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.
