Blog - Recreate

July 9, 2025

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.

by ReCreate project

July 4, 2025

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:

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.
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.
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.
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)).
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.
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.

by ReCreate project

June 12, 2025

Paul-Jonker-Hoffren-Tampere-University-–-kopija.png

Olli Vigren

KTH Royal Institute of Technology: Civil and Architectural Engineering

Stanford University: Center for Integrated Facility Engineering & Scandinavian Consortium for Organizational Research

Industry, scholarly, and policy interest in reusing concrete elements in construction has been on the rise. Reuse of concrete elements involves salvaging these elements from buildings condemned for demolition and reassembling them in new construction projects. This interest is largely driven by concrete’s significant contribution to global CO2 emissions, with reuse serving as an alternative strategy for reducing these emissions. There are ambitions to develop solutions that scale from pilot projects to industrial applications. Would you invest your own money in it?

Given these ambitions, there have been relatively few studies focused directly on economic feasibility. Previous research has mainly explored technical feasibility and value creation within supply chains and ecosystems. However, economic feasibility remains a significant barrier to widespread implementation. Economic feasibility generally means that a proposed solution is financially viable and cost-effective, ensuring that the benefits outweigh the costs.

Therefore, we at KTH developed a framework for analyzing the economic feasibility of concrete element reuse, presented in our research article titled “Assessing the Economic Boundary Conditions for Reusing Precast Concrete Elements in Construction.” The article is currently available by request: vigren@stanford.edu

The framework essentially considers three different value chains: standard demolition of an existing building, constructing a new building from reused concrete elements, and constructing a new building from virgin materials (Figure 1). Specifically, we ask:

Which economic factors influence building owners’ decisions to donate or sell concrete elements for reuse?
Which economic factors influence building buyers’ decisions to choose reuse over virgin materials?
Which economic factors influence the profitability of individual actors within the reuse supply chain and the supply chain as a whole?

These questions represent the key considerations within the industry regarding engagement in reuse activities. Building owners play a central role because they own the buildings and can therefore decide how they are demolished and what materials are used in new buildings.

Figure 1: Supply chain of reusing concrete elements.

We identify cost and profitability drivers and analyze key decisions through the lens of economic theory and cost management perspectives. Evidence suggests that owners of old buildings are likely to already have net positive incentives to pursue reuse activities over demolition. This is good news for reuse! However, these incentives are highly dependent on the country, specific context, and how costs are allocated within the value chain.

Buyers’ decisions regarding new buildings are highly context-dependent, as costs can vary significantly depending on the type of project and its organization. Key costs in concrete element reuse include deconstruction, refurbishment, storage, and transportation, while cost reduction drivers stem from savings on landfill fees, material costs, and production costs. Long-term profitability depends on economies of scale, new markets, and innovation.

Investments can already focus on the most promising opportunities, but systematic data and research on actors, costs, prices, markets, and regulatory impacts are prerequisites for informed investment decision-making. Lack of data and understanding causes uncertainty, which hampers long-term investments in reuse technologies and capacity, such as production facilities and warehouses. Can an investor expect the market for reused concrete elements to grow, and if so, when?

Finally, there is a broader need for economic feasibility studies related to circularity. Research has focused on concepts, organizational models, and technologies, but scaling these in the industry—and thereby achieving real impact—requires investors and concrete facts about money. Therefore, I will continue doing business studies on circularity and sustainability.

by ReCreate project

June 6, 2025

ReCreate blog post series on mapping in WP1

Post 4

Author: Niko Kotkavuo, researcher, Tampere University

To gain a broader perspective on the possibilities of reuse and ease knowledge and technology transfer across borders, one of the goals in the ReCreate project is to gather data on precast systems from various European countries. The work is not limited to the four pilot countries of the project (Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany), but also includes a selection of eastern EU member states known to have large stocks of precast concrete buildings. Besides residential building systems, the ones used in non-residential construction are of interest as well. This blog post series describes that experience. Please find here Part 1 of the series, which explains the nature of this work and describes the Polish experience, here Part 2, which discusses the Estonian experience, and here Part 3, which depicts the Romanian experience. The current post by researcher Niko Kotkavuo from Tampere University describes the Finnish experience and concludes the series, at least for now.

The Finnish experience

In Finland, post-war structural change, rural flight and resulting urban housing shortage led to high-volume industrialised housing construction beginning in the 1950s and culminating in the so-called ‘crazy years’ of the early 1970s. By the mid-1960s, most large construction companies had developed their own closed (company-specific) large-panel construction systems based on examples from abroad. In the late 1960s, to further cut construction time and costs, the concrete industry joined forces to develop an open system that any factory could produce.

The developed system, BES (short for betonielementtisysteemi, or concrete element system in English), was free to use by all operators in Finland. It soon became the new, widely adopted industry standard. In the early 1980s, it was followed by another open system Runko-BES (Frame-BES) for non-residential construction. While the systems have been updated throughout the years and their use has certainly became more versatile, they are still the basis for precast concrete construction in Finland today.

The wide adoption of BES and Runko-BES present a problem for reviewing the systems used in post-war Finland. Material on the BES systems is widely available and easy to access, and it covers a large portion of the precast concrete building stock in Finland. It is notable, however, that based on Mäkiö et al. (1994) and house construction statistics of central statistical office of Finland, the adoption of BES just missed the so-called ‘crazy years’ of housing construction. From the beginning of 1960s to the peak construction year of 1974, a large stock of buildings was constructed using the previous, closed large-panel systems, that are far less well understood.

Material on the previously used systems is significantly harder to come by, and details on the systems are seemingly forgotten in the existing literature. Thus, a more time-consuming approach of identification of specific housing projects, via literature review and by locating relevant construction drawings in municipal archives, has been used in studying the early systems.

Conclusions

Based on the very different experiences in the countries examined here, it is clear that there is no single approach for the review, which would work regardless of country. The work is, as is typical for archival work, quite reactive. In Poland, a large existing body of literature on the building stock made with large-panel systems could be capitalised on. In Estonia and to a lesser extent in Finland, there is a research gap regarding the composition of the housing stock in terms of precast concrete and system usage. In Romania, a lot of archival material has gone missing in the aftermath of the 1989 revolution which presented challenges, but university libraries provided useful catalogues and design manuals, which offer valuable insight into the country’s prefabricated building systems. A common factor for all four countries is that compared to housing, non-residential precast concrete systems and building stocks are a neglected area of study.

With the mapping of Finnish, Polish, Estonian and Romanian systems now complete we have a better picture of the systems used in each country as well as loads of archival material for later analysis, classification and digitisations of the building systems. This kind of work acts as a basis of future knowledge and technology transfer of the ReCreate learnings to new countries and regions.

References:

Mäkiö, E., Malinen, M., Neuvonen, P., Vikström, K., Mäenpää, R., Saarenpää, J. and Tähti, E. (1994). Kerrostalot 1960-1975 [Blocks of Flats 1960–1975]. Helsinki: Rakennustieto.

Tilastokeskus [Central Statistical Office of Finland]. (1974). Talonrakennustilasto 1971 [House Construction Statistics 1971]. Retrieved from https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:951-46-0905-0

Tilastokeskus [Central Statistical Office of Finland]. (1975). Talonrakennustilasto 1972 [House Construction Statistics 1972]. Retrieved from http://www.urn.fi/URN:ISBN:951-46-1563-8

Tilastokeskus [Central Statistical Office of Finland]. (1975). Talonrakennustilasto 1973 [House Construction Statistics 1973]. Retrieved from http://www.urn.fi/URN:ISBN:951-46-1811-4

Tilastokeskus [Central Statistical Office of Finland]. (1976). Talonrakennustilasto 1974 [House Construction Statistics 1974]. Retrieved from www.urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2023013118667

by ReCreate project

May 27, 2025

Introduction to the report: Legal and technical requirements in reusing precast concrete of the ReCreate project. The full report is available here.

Paul Jonker-Hoffrén, Tampere University

The ReCreate report, Legal and technical requirements in reusing precast concrete, provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal and technical requirements for reusing precast concrete elements in four European countries: Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Germany. It examines regulations at the EU, national, and local levels, focusing on deconstruction and reuse processes, and identifies common challenges and country-specific issues. It represents the understanding of the state of the art until the beginning of 2023. This report is based on general knowledge rather than the experiences of the industrial partners, which will be reported in a forthcoming report. Therefore, some aspects discussed in the current report will be out of date already due to developments in policy.

Deconstruction Norms

Deconstruction and demolition permits are nationally regulated. In Finland and Sweden, the legislation acknowledges reuse and requires demolition permits to consider reusable components. In the Netherlands, a demolition notification is generally sufficient unless environmental laws apply, which can require more comprehensive permits. Germany follows federal and state building codes with more structured requirements. Waste management is governed by the EU Waste Framework Directive, which sets recycling targets but lacks explicit reuse goals, resulting in ambiguity. Finland and Sweden faced uncertainties about whether deconstructed components are classified as waste (until recently), complicating reuse due to administrative burdens. The Netherlands does not consider deconstructed concrete elements as waste if free from hazardous substances, facilitating reuse. This will be tested in the real-life pilot project in the Netherlands, nonetheless. Germany has legal provisions to avoid waste status, but debates continue on their efficacy. Local environmental protection laws generally do not impose special restrictions on deconstruction for reuse in Finland and the Netherlands. Sweden and Germany have raised concerns regarding specific hazardous substances and water protection laws, with Germany expecting clarification through upcoming ordinances. Occupational safety regulations in all countries align with EU directives, ensuring minimum safety standards. Finland and Sweden emphasize public sector and social partner involvement in occupational safety regulations and workplace rules; Germany relies on sector-based organization; the Netherlands supplements national laws with private certification schemes. Detailed work safety plans and checklists guide safe deconstruction practices in all countries at the project level, which are based on national law or decrees.

Norms on Reuse

Technical requirements for reused concrete elements follow the same standards as new materials, primarily based on Eurocodes and national annexes. However, challenges arise in assessing the material properties of reused components due to lack of original documentation and potential degradation, necessitating improved testing standards. Finland and Sweden apply existing standards designed for new products, which may not adequately address reuse-specific concerns. The Netherlands and Germany have developed additional guidelines and standards to better assess existing structures for reuse.

Product approval is nationally controlled, as the EU Construction Products Regulation currently exempts existing products like reused elements. Finland and Sweden lack clear, consensus-based approval processes, leading to ad hoc practices and uncertainty. Germany and the Netherlands have more institutionalized procedures, including certifications and assessment guidelines, though complexities remain. Designer qualifications for reuse projects are regulated nationally; Finland has specific legal requirements and guidelines, while Sweden and the Netherlands have no special legislation, and Germany regulates via state building codes. Building permits for reuse projects generally require case-by-case collaboration with authorities in all countries, reflecting the novelty and evolving nature of reuse practices. Sustainability policies at international, EU, and national levels provide overarching goals supporting reuse but often lack direct enforceability. Recent initiatives in Finland (e.g., circular construction competitions) and municipal programmes in Sweden demonstrate emerging practical incentives for reuse. The Netherlands and Germany integrate sustainability into building codes and climate laws but tend to focus more on operational energy than embodied emissions, indicating room for policy development.

Discussion

Four key cross-cutting barriers hinder large-scale deployment of reuse: (1) ambiguity in waste status and end-of-waste criteria complicates administrative processes; (2) lack of tailored technical requirements for reused materials leads to conservative and cumbersome testing; (3) product approval pathways are unclear or inconsistent, especially in Nordic countries; and (4) sustainability policies are often too general to drive immediate change. The Netherlands stands out positively in waste classification and product approval, while Finland and Sweden are in earlier stages of regulatory adaptation. Germany offers legal options for reuse but faces challenges in standardizing practices. The report emphasizes the need for clearer interpretations, harmonized technical guidelines, streamlined approval processes, and concrete sustainability incentives to accelerate the adoption of reuse.

Conclusion

While the normative frameworks across the four countries share common elements derived from EU directives, their maturity and practical implementation regarding reuse vary significantly. The primary challenge lies not in creating new regulations but in adapting existing ones to explicitly support reuse of building components. Finland and Sweden are developing foundational practices, particularly in product approval, whereas the Netherlands and Germany have more progressive, institutionalized systems. Cross-country knowledge exchange and stakeholder collaboration are vital for overcoming barriers. The report lays the groundwork for further empirical research and policy development to foster circular economy transitions in construction.

The report, as a general overview of legal and technical requirements in the ReCreate project countries, highlights comparative insights across countries, facilitating understanding of shared challenges and unique national circumstances in promoting the reuse of precast concrete elements.

by ReCreate project

May 27, 2025

Wednesday, May 21^st, Thijs Lambrechts presented the ReCreate project at the Circular Wallonia days in Mons, Belgium. 200+ European experts and professionals from the Mineral Industry are gathering, exchanging on the most inspiring innovations and projects. After the presentation, a panel discussion followed where ReCreate and other EU projects gave their input into queries from the audience. The goal of the event was to discuss opportunities, challenges and perspectives in extending and improving mineral resource lifespan.

The reuse of concrete elements for structural purposes is seen as a high-value reuse branch, right after the reuse of a structure as a whole. When the reuse of elements for structural purposes is not possible anymore, the next steps in the ladder of Lansink have to be considered. Among these is the recycling of concrete in its raw form, aggregate, filler and cement. In this event, the complexity and intricacies of this process were illustrated, and this goes hand in hand with ReCreate in creating a circular, or even upwards spiraling built environment/economy.

by ReCreate project

May 23, 2025

Introduction to the report: Guide to Coalition Building for Circular Construction of the ReCreate project. The full report is available here.

Paul Jonker-Hoffrén, Tampere University

Circular construction projects involve many actors, similarly to linear construction projects. At present, when construction consortiums are still finding optimal solutions to organizing a circular project, significant effort is needed to coordinate and structure information flows. This derives from differing information requirements between actors internal or external to these projects, because circular projects are not as standardized as linear construction projects. This means that actors in the project, but also authorities, may have a need for very specific information that is produced by some other actor.

The ReCreate report Guide to Coalition Building for Circular Construction is aimed to be a tool to structure information flows for a circular project, to raise awareness for the efforts needed and the role actors play in producing information for other actors. Furthermore, the Guide to Coalition Building also provides a lens to observe what policy aspects may be relevant in a particular project. Current policy is mostly built for the linear construction, so in circular economy projects there is a special need to assess how certain policies apply. These are discussed more fully in another ReCreate report. However, the policies that are relevant include environmental policies, certification and quality assurance policies or norms and environmental impact assessments. In addition, there are local building permit policies. After the publication of the Guide to Coalition Building, it emerged that in many cases waste regulation (with its base in EU law) is also highly relevant. Compliance with all these norms means the partners in a construction partnership need to be aware of what kind of information regulatory actors can or will require.

A core recommendation of the Guide to Coalition Building is that project actors should be in timely, active contact with local authorities about potentially complicated issues. These issues may relate to clarifications to local zoning provisions, but also to the required quality assurance information when applying for permits. As local authorities are usually the issuers of permits, it can be of value to explicitly connect a construction plan to local climate or circular strategies. In some cases, the local authorities may need to request interpretation of provision of norms from other authorities, which will take time. Therefore, it is advised to engage with local authorities pro-actively.

Figure 1. Two coalitions in circular construction.

In the Guide to Coalition Building, it is argued that in an abstract sense, there are two coalitions which have to interact to get to a result: a building permit, and ultimately a circular construction (Figure 1). The first coalition is the construction project coalition, which consists of the actors involved in all phases from (planning) deconstruction to new construction, such as structural engineering firms, architects and the deconstruction firm. The function of this coalition is to produce the information necessary for a construction permit. The phases in the circular value chain (Figure 1, left side) will provide this information, but some actors will have to produce information for other actors, at a cost to them. This information feeds into the processes of the second coalition, the policy coalition, which usually is represented at the practical level by local authorities. The information requirements of this coalition are shaped by EU-level-, national and local policymaking and norms (Figure 1, right side).

Beyond the technical aspects of circular construction processes, actors in the construction sector should be prepared to interact with the policy coalition to find pragmatic solutions and policy innovations to the challenges that arise from policy designed to the linear construction economy. In various stages of the project there are potential challenges, which involve other actors and information requirements. A goal of ReCreate Work Package 8 is to understand and solve these challenges in the real-life pilot projects.

by ReCreate project

May 16, 2025

Introduction to the report Business model canvases for precast concrete element reuse of the ReCreate project. Full report is available here.

Mikko Sairanen, Tampere University

For companies to adopt the novel practice of reusing precast concrete elements, it is essential that they understand what this entails regarding the value that their customers perceive, dynamics of creating and delivering such value, and, of course, turning a profit in the process. In other words, they need to form an understanding of what is the business model for precast concrete element reuse.

To aid the industry in this challenging task, in ReCreate project, WP7 has examined the issue and put together business model canvases (BMCs) for the different types of companies and processes that are needed to realize precast concrete element reuse. The BMC is a popular tool that can quickly communicate the essential elements of a business model, such as the required key activities and resources, customer-related information, and cost and revenue streams.

Three key insights from the BMC analysis are discussed here. First, precast concrete element reuse holds significant business potential, but issues of economic feasibility remain. We found that labour costs are the biggest barrier to address in order to build competitive business cases out of concrete element reuse. While savings can be attained in material and waste management costs, time-consuming deconstruction and element refurbishment processes challenge profitability. This issue can, however, be greatly alleviated through learning and gradual scaling of reuse processes. In addition, appropriate policy mixes are needed to economically incentivize reuse compared to virgin concrete element production.

Second, the business models of the value chain are heavily affected by value chain organization, particularly regarding vertical integration. Within the ReCreate pilot projects, we have observed both so-called decentralized and centralized organization models. A decentralized model means that the companies of the value chain adopt rather well-defined tasks such as deconstruction or element refurbishment and that the value chain is built on collaborations rather than coordination from a single company. In a centralized model, however, one company vertically integrates various value chain functions and thus designs a new overarching business model for concrete element reuse. The optimal way to organize the value chain depends on the regional business environment and markets, but we found that the focal company in the centralized model can often execute several reuse subprocesses very efficiently, ensure smooth data management, and, crucially, match emerging demand with specific deconstruction projects early on. These attributes of vertical integration can support building attractive business models in the emerging markets of reclaimed concrete elements.

Lastly, we highlight that the business models need to not only work at the level of identified company types within the ReCreate pilot projects, but also at the level of any subprocess that could be considered a standalone business process in the future, as well as at the level of the whole value chain. Therefore, we also analysed BMCs for the key supporting processes of quality management, storage, and logistics, as well as for the system level (picture below).

All the BMCs are published in the ReCreate project as Business model canvases for precast concrete element reuse and can be found through the project webpage.

by ReCreate project

May 6, 2025

The division ‘Selective Deconstruction – Building in Existing Contexts’ of ECOSOIL Ost GmbH was founded in 2001 and started with a team of five employees. The focus was on the selective (crane-guided) deconstruction of prefabricated buildings. At that time, demand from housing companies was driven by overcapacity, vacancies and a backlog of renovation work. After 20 years, the business segment has established itself and the customer base has grown to around 60 property developers.

Our customer base is characterised by small and medium-sized towns in central and eastern Germany with job losses or poor infrastructure. Initially, the focus of the projects was on the deconstruction of upper floors and entrance areas. Over the years, the portfolio has been expanded to include deconstruction in an ‘inhabited state’, i.e. with temporary roofs.

In addition to our range of services, we require specialised machinery with specific features, such as special cranes, mini excavators and concrete cutting equipment.

Our team carries out the work while the buildings are still inhabited and works routinely with planners and various trades, in particular roofers, plumbers, carpenters and scaffolders.

Further structural challenges include the confined space and the sometimes very different construction methods with load levels ranging from 0.8 t to 6.3 t per element. The structural challenges are always accompanied by occupational safety for all employees.

We are an important point of contact for housing associations, as we have a pool of experience in deconstruction in conjunction with deconstruction planning and in hazardous substance and waste management. At the same time, the requirements of waste and recycling legislation have changed. For construction site logistics and cooperation with waste disposal companies, this means additional work, in particular due to extensive analyses and pre-sorting of waste in order to keep costs as low as possible and remain competitive.

Our largest and longest construction project was the Kugelbergring in Weißenfels (Saxony-Anhalt, Germany), which took over a year to complete and had a contract volume of €1.6 million.

The ‘Selective Deconstruction – Building in Existing Contexts’ division has initiated a construction conference as an industry meeting place, which has been taking place for over twenty years and is unique in this form. As a result, we came into contact with Prof. Mettke, BTU, and joined the EU project ReCreate as an industrial partner in 2008 with our first project. We have been supporting the EU project ReCreate since 2021. It is being implemented at the Hohenmölsen and Kolkwitz sites.

Our business has always stood for sustainable resource conservation through the long-term preservation of living space – always with the aim of improving the quality of life and the environment of former GDR prefabricated buildings. The EU-wide ReCreate project impressively demonstrates the potential of reusing entire ‘prefabricated panels’ in new functional buildings.

We are currently working with 15 employees on several construction projects in Brandenburg, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and Thuringia. In addition to the high-profile issues of housing shortages in metropolitan areas, the central issues of urban development in small and medium-sized towns in eastern Germany remain.

When renovating residential space, the requirements for energy-efficient renovation and barrier-free living are increasing. Today, the focus is on neighbourhoods with short distances, good transport links and sufficient green and recreational areas. The former prefabricated housing estates offer good structural conditions for these requirements.

Over the past 20 years, we have helped to create a liveable residential environment in over 200 projects.

by ReCreate project

April 22, 2025

*German version of the interview is below*

In this interview, we speak with Prof. Angelika Mettke from BTU Cottbus–Senftenberg, one of the pioneering researchers in structural reuse in Europe. Drawing on decades of hands-on experience, Prof. Mettke reflects on the evolution of concrete element reuse in Germany, the long road from pilot projects to building codes, and why now might finally be the right time for circularity in construction to scale.

Hello, Prof. Mettke. Thank you for finding time for this interview. For starters, can you introduce yourself a bit and tell us about your background, your role, and your organization’s role in the project? How did it all start?

I have been working at BTU since 1975. Initially, I qualified with a degree in engineering, and the next step was obtaining my diploma as an engineer. In 1995, I earned my PhD in engineering, focusing on the development of decision-support tools for the preparation of renovation measures in industry for the reuse of building elements and components. In 2009, I obtained my habilitation, focusing specifically on the reuse of concrete elements, particularly those from prefabricated construction, and the recycling of mineral construction debris, or rather, the high-quality recovery of construction waste. Originally, the area was called “Construction Recycling,”, but now it’s referred to as my “research area,” which I developed independently. I had no public financial resources for personnel. However, I had the opportunity to raise funds through research projects, allowing me to employ scientific staff.

Satu Huuhka visited here in Cottbus at BTU and had the opportunity to speak with me. She found my work interesting and organized another visit with a delegation, which included a German-speaking colleague. During this visit, I gave a lecture on the topic of “Reuse of Concrete Elements.” Afterwards, she asked me what I thought about collaborating on a research project. So, between Finland and Cottbus. I was thrilled about this request. Of course, I welcomed such an international collaboration, which had not existed before. First, we needed to investigate where there were gaps in expertise and determine how we could work together. Then, Satu searched for funding opportunities at the European level, and we did the same for Germany. Then Satu said, “You have a lot of knowledge; you should take the lead. You have expertise, experience, and extensive research on this topic.” For Germany, I took on the leadership role, but the overall leadership should be with Finland—after all, the idea to initiate a European project came from Satu. That’s how it developed. When we formulated the application, I had only one research assistant: Viktoria Arnold, a graduate of the Siberian University of Krasnoyarsk, and both of us worked on the research proposal. This is how our ReCreate project came about. You asked me why I participated so eagerly in this project. Well, of course, I wanted to. Buildings constructed with prefabricated elements in modular construction can also be found in Europe and are not a national peculiarity. Satu was active and involved further project partners, such as the Netherlands, Sweden, and Croatia. This consortium was formed, and my particular interest was in situating this topic in a European context. In this constellation, we have other strengths that help accelerate the necessary transformation process in the construction sector, compared to just Mettke at BTU in Cottbus alone. In a cluster, we can achieve more, both in construction and environmental policy, and that is important. Especially now, through the climate discussion, the topic is gaining significance because the reuse of concrete components retains the embodied energy.

What motivated you to join the project?

As already mentioned, I started dealing with the topic of reuse more than 30 years ago. This was not primarily for climate protection reasons, but due to the resource scarcity in construction in East Germany, which presented me with great challenges. The necessity of addressing this issue arose from the fact that buildings in industrial and commercial construction were being demolished shortly after their useful life, after 10, 12, or 15 years. I made every effort to save the concrete elements used. Initially, quality testing of the concrete elements was the focus. In this, usability, constructional, and building-physical parameters played a role. After gaining access to buildings scheduled for demolition, I contacted several companies with my request to attempt to dismantle construction elements from the structural system. The most powerful construction company at the time, the Construction and Assembly Combine Coal and Energy, eventually agreed to try dismantling some elements of a single-story hall. I found that these buildings, constructed in modular construction, were dismantlable, even though they were not originally designed for deconstruction. This experience made it clear how important it is to assess unused buildings and, if conservation measures are excluded, to consider secondary reuse options for concrete elements already used. Furthermore, deconstruction considerations must be integrated into the planning process.

There is a huge potential in existing reinforced concrete modular buildings, not only in Germany but also across Europe and worldwide. And if, with the ReCreate project, we can help manage our primary raw material resources efficiently, thereby reducing the ecological footprint and contributing to climate protection, this is a huge opportunity. Building on our own and new research findings, we can show the professional world beyond national borders that the reuse of concrete elements is feasible and of high relevance both from a social and economic perspective.

Tell me about the German donor building and the pilot that will be constructed. Can you tell me what is specific for the German cluster, the German donor building and the pilot?

Well, first of all, let me start with a preliminary note. I have been in contact with the company Ecosoil for many years now. Thanks to our collaborative work, the “selective demolition” business area has become established within the company. As is standard procedure, I contacted Ecosoil’s senior construction manager about current demolition projects. In Hohenmölsen, Saxony-Anhalt, Ecosoil Ost GmbH had been commissioned to demolish a five-story prefabricated building by two floors. I also asked if they notified the relevant parties in advance. Through Ecosoil, I got in touch with the property owner, the housing association in Hohenmölsen. At the time, I wasn’t familiar with Hohenmölsen, which is located in the federal state of Saxony-Anhalt. I introduced myself over the phone and scheduled an on-site meeting, and that’s how things started moving forward in the first place. After a rough assessment that almost 500 concrete elements would need to be dismantled, I proposed the idea of constructing a pilot within the scope of the ReCreate project. Although I had ideas, I couldn’t make the final decision; it had to be approved by the city. It was important to me to determine whether there was a need for the construction of a public building. This led to an initial meeting with Mr. Luckanus, the managing director of the housing association, and Mr. Haugk, the mayor of Hohenmölsen. During this meeting, I presented our previous projects and initiatives. We had already implemented measures such as constructing new buildings using recycled concrete elements. I learned that the “old” spaces for youth centres would no longer be available in the foreseeable future. Based on a conceptual design with a selected range of P2 building-type elements for a youth centre, which I had created for another city, I was able to gain the mayor’s interest. I asked them if they could envision something similar within our project.

The mayor expressed the need for a community centre (clubhouse) and informed me about the old clubhouse, which was scheduled for demolition, and the plans to accommodate different users in the new facility. He explained in detail why certain features were necessary. However, he mentioned that the original concept I had presented, based on the P2 type, had a gross floor area that was too large (400 m²). I assured him that adjusting the concept would not be an issue. Following this, I asked him about the specific spaces they required. Based on several rounds of consultations with the representatives of the city of Hohenmölsen regarding usage and space requirements, and with us, my research assistant, architect Christoph Henschel, developed the concept for the youth centre. The youth centre, with its diverse uses (including multi-purpose and hobby rooms, offices, kitchen, etc.), has a gross floor area of approximately 835 m² spread over two floors. We developed a total of six design variants for this building because the spaces had to be adapted to the changing needs of future users, including various clubs.

So, was the decision on which design to choose influenced by the organizations that will eventually be in the building?

Yes, as just mentioned, that was the case. For the most recently agreed-upon concept for the youth center, we developed an exposé that will serve as the basis for the tender. With the help of students, we also built a model to improve visualization. In addition to integrating 160 dismantled, used concrete elements, steel beams and timber stud walls are to be used. This is due to the geometric dimensions of the rooms. The city of Hohenmölsen, as the public client, has been promised financial support for this sustainable construction project. The completion of the youth centre is expected in 2026.

Should difficulties arise and the construction project in Hohenmölsen be called into question, I was able to initiate a second pilot project near Cottbus as a backup option.

I would also like to point out one aspect: initially, there were difficulties in providing a storage area for the dismantled concrete elements in Hohenmölsen. The need to temporarily store the dismantled elements arises from the time difference between the moment the concrete elements are dismantled and their reassembly date. In the end, the city designated a temporary storage area close to the construction site.

So, the city doesn’t want to invest in spaces for the disposal of the elements because they still need to assess the project’s value. Does this create a problem when you initially want to start something?

I must state that there is currently no functioning “handling” system for large-format concrete elements. It must be assumed that temporary storage for used concrete elements will be necessary. The establishment of decentralized building component exchanges combined with web-based platforms could provide a solution to ensure optimal marketing for used concrete elements. I could imagine that stationary construction material recycling plant operators could temporarily store the used concrete elements. If they are not in demand, there would still be the option of material recycling or shredding into recycled material. This is an idea, but whether it can be implemented is still to be evaluated.

What does collaboration look like within your country’s cluster? Is there strong collaboration? Do you maintain good communication with project partners in the German cluster?

I can look back on an excellent collaboration with the industry partners involved in the ReCreate project. This cooperation is based on a long-standing, reliable, and constructive relationship with the engineering firm Jähne and the deconstruction company Ecosoil Ost GmbH. It is important that we support each other, communicate openly, and exchange ideas. We meet regularly, but there are also many operational matters that need to be coordinated, which we usually clarify over the phone or in personal discussions. In short, the collaboration with the construction industry partners is outstanding.

The “new” project partners include the city of Hohenmölsen and the company Lohmann & Robinski – web solutions. The latter has extensive experience with digital work methods, helping us digitize work results within the German national project. Additionally, having the city of Hohenmölsen as a local partner is crucial, as they are familiar with the regional conditions and authorities. All the necessary requirements for such a construction project fall under the city’s jurisdiction through the building authority. At the same time, we aim to ensure that construction of the youth center can hopefully begin there next year.

We also plan to organize an international ReCreate project partners meeting, similar to those held in Eindhoven, Helsingborg, and Tampere, to assess the condition of the used concrete elements and observe the reassembly process. Significant support is expected from our local partner. In my experience, having a local partner is highly beneficial, as they have a strong interest in this sustainable initiative and are motivated to drive it forward.

Do you have some kind of internal motivation for the project? Do you have any personal stakes or intrinsic motivation that drives you?

Yes, of course! The reuse of building components is my life’s work! I have dedicated myself to this topic. Viktoria was there: In 2016, I received the German Environmental Award for this commitment—one of the most prestigious awards in Europe. Together with a company, we received this prize for the efficient use of resources.

My passion lies in reusing valuable materials because I was raised that way in my family home. My parents—my father, a self-employed metalworker—built many objects from reused materials, whether lamps, scooters, tricycles, wheelbarrows, or even a tractor. He used materials he found at the landfill.

This mindset shaped me from an early age. So yes, there is passion involved—both emotionally and professionally.

In your opinion, what are some of the major challenges that the project is facing? We’ve already identified certain aspects, but could you elaborate on them?

Yes, the biggest challenge for the project is the various international aspects that need to be considered. The necessary exchange between project partners must be maintained. In Germany, this is somewhat easier due to the already existing network, but new partners are always being added. The professional exchange takes place through regular coordination between my colleagues and me, but it is still somewhat time-consuming. The network we have built in our German cluster makes collaboration easier now. However, with new partners, a certain level of trust must first be established. The administrative tasks that always arise in EU projects take up a significant portion of the time.

That being said, what about the project in general? In your opinion, what do you believe are the major challenges that everyone has to face at the European level?

You know, generally speaking, I would wish that through this European consortium, the idea of reusability is established worldwide. With these clusters, we can widely spread the results, not just in Europe. There will be a film about the pilot project to show that it is being implemented exemplarily in Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Germany – so it works everywhere. That’s the challenge: to show that existing resources, i.e., used concrete elements, are fully reusable in a secondary way. Building with existing structures has top priority. There is no alternative to the limited available mineral raw materials. We must demonstrate this worldwide, because many countries aspire to the European standard of living. Construction is happening worldwide. If we can show that we can also build with existing structures, in a sustainable way, and also architecturally interesting, then this meets our research goal. For example, the pilot project in Finland will look different from the one here in Germany. So, we will be able to present a variety of solutions. The construction connections and the structural development of the range of elements differ. We can learn from Finland or the Netherlands – from their building systems and joining techniques, and vice versa. This networking is, in my opinion, very valuable.

What kind of impact would you like for the project to have someday? Do you believe that after the project is completed, it will be easier to update the standard at the European level?

On the German side, I currently have the development of a German standard on the agenda, but this process takes time. It typically spans several years, as a standard must be thoroughly reviewed and objections from experts considered before its publication. At present, a used building component is considered an unregulated construction product under both EU and German law.

We will not be able to solve all the problems in the ReCreate project. The tasks are very complex and extensive. New questions will also arise from our research. What is important to me is that rules and standards are developed to facilitate the entire process. This is a big challenge. For example, we would like to develop a standard solution for warranty and liability issues related to the use of used concrete elements – in collaboration with legal expertise. A guideline needs to be created that outlines which actor is responsible for which performance, and what steps need to be carried out to effectively plan and implement reuse.

The EU Construction Products Regulation governs market access and the use of construction products. The 16 state building codes in Germany define the general requirements for buildings, which are further specified by the Technical Building Regulations.

In my opinion, a harmonized specification according to EU regulations would help to draw more attention to the reuse of used concrete elements. So far, there is no harmonized assessment or standard for this.

So, maybe it’s still too early, considering there’s a lot of research yet to be conducted on this topic. However, that’s the task of the ReCreate project: to establish the necessary research and then present it to policymakers so they can incorporate it into policies, regulations, and standards. Do you agree?

Yes, I agree. This is the next step. In the ReCreate project, we are laying the essential foundations – supported by scientifically based methods. The solutions developed will, I hope, be incorporated into an EU standard.

We always like to conclude interviews with the question: Who is Angelika Mettke, and what does she enjoy doing when she’s not working on the ReCreate Project or at her university? What are her favorite activities in her spare time?

I enjoy spending time with my grandchildren, being outdoors, and in my garden. I have a house and a weekend property. There’s always something to do there, and I enjoy it. It’s a nice balance, a contrast to office work and mental work. I can get some exercise in the fresh air, play outside with my grandchildren, and at the same time, observe animals and enjoy the birdsong. Yesterday, for example, I saw a hedgehog in our garden. The older I get, the more I appreciate the wonder of nature. That’s why it’s important to me that nature and our habitat, our landscape, are preserved and disturbed as little as possible. This aligns with my actual responsibilities and my job: conserving resources and interfering with nature with little to no impact. I plant flowers, shrubs, and trees. I know that I’ve contributed something in my small area of activity; to doing something socially meaningful. I enjoy spending my holidays on the Baltic Sea in Warnemünde and Kühlungsborn, as well as in various places on the islands of Usedom and Rügen. The atmosphere is unique. But I am also aware that every country has beautiful places.

German version:

Hallo Frau Prof. Mettke. Vielen Dank, dass Sie Zeit für dieses Interview gefunden haben. Können Sie sich zunächst einmal kurz vorstellen, uns etwas über Ihren Hintergrund, Ihre Rolle und die Rolle Ihrer Organisation in diesem Projekt erzählen? Wie hat das alles angefangen?

Ich bin seit 1975 bei der BTU tätig. Zunächst qualifizierte ich mich mit dem Abschluss als Ingenieur, der nächste Schritt war die Erlangung des Diplom-Ingenieurs. Im Jahr 1995 promovierte ich im Fachbereich Ingenieurwesen zur Entwicklung von Entscheidungshilfen für die Vorbereitung von Sanierungsmaßnahmen in der Industrie zur Wiederverwendung von Bauelementen und Bauteilen. Im Jahr 2009 habilitierte ich mich, wobei ich mich speziell mit der Wiederverwendung von Betonelementen, insbesondere aus dem Fertigteilbau, und mit dem Recycling von mineralischem Bauschutt bzw. der hochwertigen Verwertung von Bauabfällen beschäftigte. Ursprünglich hieß der Bereich ” Bauliches Recycling”, aber jetzt wird er als mein “Forschungsbereich” bezeichnet, den ich eigenverantwortlich entwickelt habe. Ich hatte keine öffentlichen finanzielle Mittel für Personal. Aber hatte die Möglichkeit, über Forschungsprojekte finanzielle Mittel einwerben zu können und damit wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiter zu beschäftigen.

Satu Huuhka war zu Besuch hier in Cottbus an der BTU und hatte die Gelegenheit, mit mir zu sprechen. Sie fand meine Arbeit interessant und organisierte einen weiteren Besuch mit einer Delegation, zu der auch ein deutschsprachiger Kollege gehörte. Bei diesem Besuch hielt ich einen Vortrag zum Thema „Wiederverwendung von Betonelementen“. Danach fragte sie mich, was ich von einer Zusammenarbeit bei einem Forschungsprojekt halte. Also, zwischen Finnland und Cottbus. Über diese Anfrage war ich hoch erfreut. Natürlich begrüßte ich eine solche, bis dato nicht vorhandene internationale Zusammenarbeit. Zunächst müssen wir untersuchen, wo es Lücken im Fachwissen gibt, und feststellen, wie wir zusammenarbeiten können. Dann hat Satu nach Finanzierungsmöglichkeiten auf europäischer Ebene gesucht, und wir haben das für Deutschland getan. Dann sagte Satu: “Ihr habt viel Wissen, ihr solltet die Gesamtleitung übernehmen. Sie verfügen über Fachwissen, Erfahrung und umfangreiche Forschungsarbeiten zu diesem Thema”. Für Deutschland übernehme ich die Leitung, aber die Gesamtleitung sollte Finnland übernehmen – schließlich stammt die Idee, ein europäisches Projekt zu initiieren von Satu. So hat sich das entwickelt. Als wir den Antrag formulierten, hatte ich nur eine wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin: Viktoria Arnold, Absolventin der Sibirischen Universität Krasnojarsk und wir beide haben mit am Forschungsantrag gearbeitet. So kam es also zu unserem ReCreate Projekt. Sie haben mich gefragt, warum ich so eifrig an diesem Projekt teilgenommen habe. Nun, natürlich wollte ich das. Gebäude, die mit vorgefertigten Elementen in Montagebauweise gebaut wurden, sind auch in Europa anzutreffen und keine nationale Besonderheit. Satu war aktiv und hat weitere Projektpartner einbezogen, wie die Niederlande, Schweden und Kroatien. Es entstand dieses Konsortium, und mein besonderes Interesse lag darin, dieses Thema im europäischen Kontext zu verorten. In dieser Konstellation haben wir andere Stärken, die dazu beitragen, den notwendigen Transformationsprozess im Bausektor zu beschleunigen, als nur Mettke an der BTU in Cottbus allein. In einem Cluster können wir mehr erreichen, auch bau- und umweltpolitisch, und das ist wichtig. Gerade jetzt, durch die Klimadiskussion, gewinnt das Thema an Bedeutung, weil durch die Wiederverwendung von Betonbauteilen die enthaltene graue Energie erhalten bleibt.

Was hat Sie dazu motiviert, an dem Projekt teilzunehmen?

Wie bereits erwähnt, habe ich vor mehr als 30 Jahren begonnen, mich mit dem Thema Wiederverwendung auseinanderzusetzen. Dies geschah nicht in erster Linie aus Klimaschutzgründen, sondern aufgrund der Ressourcenknappheit beim Bauen in Ostdeutschland, was mich vor große Herausforderungen stellte. Die Notwendigkeit sich dieser Thematik zu stellen, ergab sich daraus, dass Gebäude im Industrie- und Gewerbebau bereits kurz nach ihrer Nutzungsdauer, nach 10, 12, 15 Jahren, abgerissen wurden. Ich setzte alles daran, die verbauten Betonelemente zu retten. Zunächst standen Qualitätsuntersuchungen der verbauten Betonelemente im Vordergrund. Dabei spielten die Gebrauchstauglichkeit, bautechnische und bauphysikalische Parameter eine Rolle. Nachdem ich Zugang zu Bauten erhielt, die zum Abbruch anstanden, kontaktierte ich mehrere Unternehmen mit meinem Anliegen, versuchsweise Bauelemente aus dem Konstruktionsverbund zu demontieren. Der damalig leistungsstärkste Baubetrieb des Bau- und Montagekombinats Kohle und Energie erklärte sich schließlich bereit, einige Elemente der eingeschossigen Halle versuchsweise zu demontieren. Dabei stellte ich fest, dass diese in Montagebauweise errichteten Gebäude demontierbar sind, obwohl sie ursprünglich nicht für den Rückbau konzipiert wurden. Diese Erfahrung machte deutlich, wie wichtig es ist, nicht mehr genutzte Bauten auf den Prüfstand zu stellen und – sofern Erhaltungsmaßnahmen ausgeschlossen werden – sekundäre Nachnutzungsoptionen für schon einmal verbaute Betonelemente in Betracht zu ziehen. Darüber hinaus sind Rückbauüberlegungen bereits in den Planungsprozess zu integrieren.

Es ist ein großes Potenzial an existierenden Stahlbeton-Montagebauten nicht nur in Deutschland, sondern europa- und weltweit vorhanden. Und wenn wir mit dem Projekt „ReCreate“ dazu beitragen können, mit unseren primären Rohstoffressourcen effizient umzugehen und dadurch der ökologische Fußabdruck eingedämmt und außerdem ein Beitrag zum Klimaschutz geleistet werden kann, ist das eine riesige Chance, aufbauend auf unseren und neuen Forschungsergebnissen, über die nationalen Grenzen hinaus der Fachwelt zu zeigen, dass die Wiederverwendung von Betonelementen machbar und volks- wie betriebswirtschaftlich von hoher Relevanz ist.

Erzählen Sie mir von dem deutschen Spendergebäude und dem Pilotprojekt, das gebaut werden soll. Können Sie mir sagen, was das Besondere an dem deutschen Cluster, dem deutschen Spendergebäude und dem Pilotprojekt ist?

Nun, lassen Sie mich zunächst mit einer Vorbemerkung beginnen. Ich arbeite seit vielen Jahren mit der Firma Ecosoil Ost GmbH zusammen. Aufgrund unserer kooperativen Zusammenarbeit hat sich das Geschäftsfeld „selektiver Rückbau“ im Unternehmen etabliert. In üblicher Verfahrensweise kontaktierte ich den Oberbauleiter der Firma Ecosoil zu aktuellen Rückbaumaßnahmen. In Hohenmölsen, Bundesland Sachsen-Anhalt, hatte die Ecosoil Ost GmbH den Auftrag erhalten, einen 5-geschossigen Plattenbau um 2 Geschosse zurückzubauen. Ich setzte mich mit dem Eigentümer des Hauses, der Wohnungsbaugesellschaft WOBAU in Hohenmölsen, in Verbindung. Ich stellte mich telefonisch vor und vereinbarte einen Vor-Ort-Termin; so kam die Zusammenarbeit überhaupt erst ins Rollen. Nach überschläglicher Feststellung, dass knapp 500 Betonelemente zu demontieren sind, regte ich an, ein Pilotprojekt zu errichten. Mir war es wichtig, zu erfahren, ob Bedarf an der Errichtung eines öffentlichen Gebäudes besteht. So kam es zu einem ersten gemeinsamen Treffen mit Herrn Luckanus, dem Geschäftsführer der Wohnungsbaugesellschaft, und dem Bürgermeister der Stadt Hohenmölsen Herrn Haugk. Bei diesem Termin habe ich unsere bisherigen Projekte und Initiativen zur Wiederverwendung vorgestellt. Ich habe in Erfahrung gebracht, dass in absehbarer Zeit die „alten“ Räumlichkeiten für Jugendtreffs nicht mehr zur Verfügung stehen werden. Auf der Grundlage eines konzeptionellen Entwurfs mit einem ausgewählten Elementesortiment vom Gebäudetyp P2 für ein Jugendzentrum, das ich für eine andere Stadt erstellt hatte, konnte ich das Interesse des Bürgermeisters gewinnen.

Der Bürgermeister äußerte nach mehreren Absprachen mit den örtlichen Akteuren den Bedarf an einem Jugendklub und informierte mich über das alte Klubhaus, das zum Abriss vorgesehen war. Er erläuterte ausführlich, warum bestimmte Merkmale notwendig waren. Er erwähnte jedoch, dass das ursprüngliche Konzept, das ich vorgelegt hatte, auf der Grundlage des P2-Typs eine zu große Bruttogeschossfläche aufweist (400m²). Ich versicherte ihm, dass eine Anpassung des Konzepts an das Elementesortiment aus dem P Halle Typ kein Problem darstellt. Auf Basis mehrere Abstimmungsrunden mit den Vertretern der Stadt Hohenmölsen zum Nutzungs-und Raumbedarf und uns, entwickelte mein wissenschaftlichen Mitarbeiter, Architekt Christoph Henschel das Konzept für das Jugendzentrum. Das Jugendzentrum mit den vielfältigen Nutzungen (darunter Mehrzweck- und Hobbyräume, Büros, Küche etc.) hat eine Bruttogeschossfläche von rund 835m² über zwei Geschosse. Für dieses Gebäude haben wir in Summe sechs Entwurfsvarianten konzipiert, weil die Räume an die wechselnden Anforderungen der künftigen Nutzer, darunter verschiedene Vereine, anzupassen waren.

Wurde die Entscheidung für ein bestimmtes Design von den Organisationen beeinflusst, die später in dem Gebäude untergebracht werden sollen?

Ja, wie gerade erwähnt, war das der Fall. Für die zuletzt einvernehmliche Konzeption für das Jugendzentrum wurde von uns ein Exposé entwickelt, das der Ausschreibung zugrunde gelegt wird. Mit Unterstützung von Studenten haben wir zudem zum besseren Vorstellungsvermögen ein Modell gebaut. Neben der Integration von 160 demontierten, gebrauchten Betonelementen sind Stahlträger und Holzständerwände zu verbauen. Dies ist auf die geometrischen Abmaße der Räume zurückzuführen. Die Stadt Hohenmölsen als öffentlicher Bauherr hat eine finanzielle Förderung für dieses nachhaltige Bauvorhaben in Aussicht gestellt bekommen. Mit der Errichtung des Jugendzentrums wird in 2026 gerechnet.

Sollte es zu Schwierigkeiten kommen und das Bauvorhaben in Hohenmölsen in Frage gestellt werden, konnte ich ein zweites Pilotprojekt in der Nähe von Cottbus als Backup-Option initiieren.

Ich möchte noch auf einen Aspekt hinweisen: in Hohenmölsen gab es anfangs Schwierigkeiten, eine Fläche zur Zwischenlagerung für die demontierten Betonelemente bereit zu stellen. Die Notwendigkeit, die demontierten Elemente zwischenzulagern ergibt sich aus der zeitlichen Differenz zwischen dem Zeitpunkt des Anfalls der demontierten Betonelemente und deren Remontage-Termin. Schlussendlich hat die Stadt eine Zwischenlagerfläche in unmittelbarer Nähe des Baustandortes ausgewiesen.

Die Stadt wollte also nicht in die Zwischenlagerung der Elemente investieren, weil sie noch keine Mittel für das Projekt hat. Ist das ein Problem, wenn etwas aus gebrauchten Elementen gebaut werden soll?

Ich muss konstatieren, dass es derzeit noch kein funktionierendes „Handling“ für großformatige Betonelemente gibt. Es muss davon ausgegangen werden, dass eine Zwischenlagerung für gebrauchte Betonelemente erforderlich ist. Die Einrichtung von dezentralen Bauelemente-Börsen in Kombination mit web-basierten Plattformen könnten Abhilfe schaffen, um eine optimale Vermarktung für gebrauchte Betonelemente sicherzustellen. Ich könnte mir vorstellen, dass stationäre Baustoff-Recycling-Anlagenbetreiber die gebrauchten Betonelemente zwischenlagern. Werden diese nicht nachgefragt, bestünde immer noch die Möglichkeit der stofflichen Aufbereitung bzw. Schredderung zu Recyclingmaterial. Das ist eine Idee, aber inwieweit sie sich umsetzen lässt, ist noch zu prüfen.

Wie sieht die Zusammenarbeit innerhalb des Clusters in Ihrem Land aus? Gibt es eine starke Zusammenarbeit? Pflegen Sie eine gute Kommunikation mit den Projektpartnern im deutschen Cluster?

Ich kann auf eine hervorragende Zusammenarbeit mit den im Projekt „ReCreate“ involvierten Industriepartnern zurückblicken. Die Zusammenarbeit fußt auf einen seit Jahren zuverlässigen und konstruktiven Kontakt mit dem Ingenieurbüro Jähne und dem Rückbauunternehmen Ecosoil Ost GmbH. Es ist wichtig, dass wir uns gegenseitig unterstützen, offen miteinander umgehen können und Ideen austauschen können. Wir treffen uns regelmäßig, aber zudem sind oftmals operativ Sachverhalte abzustimmen, die wir meistens am Telefon oder in persönlichen Gesprächen klären. Also, die Zusammenarbeit mit den Partnern der Bauwirtschaft ist hervorragend. Zu den „neuen“ Projekt-Partnern gehören die Stadt Hohenmölsen und die Firma Lohmann und Robinski – web solutions. Letztere haben umfangreiche Erfahrungen mit digitalen Arbeitsmethoden, um uns bei der Digitalisierung von Arbeitsergebnissen im deutschen Landesprojekt insgesamt zu unterstützen. Wichtig ist außerdem, dass wir mit der Stadt Hohenmölsen einen Partner vor Ort haben, der die regionalen Gegebenheiten und die Behörden kennt. Alle Voraussetzungen für ein solches Bauprojekt liegen zum einen in der Zuständigkeit der Stadt durch das Bauamt, zum anderen wollen wir dafür sorgen, dass im nächsten Jahr dort hoffentlich mit dem Bau dieses Jugendclubs begonnen wird. Wir wollen auch ein Clustertreffen organisieren, ähnlich wie wir es in Eindhoven, Helsingborg und Tampere hatten, um sehen können, in welchem Bauzustand sich die gebrauchten Betonelemente befinden und wie die Remontage erfolgt.

Von dem Partner vor Ort wird also eine erhebliche Unterstützung erwartet. Meiner Erfahrung nach funktioniert ein Partner vor Ort besser, weil er ein starkes Interesse an dieser nachhaltigen Initiative hat und sie vorantreiben will.

Haben Sie eine Art innere Motivation für das Projekt? Haben Sie einen persönlichen Einsatz oder eine intrinsische Motivation, die Sie antreibt?

Ja, natürlich! Die Wiederverwendung von Bauteilen ist mein Lebenswerk! Ich habe mich diesem Thema verschrieben. Viktoria war dabei: Ich habe 2016 den Deutschen Umweltpreis für dieses Engagement erhalten, eine der renommiertesten Auszeichnungen in Europa. Zusammen mit einem Unternehmen haben wir einen Preis für den effizienten Einsatz von Ressourcen erhalten. Meine Leidenschaft liegt in der Wiederverwendung von Werten, weil ich in meinem Elternhaus so erzogen wurde. Meine Eltern – mein Vater als selbständiger Handwerker im Metallbau hat viele Gegenstände aus gebrauchten Materialien gebaut, sei es Lampen, Motorroller, Dreiräder oder Schubkarren oder sogar ein Traktor. Er hat Materialien verwendet, die er auf der Mülldeponie gefunden hatte.

Dieses Verhalten hat mich sozusagen von Kindesbeinen an geprägt. Ja, es ist also auch Leidenschaft im Spiel, sowohl emotional als auch beruflich.

Was sind Ihrer Meinung nach die größten Herausforderungen, denen sich das Projekt stellen muss? Wir haben bereits einige Aspekte genannt, aber könnten Sie diese näher erläutern?

Ja, die größte Herausforderung für das Projekt sind die verschiedenen internationalen Aspekte, die zu berücksichtigen sind. Der notwendige Austausch unter den Projektpartnern muss gepflegt werden. In Deutschland ist dies aufgrund des bereits bestehenden Netzwerks etwas einfacher, aber es kommen auch immer neue Partner hinzu. Der fachliche Austausch erfolgt durch regelmäßige Abstimmungen zwischen meinen Kollegen und mir, ist aber noch etwas zeitaufwändiger. Das Netzwerk, das wir in unserem deutschen Cluster aufgebaut haben, macht die Zusammenarbeit jetzt einfacher. Allerdings muss man bei neuen Partnern erst einmal ein gewisses Vertrauen aufbauen. Die administrativen Aufgaben, die bei EU-Projekten immer anfallen, nehmen einen erheblichen Teil der Zeit in Anspruch.

Wie sieht es nun mit dem Projekt im Allgemeinen aus? Was sind Ihrer Meinung nach die größten Herausforderungen, denen sich alle auf europäischer Ebene stellen müssen?

Wissen Sie, generell würde ich mir wünschen, dass durch dieses europäische Konsortium die Idee der Wiederverwendbarkeit weltweit etabliert wird. Mit diesen Clustern können wir die Ergebnisse weit verbreiten, nicht nur in Europa. Es wird ein Film über das Pilotprojekt geben, um zu zeigen, dass es in Finnland, den Niederlanden, Schweden und Deutschland exemplarisch umgesetzt wird – es funktioniert also überall. Das ist die Herausforderung: zu zeigen, dass wir vorhandene Ressourcen, also gebrauchte Betonelemente in Gänze sekundär nachnutzbar sind. Bauen mit dem Bestand hat oberste Priorität. Zu den begrenzt verfügbaren mineralischen Rohstoffen gibt es keine andere Alternative. Das müssen wir weltweit demonstrieren, denn viele Länder streben nach dem europäischen Lebensstandard. Es wird weltweit gebaut. Wenn wir zeigen können, dass wir auch mit vorhandenen Strukturen bauen können, auf nachhaltige Weise, auch architektonisch interessant, dann entspricht dies unserem Forschungsziel. Beispielsweise wird das Pilotprojekt in Finnland anders aussehen als das hier in Deutschland. Also werden wir eine Vielzahl von Lösungen vorstellen können. Die Konstruktionsverbindungen und die konstruktive Durchbildung des Elementesortiments sind unterschiedlich. Wir können von Finnland oder den Niederlanden lernen – von ihren Bausystemen und Fügetechniken und umgekehrt. Diese Vernetzung ist meiner Meinung nach sehr wertvoll.

Welche Art von Auswirkungen wünschen Sie sich für das Projekt eines Tages? Glauben Sie, dass es nach Abschluss des Projekts einfacher sein wird, die Norm auf europäischer Ebene zu aktualisieren?

Auf deutscher Seite habe ich derzeit die Entwicklung einer deutschen Norm auf der Tagesordnung, aber dieser Prozess braucht Zeit. Er erstreckt sich in der Regel über mehrere Jahre, da eine Norm vor ihrer Veröffentlichung gründlich geprüft und Einwände von Experten berücksichtigt werden. Derzeit gilt, ein gebrauchtes Bauteil ist sowohl nach EU- als auch nach deutschem Recht ein nicht geregeltes Bauprodukt.

Wir werden nicht alle Probleme im ReCreate lösen können. Die Aufgaben sind sehr komplex und umfangreich. Durch unsere Forschung werden sich auch neue Fragen ergeben. Wichtig ist für mich, dass Regeln und Standards entwickelt werden, die den gesamten Prozess erleichtern. Das ist eine große Herausforderung. Wir möchten zum Beispiel eine Standardlösung zu Gewährleistungs- und Haftungsfragen für den Einsatz von gebrauchten Betonelementen – gemeinsam mit juristischer Expertise – entwickeln. Es ist ein Leitfaden zu erarbeiten, der aufzeigt, welcher Akteur für welche Leistung verantwortlich ist, welche Arbeitsschritte erfüllt werden müssen, um die Wiederverwendung effektiv zu planen und umzusetzen.

Die EU-Bauprodukteverordnung regelt den Marktzugang und die Verwendung von Bauprodukten. Die 16 Landesbauordnungen in Deutschland definieren die allgemeinen Anforderungen an bauliche Anlagen, die durch die Technischen Baubestimmungen konkretisiert werden.

Eine harmonisierte Spezifikation nach EU-Bestimmungen würde meiner Ansicht nach, dazu beitragen, der Wiederverwendung von gebrauchten Betonelementen mehr Aufmerksamkeit zu schenken. Bislang gibt es hierzu keine harmonisierte Bewertung bzw. Norm.

Vielleicht ist es also noch zu früh, denn es muss noch viel Forschung zu diesem Thema betrieben werden. Aber genau das ist die Aufgabe des ReCreate-Projekts: die notwendigen Forschungsergebnisse zu ermitteln und sie dann den politischen Entscheidungsträgern vorzulegen, damit diese sie in die Politik, in Vorschriften und Normen einfließen lassen können. Sind Sie damit einverstanden?

Ja, ich bin einverstanden. Das ist der nächste Schritt. Im ReCreate-Projekt schaffen wir wesentliche Grundlagen – mit wissenschaftlich fundierten Methoden untersetzt. Die erarbeiteten Lösungen werden sich in einer EU-Norm wiederfinden – erhoffe ich mir.

Ich schließe Interviews immer gerne mit der Frage ab: Wer ist Angelika Mettke und was macht sie gerne, wenn sie nicht gerade am ReCreate-Projekt oder an ihrer Hochschule arbeitet? Was sind ihre Lieblingsbeschäftigungen in ihrer Freizeit?

Ich verbringe gern Zeit mit meinen Enkelchen, bin gern in der Natur und in meinem Garten. Ich habe ein Haus und ein Wochenendgrundstück. Dort gibt es immer zu tun, und es macht mir Spaß. Es ist ein schöner Ausgleich, ein Kontrast zur Büro- und Denkarbeit. Ich kann mich an der frischen Luft bewegen, mit meinen Enkeln draußen spielen und gleichzeitig Tiere beobachten sowie das Singen der Vögel genießen. Gestern habe ich zum Beispiel einen Igel in unserem Garten beobachtet. Je älter ich werde, desto stärker nehme ich das Wunder Natur wahr. Deshalb ist es mir auch wichtig, dass die Natur und unser Lebensraum, unsere Landschaft erhalten bleibt und so wenig wie möglich gestört wird. Das deckt sich mit meinen eigentlichen Aufgaben und meinem Beruf: Ressourcen schonen, wenig bis nicht in die Natur eingreifen. Ich pflanze Blumen, Sträucher und Bäume. Ich weiß, dass ich in meinem kleinen Tätigkeitsgebiet etwas dazu beigetragen habe; gesellschaftlich Sinnvolles zu leisten Ich verbringe den Urlaub sehr gern an der Ostsee in Warnemünde und Kühlungsborn sowie in verschiedenen Orten auf der Insel Usedom und der Insel Rügen. Das Flair ist einzigartig. Mir ist aber auch bewusst, dass jedes Land schöne Orte hat.

Older Posts

Blog - Recreate

Capturing the stories of deconstruction

Unlocking the potential of concrete element reuse: know the relevant actors, their roles and interests and engage them into a circular project

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

Conclusion: the power of collaboration

Is reuse of concrete elements economically feasible?

Reviewing precast concrete building systems around Europe, part 4: The Finnish experience and conclusions

The Finnish experience

Conclusions

Which regulation pertains to deconstruction and reuse of precast concrete?

Deconstruction Norms

Norms on Reuse

Discussion

Conclusion

ReCreate Showcased at Circular Wallonia Days

Information flows are the basis of circular construction projects

Understanding the business models of precast concrete element reuse

Division Selective Deconstruction – Building in Existing Contexts (ECOSOIL Ost)

Prof. Angelika Mettke is reshaping concrete futures—one element at a time

German version:

Capturing the stories of deconstruction

Unlocking the potential of concrete element reuse: know the relevant actors, their roles and interests and engage them into a circular project

Is reuse of concrete elements economically feasible?

EU FUNDING

Follow us: