland. Demolition and new build were examined again the possibility of causing gentrification and social cleansing, but as well, improving the quality of life and facilitating eradication of anti-social behaviours. Retrofitting schemes were analysed to see whether it was possible to sufficiently improve quality of local residents without relocations. It is impossible to determine which scenario – demolition and new built or retrofitting – is superior. It depends on existing building’s condition and existing economic, social and ecological environment of every single case. A careful analysis of potential impact should be carried out before making a final decision to demolish, or refurbish, since the impacts are huge and frequently irreversible.

Table of Contents

Introduction 3 3 4 5 6 6 7 8 9 9

Methodology 10 10 11 12

5.1. Challenges of Social Impact Accurate Assessment 5.2. Endangered Communities 5.3. The Pressure of The City 5.4. Retrofitting Wider Benefits

Conclusions 45

Bibliography

4.1. Understanding the Environmental Impact of Existing Building Stock A.Consumption of Natural Resources B.Carbon Footprint 4.2. Improving Natural Resources Consumption â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Life Cycle Analysis 4.3. Carbon Footprint of Demolitions and New Build and Older Buildings 4.4. Standards and Legislation on Building Industry Environmental Impact 4.5. Conclusions

Social Impacts 35 36 39 42

3.1. Net Present Value Calculation 3.2. Estimating Financial Gains of Retrofitting 3.3. Alternative Financing Structure 3.4. Demolition 3.5. Circular Economy

Environmental Impacts 25 25 26 26 30 32 32

2.1. Criteria Establishment 2.2. Structure 2.3. Analysed Sources A. Sources Limitations

Economic Impacts 15 16 18 19 22

1.1. Problem Statement A. A Parisian Short Story B. Current Building Stock Conditions &Demolitions Numbers Scotland B1. Housing B2. Buildings at Risk C. Defining Retrofitting D. Problem Definition 1.2. Hypothesis 1.3. Research Questions 1.4. Aim

6.1. Final Results

List of Figures

cover – author’s collage 3 4 5 7 12 17 17 18 19 20 21 27 28 29 30 35 36 37 38 41 43 43 44 48 49

Figure 01: Demolitions and Rebuilds of Paris Figure 02: Notre Dame Parking Palace Figure 03: Housing Statistics for Scotland – Demolitions Figure 04: Degrees of interventions Figure 05: Research Framework Figure 06: Overall results for 2050 Figure 07: Relationship between saved energy and savings to customers Figure 08: “Stroomversnelling” project’s financial engineering diagram Figure 09: BEFORE & AFTER: Bungalow in Kent. Design: Andrew Clague Figure 10: BEFORE & AFTER: Broadford Works Figure 10: BEFORE & AFTER: St James Centre Figure 11: Life Expectancy of Building Materials Figure 12: Materials’ Passport for a Home Figure 13: The Resource Rows: Structural Framework Figure 12: Works on St Bricin’s Park complex Figure 13: SIA’s relationship with other fields of assessment Figure 14: Vicious Circle of Negative Trends Figure 15: The Plean Street Figure 16: Irvine Tower Blocks Figure 17: Leith Walk: Proposed and Existing Figure 18: Urban Regeneration, Elements Figure 19: BEFORE & AFTER: Wilmcote House Figure 20: Historical Buildings’ Adaptations Figure 21: Venn Diagram, Sustainable Refurbishment Figure 22: OLD/NEW COMPARISON Copyrights and sources of all pictures and figures are all annotated in the main text

Abbreviations BPIE – Buildings Performance Institute Europe CO2 – Carbon Dioxide C&DW – Construction and demolition wastes EPCs - Energy Performance Certificates HES – Historic Environment Scotland IRR – Internal Rate of Return LCA – Life Cycle Analysis NPV – Net Present Value Mt – million tones MVHR – Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery SIA – Social Impact Assessment nZEB – nearly Zero Energy Buildings

total word count circa 14300

1 Introduction “Architecture must be a heart-breaking art… Paint a picture, write a book, and you possess your creation forever, even if it is not good. But design a building and you have it for twenty years and then the wrecker takes charge of the situation.” C. H. Winsten and Robert M. Coates, Wrecker’s Reminiscences, New Yorker 1931 (quoted in Cairns, Jacobs 2014, p. 193)

“Under normal circumstances, buildings have a lifespan from several decades to several centuries, depending on the building type. Commercial buildings often have a shorter lifespan and show a higher demolition rate than residential buildings. Changes in our economy and society require the continuous adaptation of our building stock so that it can serve the changing demands of occupants. The continuing trend of urbanisation, changing work patterns, an increase in the number of single-person households and an aging society [...] require adaptive buildings which can be easily reconfigured.” (Oliver Rapf, 2019 p. 2)

11 2

3 4 5 6

This chapter introduces general issues of demolition and retrofitting. To understand the situation in Scotland, local building stock is analysed. The chapter sets the framework and scope of this dissertation.

1.1. p 3 A. p 4 B. p5 p6 p6 p7 p8 p9 p9

B1. B2. C. D. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4.

Problem Statement A Parisian Short Story Current Building Stock Conditions &Demolitions Numbers Scotland Housing Buildings at Risk Defining Retrofitting Problem Definition Hypothesis Research Questions Aim

1.1. Problem Statement 1

A. A Parisian Short Story Architecture never stops evolving! Developing technology, new building opportunities, change of aesthetics, styles and social needs; looking at the architectural history, it is clear - what is the holy grail today - will simply be rubbish tomorrow. (Cairns, Jacobs, 2014; Bragança, Verhoef, 2007) In the last century, the grand masters of modernism, strongly advocated a grand change “out with the old, in with the new!” (Le Corbusier, 1931). Le Corbusier’s radical Plan for Paris was based on a complete demolition of existing city and starting fresh – taking full advantage of opportunities created by modern technology, embracing modern society and values (Le Corbusier, 1931). However, not much later, experiencing big scale demolitions in the early 20th century, postmodern architects and urbanists started raising concerns about heritage, social identity and sustainable development, questioning demolitions’ impact (Jacobs, 1961; Hildebrand et al., 2018, p. 24). Ironically, lots of the heritage, we want to protect today, is simply an outcome of an earlier demolition – i.e. modern Paris is hugely shaped by a late 19th century excessive rebuild of the city - Hausmann’s Plan. More recently in 1991 - Rem Koolhaas, got involved in erasing and rebuilding Paris, again, with OMA’s scheme Mission Grand Axe, in La Défense. Frustrated with limited space available, Koolhaas analysed building occupying the site, and described them as “extremely unpopular”, “in despair”, “undeniably inferior buildings” (Koolhaas, Mau, 1995, p. 1096), on OMA’s website, in the description of the Mission Grand Axe we can read “The “modern” building has become the momentary embodiment of an opportunistic financial envelope that after 20, 25, at the most 30 years, simply expires – all within a single generation, therefore provisional” (oma.eu) . Reflecting on the project, OMA noted “The idea of starting from scratch is now, in Europe, literally unthinkable; this dream/nightmare of the tabula rasa is dead – completely abandoned” (OMA, 2012, quoted in Cairns, Jacobs, 2014 p. 219).

4 Figure 01: Demolitions and Rebuilds of Paris 1. Hausmann’s Plan in making: Paris Charles Marville – Breaking through L’avenue de l’Opera circa1877 (Charles Marville, Musee Carnavalet, Roger-Viollet) 2. Le Corbusier’s Plan Voisin – Plan for Paris (© fondationlecorbusier.fr), 3. Current picture from Paris Chatelet district, where Corbusier’s Plan was designed (© gites. fr), 4. Mission Grand Axe (© OMA)

Sometimes, the necessity to rebuild, adapt or demolished may be caused by a natural disaster, or an unfortunate event. 15th April this year – Notre Dame – the most celebrated Parisian cathedral lost its roof to the fire. Because of the immense importance of the building, historical and architectural values, there was no discussion, whether the cathedral was worth preserving after the fire. However, determining a way to go forward – approach towards renovation and choosing a design, may prove just as difficult. It is the same question yet again – to embrace the old – rebuild the beautiful cathedral respecting historical aesthetics, that the cathedral is praised for; or design a parking on the burned roof – because it is what the city needs today With a global attention and the eyes of the whole world, The Norte Dame, will probably (hopefully) not end up with a parking lot on the roof. However, whatever design will be chosen for the cathedral, it will not solve the ultimate dilemma. The story is not over, and the problem is relevant not only in Paris, but all around the world. With the speed-growing population and cities no longer adapt, ageing building do not stand up to modern expectations, we are faced with the dilemma. What is the smartest move – abandon our cities and really focus on exploring live on Mars; demolish – clear up the old mess, refresh Le Corbusier’s plans and rebuild; or shall we give in to our melancholies, get on board with flaws of the past and try to do it up, as much as possible?.

B. Current Building Stock Conditions and Demolitions Numbers in Scotland

In 2011, Buildings Performance Institute Europe (BPIE) stated that useful floor space is constantly increasing by 1% (BPIE, 2011, p. 27; Power, 2008, p. 4489). If this trend continues, it means, out of all European buildings, only 1% was build last year. In UK, 80% of all buildings existing in 2050 have already been built (Green Building Council, 2019). Additionally, out of all Europe, UK has the highest number of buildings, erected before 1960 – over 50%. (BPIE, 2011, p. 36). Historic Environment Scotland (HES) states 1 in 5 of Scotland’s dwellings – total of 428000 are over 99 years old – built pre 1919 (HES Audit 2018), furthermore, HES estimates 67% of those dwellings “is in need of critical repairs (which refers to water tightness and structural stability)” (HES Audit 2018). Ann Power states there are circa 24 million homes in UK today, and even with the highest demolition rate assumed, 22 million of them are going to be standing in 2050 (Power, 2008). BPIE estimates the total rate of demolitions in Europe at 0.2% of total building stock per year (BPIE, 2011, p. 107). Therefore, a discussion about feasible and efficient future scenarios for older structures in UK is necessary. In order to gain a full understanding of building stock in Scotland and demolition numbers, two diverse building types are analysed in points B1 and B2. First (B1) – housing – accounting in UK for circa 75% of all building stock (BPIE, 2011, p. 8). Second (B2) – Buildings at Risk – a register of buildings administrated by HES. Gathering knowledge from two very diverse sources will help to generalize and understand common trends in demolitions of building stock in Scotland.

Figure 02 : Notre Dame Parking Palace (© Rob Cross)

• B1. Housing It is recognized by the Scottish Government a long-term action plan and policies for housing modernization and updating is necessary to ensure high living standard for Scottish population. “Choosing our future: Scotland’s sustainable development strategy” identifies only 1% of Scottish homes as “newly build” (Scottish Executive, 2005, p. 62). The report states that challenges for existing building stock include: “preserving and improving existing housing stock by measures” (Scottish Executive, 2005, p. 61). The total number of housing demolitions is Scotland is generally falling – see orange arrow on the figure 03. The total demolitions’ number peaked in 2001 – 2002 at 6431, and most recently in 2017 – 2018 dropped to 1197.

The total housing demolition number is partly this high because of the high – rises demolitions across Scotland. Since 2005, a quarter of Glasgow’s high – rises have been demolished (Leslie, 2015). Many of demolitions have been emotional for local communities and sparked a wider discussion across the country. The most spectacular and memorable Glaswegian demolition was Red Road flats in 2015. There are many other examples of high-rise flats demolition in Glasgow including: Castelmilk, Pollokshaws, Cardonald, Ibrox, Govan, Sighthill, Royston, Gorbals, Germinston. The process is still in making, with councils of North Lanarkshire, North Ayrshire announcing more demolitions in the future (Sottish Housing News, 2018).

Figure 03: Housing Statistics for Scotland – Demolitions. Data collected from Scottish Government official website

• B2. Buildings at Risk The list includes buildings with various typology both residential and non-residential. “Buildings at Risk” is a register of Scottish buildings considered to be in danger. HES defines Buildings at Risk as a building that may be: o “long-term vacant o neglected and/or poorly maintained o structurally unsound o damaged by fire o unsecured and open to the elements o threatened with demolition” (www.buildingsatrisk.org.uk) Additionally to characteristics above, “Buildings at Risk” are historically significant, usually are in the register of listed buildings, or within the conservation area. The register can be found online, and it is constantly evolving. Individuals and communities and encouraged to sign up local buildings that may be considered for the list. HES administrators update the total number of buildings in the register, as buildings are either rescued though refurbishment, either demolished. Scotland’s Historic Environment Audit: Summary Infographic 2018 reports states in 2018 there were 2673 entries in the register. HES, unsurprisingly, strongly advocates adaptation and conservation, rather than demolition of registered buildings. The scope of creating Buildings at Risk Register – was to facilitate heritage preservation – attract potential investors, new buyers. Based on the report from 2011, this task has been achieved. The number of A listed buildings registered as Buildings at Risk dropped from 8.7% in 2009 to 7.6% in 2015 (HES Audit 2016). However, it is important to notice the total number of Buildings at Risk since 2012 is over 2600 (HES Audit 2018). It means there are 2600 architecturally or historically significant derelict, falling apart buildings across Scotland at a standstill with no maintenance, or future plan. The register has been extremely successful in preventing demolition – since 2009 until 2016 there were only three registered building demolished (HES Audit 2016). Well documented historical and architectural values of buildings in the register, prove to be a guarantee for a building existence and an excellent protection against demolition.

C. Defining Retrofitting Demolition is simple to imagine; it is “the act of destroying something, such as a building or other structure” (Cambridge Dictionary). It can be executed on any building, various sizes, typology, age, on purpose, accidentally or by a natural disaster. A building can be completely, or partially demolished, in which case it may be considered to re-build, upgrade it. The extend of the renovation is partially determined by the state of a building in question and renovation’s ambitions, it can vary from very small intervention to very significant ones. There are many words used to describe a renovation: refurbishment, rehabilitation, restoration, redevelopment, refurbishing, revamping, repair, renewal, reconditioning, refitting, overhaul, modernization, reconstruction, renewing, rejuvenation, retrofit, rebuilding, remediation, fixing up, upgrading (Collins Dictionary). To avoid confusion, the figure 04 (on the left) clarifies and defines degrees of retrofitting. From left – the smallest intervention to right – the biggest one. From this point onwards, in this dissertation – the word ‘retrofitting’ will be used to describe all interventions – with no distinction of how extensive the work is. BPIE estimates the current retrofitting rate in Europe at 1% of total building stock per year (BPIE, 2011, p. 103), but this is only and estimation, and there is no exact number defining how many retrofitting are conducted in UK every year. “Europe’s Building Under Microscope”, published in 2011, mentions an UK data base registering all retrofitting projects available at: www.rethinkrefurbishment.com/portal/, however typed in today, the entry opens the Bre’s group website: https://www.bregroup.com/, and there is no retrofitting registry at the website available. The current European legislation Article 5 of Directive 2012/27/EU of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, requires since 2014 all the member states to retrofit at least 3% of government owned and occupied floor space of all cooled or heated buildings assure its up to energy standards performance (Eur Lex).

Figure 04: Degrees of interventions (Konstantinou, 2014, quoted in Konstantinou and Dimitrijević, 2018 p. 207)

D. Problem Definition There is no register, index, list or organization accounting for all buildings at risk including unlisted ones. However, there is plenty of derelict, abandoned, unused buildings across Scotland, all one must do is look around to notice! Vacant and derelict land issue is addressed by Scottish Land Commission, that 30 years ago set the Scottish Vacant and Derelict Land Survey (SVDLS). Detailed maps with vacant and derelict lands across Scotland are available online. SVDLS claims “there are currently around 11,600 hectares, two times the size of the City of Dundee, of derelict and urban vacant land in Scotland” (SEPA, 2018). Steve Dunlop – the chair of Transforming Vacant and Derelict Land Project said: “In disadvantaged areas of Scotland it is estimated that three in every five people live within 500 metres of a vacant or derelict site” (SEPA, 2018). There is no SVDLS’s or SEPA’s reports accounting for buildings, or any structure on derelict sites.

There are various amateur’s lists and web pages fetishizing derelict and empty buildings: www. derelictglasgow.co.uk – lists over 50 sites , www. abandonedscotland.com – mentions over 100, none of the derelict buildings in area I live – Dennistoun – are mentioned (Bellgrove Abbatoir and Meat Markets, former Golfhill Primary School, former Haghill Primary School) In present situation, it is not unreasonable to assume – demolitions – both large and small scale seem to glimmer on Scottish horizon. There is a lot of enthusiasm and energy being declared by various organizations and government to keep improving and developing the Scottish cities’ urban realm. In this context, it is extremely important to try to understand, as deeply as possible, what are the possible impacts of demolitions, and retrofitting on our build environment.

1.2. Hyphotesis Retrofitting derelict, malfunctioning buildings in Scotland, is environmentally, economically and socially more beneficial than demolition and new built.

1.3. Research Questions Principal Research Question: What is a better solution â&#x20AC;&#x201C; demolition and new build, or retrofitting existing, derelict and malfunctioning buildings? What buildings are currently getting demolished or retrofitted and why? (introduction) What is the environmental, economic and social impact of demolitions, new build and building retrofitting? (main argument) What are the barriers for derelict buildings demolitions and retrofitting? (conclusion) 1.4. Aim The primary purpose of this dissertation is to gain a wide understanding, analyse and present environmental, economic and social impacts of demolition and retrofitting of derelict and unfit for their purpose buildings. This work will show deep, significant and long-lasting effects of demolitions and retrofitting. Analysing those impacts will allow to form a conclusion, whether retrofitting is more beneficial than demolition.

4 5 6

Methodology 2.1. Criteria Establishment The various impacts of demolitions and retrofitting existing building stock, can be divided in three main categories: environmental, economic and social. The criteria for this research are adapted following the majority of authors of the field This categorisation is used by: Branka Dimitijevic (2018), Anne Power (2008), Peter Bullen and Peter Love (2011), Nick V. Baker (2009), et al. Analysing the main subject against the three criteria: economy, environment, society – will provide a wide and objective view of the field. None of the criterions is superior to others – they appear in alphabetical order. The three criteria are the main components in defining sustainability (Bakhoum, Brown, 2011), however as “sustainable” has become a “go to” word for all designs and constructions, therefore, to be more precise, it will not be used excessively.

2.2. Structure The main body of this dissertation is contained in three chapters. Each chapter examines impacts of demolitions and retrofitting against one of the three criterions – chapter 1 – economic impacts, chapter 2 – environmental impacts, and chapter 3 – social impacts. Rather than describing each scenario (demolition or retrofitting) in a separate chapter, the chosen structure will facilitate comparison and lead to determining more beneficial scheme. Every chapter will explain what the relationship between each criterion and building environment is and its importance.

2.3. Analysed Sources To set the general context and introduce the subject of demolition and retrofitting in architecture, the summary of famous architects’ views was presented in the introduction on the base of: Le Corbusier’s “Toward an Architecture” (1932), OMA’s “X, M, L, XL” (1995). It is not the aim of this dissertation to focus on one singular project, therefore, the books describing a work of a studio or a particular architect – provide a limited value to subject matter, however, it proves the division in the field and a great variety of opinions, and hence, solidify the importance of the posed problem to be thoroughly analysed. It is easy to understand an authors’ position on demolition or building retrofitting, but these positions are not backed up by data-based evidence, rather general believes and aspirations for own designs. Books reviewing buildings’ long life cycle, considering many precedents – from a conception until the day a building is obsolete, are more beneficial for this work, as it provides a broader view of the subject – i.e. “Buildings must die: a perverse view of architecture” by Stephen Cairns and Jane Jacobs. Additionally, the book, even though clearly is about architecture, it is not design based, but it is an interdisciplinary analysis of build environment that includes: “scholarship from architectural theory, material and building science, economics, history, geography, urban planning, organization studies, and beyond”. (Cairns, Jacobs, 2014, p. 5). As in the book, the ambition of this dissertation is to analyse an architectural issue in a broader interdisciplinary context.

The most valuable publications for this dissertation are reports and articles focusing mainly on building demolitions and retrofitting analysis, speculations and critique. The main argument of this dissertation is contained in three chapters. To achieve the best results, an appropriate, and distinct research approach is necessary for every chapter. The first chapter – economic impacts – examines finance involved in demolitions and refurbishment. The research is mostly quantitative – based numbers and calculations. This data can be found in reports of independent organizations and case studies analysis. Legislature, taxation, available grands, and financial incentives available on local and international lever are considered in this chapter. The second chapter – environmental impacts – examines if, how and to what extend can old buildings achieve the same environmental performance as new buildings. This chapter is a review of existing environmental standards and its approach toward demolitions, new build and retrofitting. The research conducted in this chapter is mostly quantitative. The third chapter – social impacts – focuses on the human relationship with built environment. Qualitative research will be conducted – interviews from various magazines, storytelling, memories, art pieces are analysed in this chapter. This chapter shows how quality of lives changes for local communities after demolition or a retrofitting.

A. Sources Limitations This dissertation examines a situation in Scotland; therefore, it is beneficial for most of the studied sources to be produced locally – it may influence analysis of legislature and local political structures, environmental conditions and requirements and structure of the society. For example “Business Case for Energy Efficient Building Retrofit and Renovation”(2011) report managed by McGraw Hill Construction is an extremely thorough and valuable report in regards to green retrofitting, but it describes a situation in USA, therefore it is very hard to use any of the information from the report in this dissertation, other than general structure.

Equally, case studies chosen for analysis are also predominantly Scottish, if not – from places with similar economic, environmental, social background. Economic, environmental, and social environments constantly change, therefore studding papers analysing situation from the past, even as recent as 90s may not be very relevant today. Therefore, to keep up with the present situation and make this dissertation as relevant as possible, and extra effort has been made to use recently published papers – the vast majority of cited sources have been published post 2010. Keeping up with the current demolitions and retrofitting projects has been easy thanks to Sottish Housing News and Retrofit Scotland.

Figure 05: Research Framework

3 ECONOMIC impacts

“Buildings are at the centre of our social and economic activity. Not only do we spend most of our lives in buildings, we also spend most of our money on buildings. The build environment in not only the largest industrial sector in economic terms, it is also the largest in terms of resource flow. Buildings are intrinsically linked to Europe’s societies, Europe’s economies, and their future evolution.” (BPIE, 2011, p. 19)

1 2

5 6

There is a strong relationship between built industry and economy. This chapter examines possible financial gains (losses) of retrofitting projects and new builds. To understand possible economic outcomes, various scenarios, formulas and case studies are presented and analysed.

p 15 3.1. p 16 3.2. p 18 3.3. p 19 3.4. p 22 3.5.

Net Present Value Calculation Estimating Financial Gains of Retrofitting Alternative Financing Structure Demolition Circular Economy

3.1. NPV – Net Present Value A common financial calculation used to assess a validity of a project or an investment is the NPV – the net present value calculations. The formula is used to assess today’s value of all future cash flows generated by a project/ investment. The basic formula is:

NPV = F/[(1+i)]^(n ) -initial investment Where, F = future payment (cash flow), i = discount rate (or interest rate), n = the number of periods in the future, (investopedia.com) For example, if I was considering opening a printing shop – I would have to invest £3.000 for printers, I would estimate my monthly incomes at £200, and £600 in May, when architecture department is in exam session and I would like to keep it open for a year. Otherwise, I will just keep my money on my savings account, which is currently at 2.6% monthly rate. My NPV would be calculated: 200/[(1+0.026)]^1 + 200/[(1+0.026)]^2 + 200/ [(1+0.026)]^3 + 200/[(1+0.026)]^4 + 600/ [(1+0.026)]^1 + 200/[(1+0.026)]^5 + 200/ [(1+0.026)]^6 + 200/[(1+0.026)]^7 + 200/ [(1+0.026)]^8 + 200/[(1+0.026)]^9 200/ [(1+0.026)]^10 + 200/([(1+0.026)]^11 )-3000

The fpv(n) is defined as: fpv(n) = (1-[(1+[ RR-e ]/100)]^(-n))/([(R]R-e)/ 100) Where, RR = real interest rate (%), e = escalation of energy prices (%), n = the length of calculation period (Rose, et al., 2016, p. 61) Putting formula to work allows to predict whether a given building retrofitting is a financially viable investment. In their paper Rose et al. find “individual measures including roof insulation, changing the heating system, and windows with two layer energy glass have positive NPV […] New lighting system, exterior wall insulation and widows with three layer energy glass are all quite expensive measures resulting in negative NPVs.” (Rose, et al., 2016, p. 63) Singular results from the paper examining particular buildings in Estonia and Denmark, are not the key finding here. A straightforward formula can be applied to any house retrofitting project to access its economic input and help in the decision-making process. I live in a Victorian tenement flat in Glasgow – my flat is 40 m2, it has three single glazing, tall windows. I estimate my yearly energy bill is circa £750. After doing some research, I estimate changing my windows to double glazing would cost me circa £4000. The energy prices in UK have been rising last years, therefore the fpv(n) is set at 3.

NPV = - £609

The Cg (NPV) of window exchanging would be calculated:

Hence, my printing shop shows a negative NPV, it is not a project worth investing in.

Cg=(4000+750 ·3)/40 Cg (NPV) = £156.25

Reaserchers Rose, Thomsen, Mørck, Kuusk, Kalamees and Mauring (2016) in their paper accessing the difficulties for deep energy building renovation adapted the NPV formula for building retrofitting purpose. The adapted formula stands:

Cg=(CI+CA ·fpv(n))/(A floor) Where, Cg = the global cost (€/m2), CI = construction cost (€), CA= annual energy cost during starting year (€), fpv(n) = the present value factor for the calculation period of n years, A floor = heated net floor area (m2).

A positive result indicated an investment in replacing windows would be a beneficial investment for me to make. Using the NPV adapted to Cg for building retrofitting formula allows users to access the viability of an investment on their own. This simple tool can prove very useful on a small scale, but it is not very detailed. In the example of window replacement, the formula does not access how much of energy will the window replacement effectively save. The total consumption of the energy does not only depend on the heating, but lighting, using computer, heating water etc. Therefore, the formula cannot be used to provide a wider, more in depth context of retrofitting economic impact.

3.2. Estimating Financial Gains of Retrofitting Most of the older buildings’ retrofitting is likely to cause a positive economic impact due to improved energy performance – and consequently lowering the cost of required energy. BPIE states “an energy saving measure costing €10 000 that saves €2000 each year has a simple payback of 5 years” (BPIE, 2011, p. 101) – in 10 years this generated 15% of internal rate of return (IRR), hence business analysis shows, it is clearly a profitable investment.

Six scenarios presented by the BPIE are:

Part III of BPIE’s “Europe’s building under the microscope” (2011) entitled “Renovating with purpose – finding a roadmap towards 2050” presents a very detailed comparative study of retrofitting development in six hypothetical scenarios until 2050, and its economic outcomes. Different scenarios are defined by the extend to what the retrofit improves energy performance of the building: a shallow retrofitting indicates one element is upgraded – a new boiler, more efficient windows, a lighting changed to LED, a new HVAC system – up to 30% of energy savings is expected; medium scenario implicates a few smaller elements are implemented, or a big intervention like insulating building’s envelope – total energy savings are estimated between 30% and 60%; deep retrofitting brings all activities listed above together – expected energy savings range from 60% to 90%; two stage scenario bodes some building to be retrofitted twice until 2050. The BPIE estimates currently 85% of all energy savings retrofitting are shallow, 10% medium and 5% deep. For the analysis of the hypothetical scenarios, BPIE assumes until 2050 the ratio of shallow renovations is going to fall, and deep renovation number will increase.

Scenario 1A – slow and shallow, 1B - fast and shallow

In the paper, published in 2011, BPIE presents two sets of final outcomes: for 2020 and 2050. Since now, we are so close to 2020, comparing current data with BPIE assumptions could strongly validate predicted outcomes for 2050. Unfortunately, no such research has been done so far.

Scenario 0 – the present situation This scenario assumes, the situation over the next 31 years is not going to be different than today – therefore renovation rate remains at 1% per year – it means only 40% of existing building stock is retrofitted until 2050.

The shallow renovations may be perceived as cheapest solution due to the lowest initial investment. In the slow and shallow scenario, the renovation rate is assumed at 1.4% per year until 2020, and in the fast and shallow it is 2.6%. Slow scenarios assume medium retrofitting rate to grow slowly – and by 2050 reach a half of total activity, deep retrofitting reach 25% by 2050.

Scenario 2 – medium Medium retrofitting scenario assumes shallow retrofitting to almost phase out by 2030, and deep retrofitting to take over 65% of all retrofitting, additionally in 2050 nearly Zero Energy Buildings (nZEB) are introduced and take over 5% of the market.

Scenario 3 – deep Deep retrofitting scenario – the most optimistic one – assumes already by 2020 shallow retrofitting are almost entirely phased out, while deep retrofitting takes over 90% of all activity. Additionally, from 2020 nZEBs accelerates, accounting for 30% by 2050.

Scenario 4 – two stage Two stages scenarios assume some properties to be retrofitted twice until 2050. Most of the first-time retrofitting are shallow, but seconds push up the standard to deep and nZEBs. Two stage scenario shows similar results to medium scenario (2) but improves the results significantly until 2050.

Net saving or cost to consumer – the difference between the lifetime energy cost savings and lifetime investment. Negative results indicate cost, positive – savings (BPIE, 2011, p. 106) Whether the BPIE’s assumption are correct, or perhaps overoptimistic, the results show undisputedly investing in saving energy retrofitting economically pays off! There is no single number showing a loss. The IRR for all the scenarios – including present situation are above 10%. Additionally, retrofitting for energy improvement activity could represent an important job generator – employing in the best scenario over a million people. Savings to consumers, even with the base scenario 0, is whooping € 23 billion. In fact, the relationship between energy saved and consumer benefit is nearly linear.

Figure 06 (above): Overall results for 2050 (BPIE, 2011, p. 119) Figure 07 (below): Relationship between saved energy and savings to customers.

3.3. Alternative Financing Structure If proved energy saving retrofitting generate financial benefits, one may wonder, how come no big banks and financial institution are (yet) involved in the process. Dutch Energiesprong’s “Stroomversnelling” project offers a solution that benefits everyone – homeowners, housing association and business investors. As explained earlier, tenants may not be able to pay up front for homes renovations. “Stroomversnelling” shows how to get through this obstacle , the tenants have absolutely no extraordinary costs, and their dwellings get retrofitted! How is it all possible?

Residents are not bothered with too much noise, and even if they are, the inconvenience is very short-term. Once the retrofit is finished, houses look prettier, newer, and are much more energy efficient. Cost of energy falls and maintenance is easier and cheaper thanks to long lasting relationship with the same construction company. (6) Residents, however, continue paying same prices, as they did before the renovation, even though the houses are now cheaper to maintain. The difference means housing associations now receives more money that necessary for bills and maintenance, so they can pay back the loan (7). (Staniaszek, 2015, p. 17 - 21)

An independent, non–profit institution – WSW – was established to help housing associations obtain financial resources. (1) WSW’s social bank was able to secure €6.6bn capital. With the support of the government, (2) WSW triple A loans were set at 5.25% for 30 years’ time and sold to housing associations across Netherlands (3). Housing associations were put in contact with technology and innovation company who offered a retrofitting scheme with maintenance guaranteed for 30 years. (4) With loaned money, housing associations bought the deal. (5) Every house gets retrofitted. Technology, logistics and operations of the constructions is spot on; most of the components are pre-assembled off site, so it only takes 10 days to retrofit a housing unit.

From financial point of view, the scheme is flawless – no one loses. It is possible because of the efficiency and trust in the retrofitting technology, execution and final results. The project first happened in 2013/2014, therefore we do not have long term results yet to validate the project. Even if this particular project failed, or did not show as good results as expected, it does not take away the validity of the proposed financial structure. Technology, solutions and executions may be changed, perfected, and the financial structure does provide a viable alternative to overcome the barrier of residents’ upfront investment. The first project, using Energiesprong’s program, in UK has been completed in 2018 in Sneinton, Nottingham.

Figure 08: “Stroomversnelling” project’s financial structure diagram

3.4. Demolitions If, as proved in this chapter, retrofitting can have a positive economic outcome, what is the purpose of demolitions? In business, however, it is not only about breaking even, it is all about maximising potential profit. Examples analysed in points 1.2 and 1.3 proved energy savings achieved by retrofitting can result in a positive numbers, but does it make more money than demolishing and building new? It is impossible to say for sure. It is proven in this thesis, energy saving retrofit guarantees economic benefits; a generic functional, aesthetical retrofit may bring some economic benefits, but will have a significant cost; a demolition, and new build is the costliest option– and therefore has the potential to generate the biggest financial gains. On the other hand, executed poorly, a construction project with a demolition may turn to an economic disaster. There are various examples for residential and non – residential, large and small scale retrofitting projects and demolitions and new build that results in both very poor and very good financial result.

Figure 09: BEFORE & AFTER: one-bedroom bungalow in Kent. Design: Andrew Clague, built Hanse Haus. The new home value: £1.5milion, plot cost: £250,000, building process including demolition, landscaping and design: £910,000. The net gain £340,000. (© www. homebuilding.co.uk/demolish-and-replace/)

Aberdeen’s Broadford Works: An A listed building. Yet the financial evaluation determined its future. “A report compiled by the Hurd Rolland Partnership after a visit in 2016 says that fully retaining the buildings would cost upwards of £11.5m, while demolition would cost around £1.1m” (Scottish Housing News, 2018). HES offers financial grants – up to £500000, if and when investing in the historic properties proved to be economically unfeasible, but the grands are designed to help investors break even, rather than generate profit- between 2008 and 2018 HES awarded grands of over £132 (HES, 2019, p. 18). Historic sites can and often do generate a significant financial income due to tourists’ attraction (in 2018, Scotland’s historic sites attracted 18milion visitors (HES Audit 2018)), but this was not the case for Aberdeen’s Broadford Works. Demolition has been approved, and Broadford Works will become an urban village worth £100m. The design includes 460 homes and 430 student accommodation units. The Aberdeen city councillors have unanimously voted in favour of demolition and redevelopment (Scottish Housing News, 2018). Sheppard Robson studio designing the redevelopment assures maintain the spirit of the place dictate the design and create a high-quality public realm. Figure 10: BEFORE & AFTER: above: Broadford Works in 2017 below: rendering of new design ( © https://www.sheppardrobson.com/ architecture/view/broadford-worksaberdeen)

St James Centre: Another controversial demolition and new build example in Edinburgh. Original building from the 70s is a classic representation of brutalist architecture, BBC mentions “often described as an eyesore” (BBC, 2018). The demolition to facilitate new development has recorded only 16 objections to the council. The new spectacular centre, designed by Allan Murray Architects, will house a grand shopping mall, 150 private flats, multiscreen cinema, 30 restaurants, 214 rooms W hotel. The whole budget for the project is £1bn, the construction generated 3000 jobs, and its estimated while the project is finished it will create other 3000 full–time positions (Herald Scotland, 2019). One can wonder if this picture perfect 2020s architecture will work for 2070 public, better than brutalism workes in 2010s, but there is no doubt, this demolition has created a massive positive cashflow and wider positive impact on economy.

Figure 10: BEFORE & AFTER: above: demolition in progress below: rendering of new design (© https://www.ama-ltd.co.uk/)

3.5. Circular Economy With such an immense economic benefit of demolition and new build, is there any feasible way for retrofitting to even compete? Sustainable issues more and more pressuring every day and have now real impact on economy. Raw materials and energy prices are constantly raising, and demolitions currently destroy most of original raw materials, and waste the embodied energy. “The Circularity Gap Report 2019” by Circle Economy, elaborates on need, possibilities and gains of implementing circular economy into our daily activities. The executive summary of the paper states: “our world in only 9% circular and the trend is negative” (Circle Economy, 2019, p. 4). The construction sector presents a huge potential for the circular economy. “Every year, approximately 4.3 Gt of materials flood into Europe’s built environment, with more than half of the resources used for maintenance and renovation. […] Almost 12% of all material used in construction come from a secondary source” (Circle Economy, 2019, p. 34). Therefore, in general the European build environment shows better circular performance than the rest of the world – by 3%. Authors define 7 key elements of the circular economy with an acronym “DISRUPT” and most of them could be applied directly into construction industry. “D: Design for the Future: […] employ the right materials for appropriate lifetime and extended future use. I: Incorporate Digital Technology: […] optimise resources. S: Sustain & Preserve What’s Already There: maintain, repair, upgrade resources to maximise their lifetime and five them a second life though take-back strategies. R: Rethink the Business model: […] create greater value […] through business models that build on the interaction between products and services. U: Utilise Waste as a Resource: […] recover waste for reuse and recycle. P: Prioritise Regenerative Resources T: Team Up to Create Join Value”.

It is simple to translate DISRUPT into architecture language: D: design flexible with possibility of adaptation in the future I: incorporate available technology and programs to make buildings preform their best, avoid waist S: retrofit rather than demolish R: think of new typologies of spaces and building that bring new better solutions U: innovative, new materials P: incorporate regeneration into design The circular economy approach may seem common sense – recycle, make the best use out of what we already have, do not be wasteful. However, implementation on the big scale, in built environment, or elsewhere, would require a systemic change. European built environment with the circular economy score of 12%, is a top score across the world and industries – this is the scale of considered changed. Financial analysis of building projects is already shifting towards energy-based calculations, which shows a little move towards the DISRUPT philosophy. But crude financial truth, considering numbers only, in current context is renovations cannot compete with opportunities presented by new developments. “The current approach to costbenefit analysis for building renovation does not take the societal benefits of energy renovation and building upgrades into account. We should rather evolve the valuation of building investments towards a systemic valuation of all benefits” (Rapf, 2019, p. 4)

4 ENVIRONMENTAL impacts

“Buildings are characterised as some of the greatest consumers and pollutants of the planet” “Even though the environmental impact of buildings can never be completely removed, by continually developing the principles of environmental design, the negative effects can be addressed more successfully” (Hildebrand, Konstantinou, Kosanovic, Klein, Knaack, 2018)

1 2 3

This chapter analyses the ways building industry impacts the environment and can those impacts be altered. Understanding of these impacts will determine whether retrofitting or demolition and new build can be more environmentally friendly solution for the building industry in a long term.

p 25 4.1.

Understanding the Environmental Impact of Existing Building Stock

p 25 A. p 26 B. p 26 4.2.

Consumption of Natural Resources Carbon Footprint Improving Natural Resources Consumption â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Life Cycle Analysis

p 30 4.3.

Carbon Footprint of Demolitions and New Build and Older Buildings

p 32 4.4.

Standards and Legislation on Building Industry Environmental Impact

p 32 4.5.

Conclusions

4.1. Understanding the Environmental Impact of Existing Building Stock Building industry has a massive impact on environment, predominantly in two ways: the consumption of natural resources (A), and more importantly, a gigantic carbon footprint (B).

A. Consumption of Natural Resources In 2015, construction industry in UK used 576Mt (Megatonne) of materials including: • 1.4Mt of glass, • 3.9Mt of metal, • 1.4Mt of plastic, • 98Mt of concrete, • 6Mt of bricks, • 9.2Mt of wood (Green Building Council) It means, out all materials used: 28% are fossil fuel, 30% is biomass, 42% are metals and minerals. (Green Building Council). Additionally, Green Building Council points out, there is no collective data describing the origin of the material – whether they are produced sustainably or not. Waste generated from construction, demolition (C&DW) and excavation in 2014 is 120Mt and accounts for 59% of all UK waste (Green Building Council; Ulubeyli, 2017), for comparison, C&DW makes circa 30% of all European wastes (European Commission). Out of all this waste: 5% - 6Mt goes to landfills, 49Mt accounting for 41% “of non-hazardous construction and demolition wastes is either recycled composted of used for energy generation” (Green Building Council). In Scotland “construction and demolition materials are a significant element in the overall environmental impact of our buildings, accounting for 2.2Mt (24.4%) of waste going to landfill in 2001” (Choosing our future, point 12.4, 2005). Landfills are not an environmentally friendly solution, they may: release methane, pollute air and groundwaters, reduce soil fertility and biodiversity in the area, have a negative health impact on local communities (Newton, 2018).

There is no other way to build, than use the building materials – therefore every new build will, of course, add up to the overall materials consumed by the construction industry. It is the materials that are not being used in the final built – enormous amount of waste, discards and demolitions materials – that cause the negative impact on environment and present a challenge. In 2007, tonnes of reused materials were: • 54.000 of iron and steel, • 390.000 of wood, • 850.000 of brick, • 625.000 of stone. (Green Building Council) Comparing the number of overall materials used for construction, and recycled ones, there is no doubt, only a very small percentage of all building materials gets recycled. The numbers show the shortcomings in circular economy – explained in previous chapter. (Circle Economy, 2019, p. 34; Rapf, 2019, p. 3). An additional natural resource hugely consumed by built industry is water. In 2006 non – domestic water consumption in UK was 1.5 trillion litters, it is almost twice as much as the next biggest water consumer – manufacturing industry (Green Building Council). There is a trend in modern construction to limit resources used – i.e. bricks may become a brick clipon veneer, but there are limitations to how much prime materials can be cut out. The structural parts – bones of the buildings cannot be compromised.

B. Carbon footprint Carbon – footprint is “a measure of the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) that is produced by the daily activities of a person or company” (Oxford Dictionary). Every product, a person or a company produces their carbon footprint with all daily activities i.e. we can increase our carbon footprint by eating meat, traveling by car and plane. The bigger the footprint is – the more CO2 and others greenhouse gases (i.e. methane, ozone and nitrous oxide), gets released to atmosphere, and it causes the “greenhouse effect”. In very simple terms, it means, more and more heat gets trapped in our atmosphere and the Earth’s temperature increases, changing our climate. Every single building component described in point A carries their own embodied CO2 – the total amount of CO2 released to the atmosphere, that the particular material takes to be made, transported and fitted in its final position. Out of all building materials, steel has the highest embodied CO2, followed by concrete on the second position – together steel and concrete sum up to over a half of all embodied CO2 of a construction project (Baker, 2009, p. 3). The total UK’s carbon footprint in 2014 was 831Mt CO2, built environment accounts for 42% of total carbon footprint – 349Mt CO2 (Green Building Council), in comparison, in Europe, buildings are responsible for around 36% of CO2 total emission (BPIE, 2011, p. 43), it suggests UK is above the European average. In an emission per useful floor area ratio, UK places itself at 16th position with circa 65kg CO2/m2, leading the chart Norway scores less than 5 CO2/m2 (BPIE, 2011, p. 43). Within the total UK built environment CO2 emissions, 48Mt CO2 is attributed to new constructions, 138Mt CO2 was generated by operational energy uses – heating – in existing building stock, and 44Mt CO2 was generated by daily resident’s activities – cooking and plug loads. There are two different ways of calculating the total carbon footprint of a building: one includes all residents activities – for example: In Scotland more than 40% of CO2 emission “comes from the energy we use to heat, light, and run our building” (Scottish Building Standard Agency, 2007, p. 13); the other distinguishes between the operational use of the building and residents’ activity – the reason being a residents’ activity may vary – there are people who cook more than others, or take longer showers; operational use of the building should be same for all residents – ensuring appropriate temperature and good indoor air quality. Limiting CO2 emissions are an important part of environmental policies for the future, and better management of the building industry could make a significant difference.

4.2. Improving Natural Resources Consumption – Life Cycle Analysis Construction and demolition wastes (C&DW) represent a big management challenge for all construction projects. “The building debris typically represents 10 - 20% of the total weight of building materials delivered to a building site while the building demolition waste is 10 - 20 times by weight as much as waste generated from the construction of new buildings” (Ulubeyli, 2017, p. 1191). The demolition waste accounts for 70% C&DW (Ulubeyli, 2017, p. 1191). Therefore, managing demolitions well, is key to improve the carbon footprint and circularity of materials within the building industry. A European directive 2008/98/EC sets a target of 70% of non – hazardous C&DW to be recycled, recovered or reused. So far, the target has only been achieved by five member states, and UK is not one of them (Ulubeyli, 2017). There are currently 100 C&DW recycling plants in UK, for comparison, in countries living up the directive 2008/98/EC: Netherlands (with roughly a quarter of UK’s total population), there are 120 C&DW recycling plants, Germany has over 1000 (Ulubeyli, 2017). Clearly in UK, there is room for demolitions’ management improvement. To achieve a positive environmental impact in demolition process, a complete change in approach is necessary. Researchers Coelho and Brito, in their paper about life cycle analysis (LCA) propose new nomenclature for the demolition process: deconstruction (Coelho, Brito, 2012). The word itself implicates ‘de–process’, rather than demolition; destruction. Five different scenarios are analysed in the paper, with regards to end of the life cycle of the material, against its environmental impacts – from traditional and complete demolition with the a landfill usage to a complete deconstruction where all materials are recycled, and only hazardous waste are destined for landfill. The “deconstruction scenario” is proved to have the best, smallest environmental impact. Authors do however point out; it is the distance between the demolition site and recycling facilities that determines the low environmental impact, due to transport CO2 emissions (Coelho, Brito, 2012). Demolitions with 90–95% of total materials are rare but possible (Coelho, Brito, 2012). LCA is a standard and commonly used method to access the environmental impact of the building (Hildebrand et al., 2018, p. 28).

Figure 11: LIFE EXPECTANCY OF BUILDING MATERIALS Materials of Capsule Tower (Kisho Kurokawa) (Koolhaas and Obrist quoted in Cairns, Jacobs 2014, p.122)

Most recently, project Buildings as Material Banks founded under the EU’s Horizon 2020 introduced an idea of the material’s passport (Kaminski, 2019). The idea is, though BIM, architects will be able to create a materials list used in every project. In the long term, this will create a widely available date base and create a market for used materials. “According to Dutch-based sustainability consultant Metabolic, the 2.6 million tonnes of building materials ‘released’ each year through renovation and demolition in Amsterdam alone has a value of €688 million” (Kaminski, 2019). The idea is no longer fiction. Dutch energy firm Liander in Duiven, during their office redevelopment, used 80% of materials from their previous demolished building, in the construction of the new one (Kaminski, 2019).

Figure 12: Materials’ Passport for a Home © Architect’s Journal

If using existing materials may seem boring, uninspiring, or creating unattractive architecture, The Resource Rows housing project, part of the Ørestad Syd in Copenhagen, proves the opposite! The façade of the building was created by brick 3m by 3m cut-outs, originating from 3 different buildings. The final look could not be more impressive. Various textures and colours make a brick pattern patchwork a spectacle for an eye. The architectural practice responsible for design, is one of the leading Dutch firm specialising in circular economy implementation. “Practice founder - Anders Lendager describes the process as ‘harvesting’ material from old buildings” (Wilson, 2019). Later in the interview for AJ Andres Landager says: “It’s a very stupid system that we’ve invented: using virgin materials at an insane speed. It’s a direction of travel not just towards climate change but towards not having enough. We’re already running out of construction sand and stone in Denmark, which has to be imported. It’s madness“. It is still new, and definitely not mainstream to see the recycled materials on facades, and on internal of the buildings around Europe and Scotland. The Resource Rows proves there is no technological barriers to do so, and it can produce a visually beautiful architecture.

Figure 13: The Resource Rows: Structural Framework © Architect’s Journal; photograph below by Mikkel Strange

4.3. Carbon Footprint of Demolitions and New Build and Older Buildings New built performes much better than older building stock in terms of carbon footprint; in both operational and residential activity (Green Building Council). The term “carbon footprint” was first used in the 1990s by scientists William E. Rees and Mathis Wackernagel (Wikipedia; carbon footprint), naturally, buildings erected before 1990s were not analysed, designed in context of carbon foot print limitation. If buildings made today contribute less to overall carbon emissions, is it not an environmentally beneficial to take old buildings away and replace them with new ones? Environmental Change Institute from Oxford University, states 40% of housing – the least efficient ones, should be demolished and replaces with the new ones if UK wants to achieve the environmental goals set for 2050 (Boardman at al. 2005). New buildings perform better – yes, but to erect a new building, replacing and old one, the carbon equation gets more complex: first – there is an embodied energy in all the materials of existing building , swooping the material off the construction site, is not neutralizing the carbon footprint they have already caused, second– carbon footprint of energy used to execute the demolition, and finally the energy used to erect the new building . It may be counterbalanced if some of the existing materials gets reused, upcycled and of course, the new build is going to perform better than the old one: the difference of performance.

With D, being estimated on 10-12% of A (Circle Economy, 2019, p. 34; Rapf, 2019, p. 3), there is no way E can counterbalance sum of A, B and C. Therefore, in terms of carbon footprint, the demolition and new build is not the preferred scenario. It is proved by the simple equation above, but also scholars analysing the subject: Baker (2009), Andrew (2018), Rapf (2018), Stanaiaszek (2015), Power (2008), Duff (2012). Moreover, E – the difference in building performance can be achieved without demolitions, but instead, an efficient retrofitting. Any retrofitting action would of course, just as any product, add its own carbon footprint onto the existing building, and will not take away from A (embodied energy of original materials), however, being much less intrusive , and smaller in scale any retrofitting scheme cannot produce as much carbon as a demolition and new build, additionally, there are many example of retrofitting that achieve same energy standards as new build.

Therefore – the equation of total carbon footprint for the new build, replacing an old one stands: A+B+C-D-E, where A = embodied energy of existing materials, B = demolition carbon footprint, C = new build’s carbon footprint, D = reused materials embodied energy, E = the difference in performance of the new building against its predecessor.

Figure 12. Works on St Bricin’s Park complex (left) and final outcome (right) (© PASSIVE HOUSE+ sustainable building)

Retrofit as Good as New St Bricin’s Park complex in Arbour Hill, Dublin The council owned 22 bedsit units. Due to interior deterioration, and unattractiveness of the space, the tenancy level was falling, and the decision was made to retrofit the entire unit. 22 small (approximately 26m2) bedsits were amalgamated into 11 one – bedroom flats. The construction was already achieving good environmental outcomes, and so the council was approached with the proposition of trying to achieve the passive house certificate. The housing units were destined predominantly for elderly – a group vulnerable to fuel poverty, therefore striving for the energy savings appealed to the council. A representative from the Passive House Academy -Tomas O’Leary - was assigned to the project and helped organise trainings for the local contractor team. Insulation, heat recovery pumps, high performance windows were installed,

but as O’Leary pointed the key was: “achieving these level of airtightness – especially on retrofit, is all about attitude and aspiration – traits which were found in abundance on this project from start to finish”. In the end, the total energy cost per year was estimated at €54 for heating and €200 for hot water for the entire building – all 11 units, the U-values achieved on roof, ground floor, and walls are respectively : 0.09W/m2k, 0.18-0.23W/m2k, 0.16W/m2k, would have easily been enough to qualify the building for the highest score for new builds in Scotland. The BER – Irish equivalent of EPCs – before renovation: E2 (359 kWh/m2/year) – changed to A3 (63.8 kWh/m2/year). (Hearne, 2019 for PASSIVE HOUSE + sustainable building) The project clearly proves high standards can be achieved in all kind of buildings, and unattractive, 60s bedsits’ block may become a headliner in a trade magazine.

4.4. Standards and Legislation on Building Industry Environmental Impact Environmental restrictions are taken for granted today, with little objections, but it is a relatively new subject, regulations are constantly evolving. The first time, environment protection was ever officially addressed, and sustainability defined, was the Brundtland Report– Our Common Future, published in 1987. Ever since legislation and restriction towards building industry impact of environment have been developing. Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1997 by 192 countries – it sets targets of greenhouse gases limitation, in 2016 – as a natural step forward Paris agreement was signed by 196 states. European Union’s European Union Climate Change and Energy Plan (2007), UK Climate Change Act (2008) and Scotland Climate Change Act – all address the issues of greenhouse gas emissions and all mentiones built industry. A European Directive 2002/91/EC, Article 24 “states that all Member States must establish a method to certify the energy performance of buildings” (Duff, 2012, p. 18). This directive caused in Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) implementation, introduced in Scotland in 2009 (Duff, 2012, p. 18). Every building now gets scored, according on how well it performs – top score – A, and lowest score G. EPCs are now commonly used, by law an EPC must be issued for every flat sold and rented, so every resident knows how their dwelling functions and they can learn about how to improve the energy consumption. The EPCs are now commonly used and became a base for further developing environmental standards, i.e. starting April 2018 “private landlords of residential as well as non-residential properties will only be allowed to rent their properties if they improve the building’s rating to at least energy class E” (Staniaszek, 2015, p. 11)*.

There are other European councils that have taken the law much further.

•“Autonomous Province of Bolzano: by the end of 2019, owners of buildings will be allowed to expand the surface of their dwelling by up to 20%, or up to 200m2, only if the building achieves heating consumption below 70kWh/m2/ yr. •Region of Valle D’Aosta: in case of expansion by 20% of buildings with a floor area higher than 2000m2, the energy performance of the building must comply with the local energy class B level (≤50kWh/m2/yr for heating)” (Staniaszek, 2015, p. 15)

4.5. Conclusions It seems there is a lot of efforts being made to push forward new built efficiency because of the environmental effect it may have. Putting a lot of energy and thought into a demolition process may seem a little anticlimactic – there is an excitement to build new, rather than neatly and efficiently get rid of the old. However, with the current demolition practices, there is no way a demolition can even be considered a viable environmentally friendly scenario against retrofitting. With very little material being recycled, massive amount of embodied energy of the material simply goes to waste. “Legislating for embodied energy content is far more difficult than operational energy. You can’t impose certain types of material onto people as it comes down to speed of construction, cost and all sorts of things from the client’s perspective.” (Alan Shingler, Sheppard Robson’s director of sustainability cited in Lane, 2007). When it comes to new build, too often, it is about speed and cost, and therefore spending money and resources on an efficient or environmentally friendly demolition may seem counterproductive. However, it is important to point out, there are various ways in which demolitions could improve their environmental impact, and is the short future it probably will. Perhaps with close to 100% recycling rate, the deconstruction approach, and using sustainable harvested energy, demolitions could become an environmental alternative. For now, however, “there are many instances when demolition and rebuild will be considered as an alternative to refurbishment. This could be justified purely on economic grounds”. (Baker, 2009, p. 3) On the other site, the absence of environmental laws imposed on retrofitting projects, does not prevent the retrofitting projects from living up the current environmental standards for new built. Since retrofitting are widely considered an environmentally friendly solution, lot of individuals, or organisations deciding to retrofit are environmentally – conscious and opt, without the enforcements for high environmental performance. Extraordinary retrofitting project – like described St Bricin’s Park complex, achieving passive house standards can be awarded an “EnerPHit” certificate – a Passive House Institute certificate proves retrofitting can make buildings just as environmentally efficient as the new build, with generating fewer environmentally negative impact in making.

5 SOCIAL impacts

“Safe, warm, dry homes are fundamental to our well – being. Our buildings make a big difference how communities look, feel and function” (Choosing our Future, point 12.1, p. 60) “I always just presumed the Red Road Flats would last forever, but when you see it now in this state you realise its over. It’s not the actual building itself, but its all your memories, that’s where I was brought up, that’s where I was made.” (Disappearing Glasgow, Chris Leslie, 2015)

1 2 3 4

This chapter will assess the complex relationship between buildings and humans. Though an analysis of impacts, this chapter will seek to determine whether demolition or retrofitting can be beneficial for local communities.

p 35 5.1.

Challenges of Social Impact Accurate Assessment

p 36 5.2.

Endangered Communities

p 39 5.3.

The Pressure of The City

p 42 5.4 .

Retrofitting Wider Benefits

5.1. Challenges of Social Impact Accurate Assessment We spend most of our lives indoors – in buildings. We live, sleep, eat, work inside. No wonder, decisions on buildings’ redevelopment, change, demolition spark a vivid public discussion. Buildings fulfil basic human need of shelter and safety. They shape our private and social lives. There is no doubt, social impact of buildings is huge, and needs to be analysed carefully, because making wrong decisions can have tragic, irrevocable effects. Assessing social impacts of any phenomena is not quite as straightforward as assessing environmental, or economical impacts, which are easier to quantify. Social issues by definition are concerned with human, community behaviour and some of it, is impossible to measure; i.e. safety level can be defined by number of committed crimes, but a feeling of belonging, identity, or culture cannot be expressed by a number. Barrow – author of the “Social Impact Assessment (SIA), an Introduction” points out quantifying social impact assessment is usually done for the benefit of engineers, uncapable of understanding an information other than a number, which in case of social analysis is limiting and not transmitting the whole message (Barrow, 2000, p. 5).

Figure 13. SIA’s relationship with other fields of assessment. (Barrow, 2000, p. 7)

“A social impact may be defined as an adaptation on the part of social system to external agent of change and/or endogenous change. Another definition might be: the social consequence of actions including change to norm, beliefs, perception, values, etc.” (Barrow, 2000, p. 1) The SIA method if often used as post evaluation method, but it can just as well serve to forecast social outcomes of a given decision, change in policy. It is a broad ranging assessment, drawing attention on how wide social impacts may be. Buildings affect peoples’ lives on personal and communal level. Individual flats, houses - dwellings, impact the everyday lives of individuals living in it, infrastructure and communal buildings – school, churches, shops, pubs, gyms shape our communal interactions. To understand social the impact of buildings, two building categories will be analysed: residential and non-residential.

5.2. Endangered Communities Private household owners have total control and power over their properties. It is by their own will, decision and financial capacities, that their living condition may change, houses might be retrofitted, extended, exchanged for others. The impacts of those decisions are self-inflicted therefore, non traumatic. A fifth of the Scottish population is social housing tenants (Scottish Government 2017). It means it is the local housing associations, together with government, who have the decisive power over dwellings’ maintenance, management, alteration, demolitions. It is the situation, when a singular resident has not decisive power or economic capacities to make change for themselves, when decision over what to do with the existing dwellings may cause friction and deeply influence to local community. The decision-making process regarding changes in social housing is complicated due to the number of parts involved: number of residents, housing associations, shareholders, politicians at various level. Finding a solution fitting all, seems an impossible task, additionally, the balance of power in the equation is very fragile; who should have the final saying is not always determined (Cole, et al., 2010) Social housing is designed for vulnerable part of the society. Therefore, its management and maintenance should be considered with extra attention. Unfortunately, it is really the case, social housing have often been overlooked and short of maintenance.

Galwegians, more than any other Scot, are well familiar with demolition process. After mass, Victorian inner-city slum cleaning in 60s and 70s, Glaswegians were exited to move into their new social flats – high in the sky, with the new kitchens and efficient heating (Leslie, 2015). Glasgow 80s’ city skyline was quite a spectacle, with 30-stories-high beacons embracing the modern architecture, technology, ability to build big and bold. Over the half of Scottish population in 80s was living in this great, new social homes (Shelter). But something changed in the late 80s; Thatcherian government, deindustrialisation, heroin, and what was once a new utopia, high-rises become synonymous with poverty and deprivation. The dramatic situation in the buildings made residents happy about the pending demolition. Brian – one of the last residents of Whitevale tower on Gallow Gate said:

Figure 14: below Vicious Circle of Negative Trends (Rockwool, 2018, p. 6)

Stuck in the vicious circle (Figure 14), demolition often seems a viable, easiest and quickest, if not the only option for deprived areas’ regeneration. Often, communities are strongly against demolitions, and impacts it may cause. Demolitions may be slow, costly and in the end, not delivering assumed regeneration of the zone (Power, 2008, p. 4489; Konstantinou, Dimitrijević, 2018 p. 212). Seeing ones’ home going down may be emotional, but when the homes no longer provide comfort and safety they are supposed to, community may advocate change.

Figure 15: on the right The Plean Street 2010, photo by Chris Leslie © The Guardian

“It’s a scary place at night and freezing in the winter. You hear the wind rattling through the empty flats below and above, the young team break in and smoke drugs in the stairwell. All my neighbours have left – they took the first house they were offered, regardless – that’s how bad these flats are” (Leslie, 2015). When one of the most spectacular housing estates – Red Road’s was due to be demolished in 2014, 17.000 people signed a petition against it (Leslie, 2015). It has not been researched, how many of those signing, were architects, fetishizing the building, and how many – the actual residents. The history of high-rises demolition is far from over. There are still quite a few around Scotland, and the discussion, whether to demolish, or retrofit is still going on.

The local councils and housing associations seem to appreciate, that ultimately it is the residents, who can assess best, whether a building should be up for demolition, or maintenance. High-rises in Ayr are due to be demolished, after a community consultations: “consultation and engagement with tenants living in the high-rise flats saw 210 households participate in a survey which revealed that 111 (51.7%) of them supported the demolition of the existing flats, with 99 (46%) of households calling for the flats to be refurbished.” (Scottish Housing News, 2019). In Irvine: “215 households responded to the consultation out of the 275 properties. 66% of favoured demolition of the tower blocks with 32% favouring retention of the blocks. 2% stated no preference. In Saltcoats, 79 out of 94 households responded, with 65% in favour of retaining the two tower blocks with 34% choosing the option for demolition. 1% stated no preference”.

Council decided to follow residents’ advice; as the results of the community consultations two tower blocks in Saltcoats are remaining and there are maintenance plans in place, and the ones in Irvine are going down. (Scottish Housing News, 2018). One cannot argue, following the voice of the community makes a positive social impact; and when community advocates demolition – living conditions must be unbearable. It means the local community has not developed a sufficient attachment to the place. Place attachment refers to “a positive affective bond or association between individuals and their residential environment” (Shumaker, Taylor, 1983, p. 233, quoted in Bailey et al., 2012). “It [place attachment] is generally viewed as good for people and for places, providing a source of security and identity for the former, and cohesion and stability for the latter” (Bailey et al., 2012, p. 208). Deprived neighbourhoods tend to develop less place attachment than others (Bailey et al., 2012, p. 209). On the other hand, sociologist argue in modern age, with globalization, housing migration and increased freedom of movement, place attachment does not play such an important role in the society as it did before (Bailey et al., 2012, p. 209). Stability and values, once developed through place attachment, can now be developed other ways, though media, popular culture.

Still, demolitions, and deprivation of place attachment for vulnerable communities, may cause negative impact in their future. It may cause individuals to struggle to find a sense of belonging or identity. In pop – culture, it is hard to find a stronger example of place attachment, than the one of fictional Trainspotting character – Spud. Spud – with a longstanding heroin addition, as a result of a forgery comes in a possession of a significant amount of money, when asked, why not leave; leave the highrise blocks, the misery of the place, Spud answers: “me, leave, no, I am indigenous in here”. It is easy to relate to a fictional character, who loves the place, regardless, just because that where he is from. Finding an agreement over housing estates solution is not easy; community may be as divided as in Ayr’s case (51.7% against 46%), and other factors like economy or environment may indicate other solutions as more viable. There is no research, showing a direct relationship between high-rises demolition and decrease in drug usage, or crime rate. But social stigma, bad reputation and anti-social behaviour all happening within the towers have been ‘demolished’ together with the structure, and there is no doubt it is a positive impact.

Figure 16: Irvine Tower Blocks © Daily Record

5.3. The Pressure of The City Urbanisation rate is increasing, and cities are growing. Glasgow growth rate (%) was: 0.14 in 2005; 0.26 in 2010; 0.33 in 2015, 0.35 in 2019, and it is predicted to reach 0.67 by 2030, Edinburgh in constantly growing by approximately 1% a year since 2000 (worldpopulationreview.com), Aberdeen grew by 5% in the period of 2001 – 2011 (www.aberdeencity. gov.uk). Urban patterns and attractiveness of areas change and cities’ outskirts with relatively low land value 20 years ago can become tempting in terms of development opportunity. In grand cities like London with the growth rate of 1.44% last year (worldpopulationreview.com) the trend is more visible. “Gentrification is nothing new. Better-off people have always moved into poorer areas, done up houses, put up prices, displaced worse-off people”(Martin, 2014). But it is no longer about gentrification only. After the Olympics in 2012, Londoners living in the East End, must have gotten used to £5 lattes in their local cafes, and it was fine (Perry, 2014), but Londoners fighting against their homes demolitions now, are not simply against gentrification, they are calling the process by its name “social cleansing”. Social cleansing is “the large-scale removal from an area of members of a social category regarded as undesirable” (Lexico). There is a demolition plan for two housing tower blocks in Whitechapel - Treves House and Lister House, in London terms a stone’s throw away from the city’s core business district. Tenants are against it. “Those who bought their council flats – currently valued at around £350,000 for a two-bed – know that any new flats of a similar size built on the land will sell for twice the price” (D. Taylor, 2017). It means, after the demolition, current resident will not be able to afford to stay in their neighbourhood. Communities will get broken, and current residents pushed out to the cheaper outskirts of the city. It is by the book social cleansing execution.*

* Treves House and Lister House are by far not the most eminent example of social cleansing in London. Only four miles away from each other, Barbican and Robin Hood Gardens, two masterpieces of brutalist architecture, stand proudly. Barbican – designed by Chamberlin, Powell and Bon, Robin Hood Gardens by Alison and Peter Smithsons. No one can question architectural value of both. The main difference – Barbican – although designed as social estate, through right to buy, with time became privately owned, and little of original residents remained. Robin Hood Garden, on contrary, was designed as social housing, and social housing it remained. One – bedroom flats in Barbican starts circa £1million, and the prices go up to £4milion. Because of the flats’ value Barbican is much better maintained than Robin Hood Gardens. There is no, and there will never be talks about Barbican’s demolition. In 2017 the demolition of Robin Hood Garden began. One can only wonder what the price of flats replacing the Robin Hood Garden is going to be. The whole process was best summarised by a resident fighting against Robin Hood Garden’s demolition “They are basically driving the poor people out” Abdul Kalam – quoted in “A tale of two brutalist housing estates: one thriving, one facing demolition” by Colin Wiles for The Guardian, 13 January 2016.

Scotland is (thankfully) no London, but it does not mean gentrification is not happening here. The most obvious example of Scottish gentrification must be Leith. With the average house price double the Scottish average, average rent at £1.100 – Edinburgh is not the cheapest place to live (M. Taylor, 2018). With the Fringe festival, and huge touristic attractions, Edinburgh has the concentration of Airbnb’s listing four times greater than London or Paris (M. Taylor, 2018). Leith is the closest Edinburgh has ever had to a working-class neighbourhood. It is a neighbourhood of artists, record companies, small businesses and the most affordable place to live in Edinburgh. Drum Property Group bought 1.2-hectare site on Leith Walk for £4milion and are planning to develop a £50milion program containing 520-bed student accommodation complex with hotel, restaurant, retail units and 50 “affordable” homes (M. Taylor, 2018). No wonder, the local community (and their supporters including Jeremy Corbyn and Irvine Welsh) are strongly against the development. “The loss of 106 to 154 Leith Walk, a row of sandstone art deco shops, businesses and social enterprises (including a thriving live-music venue, Leith Depot, and a recording studio) is the wrong type of development, say campaigners” (M. Taylor, 2018).

Local community agrees, old tenements are indeed in a need of maintenance, but demolition seems to be too drastic. Leith harbour already houses a Michelin star restaurant, and it became a hipster paradise. Replacing the old tenements with new sterile, more expensive buildings would make the living of the locals even more challenging. “It’s not that we are against progress. But the demolition of this building would be a sign that Leith has been sold to the highest bidder” (M. Taylor, 2018). Gentrification is natural, and unavoidable, cities get bigger, grow and attract new investments. Referring to – “T2 - Trainspotting” again, Sick Boy (character running a bar) says grimly: “The great wave of gentrification has yet to engulf us”, standing in his sad, dirty and empty bar. Gentrification can have a positive social impact, when it embraces the local community and businesses in the process, bringing in more money that locals can benefit from. It becomes negative, when it leaves people behind, it becomes social cleansing, when it segregates the community by financial assets. Demolitions and gentrified new build tend to create a negative social dynamic. Residents and businesses forced to relocate before the demolition starts and the new built process happens without their presence. Once it is finished, original residents rarely have the economic capacity to come back.

Figure 17: Leith Walk : Proposed (left) and Existing (right) proposed ÂŠ Drum Property Group / existing photographs by Murdo Macleod ÂŠ The Guardian

5.4. Retrofitting Wider Benefits Retrofitting enthusiasts argues retrofitting can have wider positive impact on local community, when managed and executed correctly. Even the 60s ugly high-rises can get a second chance. Wilmcote House In Somerstown – is surrounded by other housing towers. According to Government’s Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010 Wilmcote is one of the most deprived areas in England (Benton et al., 2019) “Traditionally, there has been a problem in Wilmcote House with anti-social behaviour, youth gangs, Class A and B drug dealing, and acrimonious neighbourhood disputes” (Benton et al., 2019). The area was not popular or desired to live in, and the high-rise tower embodies all the negative stereotypes about deprivation and poor social behaviour. One of the residents says about the building:

The big change was on the horizon. Interviews conducted by a group from London School of Economics, showed 100% of residents were on board, supporting the project and looking forward to reducing their energy bills (Benton et al., 2019). The residents were not relocated during the retrofitting process, which presented some difficulties. Some residents complained about the contractor behaviour and bad time management (Benton et al., 2019).

“Because of the reputation. I don’t even say I live in Wilmcote House, I’d say I live down nearby the school. I’m embarrassed because I decorate cakes, and sometimes when people come to collect it I feel embarrassed that they have to come through up to here. […] And that looks bad upon me because then they can think ‘Oh she lives there, what is she like?’. Because people do make an impression, they think that if you live in a council block like this you’re gonna be a stereotype, you’re on benefit, you drink, you smoke, you are unruly and…and we are not like that at all.” (Benton et al., 2019).

However, long term gains are massive. Interviews conducted after the retrofitting compilation, showed, people were still on board with the project, and thought council could do little differently, they appreciated the lower cost of the heating and electricity bills; the number of residents feeling “very safe” doubled; the answer to the question : ‘how comfortable do you find your home?’ was comfortable , or very comfortable for all residents, but one, who felt neither comfortable, nor uncomfortable (Benton et al., 2019). Bettering the situation of the block means some of the flats could be sold on the free market – offsetting the total cost of the project for the council and creating a social mix with the accommodation.

The Portsmouth council decided to invest in the building retrofitting and teamed up with ECD Architects and Rookwool (insulation provider) and established a generous budget. This allowed an extensive retrofitting including: internal safety measures, MVHR units, external elevation insulation and balconies works, internal landings and corridors decoration, re-roofing, external communal landscaping improvement. (Benton et al., 2019).

The most important, unquantifiable outcome of the retrofitting is the sense of pride of the local community. The lady who decorates cakes will, hopefully, no longer feel embarrassed about the customers coming through the hallway. The retrofitting process helped to create a stronger, resilient community. Wilmcote House, just as any other house should be, became a place for their residents to exist comfortably and with no shame.

Figure 18 (above) : Urban Regeneration, Elements (Rockwool with BIPE, 2018, p. 18)

Figure 19 (left): BEFORE & AFTER: Wilmcote House; before © Rockwool, after © ECD Architects

It is not only the residential projects retrofitting that benefit the community sense of identity and pride. HES argues maintaining historic properties “celebrate the diversity of our communities at every level, showing national, regional and local distinctiveness. They contribute to our well-being culturally, socially and economically. We can’t have these benefits without caring for these building” (HES, 2019). In his “Building Adaptation” James Douglas lists a range of “typical conversion schemes”, describing what original, historical typology could be converted to. There is little doubt with all transformation possibilities mentioned, historical buildings can accommodate any modern society needs.

Original category

Existing use

Typical new use

Agricultural

Barn

Single/multiple dwelling; arts/crafts centre; museum/gallery/centre

‘Dovecote’ or ‘Doocot’

coffee/snack bar; souvenir shop; local

Threshing mill, Cart shed, Stable, Smithy

Parish/community hall; hotel/leisure centre; function room

Bank, Public house Shop, Office, Pavilion, Hotel

Coffee bar; public house; wine bar; new shop/office; restaurant; flats

Corn exchange Office block

Performing arts centre; drama/television studio Hotel; residential

Church Function hall

Dwelling/s; arts centre; film theatre; lecture theatre Community centre; office Restaurant; storage; workshop/garage; multiple flats;

Manse/parsonage house

nursing/residential home

Whiskey bond Mill, warehouse Maltings/distillery Railway station Factory

Multiple flats; mixed use – shops and offices on ground floor, flats or small businesses on upper floors

Warehouse

Gallery; office; residential

Windmill

Dwelling; office

School

Community centre; flats

College

Hotel

Hospital

Educational facility; flats

Mental asylum

Sports complex, Youth/detention centre, Offices, Luxury apartments Improved housing, with modified layouts/facilities Multiple flats, Offices

Commercial

Ecclesiastical

Industrial

Institutional

Residential

Townhouse Mansion house Medieval castle/tower house

Performing/fine arts centre; studio theatre; sports centre; offices

Restaurant and bar, Holiday accommodation, Large single dwelling, or multiple apartments

Figure 20: Historical Buildings’ Adaptations (Douglas, 2006, p. 99)

6 CONCLUSIONS

The hypothesis of this dissertation is:

Retrofitting derelict, malfunctioning buildings in Scotland, is environmentally, economically and socially more beneficial than demolition and new built.

IS IT? 45

1 2 3 4 5

This chapter will reveal whether there is a superior one between two scenarios : retrofitting, or demolition and new build

The main body of this dissertation analysed the impacts of retrofitting and demolition and new build against three criteria: environmental, economic, and social. The winning scenario for each criterion is:

Economic: Demolition + New Built Financial analysis showed, even though there are ways to make a monetary profit out of retrofitting, mostly through investing in energy efficiency improvement, new build presents enormous financial opportunities. New building projects have wider positive impact on local economy through employment, creating new services, attracting newcomers. The equation of potential gains in new built and demolition could be changed by a significant growth in a circular economy. If raw materials, that are now being destroyed trough demolition gained a market value, and could be sold on the free market, demolitions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; executed carefully, rescuing used materials could generate income on its own.

Environment: Retrofitting Retrofitting was proved to be more environmentally friendly because of natural resources usage limitation, and limiting carbon footprint, mainly by using the existing materials, retaining embodied energy. However, it is important to note, demolition process is being researched and it is evolving. It is reasonable to assume in a short distance of time; demolition will become much more environmentally friendly. Exceptional new buildings, fuelled by demolitions, are already using up to 80% of recycled materials. New builds out-perform its predecessors in terms of energy efficiency, and therefore if only demolitions could be performed in a more environmentally conscious matter, significantly extending materialsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; life cycle; it is reasonable to assume within the near future demolition and new built option could become more environmentally friendly than retrofitting. Additionally, new built present an opportunity to integrate new materials and technologies and adapt better to modern society, the way older buildings cannot do.

Social: Retrofitting/ Demolition + New Built When it comes to assessing the social impacts, the ultimate criterium of success must be the final satisfaction of local community. There is no one solution better than other, it all depends on the social environment of a particular community. Although demolitions and new built may cause gentrification, or even social cleansing, it may as well significantly improve quality of live, resolve social difficulties and troubles caused by old dwellings, sparkle enthusiasm and uplift the community. In Scotland, particularly, there seem to be lot of acceptance for demolition for regeneration, both in residential and non-residential schemes â&#x20AC;&#x201C; all examples analysed in this dissertation confirm it. Nostalgia aside, new built represents a well wished improvement. Retrofitting, of course, is not without its merits. It has been proved in this dissertation, retrofitting schemes can just as well as new build improve the quality of live, however, it is only feasible if the local community is willing to be involved and remain in the same area. Therefore, the final result: OLD / NEW, Retrofitting or Demolitions and New Build is a tie: 1 point for economic criterion for demolition and new build, 1 point for environmental criterion goes to retrofitting, and half a point each for social criterion.

This score, and the initial assumption of this dissertation was that each one, out of the three criteria is equally important. There is however a wider discussion what should be prioritized now. With the climate change and huge environmental impact-built industry imposes, the vast majority of the authors analysed in this dissertation advocate retrofitting as the correct choice – Power, all authors writing for Buildings Performance Institute Europe, Douglas, Historic Environment Scotland, Konstantinou, Dimitrijević, Cole, Baker; the only paper advocation big scale demolition is the “40% house” by Boardman et al. published Environmental Change Institute Oxfords. There is little doubt, the issue is very present. Most of the papers analysed in this dissertation have been published within last 10 years. Environmental and circular, alternative economical solutions in new built, retrofitting and demolitions are constantly evolving, and new ones are being introduced. Built industry evolves fast; architects, decision makers must strive to keep up with the latest available solutions, and embrace the innovation, to maximise the positive outcomes, rather than comfortably going for traditional, old-school methods.

To sum up, there is no “one fits all” solution. Determining whether it is more beneficial to retrofit or to demolish and build new is a long and complex decision-making process with many variables and usually multiple shareholders. It is precisely because so many variables are impacting the decision, there is no straightforward laws or recommendation on what decision ought to be taken. Each and every case of a potential demolition and new build versus retrofitting should be carefully analysed against environmental, economic, and social possible impact it may cause. This dissertation proves how complex and incredibly important making the right architectural decisions is; they have, long – lasting, huge impact on societies, environment and economy. Figure 21: Venn Diagram, Sustainable Refurbishment (Konstantinou, Dimitrijević, 2019, p. 224)

Konstantinou and Dimitrijević in their research about building resilient communities through refurbishment, describe sustainable impacts of retrofitting schemes in “Figure 7.1 Overview of refurbishment relevance to sustainability and resilience aspect”. (Konstantinou, Dimitrijević, 2019, p. 224). Assuming in the near future, the demolition process will become more environmentally friendly, and building materials’ LCA will allow for more recycled materials to go back to new builds, most of the benefits of retrofitting schemes could be also achieved thought demolition and new build. Figure 21 presents the benefits of refurbishment by Konstantinou and Dimitrijević on the left, and on the right (in blue), it compares possible impacts of an an environmentally friendly demolition with new built.

Figure 22: OLD/NEW COMPARISON (left) Benefits of refurbishment (Konstantinou, Dimitrijević, 2019, p. 224), (right, in blue) Possible benefits of an environemtaly friendly demolition and new built

Environmental Reduction of GHG emissions and energy consumption Generation of energy and hot water from renewable sources Protecting biodiversity during refurbishment Environmental/ Economic Saving embodied energy and natural resources Reuse of building materials and components Reducing waste by reusing and recycling Environmental/ Social Increasing durability of components against extreme weather Sustainable urban drainage Protection against flooding Social Improving quality of life Preserving cultural and historic value of buildings Increasing social resilience Improving the appearance, attractiveness and safety Social/ Economic Increasing efficient use of spaces Reducing fuel poverty Job creation Economic Saving embodied energy and capital Reducing repair costs after extreme weather events Increasing economic resilience Increasing commercial value of refurbished buildings

If most of building materials from demolition are recycled, there is no extra GHG gasses emissions, other than in actual action of building; energy consumption of the final new build will be lower than older one Generation of energy and hot water can be implemented in new built more efficiently than in a retrofitted one Landscaping and implementation of various plants can be a part of new built

Could be achieved though circular economy growth and LCA implementation Ditto Improving demolition process could significantly reduce waste

Could be efficiently implemented in new built Ditto Ditto

Can be achieved by the new built Can only be preserved, if there was one to begin with Can be achieved by the new built Ditto

Can be achieved better by the new build Ditto Can be achieved in process of demolition and new built

Environmentally friendly demolition could save embodied energy and create capital through recycling building materials New building can be adapted for extreme weather events New residential building can provide economic resilience New build can increase the commercial value of the area, zone, city

BIBLIOGRAPHY All websites were last accessed 16/08/19

ARTICLES Bailey, N., Kearns, A., Livingston, M. (2012) Place Attachment in Deprived Neighbourhoods: The Impacts of Population Turnover and Social Mix, Housing Studies, Vol. 27, No. 2, p. 208–231 Bakhoum, E.S. and Brown, D.C. (2011) Developed sustainable scoring system for structural materials evaluation. Journal of construction engineering and management, 138(1), p. 110-119 Bragança, L., Verhoef, G., W. (2007) Cost C16, Improving the Quality of Existing Urban Building Envelopes: Facades and roofs. IOS Press. Bullen, P. and Love, P. (2011) A new future for the past: a model for adaptive reuse decision-making. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 1(1), p. 32-44 Online: Available through Emeraldinsight Coates, R. M. and Winsten, C. H. (1931) ‘Wrecker’s reminiscences’. New Yorker, 7 February (quoted in Cairns, Jacobs 2014 p. 193) Coelho, A., De Brito, J. (2012) Influence of construction and demolition waste management on the environmental impact of buildings. Waste Management, 32(3), p. 532-541 Online: Available through Elsevier Crawford, K., Johnson, C.E., Davies, F., Joo, S. and Bell, S., (2014). Demolition or Refurbishment of Social Housing? A review of the evidence, UCL Policy Briefing. Government, (2015) Renters and landlords to enjoy warmer properties and cheaper bills, Online: Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ renters-and-landlords-to-enjoy-warmer-propertiesand-cheaper-bills Hearne, J. (2019) Inner Strength: 60s Dublin City Scheme a Model for Retrofit-based Regeneration, PASSIVE HAUSE+ sustainable building, (30), p. 38 - 47 Kaminski, I. (2019) Material passport: finding value in rubble, Architects’ Journal, Online: Available at https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/materialpassports-finding-value-in-rubble Lane, T. (2007) Our dark materials, Building, 9 November 2007, Online: Available at: https://www. building.co.uk/focus/our-dark-materials/3099435. article

Leslie, C. (2015) ‘Disappearing Glasgow: documenting the demolition of a city’s troubled past’. The Guardian, 22 April Online: Available at https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/apr/22/ disappearing-glasgow-documenting-demolition-citytroubled-past Martin, I. (2014) This ‘urban vibrancy’ is really social cleansing. The Guardian, 19 January Online: Available at https://www.theguardian.com/ commentisfree/2014/jan/19/urban-vibrancy-socialcleansing-gentrification Neslen, A. (2014) ‘Ikea kitchens help sell insulation to Dutch – and UK could be next’. The Guardian, 10 October Online: Available at https://www.theguardian.com/ environment/2014/oct/10/uk-looks-to-dutch-modelto-make-100000-homes-carbon-neutral-by-2020 Newton, J. (2018) The Effects of Landfills on the Environment. Sciencing, 19 April Online: Available at https://sciencing.com/effectslandfills-environment-8662463.html Perry, F. (2014) This is east London, not Park Lane’: Stratford’s regeneration, in your words, The Guardian, 15 August, Online: Available at https:// www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/aug/15/ stratford-regeneration-your-stories-olympic-legacy Power, A. (2008) Does demolition or refurbishment of old and inefficient homes help to increase our environmental, social and economic viability?. Energy Policy, 36(12), p. 4487-4501. Online: Available through Elsevier Taylor, D. (2017) It’s social cleansing’: the 93-yearold fighting east London demolitions, The Guardian, 28 July, Online: Available at https:// www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jul/28/socialcleansing-whitechapel-east-london-fightingdemolitions Taylor, M. (2018) The wrong type of development: the battel for Edinburgh’s Leith Walk, The Guardian, 5 November, Online: Available at https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/nov/05/ the-wrong-type-of-development-the-battle-foredinburgh-leith-walk

Ulubeyli, S., et al (2017) Construction and demolition waste recycling plants revisited: management issues. Procedia Engineering, 172 p. 1190 – 1197 Online: Available through Elsevier Scottish environment Protection Agency (2018), ‘Not so pretty vacant. Scottish Land Commission and SEPA target new uses for derelict and vacant land’ Online: Available at http://media.sepa.org.uk/mediareleases/2018/not-so-pretty-vacant-scottish-landcommission-and-sepa-target-new-uses-for-derelictand-vacant-land.aspx Wilson, R. (2019) Old into new: Recycled brick from façade of Copenhagen housing project, Architects’ Journal, Online: Available at https:// www.architectsjournal.co.uk/buildings/old-intonew-recycled-bricks-form-facade-of-copenhagenhousing-project

BOOKS Baker, N., V. (2009) The handbook of sustainable refurbishment: non-domestic buildings. Routledge co-published with RIBA Publishing Barrow, C.J. (2000) Social Impact Assessment, an introduction, London, Arnold Cairns, S. and Jacobs, J.M. (2014) Buildings must die: a perverse view of architecture. Cambridge, MIT Press Douglas, J. (2006) Building Adaptation, Routledge Hildebrand, L., Konstantinou, T., Kosanovic, S., Klein, T., Knaack, U. (2018) ‘Origin and Development of Environmental Design’ in Kosanović, S., Fikfak, A., Novaković, N., Klein, T. Reviews of sustainability and resilience of the build environment for education, research and design. TU Delft Open p. 17 - 37 Jacobs, J.M. (1961) The death and life of great American cities. New York, Random House

Konstantinou, T. and Dimitrijević, B. (2018) ‘Sustainable Refurbishment for an Adaptable Built Environment’ in Kosanović, S., Fikfak, A., Novaković, N., Klein, T. Reviews of sustainability and resilience of the build environment for education, research and design. TU Delft Open p. 206 - 227 Koolhaas, R. and Mau, B. (1995) Small, medium, large, extra-large. New York, Monacelli Press Le Corbusier (1932), reprinted 1986, Towards a New Architecture. New York, Dover Publications

DISSERTATIONS Duff, A., J. (2012) A Comparison of the merits of Retrofitting against Demolition and Re – Build construction techniques to achieve sustainability in Scottish social housing, through application of building computer simulations, Building Design and management for Sustainability, University of Strathclyde

REPORTS Andrew, T., Gault, A., Joffe, D., Stark, C. (2018) Reducing emissions in Scotland 2018 Progress Report to Parliament, Committee on Climate Change Benton, E., Belotti, A., Lane L. and Power, A. (2019) Retrofit to the Rescue Environmental upgrading of multi-storey estates, Roockwool and LSE Housing and Communities CASE REPORT 120 Boardman, B., Darby, S., Killip, G., Hinnells, M., Jardine, C.N., Palmer, J., Sinden, G., Lane, K., Layberry, R., Wright, A. and Newborough, M. (2005) 40% House. Environmental Change Institute Oxfords, Online: Available at https://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/ research/energy/downloads/40house/40house.pdf Circle Economy, (2019) The Circularity Gap Report 2019, Online: Available at https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/ad6e59_ ba1e4d16c64f44fa94fbd8708eae8e34.pdF

Cole, I., Foden, M., Robinson, D., et al. (2010), Interventions in housing and the physical environment in deprived neighbourhoods, Evidence from the New Deal for Communities Programme, London, Queen’s Printer and Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Online: Available at https://extra.shu.ac.uk/ ndc/downloads/reports/Interventions%20 in%20Housing%20and%20the%20Physical%20 Environment%20in%20Deprived%20 Neighbourhoods.pdf Economidou, M., Atanasiu, B., Despret, C., Maio, J., Nolte, I. and Rapf, O. (2011) Europe’s buildings under the microscope. A country-by-country review of the energy performance of buildings. Buildings Performance Institute Europe. Online: Available at http://bpie.eu/publication/ europes-buildings-under-the-microscope/ Executive, Scottish. (2005) Choosing our Future: Scotland’s sustainable development strategy. Edinburgh, Scottish Executive. Online: Available at https://www2.gov.scot/ resource/doc/47121/0020703.pdf

Rockwood with BPIE (2018) Upscaling Urban Regeneration. Buildings Performance Institute Europe. Online: Available at http://bpie.eu/wp-content/ uploads/2018/07/SUSTAINABLE-URBANREGENERATION-LOW.pdf Rose, J., Thomsen, K.E., Mørck, O.C., Kuusk, K., Kalamees, T. and Mauring, T. (2016) Economic challenges of deep energy renovation-differences, similarities and possible solutions for northern Europe-Estonia and Denmark. ASHRAE Transactions, 122(1), p .58-68 Scottish Building Standard Agency, (2007) A Low Carbon Building Standards Strategy For Scotland, Howie, Scotland Staniaszek, D. (2015) Renovation in practice. Best practice examples of voluntary and mandatory initiatives across Europe. Buildings Performance Institute Europe. Online: Available at http://bpie.eu/wp-content/ uploads/2015/12/Renovation-in-practice_08.pdf

Historic Environment Scotland: • (2016) Audit 2016 – Summary. Online: Available at https://www.historicenvironment. scot/advice-and-support/planning-and-guidance/ scotland-s-historic-environment-audit/#downloadshea-reports_tab • (2018) Audit 2018 – Summary. Online: Available at https://www.historicenvironment. scot/advice-and-support/planning-and-guidance/ scotland-s-historic-environment-audit/#downloadshea-reports_tab • (2019) Managing change in the historic environment: use and adaptations of listed buildings. Online: Available at https://www. historicenvironment.scot/archives-and-research/ publications/publication/?publicationId=8ab1f9c9521a-435e-a3f2-aa240119b5e1 Lohse, R., Staller, H. and Riel, M. (2016) The economic challenges of deep energy renovation-differences, similarities, and possible solutions in Central Europe: Austria and Germany. ASHRAE Transactions, 122(1), p. 69-88 Rapf, O. (2019) The zero carbon and circular economy challenge in the built environment. Buildings Performance Institute Europe. Online: Available at http://bpie.eu/wp-content/ uploads/2019/06/Policy-Options-for-the-EU-and-itsMember-States-on-circularity.pdf

WEB PAGES

International Association for Impact Assessment, https://iaia.org

BBC, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlandedinburgh-east-fife-42460708

Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com

Building Standards, http://www.s7sust.co.uk/

OMA, https://oma.eu/projects/mission-grand-axe-ladefense

Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge. org/dictionary/english/demolition

Passipedia, https://passipedia.org/certification/enerphit

Designing Buildings Wiki: Demolition : https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/ wiki/Demolition BREEAM Construction waste management : https:// www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_ Construction_waste_management

Passive House Institute, https://passiv.de/downloads/03_building_criteria_ en.pdf

Disappearing Glasgow, http://www.disappearing-glasgow.com/portfolio/ introduction/ Energiesprong, https://www.energiesprong.uk/ projects/nottingham EPC Scotland https://www.epc-scotland.co.uk/energy_ performance_certificate_dwelling.html Eur - Lex: Access to European Union law: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ ALL/?uri=CELEX:52013SC0445 European Commission, https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/ construction_demolition.htm Green Building Council, https://www.ukgbc.org/resource-use/ https://www.ukgbc.org/climate-change/ Government UK, https://www.gov.uk/domestic-renewable-heatincentive Herald Scotland, https://www.heraldscotland.com/ news/17528994.edinburgh-st-james-developmentreaches-half-way-point/ Historic Environment Scotland (HES), • Buildings at Risk Register https://www.buildingsatrisk.org.uk/?_ ga=2.184786799.775516310.15646582371073065373.1562258247 Homebuilding& Renovating , https://www. homebuilding.co.uk/demolish-and-replace/

Retrofit Scotland, http://www.retrofitscotland.org/ Scottish Government, • Housing Statistics for Scotland https://www2.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/ Housing-Regeneration/HSfS/Demolitions • Scottish Vacant and Derelict Land Survey: https://www2.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/ Planning/Publications/SVDLSmaps • Social tenants in Scotland 2017 https://www.gov.scot/publications/social-tenantsscotland-2017 Sottish Housing News, https://www.scottishhousingnews.com/article/ council-consider-demolishing-high-rise-flats-northayrshire https://www.scottishhousingnews.com/article/ plans-demolish-every-north-lanarkshire-towerblock-next-20-years https://www.scottishhousingnews.com/article/ north-ayrshire-council-to-move-forward-with-plansto-demolish-most-tower-blocks https://www.scottishhousingnews.com/article/ broadford-works-demolition-approval-paves-wayfor-100m-urban-village-plans https://www.scottishhousingnews.com/article/ blacks-blog-save-demolish-dundee https://www.scottishhousingnews.com/article/ homes-to-be-demolished-to-make-way-for-30mhaudagain-roundabout https://www.scottishhousingnews.com/article/ tenement-maintenance-working-group-s-finalrecommendations-report-calls-for-change-inlegislation Wikipedia entries: Housing in Glasgow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Housing_in_Glasgow#Glasgow_tower_blocks Carbon footprint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint

EMILIA M BOROWIK University of Strathclyde Masterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Dissertation in Architecture 19/08/2019