ReCreate project - Recreate

November 27, 2025
Kjartan-Gudmundsson-KTH-2.png

Kjartan Gudmundsson, KTH

In the ReCreate project, we are working towards circular construction with a focus on the deconstruction and reuse of precast concrete elements. This is a striving for more sustainable practices with reduced carbon emissions and energy use while minimizing waste and preserving value. One challenge is to determine the condition and properties of prefabricated concrete elements, especially when we do not have the full history of the elements and sometimes even lack documentation. Standardized quality-assurance methods are therefore valuable to ensure that every reused component is evaluated for aspects such as structural integrity, durability, and safety, and in a manner that provides consistency across projects. Standardized methods also help engineers compare results, make it clearer how to meet regulatory requirements, and help us build confidence in reuse as a sustainable and technically sound practice.

Arlind and I have had the pleasure of participating in the development of a standard for the reuse of precast concrete elements with emphasis on methods for quality assurance and service-life calculations. This work, led by Jan Suchorzewski from RISE, is concerned with requirements regarding function, load-bearing capacity and durability. One of the main motivations is that we do not currently have a European standard for the reuse of prefabricated concrete elements since existing standards are only applicable for new prefabricated elements. While the new standard will draw on the Norwegian standard “Hollow Core Slabs for reuse”, it can also be used for other types of prefabricated concrete elements. The standard will provide requirements for the testing of material properties and assessment of the condition of prefabricated concrete elements. It will also provide requirements for the analysis of the remaining service life of concrete elements.

Measurement of carbonation depth of a concrete core

The element types include HDF floor slabs and massive slabs, beams and columns, TT slabs, walls, stairs and massive slab elements. In this upcoming standard, the evaluation process will include strength, load carrying capacity, durability and service life and applicability. In short, the quality assurance process consists of four steps: the analysis of technical documentation, ocular inspection and non-destructive testing, destructive testing of drill cores and service life analysis. The standard will also refer to test methods as well as the sample sizes for testing. Altogether, making reuse more manageable and thereby contributing to sustainable construction.

Concrete elements reused in the H22 pilot project


November 26, 2025
Jukka-Lahdensivu-interview-1.png

In this interview, we are speaking to Jukka Lahdensivu from Tampere University, whose work lies in WP4 in the ReCreate project. WP4 is focusing on new safety standards for reusing precast concrete components to promote sustainable construction practices. It captures the technical challenges and the practical goals of balancing safety, regulatory standards, and sustainability in the reuse of materials.

Can you explain the primary motivation behind creating a new quality management process for deconstructed precast concrete components?

Jukka: The primary motivation, in my view, is to demonstrate to customers and authorities that reclaimed components can be safely repurposed. It’s essential to ensure these elements meet safety standards when reused, and that’s why we’ve developed this process to verify their viability. We’re actively studying various aspects of these materials to ensure reliability.

How does this process differ from existing practices for virgin materials?

Jukka: There are quite a few similarities. In a factory setting, you test the raw materials, like cement and aggregates, before creating concrete and verifying it meets quality standards. However, for deconstructed materials, we’re testing the structure itself, often on-site, which is a big departure from standard practice with new materials. New components are generally tested during manufacturing, but here, the focus is on validating reclaimed components in their current state.

How challenging was it to integrate the investigation of harmful substances into the pre-deconstruction audit? What obstacles did you encounter in developing a standardized procedure for this?

Jukka: It wasn’t particularly difficult, especially since building renovations often require these studies before demolition. Finland, in particular, has a heightened awareness of harmful substances, likely because of extensive media coverage and prior issues with building materials. We’ve taken a thorough approach here, often exceeding regulatory requirements to ensure safety.

So, you would say people in Finland are more aware of these substances?

Jukka: Probably. It’s discussed frequently in the media, and we’ve faced issues in some newer buildings due to materials being enclosed prematurely. These problems have led to a deeper understanding and greater caution regarding harmful substances.

Work Package 4 focuses on ensuring reusable elements meet material and structural standards. Can you describe the testing process for these elements and their role in maintaining safety?

Jukka: We conduct tests on material properties before deconstruction to confirm the elements can be reused safely in new projects. This includes taking core samples for compression strength testing, measuring concrete cover depth over reinforcement, and conducting full-scale tests on beams and hollow-core slabs in the lab. These tests align with existing standards, ensuring consistency.

What are the key differences between assessing deconstructed versus newly manufactured components?

Jukka: With new concrete structures, we know the exact composition of materials. We need to analyse the concrete strength, reinforcement type, and other specifics for existing buildings. This lack of prior knowledge is the main difference when evaluating reused materials.

In this work package, you mention variability in material properties due to inhomogeneity. How do you manage these variations during testing?

Jukka: We conduct multiple parallel tests to gather a distribution of results. This approach is similar to testing new materials, but in a factory setting, components are consistently produced. With reclaimed materials, we often have only a few components to test, which means sample sizes differ from typical factory conditions.

Could you elaborate on potential challenges, such as deterioration, during deconstruction, transportation, or storage?

Jukka: We detected most deterioration, like cracking, in hollow-core slabs after deconstruction. These cracks weren’t visible in the building but appeared after detachment, likely due to the removal process. In Finland, we’ve also had cases where water entered hollow-core slabs, froze, and caused cracking. We had about six slabs damaged this way. When we removed the levelling on top of these slabs, accidental holes were created in the slab decks, though this was rare. In storage, however, we didn’t encounter any issues.

How do you decide on the reuse of these cracked components?

Jukka: It depends on the severity of the cracks. Small cracks with a width of 0.1-0.2 mm are often acceptable for reuse. Larger cracks, 0.3-0.5 mm or wider, need further assessment. We’ve created guidelines for visual assessment in the factory, and if significant cracking is found, a construction designer reviews it to decide on further action.

What are the most significant technical or regulatory hurdles in obtaining approval from authorities for reused components, and how might these be addressed in the future?

Jukka: The main hurdle is that authorities aren’t yet familiar with the requirements for approving reused components. We’re the first to bring this approach forward, so they’re unsure what documentation and standards to ask for. We’ve been holding meetings with local authorities in Tampere to explain our processes and the documentation we provide. This helps reassure them that we’re following a rigorous process to ensure the safety and usability of these reused components.

Best of luck with your upcoming meetings. Now, as we wrap up, what impact do you hope this work package will have on the construction industry’s approach to reuse and sustainability?

Jukka: Our goal is to develop a process that’s robust but not overly burdensome. Striking this balance is crucial to encourage widespread adoption of reused materials in construction.

Lastly, what inspired you personally to focus on sustainable construction and the reuse of materials?

Jukka: My research career has centered on the durability of structures—how they degrade and what measures can prevent damage. At our university, we’re also focused on adapting construction practices to climate change. While some researchers study climate change directly, we’re more interested in its impact on the built environment. Reusing materials is an important part of this, as it allows us to avoid new resource extraction and reduce environmental impacts, contributing to a more sustainable future.


November 25, 2025
Finland-ReCreate.png

Inari Weijo, Competence Lead, Transformation, Ramboll Finland Oy; Antti Lantta, Production Manager, Umacon Oy; Juha Rämö, Technology director, Consolis Parma

In the ReCreate project’s Finnish cluster, the first steps towards commercial projects have been taken. The research project has thus achieved the goal set for it to make the reuse of precast concrete elements possible on market terms. The partnerships formed in the ReCreate project enabled the first commercial reuse of hollow-core slabs in Finland in the spring of 2025.

The first significant factor has been the creation of a reliable and appropriate quality assurance process for the industry. The process developed in the ReCreate project and piloted in practice has removed concern from the industry about whether the reuse of concrete elements is even possible. After that, the doubt has focused more on the economic conditions.

Another significant factor was the publication of the first mini-pilot of the research project in Härmälänranta, Tampere, where 24 hollow-core slabs were reused in the intermediate floor of a residential building. The project was successfully reported, and the message was important to the contractors, as the construction crew felt that the installation was ‘similar to that of new elements’. Uncertainty about delivery times and abnormalities in installation are the things that make contractors concerned. The successful pilot caused strong interest and buzz in the market. Within about a month of the first pilot, ReCreate’s project partner, Consolis Parma, a supplier of precast concrete elements, received an inquiry about reclaimed hollow-core slabs. At the same time, another project partner, Umacon, acting as a demolition contractor, had a new demolition site, from which they identified potential hollow-core slabs for deconstruction and reuse. Umacon asked the cluster partner Ramboll, who acted as a structural engineering expert, for help to survey suitable slabs for deconstruction. Discussion was started in this network to investigate the potential for reuse from economic, technical and scheduling perspectives.

The donor building for the project was the Suutarila community centre in Helsinki. The building had been built in 1981 and was slated for demolition, as a significantly larger school building was built in its place. Ramboll provided expert services for Umacon during the preparation of the deconstruction. Consolis Parma was also monitoring the dismantling process to ensure the quality of process. The progress of the project was agreed on with a low threshold and on a fast schedule among the close-knit networks. In this project, it was decided to detach the hollow-core slabs from the roof structure to avoid the costs of possible screed removal. Ramboll made structural deconstruction design for the site in March 2025. The demolition of the roof structures began in April, and detachment of hollow core slabs started in early May, according to the original schedule.

The hollow-core slabs, a total of 64 pieces, were transported to Consolis Parma’s Nummela factory, where the refurbishment of the elements could begin. At this point, Consolis Parma used Ramboll’s help determine suitable refurbishment measures and to evidence the technical reusability of the hollow-core slabs for building authorities. Based on the tests done in the factory, the hollow-core slabs fulfilled the requirements clearly. The slabs were cleaned, cut to a suitable length, and necessary holes and fittings were made. Also, thermal insulation was added. The refurbishment was completed during May and June. Slabs were installed at the end of June in the Melkinlaituri comprehensive school and daycare centre building under construction in Jätkäsaari neighbourhood, Helsinki.

The commercial project validated how the process for determining reusability in accordance with the ReCreate project works in a real-life project with a tight schedule. The experiences were very encouraging and strengthened the perceptions formed in the research project about the most important steps that should be invested in. These include:

  • In addition to technical matters, the pre-deconstruction audit should focus on streamlining the deconstruction work and the operation of the deconstruction site.
  • Planning the testing during the process so that sufficient information is obtained already in the pre-deconstruction audit phase. It is essential to know the quality of components in advance so that the investment into deconstruction will not be wasted.
  • Logistics and refurbishment in the factory are prepared so that the factory workflow is continuous and resembles manufacturing processes. Planning the logistics of hollow-core slabs and planning their tagging so that information about the origin of the slabs is maintained throughout the process.

Umacon’s deconstruction workers detaching a hollow-core slab in May. (Photo Inari Weijo, Ramboll Finland Oy)

Left: detached hollow-core slabs in the factory (Photo: Juha Rämö, Consolis Parma). Right: refurbished, insulated hollow-core slabs ready to be transported to the new construction site (Photo: Inari Weijo, Ramboll Finland Oy)

Installation of reused hollow-core slabs in Jätkäsaari, Helsinki. (Photo: Inari Weijo, Ramboll Finland Oy)

 


October 10, 2025
IMG_1129-1280x960.jpeg

The Dutch ReCreate Country Cluster has reached an important milestone with the completion of a full-scale mock-up at the Lagemaat site in Heerde (NL).

This two-layer structure, built from precast concrete elements recovered from the deconstructed Prinsenhof building, demonstrates the practical potential of reusing building components in new construction. Beyond serving as a visible symbol of progress, the mock-up embodies ReCreate’s commitment to circular construction and reducing environmental impact.

Once completed, the structure became a hands-on testbed for the Dutch pilot project within ReCreate. Through its testing phase, the team gathered valuable insights and learnings that are now shaping the next steps toward pilot implementation.

Working directly with reused concrete elements, the team was able to:
✅ Identify and address dimensional deviations
✅ Test various connection details
✅ Gain hands-on experience essential for future applications

These findings are not only improving the design and assembly process for the upcoming pilot but also helping refine methodologies that can make circular construction more efficient and scalable.

A big thank you to everyone involved for their dedication, collaboration, and innovative spirit driving this progress!


October 3, 2025
Dizajn-bez-naslova-2025-10-01T155234.799.png

A week and a half after Tampere welcomed the global circularity community, the conversations from Circularity in the Built Environment 2025 (CiBEn 2025) are still echoing—across labs, practices, city offices, and studios. Over three days (16–18 September 2025), the conference created room for debate and generous exchange on how circular principles can reshape the built environment.

At the heart of the event was Prof. Satu Huuhka of Tampere University—conference chair and editor of the open-access proceedings—who steered the programme and pulled together a genuinely cross-disciplinary community.

Keynotes that framed the conversation

Jennifer Minner (Cornell University) opened the keynote series by exploring “Hope in circulation: Places where circularity and reuse build community and spark innovation.” Her perspective connected policy, planning, and community practice—showing how reuse can strengthen local ecosystems and spark new forms of collaboration.

Lionel Devlieger (Ghent University; co-founder of Rotor) took a long view with “On the use of studying history in our aspiration to a more circular building economy.” By reading today’s challenges through historical reuse practices, he invited the audience to see circularity not as a trend but as a lineage we can learn from.

Maud Lanau (Chalmers University of Technology) closed the trio with “The built environment as a living system: Towards resource- and carbon-efficient cities.” Her systems approach—grounded in material stock analysis—offered concrete ways to map resources and identify leverage points for urban transitions.

Together, these talks threaded community, history, and systems thinking—three lenses that kept recurring in sessions and hallway conversations throughout the week.

Sharing knowledge beyond Tampere

The conference proceedings are now available in Open Access—capturing the richness of contributions across themes from deconstruction and logistics to policy and business models. They’re a useful starting point for anyone wanting to revisit a session or dive into the field’s latest work. [Read the proceedings on Zenodo.]

In the coming weeks, interviews and video highlights from CiBEn 2025 will be published on ReCreate’s channels, extending the life of the discussions and making them accessible to a wider audience.

Looking ahead

The next edition of CiBEn is slated for September 2027 at Guangxi University, China, with Prof. Chen Zheng as conference chair. More details will follow, but the direction is clear: the conversation continues, and the community keeps growing.


September 10, 2025
Paul-Jonker-Hoffren.png

Paul Jonker-Hoffrén, Tampere University

Reuse of prefabricated concrete elements requires technical solutions and specialist knowledge of structural engineers and deconstruction firms, among others. In the ReCreate project, we have shown that on a technical level, reuse is entirely feasible. For this, we have developed knowledge and practices that can be scaled up. However, scaling up reuse requires more than technical solutions. In Deliverable 8.2, we discuss various legal issues to consider, based on the context of the ReCreate countries’ pilots. To scale up reuse, it is important to consider policies and development plans that go beyond single real estate units.

In the article Policy tensions in demolition: Dutch social housing and circularity, I have tried to unearth issues of social acceptability and policy support around demolition and circularity. As a case study, I used the city of Rotterdam and its housing and city reconstruction policies, which intersect with the policies and legal norms for circular construction as described in Deliverable 8.2. These specific norms always exist in a broader context of national and local policies. For the goal of scaling up reuse, it is therefore important to understand how the technological solutions of circular construction fit with policy goals. Furthermore, for the social acceptability of reuse, it is important to assess the socio-economic impact of these policies.

The context of the study is the Rotterdam housing policy, which aims to reduce social housing in the city. The official rationale is a (contested) estimate that there is an oversupply of social housing in many areas. These areas also feature above-average unemployment, crime, substance abuse, etc. An intended effect of this policy is the so-called “social mix” – that social problems would decline when areas have a more diverse socio-economic make-up. This policy idea has nonetheless been thoroughly debunked as ineffective. The reduction of social housing would happen through the demolition of buildings that are, in many cases, from the point of view of the housing corporations, too expensive to renovate. The main reason given is the technical obsoleteness of the housing. This can be an acceptable reason for demolition, but it turns out the estimate of oversupply of affordable housing is dubious. This background reduces this type of housing a bad policy choice with detrimental effects for the weakest in society, because users of social housing are intentionally replaced by more wealthy renters.

The circular economy policy of Rotterdam has been quite ambitious, with attention to various materials and processes in which the city’s citizens have been actively involved. However, these have been mostly consumer-based processes, although housing corporations, which produce and manage social housing, have their own “performance agreements” with the City regarding sustainability and circularity issues. Circular processes around construction products and materials have been the subject of city-sponsored studies, with the primary aim of assessing material flows and sketching feasible use cases. The material flows and prospects for urban mining turn out to be based on the plans of demolition of (mostly social) housing until 2030. The implication is that Rotterdam’s circular economy policy regarding construction & demolition waste is largely predicated on demolition plans that are based on unreliable calculations of housing stock. This doesn’t appear to be planned this way, though. But it raises questions of policy-making quality and stakeholder involvement.

Aside from the technical question of the usability of these construction materials in new buildings, the case of Rotterdam housing policy suggests that the reuse of materials can be potentially politically complicated. A policy issue can be easily envisioned: what should harvested materials be used for, and by whom? It can also be seen that too obvious a connection between demolition of social housing and circular economy projects may not be conducive to increasing social acceptability. Circular economy processes have different significance for different stakeholders. Therefore, local governments should practice due diligence regarding stakeholder involvement and negative externalities in urban renewal policies.


September 8, 2025
ReCreate-at-CiBEn-2025.png

The international conference Circularity in the Built Environment (CiBEn 2025) will take place in Tampere, Finland, from 16–18 September, bringing together leading voices in research, policy, and practice around circular construction. ReCreate will have a strong presence throughout the programme, with more than 20 presentations spanning across themes such as deconstruction, quality management, design, logistics, and policy.

The sessions highlight the breadth of expertise within the project and demonstrate how the reuse of precast concrete elements can transform the construction sector.

Programme highlights

 


Tuesday, 16 September

  • 10:00–11:00Opening address: ReCreate coordinator Satu Huuhka will set the stage for the conference.

  • 13:00–14:50 (Urban mining 1, Room Duetto 2)José Hernández Vargas will present an integrated GIS and BIM approach for mapping Sweden’s precast building stock.

  • 15:20–17:15 – Parallel sessions featuring ReCreate research:

    • Assessment 1 (Duetto 1): Emmi Salmio on the environmental benefits of reusing hollow-core slabs.

    • Quality management 1 (Duetto 2): Inari Weijo and Niko Kotkavuo on condition investigation and the history of hollow-core slabs in Finland.

    • Policy & social 1 (Riffi): Paul Jonker-Hoffrén on decision-making moments in circular construction, and Tove Malmqvist on hazardous substances in reused concrete.

 


Wednesday, 17 September

  • 09:00–11:10 (Design 2, Duetto 2) – A strong ReCreate panel on reuse-driven design, including Patrick Teuffel, Simon Wijte, and Marcel Vullings. Topics range from AI-supported design tools to the role of databases in successful reuse.

  • 13:10–15:20

    • Value chains 1 (Duetto 1): Arlind Dervishaj on smart logistics for reuse.

    • Design 3 (Riffi): Christoph Henschel on combining reused precast elements with other materials for flexible design.

  • 15:50–18:00

    • Assessment 3 (Duetto 1): Ahmad Al-Najjar on the availability and carbon reduction potential of reclaimed elements in Sweden.

    • Decommissioning (Duetto 2): Jukka Lahdensivu and Thijs Lambrechts on evaluating and reconnecting deconstructed precast elements.

 


Thursday, 18 September

  • 09:00–10:50 (Products, Duetto 1)Agnese Scalbi and Arlind Dervishaj will present innovative mechanical systems and reconditioning techniques for reusable precast elements.

  • 12:50–14:20

    • Quality management 3 (Duetto 1): Benjamin Matthews and Aapo Räsänen on deriving design values and best practices for reclaimed elements.

    • Design 4 (Duetto 2): Helena Westerlind on adaptive architectural transformations.

  • 14:50–16:15

    • Value chains 2 (Duetto 1): José Hernández Vargas on structured databases of reusable precast elements.

 


The wide scope of ReCreate’s contributions demonstrates the project’s leadership in advancing research and practice on reuse of precast concrete elements. From technical innovations to policy frameworks, these presentations will provide valuable insights for stakeholders across the built environment.


August 29, 2025
Jakob-Fischer-1-1280x670.png

Jakob Fischer, Brandenburg University of Technology

The pilot project ‘Youth Centre at Sternentor’ in Hohenmölsen is entering the next important phase of the Recreate project. The construction project with dismantled and reusable concrete elements, initiated by the mayor Andy Haugk (town of Hohenmölsen, state of  Saxony-Anhalt), designed by architect Christoph Henschel and scientifically supervised and managed by project leader Prof. Angelika Mettke (Department of Structural Recycling, BTU Cottbus Senftenberg), was put out to tender EU-wide for the project planning.


 

This article is intended to show that a tender with reusable reinforced concrete elements does not differ significantly from business-as-usual tendering procedures. This is a very important finding for the acceptance and spread of reuse projects in the future.

 


 

Introduction

The overarching aim of ReCreate is to realise a pilot project in each of the four partner countries (Finland, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands), i.e. a building made from dismantled and reused concrete elements. Tasks such as acquiring the donor building, analysing the used concrete elements, logistics and transport of the elements, as well as planning the pilot project are implemented in an interdisciplinary manner in the four countries by the respective industrial partners and the scientific teams at the respective universities. This article describes one of the final steps for the German pilot project, which ultimately leads to the realised construction project. This involves the invitation to tender for the realisation of all planning and construction services in accordance with HOAI (Honorarordnung für Architekten und Ingenieure; translation: “Schedule of Services and Fees for Architects and Engineers).

During the course of ReCreate, several pre-drafts and a final design for the Hohenmölsen youth centre have already been created. HOAI-service phases 1-9:

1. basic evaluation
2. preliminary planning
3. design planning
4. approval planning
5. implementation planning
6. preparation of award of contract
7. participation in the award of contract
8. project supervision – construction supervision and documentation
9. project management

 

Together with the first structural parameters and calculations, both HOAI-service phase 1 (basic evaluation) and HOAI-service phase 2 (preliminary planning), could be completed through the ReCreate project. Accordingly, the tender for construction and planning services only had to be considered from HOAI-service phase 3 (design planning) and upwards.

However, before the tendering and awarding of planning and construction services could take place, the town of Hohenmölsen had to guarantee the financing of the youth centre. Through intensive application processes, the required investment sum of around €2.81 million was reserved via the Just Transition Fund (New European Bauhaus programme) in March 2025. However, before the final funding decision is issued, the complete design planning (service phase 3) must be submitted and it must be ensured that the entire construction project can be completed by mid-2027.

The funds from the ReCreate budget are not released as direct investments for the construction of the pilot projects; only construction and planning services that can be directly and exclusively justified by the additional costs of reuse could be financed via ReCreate.


 

Tender preparation

Once the funding through the JFT had been reserved, the law firm DAGEFÖRDE was commissioned to draw up the necessary tender documents in consultation with the town of Hohenmölsen and prepare them so that they could be published via an official tender platform (in this case: TED). Publication took place on 19th June 2025 and was open to the public for 4 weeks until 18th July 2025. The services were awarded as an EU-wide negotiated procedure with a call for competition in accordance with Section 119 (5) of the Act against Restraints of Competition (GWBGesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen) and Section 17 of the Public Procurement Ordinance (VgVVergabeverordnung).

The contents and special features of the tender documents – consisting of parts A to D – are described below with regard to reuse aspects. Episode 1 of this blog series explains the procedural conditions (Part A). The specifications (Part B) and the catalogue of questions for bidders in the tender documents will follow in Part 2.

Part A – Procedural Conditions
Part B – Project Specifications
Part C – Architects and engineer contract – Object planning services
Part D – Application for participation

 


 

Procedural Conditions (Part A)

Part A of the tender documents contains, among other things, information about the parties involved in the award process, general framework conditions, the procedure, as well as requirements and eligibility criteria for the participants in the competition. In the case of more than four participants, eligibility and Selection criteria were formulated, which will be explained in more detail later. If the participants fulfil the eligibility criteria, they are invited to submit offers and become bidders.

As mentioned at the beginning, the tender documents were available for public inspection and download for four weeks. In the first 21 days after publication, participants were able to submit objections, questions or even complaints regarding the content or form of the tender documents in the event of ambiguities or contradictions. This option was used several times and is included in the second part of this blog under ‘Bidder question catalogue’.

The award procedure described here is a so-called 2-stage award procedure. This means that there is first a phase with a public competition (the 4 weeks mentioned above) and then a bidding phase.

In the first phase, no tenders are submitted, only the Proof of Suitability (see next section). In the second phase, suitable participants and a maximum of four participants are invited by the procurer (City of Hohenmölsen) to submit an initial bid. If more than four participants have expressed an interest in the competition and fulfil the eligibility criteria, only the four participants with the highest scores will be invited to submit an initial bid in accordance with the selection criteria (see below). After submission of the initial bid, the city will invite the bidders to so-called bidder meetings (scheduled for week 36 this year).

 


 

Suitability Criteria

The seven suitability criteria to be established and fulfilled by the company or the bidding consortium comprise so-called self-declarations, two of which have been assigned with minimum requirements (*):

 

At this point, it is important to mention that only the planning with precast reinforced concrete elements had to be carried out for the suitability for the object planning, but not the reuse of these. However, reuse becomes relevant in the next step if more than four participants are selected.

 


 

Selection Criteria

If participants can fulfil the seven self-declarations including the two minimum requirements, they move on to the next round, the bidding phase. However, if more than four bidders have taken part and fulfil the suitability criteria, a selection procedure follows in which a maximum of 1000 points can be achieved. These are calculated by adding up the following four selection criteria:


 

The term ‘reuse’ mentioned under the selection criterion is defined in the tender documents as follows:

“ ’Reuse’ means the utilisation of dismantled precast reinforced concrete elements from a donor building for the construction of another/new building.”

 


 

This definition and mentioning of the term ‘reuse’ in the tender documents is of great importance, as it avoids ambiguities and subsequent misunderstandings even before participation or submission of a tender.

The scores resulting from the eligibility and selection criteria determine whether the four participants with the highest total score are invited to submit an initial bid. The participants now become bidders.

As soon as the four bidders have submitted their initial offer, the so-called bidder interviews take place. Bidders can still be excluded at this stage. Once the bidder interviews have been completed, the bidders still in the competition are asked to submit a final offer. These offers undergo a final evaluation in accordance with the published award criteria. In the end, one bidder becomes the contractor and is awarded the contract to provide the building services for the ‘New construction of the Sternentor youth and leisure centre’ project. The Architect and engineer contract for object planning services (Part C) can therefore be signed.

As soon as this decision has been made (probably at the beginning/mid-October 2025), this blog series will be continued here on our homepage. Episode 2 will be published in the early Autumn with the specifications and the catalogue of bidder questions.

 


Eetu-Lehmusvaara-ReCreate.png

Eetu Lehmusvaara,
Project researcher, Multimedia Creative Specialist
Tampere University

I worked as a videographer for the Finnish deconstruction pilot during autumn 2023 and spring 2024. I filmed the pilot project—a seven-storey office building located in Tampere—on multiple occasions during the autumn, which helped me realize the importance of documenting the stories of construction sites.

Consumers and users play an important role in the transition from a linear economy to a circular one. It challenges us to rethink what we value and what we don’t. And to value something, we need to understand it. Understanding requires experiences, and this is where videography can come into play.

The role of a documentary videographer is not only to show how things are but also to help people experience them. This is why seeing is not enough, emotions play a critical role in how we understand the world.

The Craft of Deconstruction

The craftsmanship behind deconstruction is something easily overlooked. To a passerby, a deconstruction site might look like any other building project. Cranes lift slabs, pillars, and beams, and workers move among various tasks.

But with a closer look, something different becomes apparent: Rather than building something new, the structure is being taken apart. The slabs, pillars, and columns are carefully removed and stacked like valuable resources, to be reused rather than discarded like waste.

When I first walked past the site, the loud but shallow clinks of hammers mixed with the high-pitched screeching of saws echoed through the building. These sounds were familiar from my previous visits to construction sites— but something about them felt different this time. I wasn’t sure what to expect.  How would the workers perceive me? Would they be willing to be filmed? Were they proud of their work, or indifferent to it?

A moment of realization came a few weeks later. The workers were detaching an element from the building, as they had many times before. After about 30 minutes of effort, it became obvious that something wasn’t going smoothly. Seven men were gathered at one point on the building, all secured to the floor for safety, as they worked on the fourth story. One worker used a machine for extra leverage, others used circular saws and iron bars to free the element. The element was already attached to the crane, and the team was in constant communication with the crane operator. You could read the frustration on their faces, but their work remained precise and cooperative, as always.

Then it started to rain. I had to step away for cover, as did the managers who were observing the process. I waited under the stairwell for another 20 minutes, hoping to film the moment the element was finally lifted into the sky.

Sadly I missed the lift. My need to stay dry meant I missed the key moment of the lift. The construction workers, who didn’t have the luxury of stepping away, pushed through the difficulties and successfully removed the element—again.

Later, I realized the highlight wasn’t the lift itself. It was the story of skill and craftsmanship the workers demonstrated in making it happen.

Understanding Through Stories

To drive the shift toward circular construction, people need to see the work behind in it. We value historic buildings because they were hand-crafted, with all the imperfections that came with that. These structures tell stories, and their age gives them meaning.

The same goes for deconstruction. The knowledge and craftsmanship required to take buildings apart—carefully, responsibly, and with reuse in mind—is something people can value, once they understand it. This slow, demanding, yet environmentally positive work deserves recognition.

And for that, we need stories—compelling visuals and narratives that help us make sense of the world.

Hopefully, this short documentary can be one small contribution to a much larger shift.

 


Authors-Lauri-Alkki-Leena-Aarikka-Stenroos-Tampere-University.png

Introduction to the report: Actor ecosystems and critical actors in precast concrete reuse of the ReCreate project. The full report is available here.

Authors: Lauri Alkki & Leena Aarikka-Stenroos; Tampere University

The reuse of precast concrete elements is gaining momentum as a sustainable practice in the construction sector. But what does it take to make this happen? Harnessing reuse changes the process of construction as well involved companies’ and other stakeholders, and therefore it is crucial to understand who the relevant actors are and what roles in a circular construction project are putting reuse to use. A construction project reusing precast concrete elements requires collaborative contributions from multiple complementary actors that can be considered as an “actor ecosystem” of concrete element reuse. Based on our case study examining several concrete element reuse projects from the organization and management perspective, we can share some insights on this. Let’s dive into the tasks and key actors forming the actor setting and actor ecosystem enabling reuse, driving this innovative approach.

 

Key tasks, actors and their roles in concrete element reuse process

To successfully reuse precast concrete elements, a variety of tasks along the full reuse process must be conducted by the construction actors with learning and problem solving-oriented and collaborative mindset. Each individual task is crucial in ensuring that the process runs smoothly from deconstruction to the final construction of new building(s) from harvested elements. Next, we explain the key tasks of concrete element reuse and the main actors contributing to them:

  1. Planning the Deconstruction: This task focuses on planning the deconstruction (i.e., so-called reverse construction) implementation process and related logistical aspects, ensuring that it can be carried out safely and efficiently. In this task it is also essential to plan the necessary quality assurance actions that can be implemented already at the demolition site prior to deconstruction. In addition, when planning the deconstruction, it is valuable to take inventory of elements that can be detached to begin exploring their reuse potential. Key actors in this task are typically demolition companies and structural engineering companies planning the deconstruction, its implementation, and needed initial quality assurance actions as well as architect and structural engineering companies sketching the future usage of the potential detached elements.
  2. Deconstruction: The actual process of dismantling buildings and extracting reusable concrete elements falls under this task. It requires specialized skills and equipment to ensure that the elements are not damaged during removal. Demolition companies with dismantling capabilities, knowledge and tools are the primary actors here.
  3. Logistics: Managing the transportation and storage of deconstructed elements is essential to keep the process efficient. This task includes planning the logistics of moving elements from the deconstruction site to storage and then to the new construction site(s). Logistics companies and the actors operating at the deconstruction site (e.g., deconstruction companies) as well as the actors who are responsible for the intermediate storage (e.g., concrete element manufacturing companies) and the new site where the dismantled elements are going (e.g., construction companies) often handle this task. 
  4. Refurbishment, Quality Assurance, and Redesign: Once the elements are deconstructed, they need to be refurbished, quality checked and redesigned to fit into new architectural and structural plans in line with the client’s requirements and to ensure that the reused concrete elements meet all safety and structural standards. These tasks involve both creative and technical expertise to ensure that the elements are both functional and aesthetically safety to use such as building condition surveys already before deconstruction and after deconstruction testing the elements as well as refurbishing them to be ready to use. These tasks are closely related to the new building (partly) made from the detached and reused elements, since designers need to ensure that detached elements fit into new building designs and that necessary modifications and refurbishments can be carried out according to these designs. Manufacturing companies and structural engineering companies are most often responsible for the refurbishment and quality assurance processes, and architect and structural engineering companies are key actors in the redesigning processes with strong support from the construction company (and client(s)). 
  5. Reuse of the elements: Finally, the actual reuse of the deconstructed elements in new construction project(s). This implementation phase involves integrating the refurbished elements into new building designs at the construction site. At this task, it is essential to coordinate logistics and schedules regarding the factory refurbishment of reusable elements and the progress of the construction site so that the elements arrive at the site at the right time, ready for installation. Overall, however, installation is mostly carried out in the same way (possible minor differences in preparatory and finishing work depending on the details of the reusable elements), regardless of whether the element is new or reused. Construction companies play a key role in this task, as they are responsible for the operation and progress of the construction site.
  6. Permitting and Regulation: Navigating the regulatory landscape shaping how easy or difficult it is to use the reuse principle is crucial for the success of concrete reuse projects. This task involves obtaining the necessary permits (e.g., demolition and construction permits) and ensuring compliance with local regulations (e.g., whether dismantled elements are considered waste or not, and what procedures can or cannot be used to utilize them), in collaboration with the relevant public authority and department responsible in the current situation, as well as the actors applying for the required permits. Local authorities, such as cities and their various departments (e.g. the department responsible for granting permits, developing zoning or promoting circularity through plot donation and acquisition), play a pivotal role in enabling reuse. This is achieved in collaboration with the owners of the donor and new buildings, who are responsible for applying for permits.

 

Depending on the reuse project phase, the division of tasks and the actors involved can vary (see Figure 1 for an example). The capabilities of each actor, their ability to collaborate, and the overall industry setting in their respective countries influence how the tasks are distributed and how the actor ecosystem organizes along the project. Furthermore, data collection, analysis, modelling, usage and sharing is a critical factor affecting positively the preservation of element value: therefore, actors should collaborate and ensure jointly that data is monitored and harnessed throughout the reuse process to support planning and implementation of each phase and reach optimized projects. In this regard, it is essential to gather relevant data to enable reuse, store the data in a way that allows for easy transfer, and ensure that all relevant actors have access to it. It is also important that these actors have the capability to analyze the data to ensure the safe usage of reused elements. Thus, open data transfer and communication ensures that actors understand what each considers valuable in the reuse process, avoiding the destruction of another actor’s value.

Figure 1. Example of an actor ecosystem enabling precast concrete element reuse: key actors per each process phase, their tasks and collaboration. The example is from the Finnish reuse pilot project in Tampere region.

Conclusion: the power of collaboration

The successful reuse of precast concrete elements hinges on a well-coordinated actor ecosystem with complementary skilled and collaborative minded companies and experts. Each actor brings unique expertise and competences to the table, which is why actor settings cany vary a lot depending on the case. Collaboration and knowledge sharing are essential to enable and optimize all tasks and process phases, and thus to ensure that concrete elements can be reused effectively and sustainably. All in all, as we move towards more circular construction practices, the insights from these pilot projects provide examples to think about how you should organize when planning to reuse concrete elements and repurpose existing materials to create a more sustainable world, in collaboration with skilled, future-looking expert partners.

The published deliverable and more detailed pilot projects findings can be found on the ReCreate and the studies behind this blog are also openly available here and here.





EU FUNDING

“This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 958200”.

Follow us: