City of Tampere - Recreate

October 3, 2025

Dizajn-bez-naslova-2025-10-01T155234.799.png

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

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

Keynotes that framed the conversation

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

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

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

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

Sharing knowledge beyond Tampere

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

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

Looking ahead

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

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

February 13, 2025

The Finnish cluster has completed its first mini pilot in the autumn of 2024. The first batch of reclaimed elements – 25 hollow-core slabs – were reused in a block of flats in Tampere.

The building was built by Skanska for the client, affordable rental housing company A-Kruunu. The elements originate from the Finnish cluster’s deconstruction pilot, in which an office building from the 1980s was deconstructed in Tampere city center during the autumn of 2023. The new building with the reused elements stands in Härmälänranta district, Potkurinkatu street, about 6 km to the South-West from the donor building’s location.

Finnish mini pilot building

’It’s great to take part in a pilot that develops circular construction. The project corresponds to our aim to develop housing construction in Finland. The location in Härmälänranta is also attractive’, explains A-Kruunu’s development manager, Ms. Leena Oiva.

The reclaimed hollow-core slabs were reused as floors above an air-raid shelter, which was most suitable for the elements in this building considering the dimensions of the elements.

’Assembly of the reused elements was easy. It did not differ from using virgin elements. The frame of the building is fully precast, so there is further potential for reuse at the end of life.’ says Mr. Toni Tuomola, regional manager for Skanska, and continues:

’Skanska is committed to a green deal for circular economy. We will focus on reusing construction products by exploiting the learnings from ReCreate. The practical experience acquired from the pilot is therefore highly valuable.’

Reused elements were meticulously quality controlled and factory refurbished

Mini pilot installation

The elements reused in the pilot were quality controlled and factory refurbished in Consolis Parma’s factory in Kangasala, a municipality neighbouring Tampere. The first pilot produced invaluable learnings about the need for environmental permits when refurbishing and reusing elements, as well as quality control and product approval of reclaimed elements.

‘Climate change mitigation is at the heart of our strategy. Our aim is to halve our emissions by 2035. In ReCreate, we are looking into the business possibilities of reused elements and how it could contribute to our portfolio of low-carbon products’, shares Mr. Juha Rämö, technology director for Consolis Parma.

‘In addition to the factory refurbishment, we can contribute such core competencies to reuse projects as product design, storage, inspection, testing, and traceability’, Rämö continues.

Business development manager (refurbishment), Ms. Inari Weijo explains the role of Ramboll Finland:

‘In this mini pilot, we at Ramboll developed designing the refurbishment of the reclaimed elements in collaboration with the factory. We also took care of the site-specific product approval of reused elements towards the authorities.’

She elaborates:

‘We acquired useful learnings how to manage the process. This will come in handy in the next pilots and in expanding Ramboll’s service offerings in the field of reuse.’

Mini pilot floor

New pilots are being negotiated

The Finnish cluster aims to pilot reuse of reclaimed precast concrete in more than one building project. Different kinds of buildings and projects will contribute versatile understanding about the requirements for reuse in different contexts. Real-life pilots help to identify barriers to reuse that must be removed in order for reuse to become mainstream.

‘This mini pilot was a valuable first step towards more widespread reuse’, says ReCreate’s coordinator and the Finnish cluster’s leader, Prof. Satu Huuhka from Tampere University.

ReCreate’s Finnish cluster is formed by Tampere University, Skanska, Consolis Parma, Ramboll Finland, Umacon, LIIKE architects, and the City of Tampere.

by ReCreate project

August 9, 2024

Tommi Halonen, project manager, City of Tampere, Finland

Sometimes I get asked: ‘Why is the City of Tampere participating in ReCreate, and what is our role in the project?’ It might be much easier to see why a university or a construction company is taking a part in a project where the goal is to (de)construct buildings in a novel way. But what is the city doing in ReCreate, especially when the deconstruction pilot was not a public building? From my viewpoint, cities have in particular the following two roles to play in the circular transformation:

Role 1: developing public processes that enable the implementation of CE solutions.

First, cities have a significant role as regulators in the construction industry. If there are any issues related to public regulation that do not allow reuse or make it extremely bureaucratic, it is impossible or very difficult (or expensive) to create business out of ReCreate or any other circular solution. There are especially two matters that are regulated by the city authorities that are worth paying attention to: (1) implications of waste legislation and (2) product approval practices.

(1) During the ReCreate project, we’ve had multi-stakeholder discourse in Finland about whether reused building parts should be considered as waste or not – some stakeholders opposed, and some supported the waste status. However, at the end, it is the city officers that control the matter and they needed to decide how to proceed with it. I cannot go through all the matters the authorities needed to consider in order to clarify the issue but in brief, the hardest part was to find a balance between environmental protection and excessive (too heavy) bureaucracy. Eventually the authorities were able to clarify their policies so that, in Finland, reused components are not considered as waste when certain pre-requisites are fulfilled. At the time of writing this blog, we’ve also received an official decision that ReCreate elements are not considered as waste. This is a huge development step in the Finnish industry towards circularity.

(2) Another matter the cities regulate is the product approval of reused building components. Unlike new products, the CE (conformité européenne) mark does not apply to reused products. In Finland, the products are approved as part of a so called ‘building site approval process’ that is regulated by the municipal building supervisors. There is no prior experience of the approval process. Consequently, the situation is now very similar to the aforementioned case: city authorities must again develop practices and policies that ensure that essential technical requirements are met when reusing components but are not too burdensome for practitioners to comply with. As I write this blog, we are in the process of discussing these practices with the authorities.

Role 2: creating needed incentives for companies for CE development.

Cities are not only passively enabling the circular transformation, but they can – and they must – actively initiate the change, too. Indeed, me and my colleagues have received feedback from multiple companies stating that due to early stage of the circular development, the industry cannot move to circularity solely with the help of market drivers and market logic. The companies emphasized the need for public initiatives that create incentives for circular development. Cities have at their disposal policy instrument that can create this market push. The most notable instruments are (1) public procurements and (2) plot handovers.

(1) During the project, we have had multiple meetings and workshops with the leaders of the city so that Tampere could incorporate reuse to future procurements and building projects. Sooner or later, reuse of building components will break through to public procurements and when it does, it will have a significant impact on the market.

(2) Another policy instrument that can initiate change is the plot handover process. In Finland, municipalities are the biggest landowners in urban areas. Traditionally, sustainability or circularity goals have not been part of the handover processes. However, in 2022 the City of Tampere initiated an all-time first circular plot competition. It was a success with nearly 20 building proposals and applications and received a lot of positive attention in general as well as in professional media. Many cities got inspired and wanted to repeat the circular competition. What we decided to do with my colleagues was to launch a working group, the goal of which was to create upgraded and unified circular criteria for the municipalities. Around 30 experts worked on the criteria for a year, and after receiving feedback in different workshops and seminars, we were able publicize the criteria at the beginning of this year. Now, we are keen to see the impact that the criteria will create when the cities are starting to include them to their plot handovers and competitions.

All in all, while this blog is not an exhaustive list of all the role the cities have in the circular transformation, I do hope that I was able make the case that cities are one of the major players enabling the transition. Indeed, for me personally, it is very difficult to see how the industry could make the transition to the circular economy on a large scale if the cities are not developing public policies and processes to promote circularity.