Adaptive Reuse v Net Zero
 |
| Barcelona Maritime Museum |
 |
| Toronto Royal Conservatory of Music |
Michael Stacey, a professor at the Bartlett School of Architecture, advocated that demolishing and starting new can be more carbon-efficient than retrofitting. Based on his research findings, he states:
“In most cases, reusing existing buildings saves between 4—46% of the carbon… If you convert a warehouse into a multi-occupancy residential building it uses 17% more carbon than a new build.”
With this being said, I understand that this debate works on a case by case basis, but would like to approach this on a general scale. I believe an effort should be made to adapt and reuse as many structures as possible. I love the combination of old and new; I think an intangible beauty exists in adaptive reuse projects. I’ve shared two projects that I believe possess this intangibility, both of which I’ve been lucky enough to visit.
I think it would be a shame if the profession were to make an all-encompassing shift to promote starting anew rather than reusing, in pursuit of all new net-zero buildings. So, I challenge the industry to figure out how to get the best of both worlds. How can we change our means and methods when approaching existing structures to best attain net-zero?
Article Link:
https://www.dezeen.com/2019/12/05/net-zero-carbon-talk-video/
This is a really important discussion Josh. The embedded energy of exiting buildings versus the technical dream of zero emissions. The latter somehow echoes the old technical certainties of early 20th century modern architects. Also, it ignores that the embedded energy cannot just be measured in Kwatts, but it also contains culture/memories/previous experiences...
ReplyDeleteI also agree that this is an important discussion. I would question Michael Stacey's stance on showing the numbers of how much a specific program within an adaptive reuse model would consume roughly "17% more carbon than a new build".
ReplyDeleteI feel as architect's it should be our drive to not allow a percentage like that exist as we continue pushing what we know as within the profession. I feel that the number that this individual is stating could easily improve year to year, but I also strongly feel that we would not get there without trying to improve what we know through real world applications.
I also would hate to feel like I am in Bladerunner when I visit places that have such rich culture!
Well I do believe that it is also a case by case issue, if an existing building/ portion of a building is very complex and will cause you to use methods that will on the long run need to be less environmentally friendly or require more carbon footprint than if we were to demolish then I think that decision should be made after a thorough study of both options.
ReplyDelete