Blog - Recreate

August 29, 2025

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 19^th June 2025 and was open to the public for 4 weeks until 18^th 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 (GWB – Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen) and Section 17 of the Public Procurement Ordinance (VgV – Vergabeverordnung).

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.

by ReCreate project

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.

Older Posts