Finnishcluster - Recreate

February 5, 2025

ReCreate blog post series on mapping in WP1

Post 2

Author: Arvi Rahtola, research assistant, 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. Beside 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. The current blog will discuss the Estonian experience, while the series will continue with Romania and Finland later on.

The Estonian experience

Master’s student of architecture Arvi Rahtola joined the ReCreate research team at Tampere University as a research assistant for a ten-week sprint in the summer of 2024, with guidance provided by project researcher Niko Kotkavuo, to collect material on the precast building systems of Estonia. This blog gives the personal account of his involvement and the challenges he encountered while studying the systems:

Challenges with mapping Estonian Soviet concrete construction systems were mainly related to the country’s rather small size. When country is so small that in most fields everybody knows everybody by name, very few things are written down. As a starting point, the available Estonian sources were mainly blogposts, old news articles, or commercial publications on insulating existing residential buildings. Even though the initial material was narrow, it led me to archives, which turned out to be well organized and easy to access.

Finding enough material didn’t turn out to be a problem. The design bureau responsible for designing most Soviet prefabricated housing left behind a large amount of records. Some type building series had over 200 folders of material to go through. The information I was looking for was hiding in four or five of them. Additionally, some of the archived material had unfortunately deteriorated to the point of uselessness. The main challenge turned out to be locating the relevant files while hoping they were in a usable condition.

Processing the found material ended up being a challenge. Having been part of the Soviet Union, where the main language of state and business was Russian, the found archival material was also written in Russian. During the process of finding material and interpreting the blueprints, I got to extend my vocabulary related to precast concrete construction.

Residential buildings in Soviet Estonia were built by the Union wide ‘type project’ system. This means that the same building could be found in Estonia or Kazakhstan. During all the Soviet period, Estonian prefabricated concrete housing was compiled of only few different Union-wide systems and two ‘homegrown’ ones. Compared to many other nations, everything in these buildings was strictly standardized, which made the review work easier.

An interesting aspect of Estonian elements is the use of ‘silicalcite’ concrete and the use of shale oil ash to replace cement. This was mostly because the concrete industry was already struggling to produce enough cement during the years of reconstruction after the Second World War. By using unorthodox materials, building capacity was increased, when ordinary materials were in short supply.

Most of the reuse knowledge about the pan-Soviet systems like the 1-464, or the 111-121, are also hopefully more widely useful. The former was in use everywhere in the Soviet Union, and the latter was also used in many areas; for one in Kyiv, Ukraine.

by ReCreate project

February 4, 2025

Leena-Aarikka-Stenroos-Mikko-Sairanen-Linnea-Harala-Lauri-Alkki_ReCreate-project_Horizon-2020-1.png

ReCreate blog post series on mapping in WP1

Post 1

Authors: Niko Kotkavuo, researcher & Maria Lomiak, research assistant, Tampere University

In the decades following the Second World War, many countries in Europe faced severe housing shortages. This lead to great efforts to industrialise building construction to reduce the cost and increase the speed of construction. The industrialisation effort manifested in many precast concrete building systems being developed, with various levels of standardisation. They became widely-used especially in multi-family housing construction in the second half of the 20th century.

Many of the systems follow national or regional borders while others have crossed borders. Border crossing has taken place e.g. via licence agreements or more unofficially, when features and details of existing exemplars have been borrowed in newly developed systems. Thus, the systems form an interrelated familial network. However, the fact that existing literature on the history of post-war construction has mostly been written in the local languages and for the audiences of the specific countries, is a challenge for the comparative study of precast systems.

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. Beside residential building systems, the ones used in non-residential construction are of interest as well. This blog post series describes that experience, starting from Poland in the current post, and continuing with Estonia, Romania, and Finland in the next postings of the series.

The Polish experience

Master’s student of architecture Maria Lomiak joined the ReCreate research team at Tampere University as a research assistants for a ten-week sprint in the summer of 2024, with guidance provided by project researcher Niko Kotkavuo, to collect material on the precast building systems of Poland. This blog gives the personal account of her involvement and the challenges she encountered while studying the systems:

In my hometown, Warsaw, large-panel construction is omnipresent in the cityscape. As a matter of fact, across the whole country, large-panel housing is becoming sort of an icon of the past. Though precast structures in Poland tend to be associated with poor technical performance and imperfections, they continue to serve their purpose, providing housing for almost 12 million people (approx. 1/3 of the population).

The findings on Polish industrialised building systems reveal a complex family tree of systems, with few central systems applied nationwide, and multiple regional systems. After the Second World War, the establishment of the communist regime in Poland led to the strengthening of individual cities and regions. Autonomous research centres and local manufacturers emerged, which resulted in unsuccessful attempts to centralise housing systems (Wojtkun, 2012). Aiming at socio-economic growth, the development of industrial technology focused on efficiency through limiting the number of building systems, but the realities of local conditions necessitated continuous modifications, leading to an increasing number of variations for each of the so-called central systems.

Therefore, the preserved material on Polish industrialised systems is extensive, though scattered across various libraries and archives. These prerequisites and limited time for fieldwork meant that when cataloguing and reviewing the Polish systems, a certain degree of prioritisation had to be done. Nevertheless, tracking down reliable sources was the most rewarding part of the job. Then, organising and translating the collected material was more tedious than I initially thought. Incomplete sets of technical drawings or intricate descriptions were some of the difficulties I encountered. However, a handful of industry-specific manuscripts and articles related to the subject allowed me to create a comprehensive dataset on central systems, which were prioritised during the research work. Archival journal articles provided general parameters of systems, but the differences between systems’ variations were documented poorly.

With that in mind, the potential reuse of prefabricated elements of large-panel Polish housing poses a serious yet achievable challenge. Pre-deconstruction auditing would probably require a better understanding of individual variations of the systems.

Reference:

Wojtkun, G. (2012). ‘Standardy współczesnego mieszkalnictwa’. Przestrzeń i Forma, nr 17, pp. 301–322.

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.

by ReCreate project

March 15, 2024

Inari Weijo, business development manager (refurbishment), Ramboll Finland

During my master’s thesis work over 15 years ago, I familiarised myself with precast production and its history in Finland. After that, precast concrete has been playing a role in one way or another in my work career. Many projects have involved either repairing precast concrete buildings or building new ones. Since the 1970’s, precast concrete production has formed a significant part of the Finnish construction sector. The systematic and ‘simple’ method provided a standardized way to build, and it quickly became very widespread. The precast concrete system has been criticized for producing a unified stock of buildings, reducing versatility in urban environment and suppressing designers’ creativity. Since the early days, though, the technique spread to erecting ever more complex and monumental buildings. It has been foundational for providing a fast and trusted way for building construction in Finland. There are thousands and thousands of precast concrete buildings here, and some of them are already slated for demolition. A part of the buildings suffers from degradation, but many are just mislocated from today’s point of view.

Figure 1. Finnish deconstruction pilot in Tampere, building vacated before the deconstruction of elements for reuse.

I believe that technical know-how is essential for creativity and enables responsible and sustainable construction. We must be more aware of our decisions’ environmental impacts when building new. Architects’ and engineers’ creativity is ever more challenged as we must prioritize sustainability values. Knowing the technical limitations and possibilities is crucial, so that creativity can be unleashed in the right place at the right time, and adverse uncertainties can be eliminated. Building new is inevitable in the future too, but we need to redefine ‘new’. We must apply regenerative thinking, create net positive solutions and aim for more ambitious circularity. The actions we undertake should have a positive impact on nature and the environment so that instead of consuming it, they restore and revive it. This is a leading value for Ramboll.

Figure 2. Regenerative approach to construction. Image source: Ramboll.

The prevalence of precast technology and the aim for a regenerative effect on environment are two leading thoughts that that drive our ambition here at Ramboll to examine and challenge the present business as usual in the construction sector. The headline’s statement inspires me and my colleagues at Ramboll Finland when we seek to find alternative ways to utilize what already exists. The built environment is a bank of building parts that has technically perfectly fine components stocked in it, preserved intact inside buildings. Only processes and systems to utilize them effectively are needed. I sometimes face people itemising reasons and obstacles why reusing building parts is way too difficult. I believe this pessimistic attitude may well up from the insecurity that follows from the building sector changing dramatically. There may also be a disbelief whether the huge leap, which is necessary, can be taken. Some of the items that the sceptics list are well known, some are relevant, and some are just fictional. We need to keep solving them one by one, showcasing with real-life projects that this is possible and acquire more experience to narrow down the gaping hole between the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ way of building.

An important milestone has been reached when the Finnish cluster finished the deconstruction of the pilot building in Tampere this autumn. We succeeded to reclaim several hundred hollow-core slabs, columns and beams intact, ready for use on next building site. It’s been encouraging to gain good test results, both before deconstruction, through a condition investigation, and after deconstruction, as some of the deconstructed elements have been load tested. All has been well from an engineer’s perspective! Now, the reclaimed building parts are being fitted into prospective new building projects. The search for the new building site has not been stalled because of any technical issues but rather by the currently poor market situation.

That final issue to solve – an important one indeed – is the business model that can support reuse. A circular business needs more collaboration among all the players in the field. Technically we are ready to say ‘yes’ to reusing precast concrete elements!

Figure 3. Reclaimed hollow-core slab, deconstructed from the donor building in Tampere.

by ReCreate project

January 31, 2024

Toni Tuomola, District Manager, Skanska (Finland)

Skanska’s role in ReCreate is strongly linked to its goal of building a better society. Being climate-smart – one of our sustainability themes – supports the achievement of this goal. Within the ReCreate project, we are studying how to produce low-carbon solutions through our business operations. ReCreate will provide us with information on how the circular economy of building elements could be promoted in the future – for example, in the planning phases of construction projects. We can have a major influence over the carbon footprint of a project’s outcome, especially in in-house development projects and, above all, in projects where we are responsible for the design.

ReCreate’s Finnish deconstruction pilot site is a 1980s office building in the city of Tampere. The precast concrete frame has been dismantled using a new technique developed and studied as part of the project. Construction projects are complex entities that demand close cooperation to meet targets. We have already worked with the ReCreate project partners for a couple of years on studies and advance preparations to facilitate the practical deconstruction work. Thanks to the studies, we were capable of dismantling the precast concrete elements intact for reuse. We also know how to verify the properties of reusable elements reliably and cost-effectively.

The possibility of technical implementation alone is not enough

Creating a business ecosystem for reusing building elements is an important part of the project. Reuse requires off-site production plants for factory refurbishment and the creation of an entire logistics chain and information management process to put the elements to use again. A marketplace is also needed to bring product providers and users together. Barriers must be lowered in building regulations and practices, and operating models must be harmonized.

What are the implications if reuse is successful? Firstly, the environmental benefits will be significant because the carbon footprint of reused concrete elements is about 95% smaller than that of corresponding new elements. Therefore, it will be possible to realize a substantial decrease in the carbon footprint of new buildings. Reused elements may not necessarily be used to construct entire buildings, but they would be utilized in the most suitable places. This would ensure that the dimensional and strength properties of reused elements can be used to the best effect.

The reduction in the carbon footprint helps us to meet the low-carbon requirements that will be introduced through regulation in the future. Environmental certification programs such as LEED and BREEAM also award extra points for reusing building materials.

Decommissioning a building by deconstructing elements is slower and more expensive than conventional destructive demolition. However, prior international research has found that a reused element can be as little as 30% of the price of a new element. This is an important perspective for projects researching business opportunities based on the circular economy.

A climate-neutral society is the sum of many parts, large and small. The circular economy of precast concrete elements is one factor among many. We need all the parts to work together to reach this goal.