Blog posts - Recreate

November 27, 2025

Kjartan Gudmundsson, KTH

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

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

Measurement of carbonation depth of a concrete core

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

Concrete elements reused in the H22 pilot project

by ReCreate project

November 25, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by ReCreate project

October 10, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

by ReCreate project

September 10, 2025

Paul Jonker-Hoffrén, Tampere University

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

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

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

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

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

by ReCreate project

September 8, 2025

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

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

Programme highlights

Tuesday, 16 September

10:00–11:00 – Opening address: ReCreate coordinator Satu Huuhka will set the stage for the conference.
13:00–14:50 (Urban mining 1, Room Duetto 2) – José Hernández Vargas will present an integrated GIS and BIM approach for mapping Sweden’s precast building stock.
15:20–17:15 – Parallel sessions featuring ReCreate research:
- Assessment 1 (Duetto 1): Emmi Salmio on the environmental benefits of reusing hollow-core slabs.
- Quality management 1 (Duetto 2): Inari Weijo and Niko Kotkavuo on condition investigation and the history of hollow-core slabs in Finland.
- Policy & social 1 (Riffi): Paul Jonker-Hoffrén on decision-making moments in circular construction, and Tove Malmqvist on hazardous substances in reused concrete.

Wednesday, 17 September

09:00–11:10 (Design 2, Duetto 2) – A strong ReCreate panel on reuse-driven design, including Patrick Teuffel, Simon Wijte, and Marcel Vullings. Topics range from AI-supported design tools to the role of databases in successful reuse.
13:10–15:20 –
- Value chains 1 (Duetto 1): Arlind Dervishaj on smart logistics for reuse.
- Design 3 (Riffi): Christoph Henschel on combining reused precast elements with other materials for flexible design.
15:50–18:00 –
- Assessment 3 (Duetto 1): Ahmad Al-Najjar on the availability and carbon reduction potential of reclaimed elements in Sweden.
- Decommissioning (Duetto 2): Jukka Lahdensivu and Thijs Lambrechts on evaluating and reconnecting deconstructed precast elements.

Thursday, 18 September

09:00–10:50 (Products, Duetto 1) – Agnese Scalbi and Arlind Dervishaj will present innovative mechanical systems and reconditioning techniques for reusable precast elements.
12:50–14:20 –
- Quality management 3 (Duetto 1): Benjamin Matthews and Aapo Räsänen on deriving design values and best practices for reclaimed elements.
- Design 4 (Duetto 2): Helena Westerlind on adaptive architectural transformations.
14:50–16:15 –
- Value chains 2 (Duetto 1): José Hernández Vargas on structured databases of reusable precast elements.

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

by ReCreate project

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

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 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