A city is never finished
Maja Nesdale, of Arcadis IBI, reflected that some of today’s attitudes do compare unfavorably. “Even 100 years ago, no one would have thought that you made something for it not to last. We see these durable buildings all around us in places like Manchester. The ones that can be converted offer us something potentially new and exciting. For whatever reason, somewhere along that journey, perhaps 40 years ago, we lost that and decided that buildings should only last about 25 years.”
From a development appraisal point of view, Dan Hyde, MEPC development director, pointed out balances can be achieved, short-termism avoided, and the future carefully considered. “For No.4 Angel Square, and all the buildings at NOMA that will follow it, we have given a great deal of thought to how they will stand the test of time.”
The culture within the built environment did morph into something that was all about a fast-moving society, with a demand for all things new and shiny, a throw-away economy.I like to think that we are moving back to the idea of ‘buy it once, buy it well.
He cited the marketing suite in which the meeting was taking place, known as the NOMA Pavilion, as a simple and practical representation of sustainable and adaptable thinking. The structure, a single story, cross-laminated timber design is fully demountable and BREEAM Outstanding. The building can be repurposed and has a life span of at least 30 years. Much of it can be recycled whenever it reaches the end of its lifespan.
Dan contrasted the thinking behind the Pavilion with the more common approach that would see five or more portable cabins bolted together, “cut out, made it look shiny…and when you come to move the cabin a couple of years, falls to bits and ends up in a landfill.” The MEPC approach pays back over time. “We’re going to use the Pavilion for 10 years at NOMA and be able to deconstruct and reconstruct it as we move around the NOMA sites. And at the end of it, we can repurpose the building either for community use or we can take it elsewhere in the country.”
Alistair Lambert, at WSP, agreed that consumers may now want buildings and systems to last longer. “We’re getting clients who say they want 25 years’ minimum for the systems we put in – and they are showing a longer-term vision beyond just having the new shiny building.”
From a contractor’s point of view, futureproofing any new building starts with early engagement to ensure the design is adaptable and allows for reconfiguration at some point.
It also allows for a more sustainable response. “The embodied carbon is one consideration at the outset, making sure you get the most efficient building from a carbon perspective, but operational carbon is an increasingly important part of futureproofing," said Richard Potts, Morgan Sindall Construction. "A lot of developers and occupiers are really focused on operational carbon. That can also influence any building’s potential for repurposing. Depending what type of plant and M&E that you’re putting in the building, that may potentially restrict what you can do in the future.”
The early design stages are a critical window. That’s where you can make the right decisions and achieve some on-going flexibility.”
From a structural engineer’s perspective, Richard Dowdall of Civic Engineers talked about upcycling and downcycling materials. “It’s very much an in-vogue topic. There are numerous ways to retrofit buildings.
For instance, there’s a lot of interest in repurposing steel which has been removed from other projects/buildings. Something we have recently successfully done on a project at 318 Oxford Street in London. Steel frame buildings are generally a set of component parts and something that can be readily demountable.” He contrasted this concept with the carbon-intensive approach of demolishing the steel, melting it down and reformatting it back into something that it was originally.
“There’s a swing towards asking, what can we repurpose?” he said. “Some of that is upcycling the material. And sometimes it’s down cycling and using it for less critical uses. Maybe it’s used in less architecturally or structurally sensitive areas such as the rear of the building or smaller spans. Or it might also be appropriate bring [the material] into the forefront of the building and create a character, a bit of a showcase, often difficult to create with new build structures.”
Abbie Romano, of the Manufacturing Technology Centre, emphasised how manufacturing processes have a critical role in “how we design in a better way”, considering at the outset how building components can be made for disassembly.
At the MTC’s centre in Coventry, the organisation has created test beds in a range of digital, indoor and outdoor buildings. They allow contractors to de-risk decision making over new components, installation methodologies and processes. It allows for ideas to be tried out and “if they fail, they fail fast, so you don’t waste a lot of money on development,” she said.
The MTC was also exploring better options for mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) – and, in particular, a consistency of approach that would drive down costs in health and education buildings. The MTC has worked with the Department for Health, for instance, on reducing the cost of buildings and speeding up dealing with a maintenance backlog.
“What happens if, in every hospital corridor, every bit of everything is always in the same place, so there’s consistency across the board?” she asked. “It means it’s easier if there is any maintenance, or if the space needs to change. It means that the rooms branching off from the corridor can be anything. There is some design redundancy in the corridor, but building in flexibility allows for a change of use.”
For the Department of Education, the MTC has been looking at futureproofing through volumetric and panelised systems, with steel and homegrown engineered timber used together. When designing a school, allowing for the potential of disassembly in the future made a great deal of sense, making it easier to adapt if needs or uses have to change. “Your design phase is more expensive, but you’ve designed it once. If you need 20 schools moving forward, you’ve already got your adaptable design set in place, one that’s flexible, and repetitive.”
Simon Arnott, of Morgan Sindall Construction, reflected on the challenges the Department of Education has faced so far in making a commoditised approach deliver benefits. “The logic of design for reuse and disassemble is powerful, but most schools are still designed differently. There is a lot of work to do around making reconfiguration in education buildings a commonplace reality,” he said.
Repurposing university buildings comes with its own unique challenges. Helen Cutts, of UCLan, said that historically new has been seen as ‘the gold standard’ because that’s what universities have been doing for years – “creating new, buildings, sometimes zero carbon, sometimes not.”
The climate agenda, the pandemic and the energy crisis have all pushed estates up the agenda, she said. Questions such as the shared use of faculty buildings have become more pressing, and solutions are being sought to address the major challenges such as operating without gas boilers. As the university’s head of sustainability, she also stressed the need for flexibility as a means of futureproofing.
We are going to have to adapt to a warmer climate by 2050. We also must be ready to adapt to the changing needs of the university. When looking at repurposing some of the older buildings on our estate, it’s harder.There might be examples that require a great deal of investment to bring a standard that would achieve all our goals.
