JJ Precisely because architecture is a very slow process, buildings today are often already obsolete the moment the construction phase is completed. This is, unfortunately, the latency of architecture. Architectural trends in times of a consumer culture only boost this phenomenon. However, there are models that try to react to this development and examples that show it is possible. “Intelligent ruins” is a term and concept framed by former Flemish Government Architect bOb Van Reeth, who speaks about the unknown futures of buildings and the importance of already thinking about their capacity for change. Intelligent ruins are thus open for reuse, adaptation and reorganisation, which changes how we design and build. A building no longer has to be dedicated to a specific purpose, such as a school or a car dealership; it should be open to possible reuse right from the start. The aim is to overcome the obsolescence of architecture. CBO Your work spans architecture, civic initiatives (HouseEurope!), and exhibitions (German Pavilion at the Biennale di Venezia). What common threads link these endeavours?) JJ The common thread is that it’s all architecture—or, as we say, “architecting”, a verb that does not exist in the German language. In German, we miss a word that grasps the systemic nature of “doing” architecture. Instead, it is reduced to the tasks related to building an object: designing, planning, drawing, building, executing, supervising. This is very much reflected in the German definition of what an architect is and does, and accordingly, also in the honorary system.
Yet, the architect’s field of expertise has long been more than just building their own monuments. In view of climate change, material scarcity and social injustice, architects today have completely different tasks and obligations, which also expand the classic repertoire with additional skills. In the end, however, it is intended— at least for us—that everything is connected and contingent, whether a project is a building, a concept or a campaign. It is always an architectural project with practical relevance and real effects. Thus, all projects are seen as (built) arguments and follow our overarching agenda. OG To me, these formats are also a way of dealing with what Jonas described before: the slow nature of our practice. I strongly believe that, if we want to change the building industry, we must interact with the different layers of society. The building itself, the object, is not what will bring a change. I don’t deny that there is something like a Bilbao effect in which a building can function as an incubator or starting point for development. In that logic, the architect is called in once the decision to start something has been made. By whom? Developers. In which logic? Growth and profit-oriented–most of the time. What can we, as architects, do to come in earlier and be part of the decision-making? Keller Easterling said it in our film “Architecting after Politics”: as architects, we must “not only design the thing but the advent of its idea into culture.” The design of the argument and origin must be part of a project. As such, we must investigate different formats that come with different logics, different speeds, different platforms and different audiences. Only that way architects can gain back
meaning and demand a seat at the table where decisions are made. Because we know “more than the 28-year-old McKinsey consultant who is making most of the global decisions”, as Easterling would say. CBO Your work celebrates reuse and adaptation. How do you think the stories you tell help communities value reuse? JJ Narrative and storytelling are extremely important in our work. In many projects, we have found that this is a powerful tool to start a project and convince people, groups, organisations, and officials that there are alternatives to the prevailing modes of architectural production: demolition for / and new construction. Stories and narratives always have the purpose of presenting an argument coherently. This can have different intentions. In the project San Gimignano Lichtenberg, it was necessary to change the perception of what a place is and could be: from an industrial ruin to future potential. Therefore, we adapted the image of the Tuscan village San Gimignano, a city known for its towers, to tell the story of San Gimignano Berlin Lichtenberg. This change of narrative and image convinced the banks to finance the project. This is just one example that shows the importance of stories. OG I think it is important to add that we at b+ are very aware that not every human out there has a former industrial tower sitting empty in their front garden, waiting to be renovated and transformed. We don’t think of our projects as case-studies but rather as showcases. They have iconic aspects, whether it is their story or their image, which allow us to get public attention and speak about them, just
like in this moment and format. There, I see a cultural value: making people realise that you can reuse basically everything, that this is the task of an architect, and that adaptive reuse is a viable alternative to demolition and new construction. CBO Emotional attachments and nostalgia influence which buildings are preserved and which are lost. How do you balance sentimentality with practical adaptation in your own practice? OG Actually, this question was at the core of our guest professorship as the chair for architectural theory at the University of Innsbruck. We asked the students to research the heritage and preservation laws of all European countries to understand, why and how a building is being preserved. In fact, the preservation of buildings is considered a purely cultural act—as you put it in your question—based on emotions and nostalgia. We don’t preserve because of the ecological value—the energy and resources embedded in an existing building. Which is fascinating when you think about it! We know today that we can no longer afford to waste and produce more. Yet, we are perfectly fine to demolish and throw it away to make room for a new one. Why? Because of economic reasons. Against all facts. But the moment I tell you, “Wait; this is the birth-house or home of a famous person!”, its value changes, and we think it is worth preserving. The logic is: profit over people over planet. JJ In the end, preservation is storytelling. Emotional connections and nostalgia are valuable materials in adaptive reuse projects. When it comes to creating the arguments, a lot of the work is building on the history, the
JJ Precisely because architecture is a very slow process, buildings today are often already obsolete the moment the construction phase is completed. This is, unfortunately, the latency of architecture. Architectural trends in times of a consumer culture only boost this phenomenon. However, there are models that try to react to this development and examples that show it is possible. “Intelligent ruins” is a term and concept framed by former Flemish Government Architect bOb Van Reeth, who speaks about the unknown futures of buildings and the importance of already thinking about their capacity for change. Intelligent ruins are thus open for reuse, adaptation and reorganisation, which changes how we design and build. A building no longer has to be dedicated to a specific purpose, such as a school or a car dealership; it should be open to possible reuse right from the start. The aim is to overcome the obsolescence of architecture. CBO Your work spans architecture, civic initiatives (HouseEurope!), and exhibitions (German Pavilion at the Biennale di Venezia). What common threads link these endeavours?) JJ The common thread is that it’s all architecture—or, as we say, “architecting”, a verb that does not exist in the German language. In German, we miss a word that grasps the systemic nature of “doing” architecture. Instead, it is reduced to the tasks related to building an object: designing, planning, drawing, building, executing, supervising. This is very much reflected in the German definition of what an architect is and does, and accordingly, also in the honorary system.
Yet, the architect’s field of expertise has long been more than just building their own monuments. In view of climate change, material scarcity and social injustice, architects today have completely different tasks and obligations, which also expand the classic repertoire with additional skills. In the end, however, it is intended— at least for us—that everything is connected and contingent, whether a project is a building, a concept or a campaign. It is always an architectural project with practical relevance and real effects. Thus, all projects are seen as (built) arguments and follow our overarching agenda. OG To me, these formats are also a way of dealing with what Jonas described before: the slow nature of our practice. I strongly believe that, if we want to change the building industry, we must interact with the different layers of society. The building itself, the object, is not what will bring a change. I don’t deny that there is something like a Bilbao effect in which a building can function as an incubator or starting point for development. In that logic, the architect is called in once the decision to start something has been made. By whom? Developers. In which logic? Growth and profit-oriented–most of the time. What can we, as architects, do to come in earlier and be part of the decision-making? Keller Easterling said it in our film “Architecting after Politics”: as architects, we must “not only design the thing but the advent of its idea into culture.” The design of the argument and origin must be part of a project. As such, we must investigate different formats that come with different logics, different speeds, different platforms and different audiences. Only that way architects can gain back
meaning and demand a seat at the table where decisions are made. Because we know “more than the 28-year-old McKinsey consultant who is making most of the global decisions”, as Easterling would say. CBO Your work celebrates reuse and adaptation. How do you think the stories you tell help communities value reuse? JJ Narrative and storytelling are extremely important in our work. In many projects, we have found that this is a powerful tool to start a project and convince people, groups, organisations, and officials that there are alternatives to the prevailing modes of architectural production: demolition for / and new construction. Stories and narratives always have the purpose of presenting an argument coherently. This can have different intentions. In the project San Gimignano Lichtenberg, it was necessary to change the perception of what a place is and could be: from an industrial ruin to future potential. Therefore, we adapted the image of the Tuscan village San Gimignano, a city known for its towers, to tell the story of San Gimignano Berlin Lichtenberg. This change of narrative and image convinced the banks to finance the project. This is just one example that shows the importance of stories. OG I think it is important to add that we at b+ are very aware that not every human out there has a former industrial tower sitting empty in their front garden, waiting to be renovated and transformed. We don’t think of our projects as case-studies but rather as showcases. They have iconic aspects, whether it is their story or their image, which allow us to get public attention and speak about them, just
like in this moment and format. There, I see a cultural value: making people realise that you can reuse basically everything, that this is the task of an architect, and that adaptive reuse is a viable alternative to demolition and new construction. CBO Emotional attachments and nostalgia influence which buildings are preserved and which are lost. How do you balance sentimentality with practical adaptation in your own practice? OG Actually, this question was at the core of our guest professorship as the chair for architectural theory at the University of Innsbruck. We asked the students to research the heritage and preservation laws of all European countries to understand, why and how a building is being preserved. In fact, the preservation of buildings is considered a purely cultural act—as you put it in your question—based on emotions and nostalgia. We don’t preserve because of the ecological value—the energy and resources embedded in an existing building. Which is fascinating when you think about it! We know today that we can no longer afford to waste and produce more. Yet, we are perfectly fine to demolish and throw it away to make room for a new one. Why? Because of economic reasons. Against all facts. But the moment I tell you, “Wait; this is the birth-house or home of a famous person!”, its value changes, and we think it is worth preserving. The logic is: profit over people over planet. JJ In the end, preservation is storytelling. Emotional connections and nostalgia are valuable materials in adaptive reuse projects. When it comes to creating the arguments, a lot of the work is building on the history, the
[footer]
82
[footer]
83
[footer]
82
[footer]
83
While concrete waste from construction and demolition is often reutilised, it is almost exclusively as roadfill or other low value applications. The refined process of producing structurel comncrete is reduced to rubble and low value applications, and thus does not reduce the need for virgin materials for new concrete buildings, or reduce carbon to produce cement.
Demolished concrete from prefarbicated housing block in Denmark. 3XNGXN
[footer]
108
[footer]
109
While concrete waste from construction and demolition is often reutilised, it is almost exclusively as roadfill or other low value applications. The refined process of producing structurel comncrete is reduced to rubble and low value applications, and thus does not reduce the need for virgin materials for new concrete buildings, or reduce carbon to produce cement.
Demolished concrete from prefarbicated housing block in Denmark. 3XNGXN
[footer]
108
[footer]
109
Unloved Timeline
15 Danish affordable housing estates included in the infamous ‘Ghetto’ law of 2018, politically aimed at changing the socio-economic mark up of theese areas by demolishing parts of the existing buildings and replacing them with new typologies. Here organised by their construction year and structural principle.
Number of newly built public housing units per year
1916 Housing shortage and rising rents leads to the creation of the housing commision
1933 1953 As a consequence of the economic A 15% bricklaying labor limit is introduced, crisis, the Kanslergade Settlement is which results in a large increase in the use concluded, which ensures support of concrete elements. of DKK 30 million for the construction of public housing.
16.000 1946 After World War II, a subsidy law was passed with the intention of building 14,000 homes per year.
1922 Establishment of the Danish State Housing Fund initates construction.
14.000
2001 A 40% increase in the amount of construction waste from 1994 to 2001 led to measures from the Ministry of the Environment.
2020 The voluntary sustainability class is introduced into the Building Regulations.
2018 The Danish Parliament adopts a strategy to combat parallel societies in Denmark, the so-called “Parallelsam fundslov”.
12.000 10.000
8.000 6.000 4.000
2.000
0
1910
1920
Cast-in-Place
1958
1957
Motalavej 1957
Tingbjerg 1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
Ringparken 1963
110
1960
1970
Lead white paint 1910- 1950
1963
1964
1965
1966
Agervang 1966
Finlandsparken 1963
Element Construction
1950
1940
1930 Asbestos 1930-1986
The 15 Tough Ghettos
1977 The scheme with public support for experimental construction is established to promote technological development in construction.
1960 The assembly circular or concrete circular provides support for the construction of 7,500 homes from prefabricated concrete elements.
Brick Walls
[footer]
1971 Ressourceblokken_ 1986 3XNGXN, JaJa architects, Danish 2008 technological institute, The State Construction Act, which Construction defects and poor The financial crisis is hitting the organizes the state's construction quality in public construction lead construction industry and the activities, is adopted with total to extensive renovations financed by housing market hard. Demand for economy as a new parameter. the newly established building public housing is increasing. damage fund.
1961 The National Building Act is introduced, requiring that subsidized housing be built according to modular standards. The first building regulations come into force.
1967
1968
1969
1970
1980
2000
2010
2020
PCB 1977-1986
1971
1972
1973
Stengårdsvej 1967
Vollsmose 1967
1990
1974
1975
1976
Gellerupparken 1968 Bispehaven 1967
[footer]
1977
1978
1979
Skovvejen 1971
Sundparken 1968
1980
1981
1982
Taastrupgård 1973
Munkebo 1973
111
Gadehavegård 1977
1983
1984
Mjølnerparken 1984
Unloved Timeline
15 Danish affordable housing estates included in the infamous ‘Ghetto’ law of 2018, politically aimed at changing the socio-economic mark up of theese areas by demolishing parts of the existing buildings and replacing them with new typologies. Here organised by their construction year and structural principle.
Number of newly built public housing units per year
1916 Housing shortage and rising rents leads to the creation of the housing commision
1933 1953 As a consequence of the economic A 15% bricklaying labor limit is introduced, crisis, the Kanslergade Settlement is which results in a large increase in the use concluded, which ensures support of concrete elements. of DKK 30 million for the construction of public housing.
16.000 1946 After World War II, a subsidy law was passed with the intention of building 14,000 homes per year.
1922 Establishment of the Danish State Housing Fund initates construction.
14.000
2001 A 40% increase in the amount of construction waste from 1994 to 2001 led to measures from the Ministry of the Environment.
2020 The voluntary sustainability class is introduced into the Building Regulations.
2018 The Danish Parliament adopts a strategy to combat parallel societies in Denmark, the so-called “Parallelsam fundslov”.
12.000 10.000
8.000 6.000 4.000
2.000
0
1910
1920
Cast-in-Place
1958
1957
Motalavej 1957
Tingbjerg 1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
Ringparken 1963
110
1960
1970
Lead white paint 1910- 1950
1963
1964
1965
1966
Agervang 1966
Finlandsparken 1963
Element Construction
1950
1940
1930 Asbestos 1930-1986
The 15 Tough Ghettos
1977 The scheme with public support for experimental construction is established to promote technological development in construction.
1960 The assembly circular or concrete circular provides support for the construction of 7,500 homes from prefabricated concrete elements.
Brick Walls
[footer]
1971 Ressourceblokken_ 1986 3XNGXN, JaJa architects, Danish 2008 technological institute, The State Construction Act, which Construction defects and poor The financial crisis is hitting the organizes the state's construction quality in public construction lead construction industry and the activities, is adopted with total to extensive renovations financed by housing market hard. Demand for economy as a new parameter. the newly established building public housing is increasing. damage fund.
1961 The National Building Act is introduced, requiring that subsidized housing be built according to modular standards. The first building regulations come into force.
1967
1968
1969
1970
1980
2000
2010
2020
PCB 1977-1986
1971
1972
1973
Stengårdsvej 1967
Vollsmose 1967
1990
1974
1975
1976
Gellerupparken 1968 Bispehaven 1967
[footer]
1977
1978
1979
Skovvejen 1971
Sundparken 1968
1980
1981
1982
Taastrupgård 1973
Munkebo 1973
111
Gadehavegård 1977
1983
1984
Mjølnerparken 1984
Pavillon of salvaged wall elements and timber utilising reversible connections. 3XNGXN,
>
>
A large part of the value loss in dealing with existing concrete is related to th dismantling of the concrete from its structural system without breaking it into constituent parts. Structures with concrete elements are usually based on castet connections which does not lends itself to recovering the concrete as structural elements. Therefore, reversible connections and construction principles are to be preferred when working with conrete structures. [footer]
116
Reversible steel connections for concrete elements, with lime mortar for fire protection. Part of the research project Circle House. 3XNGXN, Peikko, Lejerbo et al,
[footer]
117
Pavillon of salvaged wall elements and timber utilising reversible connections. 3XNGXN,
>
>
A large part of the value loss in dealing with existing concrete is related to th dismantling of the concrete from its structural system without breaking it into constituent parts. Structures with concrete elements are usually based on castet connections which does not lends itself to recovering the concrete as structural elements. Therefore, reversible connections and construction principles are to be preferred when working with conrete structures. [footer]
116
Reversible steel connections for concrete elements, with lime mortar for fire protection. Part of the research project Circle House. 3XNGXN, Peikko, Lejerbo et al,
[footer]
117
assets, that kind of terrestrial mindset is rarely applied. Perhaps, what you are introducing with this concept is that, actually, we have been describing buildings in an incomplete way. How do you think of buildings then, through this terrestrial framework? KM I would just simply say that the discourse of obsolescence is now obsolete. It’s just not a useful category. Obsolescence was a modernist tool for tearing down buildings. Daniel Abramson’s book on obsolescence (Obsolescence: An Architectural History, The University of Chicago Press, 2016) is very good at walking through what that process is from an economic and historical point of view. Obsolescence naturally follows the form follows function fallacy of modernism’s focus on use and program. We should design more specifically generic buildings, with good light and air, robust material systems and generous, loosefit dimensions. Almost every human program fits in that kind of loose envelope. I also don’t think we should take buildings apart. We should be dealing with them as they are, as well as designing. There is a fundamental design methodology attached to the concept of obsolescence that is based on the flawed thinking that building typologies are program typologies. We have been baking obsolescence into our contracts rather than designing a chunk of urban fabric that can be reused for the next two or three hundred years. CBO This feels like a call to action that you are putting forward. What do you think is the role of architects in this terrestrial building ecology? How can we start shifting the industry’s modernist
mindset to consider the larger geological effects of building? KM I think there are lots of different roles. It depends on the scale of impact. My practice has completely changed—I’m operating very locally. Right now, I’m finishing a forest ecology degree so that I can really understand and configure the forest-building relations. I wanted to learn how I can harvest the forest in a way that makes it healthier, stronger, and more biodiverse. I understand that this is probably harder to do at a larger scale, but it is really important that architects fundamentally change their business model. The standard architecture contracts can, at best, make our practices a little bit less bad than they have been, and that’s just not the kind of evolution of mindset your question points towards. I think architects need actual ecological training to understand how systems work. And not from a rhetorical perspective, where we just make renderings with green vegetation and claim that buildings are ecological. We’ve had decades of representing ecology in renderings, but there is very little ecology in the architectural discourse and practice. We won’t get there unless we take the ecology of building more seriously. In this regard, I respect the work that Denmark is doing on circularity, for instance, but building ecology is not circular. It is very non-linear, which is its most interesting attribute and reflects its greatest potential to scale. Our work can have a significant effect on the system overall, but only if we shift from normative practices. LL You are studying forest ecology, and you are also a lecturer in Architecture at Harvard GSD
and other schools. As an educator, how would you define that ecological training that needs to be taught and better understood in practice? What are some of the main areas of knowledge that architects should be more aware of? KM I seriously started studying systems ecology over a decade ago. As a field of knowledge and methods, it offers rigorous training on how the sun hits the planet and triggers a cascade of material and energetic events, all the way through and into building and unbuilding processes. One of the big lessons is that all architecture is geology before it’s anything else. This means that any proper definition of the system boundaries of any design starts with a pretty specific spatial and temporal understanding of what your building is from a terrestrial point of view. System boundary definition is fundamental in science, yet architects never define them in their work. So we never really know what we are working on, or impacting. It is impossible to have a proper ecology or sustainability conversation if you refuse to acknowledge or define system boundaries. So, systems ecology is probably a good place to start. I entered forest ecology because I needed to understand many aspects within the system ecology of my timber buildings. Knowing about what is going on in the forest allows me to take my practice to the next level. Books like Convergence (Convergence: An Architectural Agenda for Energy, Routledge, 2013) or The Hierarchy of Energy in Architecture: Emergy Analysis (Routledge, 2015) are out there for further reading if people are interested in the relationship between systems ecology and design.
LL Listening to you, I can see that dichotomy that you are trying to shift from. In a very direct way you are proposing a change from fundamentally modernist ideas—where what is produced by an architect is expected to be very unique and specific to a particular condition, or have a certain aesthetic expression— to a vision of architects that are much more connected to ecological processes and whose buildings hold a generic quality that allows them to change, repeat, and be altered. KM Again, the term I use is specifically generic. These buildings are generic, but in a very specific way. This has a lot to do with the city they’re in, the region, the system of natural resources, and the climate they’re in. It’s not just a generic modernist open plan. There’s a lot of specificity and a lot of intricacy if one gets into that ecology, probably more than there is in a building that is merely trying to express architects’ desires and preferences. One could also question what is being expressed by that type of preference. When I see a New England mill building, there are so many layers of culture, history, and ecology active in its appearance and formation. They’re not generic buildings at all. And especially because they can persist for hundreds of years, they start to acquire and communicate meaning in a way that a Roman building does over a long period of time, and in a way that no building that lasts for 65 years could. CBO Some months ago, I read this article that you wrote about tending buildings and care for materials and maintenance (“Tending Buildings: An Ethic of Repair in Architecture”, Places Journal, 2024). It made me think
assets, that kind of terrestrial mindset is rarely applied. Perhaps, what you are introducing with this concept is that, actually, we have been describing buildings in an incomplete way. How do you think of buildings then, through this terrestrial framework? KM I would just simply say that the discourse of obsolescence is now obsolete. It’s just not a useful category. Obsolescence was a modernist tool for tearing down buildings. Daniel Abramson’s book on obsolescence (Obsolescence: An Architectural History, The University of Chicago Press, 2016) is very good at walking through what that process is from an economic and historical point of view. Obsolescence naturally follows the form follows function fallacy of modernism’s focus on use and program. We should design more specifically generic buildings, with good light and air, robust material systems and generous, loosefit dimensions. Almost every human program fits in that kind of loose envelope. I also don’t think we should take buildings apart. We should be dealing with them as they are, as well as designing. There is a fundamental design methodology attached to the concept of obsolescence that is based on the flawed thinking that building typologies are program typologies. We have been baking obsolescence into our contracts rather than designing a chunk of urban fabric that can be reused for the next two or three hundred years. CBO This feels like a call to action that you are putting forward. What do you think is the role of architects in this terrestrial building ecology? How can we start shifting the industry’s modernist
mindset to consider the larger geological effects of building? KM I think there are lots of different roles. It depends on the scale of impact. My practice has completely changed—I’m operating very locally. Right now, I’m finishing a forest ecology degree so that I can really understand and configure the forest-building relations. I wanted to learn how I can harvest the forest in a way that makes it healthier, stronger, and more biodiverse. I understand that this is probably harder to do at a larger scale, but it is really important that architects fundamentally change their business model. The standard architecture contracts can, at best, make our practices a little bit less bad than they have been, and that’s just not the kind of evolution of mindset your question points towards. I think architects need actual ecological training to understand how systems work. And not from a rhetorical perspective, where we just make renderings with green vegetation and claim that buildings are ecological. We’ve had decades of representing ecology in renderings, but there is very little ecology in the architectural discourse and practice. We won’t get there unless we take the ecology of building more seriously. In this regard, I respect the work that Denmark is doing on circularity, for instance, but building ecology is not circular. It is very non-linear, which is its most interesting attribute and reflects its greatest potential to scale. Our work can have a significant effect on the system overall, but only if we shift from normative practices. LL You are studying forest ecology, and you are also a lecturer in Architecture at Harvard GSD
and other schools. As an educator, how would you define that ecological training that needs to be taught and better understood in practice? What are some of the main areas of knowledge that architects should be more aware of? KM I seriously started studying systems ecology over a decade ago. As a field of knowledge and methods, it offers rigorous training on how the sun hits the planet and triggers a cascade of material and energetic events, all the way through and into building and unbuilding processes. One of the big lessons is that all architecture is geology before it’s anything else. This means that any proper definition of the system boundaries of any design starts with a pretty specific spatial and temporal understanding of what your building is from a terrestrial point of view. System boundary definition is fundamental in science, yet architects never define them in their work. So we never really know what we are working on, or impacting. It is impossible to have a proper ecology or sustainability conversation if you refuse to acknowledge or define system boundaries. So, systems ecology is probably a good place to start. I entered forest ecology because I needed to understand many aspects within the system ecology of my timber buildings. Knowing about what is going on in the forest allows me to take my practice to the next level. Books like Convergence (Convergence: An Architectural Agenda for Energy, Routledge, 2013) or The Hierarchy of Energy in Architecture: Emergy Analysis (Routledge, 2015) are out there for further reading if people are interested in the relationship between systems ecology and design.
LL Listening to you, I can see that dichotomy that you are trying to shift from. In a very direct way you are proposing a change from fundamentally modernist ideas—where what is produced by an architect is expected to be very unique and specific to a particular condition, or have a certain aesthetic expression— to a vision of architects that are much more connected to ecological processes and whose buildings hold a generic quality that allows them to change, repeat, and be altered. KM Again, the term I use is specifically generic. These buildings are generic, but in a very specific way. This has a lot to do with the city they’re in, the region, the system of natural resources, and the climate they’re in. It’s not just a generic modernist open plan. There’s a lot of specificity and a lot of intricacy if one gets into that ecology, probably more than there is in a building that is merely trying to express architects’ desires and preferences. One could also question what is being expressed by that type of preference. When I see a New England mill building, there are so many layers of culture, history, and ecology active in its appearance and formation. They’re not generic buildings at all. And especially because they can persist for hundreds of years, they start to acquire and communicate meaning in a way that a Roman building does over a long period of time, and in a way that no building that lasts for 65 years could. CBO Some months ago, I read this article that you wrote about tending buildings and care for materials and maintenance (“Tending Buildings: An Ethic of Repair in Architecture”, Places Journal, 2024). It made me think
reactivate
To clean, repair, and redecorate a building or space to improve its condition or appearance.
reinterpret
PRESERVE
To provide a building with a new technology or features to improve its performance, aesthetics or safety. To rearrange an existing building in a way that expresses new ideas about it, as for a piece of music.
To adapt a building to serve a new function, different from that for which it was originally intended.
CHANGE
repurpose
retrofit
TRANSFORM
To change the structure or form of a building or space, often altering its layout or appearance.
To revitalize a building, site, or urban area through substantial changes in use, structure, and context.
regenerate
refurbish
To make a building usable To bring an old building back again through repair and into use, often through adaptation, while maintaining minimal interventions, not the original function. altering its original program.
MAINTAIN
rehabilitate
PROGRAM
BODY remodel
reactivate
To clean, repair, and redecorate a building or space to improve its condition or appearance.
reinterpret
PRESERVE
To provide a building with a new technology or features to improve its performance, aesthetics or safety. To rearrange an existing building in a way that expresses new ideas about it, as for a piece of music.
To adapt a building to serve a new function, different from that for which it was originally intended.
CHANGE
repurpose
retrofit
TRANSFORM
To change the structure or form of a building or space, often altering its layout or appearance.
To revitalize a building, site, or urban area through substantial changes in use, structure, and context.
regenerate
refurbish
To make a building usable To bring an old building back again through repair and into use, often through adaptation, while maintaining minimal interventions, not the original function. altering its original program.
MAINTAIN
rehabilitate
PROGRAM
BODY remodel
[footer]
212
[footer]
213
[footer]
212
[footer]
213
[footer]
266
[footer]
267
[footer]
266
[footer]
267
ov ed
ov al
Tue
18.03.24
re m h1 5
Sl
14
13
h0 0
h0 0
ab
n Be gi
d
En
14
SLAB REMOVAL LOCATION - LEVEL 01 PLAN Slab specimen removal 4.5m long x 1.2m wide Weight 1.5-2t Location and width chosen due to practicalities of removal
No site activity
RETAIN EVERY 6TH
Mon
re m
cu t
cu t h0 0
Be gi
n
SLAB REMOVAL TIMELINE 11
Se tt in
g
Pr op pi n
g
ou t
RETAIN EVERY 5TH
Wed
19.03.24
Thu
20.03.24
21.03.24
Fri
22.03.24
LEGEND
Ribbed slab Beam
Cut time c. 10 min
Least Deconstruction
Existing Envelope
MAJOR REFURBISHMENT
1.10 Options for Retention and Extension (Volume Three)
Feasibility Study Volume Zero Summary of the Feasibility Study December 2024
This volume is superseded by the submission dated December 2024.
EUSTON TOWER
Feasibility Study Volume One Assessing the Existing Building November 2023
11.2024 MAX RETENTION
EUSTON TOWER
Feasibility Study Volume Two Pathways for Alternative Uses November 2023
"FULL" RETENTION
RETAIN CONSECUTIVE (OFFICE)
RETAIN CONSECUTIVE (OFFICE+LAB)
It was agreed that the best use of the existing building was continued commercial use, based on the findings of Volume Two of the Feasibility Study. The following options were studied for delivering the project vision, generating additional value, while retaining as much of the existing building as possible: • Major Refurbishment • Retention and Partial Extension (Max Retention) • Retention and Extension (“Full” Retention) • Partial Retention and Extension (Disassemble and Reuse) Feasibility Study Volume Three – Retain consecutive slabs (office) Options for Retention and Extension – Retain consecutive slabs (office and lab-enabled) – Retain interstitial slabs (office) December 2024 – Retain interstitial slabs (office and lab-enabled) – Retain the core • New Build.
EUSTON TOWER
RETAIN INTERSITIAL (OFFICE)
Three Feasibility Study Volumes: Assessing the Existing Building Pathways for Alternative Uses Options for Retention and Extension
Whole Life-cycle Carbon Assessments (WLCAs) were conducted for selected options with varying degrees of existing building retention (refer to summary overleaf). For each option, these assessments estimated the total carbon emissions (considering deconstruction, construction, and operation of the buildings) anticipated to be emitted over the building’s lifetime. The Retain the Core option has the lowest estimated whole life-cycle carbon emissions, when compared with the other options that resolve the floor to floor height issues previously described. This is in spite of the Retain the Core Option retaining 31% (by volume) of the existing structure compared to 42% (by volume) for the Retain Interstitial Slabs option.
Daylighting levels were assessed, and it was shown that the areas of well-daylit space reduce materially when the size of the floor is extended, even by a small amount. The reduction in well-daylit space is alleviated by increasing the floor to floor height (height between storeys). Increasing the existing floor to floor height to deliver more well-daylit space is necessary to create the high quality spaces that are attractive to the large tenants, who are essential to a successful letting strategy for a building of this scale, and to deliver on the environment the Knowledge Quarter is seeking to foster.
Figure 1.9 Diagrammatic section of Retain the Core which is the preferred option
19
Max Retention
Euston Tower - Feasibility Study Volume Zero: Summary of the Feasibility Study
“FULL” RETENTION
RETENTION AND EXTENSION "Full" Retention
Retain & Refurbish
PARTIAL RETENTION EXTENSION
NEW BUILD
Disassemble & Reuse Retain & Refurbish
Central core retained
PARTIAL RETENTION AND EXTENSION DISASSEMBLE AND REUSE
EXISTING
Retain Consecutive Slabs (Office) Retain Consecutive Slabs (Office and Lab) Retain Interstitial Slabs (Office) Retain Interstitial Slabs (Office and Lab) Retain the Core
New Build
Demolish & Recycle
Foundation retained
Most Deconstruction
Selected for Whole Life-cycle Carbon Assessment (WLCA)
Figure 1.10 Overview of options studied
Euston Tower - Feasibility Study Volume Zero: Summary of the Feasibility Study
MAX RETENTION
"FULL" RETENTION
The analysis/ sustainability process xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
NEW BUILD
NEW BUILD
All slabs removed and new slabs added
Existing structural elements New floor slabs
RETENTION AND PARTIAL EXTENSION
Retain & Refurbish
On balance, the Retain the Core option is identified to be preferable. This is because it offers the best balance of structural retention, quality, flexibility (it does not bake in many of the limitations of the existing building), and adaptability (to different users and uses). And it does so with a whole life-cycle carbon position that is the lowest of the options that deliver the quality of space which is necessary for the redevelopment of Euston Tower to be successful.
For each option a thorough technical and design assessment was undertaken. The assessments considered: how much of the existing building could be retained (in terms of material and carbon emissions), the quality of the RETAIN INTERSITIAL (OFFICE+LAB) RETAIN THE CORE resulting floor layouts (it has to be attractive to a modern user), future flexibility and adaptability (the tower must be fit for the future), and health & safety (it must be buildable in the RETAIN THE CORE (PREFERRED OPTION) safest way possible).
Shown not to be feasible in Feasibility Volumes One and Two
Retain & Retrofit
MAX RETENTION
Extended Floors
EUSTON TOWER
MAJOR REFURBISHMENT
20
RETAIN EVERY 2ND
[footer]
268
[footer]
269
RETAIN CONSECUTIVE (OFFICE)
RETAIN CONSECUTIVE (OFFICE+LAB)
RETAIN INTERSITIAL (OFFIC
ov ed
ov al
Tue
18.03.24
re m h1 5
Sl
14
13
h0 0
h0 0
ab
n Be gi
d
En
14
SLAB REMOVAL LOCATION - LEVEL 01 PLAN Slab specimen removal 4.5m long x 1.2m wide Weight 1.5-2t Location and width chosen due to practicalities of removal
No site activity
RETAIN EVERY 6TH
Mon
re m
cu t
cu t h0 0
Be gi
n
SLAB REMOVAL TIMELINE 11
Se tt in
g
Pr op pi n
g
ou t
RETAIN EVERY 5TH
Wed
19.03.24
Thu
20.03.24
21.03.24
Fri
22.03.24
LEGEND
Ribbed slab Beam
Cut time c. 10 min
Least Deconstruction
Existing Envelope
MAJOR REFURBISHMENT
1.10 Options for Retention and Extension (Volume Three)
Feasibility Study Volume Zero Summary of the Feasibility Study December 2024
This volume is superseded by the submission dated December 2024.
EUSTON TOWER
Feasibility Study Volume One Assessing the Existing Building November 2023
11.2024 MAX RETENTION
EUSTON TOWER
Feasibility Study Volume Two Pathways for Alternative Uses November 2023
"FULL" RETENTION
RETAIN CONSECUTIVE (OFFICE)
RETAIN CONSECUTIVE (OFFICE+LAB)
It was agreed that the best use of the existing building was continued commercial use, based on the findings of Volume Two of the Feasibility Study. The following options were studied for delivering the project vision, generating additional value, while retaining as much of the existing building as possible: • Major Refurbishment • Retention and Partial Extension (Max Retention) • Retention and Extension (“Full” Retention) • Partial Retention and Extension (Disassemble and Reuse) Feasibility Study Volume Three – Retain consecutive slabs (office) Options for Retention and Extension – Retain consecutive slabs (office and lab-enabled) – Retain interstitial slabs (office) December 2024 – Retain interstitial slabs (office and lab-enabled) – Retain the core • New Build.
EUSTON TOWER
RETAIN INTERSITIAL (OFFICE)
Three Feasibility Study Volumes: Assessing the Existing Building Pathways for Alternative Uses Options for Retention and Extension
Whole Life-cycle Carbon Assessments (WLCAs) were conducted for selected options with varying degrees of existing building retention (refer to summary overleaf). For each option, these assessments estimated the total carbon emissions (considering deconstruction, construction, and operation of the buildings) anticipated to be emitted over the building’s lifetime. The Retain the Core option has the lowest estimated whole life-cycle carbon emissions, when compared with the other options that resolve the floor to floor height issues previously described. This is in spite of the Retain the Core Option retaining 31% (by volume) of the existing structure compared to 42% (by volume) for the Retain Interstitial Slabs option.
Daylighting levels were assessed, and it was shown that the areas of well-daylit space reduce materially when the size of the floor is extended, even by a small amount. The reduction in well-daylit space is alleviated by increasing the floor to floor height (height between storeys). Increasing the existing floor to floor height to deliver more well-daylit space is necessary to create the high quality spaces that are attractive to the large tenants, who are essential to a successful letting strategy for a building of this scale, and to deliver on the environment the Knowledge Quarter is seeking to foster.
Figure 1.9 Diagrammatic section of Retain the Core which is the preferred option
19
Max Retention
Euston Tower - Feasibility Study Volume Zero: Summary of the Feasibility Study
“FULL” RETENTION
RETENTION AND EXTENSION "Full" Retention
Retain & Refurbish
PARTIAL RETENTION EXTENSION
NEW BUILD
Disassemble & Reuse Retain & Refurbish
Central core retained
PARTIAL RETENTION AND EXTENSION DISASSEMBLE AND REUSE
EXISTING
Retain Consecutive Slabs (Office) Retain Consecutive Slabs (Office and Lab) Retain Interstitial Slabs (Office) Retain Interstitial Slabs (Office and Lab) Retain the Core
New Build
Demolish & Recycle
Foundation retained
Most Deconstruction
Selected for Whole Life-cycle Carbon Assessment (WLCA)
Figure 1.10 Overview of options studied
Euston Tower - Feasibility Study Volume Zero: Summary of the Feasibility Study
MAX RETENTION
"FULL" RETENTION
The analysis/ sustainability process xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
NEW BUILD
NEW BUILD
All slabs removed and new slabs added
Existing structural elements New floor slabs
RETENTION AND PARTIAL EXTENSION
Retain & Refurbish
On balance, the Retain the Core option is identified to be preferable. This is because it offers the best balance of structural retention, quality, flexibility (it does not bake in many of the limitations of the existing building), and adaptability (to different users and uses). And it does so with a whole life-cycle carbon position that is the lowest of the options that deliver the quality of space which is necessary for the redevelopment of Euston Tower to be successful.
For each option a thorough technical and design assessment was undertaken. The assessments considered: how much of the existing building could be retained (in terms of material and carbon emissions), the quality of the RETAIN INTERSITIAL (OFFICE+LAB) RETAIN THE CORE resulting floor layouts (it has to be attractive to a modern user), future flexibility and adaptability (the tower must be fit for the future), and health & safety (it must be buildable in the RETAIN THE CORE (PREFERRED OPTION) safest way possible).
Shown not to be feasible in Feasibility Volumes One and Two
Retain & Retrofit
MAX RETENTION
Extended Floors
EUSTON TOWER
MAJOR REFURBISHMENT
20
RETAIN EVERY 2ND
[footer]
268
[footer]
269
RETAIN CONSECUTIVE (OFFICE)
RETAIN CONSECUTIVE (OFFICE+LAB)
RETAIN INTERSITIAL (OFFIC