ReCreate - Recreate

October 2, 2026
Dizajn-bez-naslova-20-1280x474.png

After more than five years of research, technical development, real-life demonstrations and collaboration across the construction value chain, the Horizon 2020 project ReCreate – Reusing precast concrete for a circular economy officially concludes on 30 September 2026.

ReCreate started on 1 April 2021 with a clear objective: to investigate how precast concrete elements from existing buildings can be identified, carefully deconstructed, assessed, documented, refurbished, redesigned and safely reused in new construction.

Originally planned as a 48-month project and later extended to complete the demonstration activities, ReCreate was coordinated by Tampere University and received €12.49 million in EU funding.

The project brought together 22 partners from five countries, organised around real-life pilot activities in Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany. Its ambition went well beyond proving that individual concrete slabs or columns could be reused. ReCreate set out to develop the technical, digital, economic, regulatory and organisational conditions required to turn reuse into a repeatable construction process.

More than five years later, the project leaves behind not only buildings and reused concrete elements, but also methods, tools, datasets, technical guidance, publications, business insights and practical lessons for the next generation of circular construction projects.

Why reuse precast concrete elements?

Concrete is the most widely used construction material globally, and the built environment represents a substantial share of the world’s human-made material stock. Cement production alone remains one of the world’s largest sources of anthropogenic CO₂ emissions.

When a concrete building reaches the end of its first use, conventional practice typically involves demolition followed by crushing and recycling of concrete.

ReCreate investigated a higher-value alternative: keeping structural elements intact and using them again as structural components.

This distinction is fundamental. Recycling preserves material, but destroys the product. Reuse preserves the concrete, reinforcement, geometry and much of the value already invested in manufacturing the component.

However, ReCreate recognised from the beginning that technical feasibility alone would not be enough.

Existing buildings were rarely designed for disassembly. Documentation may be incomplete. Connections can be difficult to separate without damaging the elements. Reclaimed components need reliable quality assurance. Supply and demand need to meet at the right place and time. Designers need information about available elements early enough to design with them. Permitting, liability and certification need workable procedures.

The project was therefore structured around one central question:

What does the complete system for concrete element reuse need to look like?

A complete reuse chain – from donor building to new construction

ReCreate’s research followed the entire journey of a precast concrete component.

The project addressed six core questions: how to deconstruct existing buildings while recovering different element types; how to verify their properties and quality reliably and cost-effectively; how to refurbish and reassemble them; how logistics and information should be managed; which regulatory and practical barriers must be addressed; and what type of business ecosystem can make reuse commercially viable.

This resulted in a project structure covering the complete reuse process:

precast concrete systems → pre-deconstruction audit → deconstruction → logistics and processing → quality management → redesign and reassembly, supported by work on environmental impacts, business models, policy and social acceptance, communication and transferability.

The current ReCreate knowledge base is organised across 11 Work Packages, ranging from analysis of precast systems to ethics and project management.

Knowing what exists: precast systems, inventories and digital data

Reuse begins with knowledge of the existing building stock.

ReCreate analysed precast concrete systems used across Europe since the post-war period, looking at building typologies, component types and connections. The project developed an open taxonomy and interactive digital map covering archival material from eleven European countries: Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechia, Romania and Bulgaria.

This matters because visually similar buildings can contain very different structural systems, while technically comparable elements may exist across different national contexts.

ReCreate also developed digital workflows for capturing data about individual reclaimed components. The project’s database links elements to their donor buildings and stores information including provenance, geometry, condition and material properties, using traceable identifiers and interoperable data exchange through IFC/BIM environments.

Technologies investigated within the project included laser scanning, portable X-ray, RFID and QR identification, BIM integration and digital marketplace concepts. The goal was to ensure that data collected before and during deconstruction could remain connected to the physical element throughout testing, refurbishment, design and installation.

The project also developed ReCreate Studio, a prototype Autodesk Revit plug-in intended to allow designers to work directly with a database of available reclaimed components.

In parallel, ReCreate developed an LCA & LCC Tool for Precast Concrete Reuse, combining an element catalogue with project-specific calculations for transport distance, associated CO₂ emissions and transport costs, allowing reclaimed elements to be compared with equivalent newly produced components.

Deconstruction instead of demolition

The second major challenge was physical recovery.

Most existing precast buildings were assembled with connections intended to remain permanent. Grouted joints, reinforcement and cast-in-place connections can make clean separation difficult, and poor deconstruction methods can damage otherwise reusable components.

ReCreate therefore developed a BIM-aided pre-deconstruction audit to identify the number, dimensions, properties and connections of elements before work begins and to support sequencing, logistics and worker safety.

The project then tested and evaluated different deconstruction methods and equipment through real-life pilots.

The objective was not simply to remove elements from buildings. It was to maximise the number of components recovered without compromising structural integrity, quality or safety.

The methodology has already moved beyond the research environment. In Finland, project partner Umacon applied the ReCreate deconstruction approach in its first commercial project, Melkinlaituri.

Erik Stenberg

Quality assurance: can a reclaimed element safely carry another building?

One of ReCreate’s most technically important areas was quality management.

Reclaimed structural elements may have been in service for several decades. Their original documentation may be incomplete, their previous exposure conditions uncertain, and additional damage may occur during deconstruction, transport or storage.

ReCreate therefore developed systematic assessment procedures combining:

  • available technical documentation and knowledge of the original building;
  • visual inspection and damage classification;
  • non-destructive testing;
  • targeted destructive testing where required;
  • assessment of load-bearing capacity;
  • durability and remaining service-life evaluation;
  • documentation linked to the digital identity of each element.

The testing addressed concrete strength, reinforcement configuration, carbonation, corrosion, frost damage, chlorides, alkali–aggregate reaction and mechanical damage, as well as potentially harmful substances and other conditions relevant to future use.

Results across the four pilot countries were encouraging. The tested reclaimed elements were generally in good condition, concrete grades measured in the investigated elements were higher than original design values, and identified harmful substances could be removed before detachment.

The Dutch cluster developed a particularly structured framework for reclaimed hollow-core slabs, based on knowledge assessment, damage evaluation, structural reliability and aesthetic checks, complemented by damage catalogues, inspection checklists and classifications according to the intervention or further testing required.

ReCreate partners have also contributed to standardisation work. In Sweden, project researchers have been involved in developing a standard for the reuse of precast concrete elements, addressing structural integrity, durability, remaining service life and appropriate testing procedures.

Designing with what already exists

Reuse also changes the logic of architectural and structural design.

In conventional construction, a design is developed and components are manufactured to specification.

With reuse, the components already exist.

Their dimensions, geometry, reinforcement, condition and connection details become design parameters.

The Dutch final demonstrator clearly captured this shift: designing first and searching for elements later is time-consuming and creates risk. A more effective approach places available elements at the centre of the design process, while keeping adjustments as simple as possible because every modification adds cost.

ReCreate therefore investigated new architectural and structural design methods, connector solutions and approaches to reassembly.

The project also showed how reuse requires stronger collaboration between architects, structural engineers, contractors, deconstruction specialists and component suppliers much earlier than in conventional linear construction.

Proof through real projects

The most important feature of ReCreate was that the methodology was not confined to laboratories.

It was tested through real donor buildings and reuse applications in Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany.

Each country brought different construction systems, regulatory conditions and market structures, allowing ReCreate to test whether knowledge could be transferred across contexts.

Finland: one donor building, four reuse pilots

The Finnish pilot began with a 1982 office building in Tampere.

During deconstruction in 2023, approximately 260 elements were salvaged, primarily hollow-core slabs, columns and beams. The components were subsequently refurbished in a precast factory for reuse.

Those elements were then used in four separate pilot applications.

The first residential pilot installed 25 reclaimed hollow-core slabs in floor structures in autumn 2024 and provided practical experience with quality control, product approval and environmental permit requirements. Installation itself was reported as straightforward.

The second pilot used 27 hollow-core slabs in roof structures in an industrial construction project in 2025, testing reuse in a larger and more complex project environment.

The third pilot, a residential project in Tampere’s Hiedanranta district, incorporated 55 reclaimed structural elements: 35 hollow-core slabs, 13 columns and seven beams. Columns and beams were refurbished to suit the new building frame.

The fourth and main Finnish pilot was the Sammonkatu exhibition pavilion, constructed in 2026 using 30 columns, six beams and five hollow-core slabs. The project tested how architectural and structural design must adapt to an existing stock of reclaimed components and served as a public demonstration of the Finnish cluster’s work.

The Finnish case also produced significant regulatory and commercial lessons. Finnish authorities clarified that reclaimed building elements do not automatically become waste if they remain in a usable state throughout the process, removing an important potential barrier to reuse.

ReCreate methods also moved into commercial practice through projects including Melkinlaituri, demonstrating that the reuse process could operate outside the original research pilots.

Sweden: from H22 to stock-based design

Sweden explored reuse through two distinct pilots.

The first was the H22 exhibition pavilion in Helsingborg, completed in 2022.

According to the final Swedish demonstrator presentation, 94% of the pavilion by weight consisted of reused material, with concrete elements sourced from four different places. The pilot also tested a partnering model in which architectural design, structural design and constructability were addressed simultaneously, creating a more flexible design process and new roles for project participants.

The pavilion also demonstrated design for disassembly, using connections that allow the reused components to be separated again.

The Swedish cluster then expanded the work through the Grönkulla row houses, ongoing in 2026. This pilot combines renovation, partial deconstruction, conversion of existing structures and new row houses incorporating reused concrete.

A central concept developed through the Swedish work was stock-based design: instead of treating reclaimed elements as substitutes added late in design, available material stocks become an input from the beginning.

The Swedish cluster investigated reuse from several donor sources, including a multi-family residential building, an industrial warehouse, an office building and an existing preschool foundation.

The Netherlands: from Prinsenhof to Circular Centre Netherlands

The Dutch pilot centres on the transformation of elements recovered from Prinsenhof A in Arnhem into components for the Circular Centre Netherlands in Heerde.

Prinsenhof A contained more than 8,000 m² of floor area, with a precast structural system dominated by hollow-core slabs spanning between load-bearing façade elements. Deconstruction was carried out in 2022. Because of the wet connections and structural topping, the slabs and façade elements had to be separated by sawing before they could be lifted and transported.

The reclaimed components were stored at Lagemaat and systematically inventoried for geometry, reinforcement, structural capacity and material properties.

The new Circular Centre Netherlands consists of five buildings, with the office building serving as the main ReCreate pilot. Its structure combines reclaimed hollow-core slabs and precast façade elements with other reused structural materials.

Structural reuse here required more than checking individual components. The design team had to investigate the stability function of reused load-bearing façade panels, reinforce certain lintels and determine where elements were sufficiently stiff for longitudinal and transverse stability.

A full-scale mock-up became an important part of the Dutch methodology.

It was used to test structural design assumptions, tolerances and connection details before construction of the full building. The testing revealed practical issues such as dimensional mismatch between hollow-core slabs and façade elements and highlighted the importance of effective diaphragm action in floor joints.

This pilot demonstrates a central ReCreate lesson: successful reuse requires technical verification at the level of the whole structural system, not only assessment of individual elements.

Prinsenhof

Germany: reuse rooted in decades of experience

The German cluster built on more than 25 years of research into precast concrete reuse at Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg.

Two major applications were developed.

The Youth Center in Hohenmölsen is designed as an approximately 835 m², two-storey building incorporating 484 deconstructed precast concrete elements from a local GDR-era “P-Halle” residential building only around four kilometres away.

The available element stock includes exterior wall panels, interior walls and floor slabs and directly informs the architectural and structural design of the new building.

The second pilot is the Sports Club Kolkwitz, an approximately 290 m² extension and associated public-use facilities, designed to incorporate 80 reclaimed precast elements recovered from a donor building in Großräschen, approximately 40 km away.

The deconstruction campaign at that donor building illustrates the difference between theoretical technical reusability and what can actually be recovered for a specific reuse project. Of 707 deconstructed elements, 211 floor slabs, 224 interior wall elements and 104 exterior wall elements were classified as technically reusable; a smaller subset was ultimately “rescued” for planned reuse, including spare and test elements.

The German pilots therefore provide particularly valuable evidence on element portfolios, selective recovery, stock-based design and the logistics of matching donor and recipient projects.

Environmental performance: reuse must be assessed as a whole process

ReCreate also evaluated the environmental implications of reuse through life-cycle assessment.

The environmental benefit comes primarily from avoiding the production of equivalent new structural components. However, the project also accounted for the impacts of deconstruction, transport, storage, refurbishment and reassembly.

This is important because reuse is not automatically the lowest-impact solution in every possible situation. Distance, processing requirements and the condition of the reclaimed elements all matter.

Research developed within ReCreate has therefore focused not only on embodied-carbon savings, but also on practical methodologies for calculating climate benefits and on the development of EPD approaches for reclaimed building components.

The project’s work confirms one of the central principles of circular construction: preserving value locally and regionally is critical. The closer donor buildings, processing facilities and recipient projects can be connected, the stronger both the environmental and economic case for reuse becomes.

From technical feasibility to a functioning business ecosystem

A structurally sound reclaimed element is not yet a market.

For widespread reuse, the sector needs functioning supply chains, clear responsibilities, predictable quality-assurance procedures, logistics, storage solutions, digital information systems and viable business models.

ReCreate therefore devoted an entire work stream to the business ecosystem surrounding reuse.

The project examined profitability at company level as well as the broader circular value chain: which actors are needed, where new roles may emerge, how technology creates economic value, how risks are allocated, and how regulatory and social barriers influence business viability.

The final project synthesis makes the key lesson particularly clear.

Concrete element reuse is technically feasible. Precast elements can be safely deconstructed, assessed, refurbished and integrated into new construction.

But the process requires flexibility. Donor buildings, available elements and recipient projects must be matched, and design teams need to work with the dimensions, properties, condition and availability of existing components rather than fully predefined solutions.

Coordination is equally critical because deconstruction, testing, storage, transport, refurbishment, design and construction overlap and involve several actors. Reuse therefore works best when demolition and future construction projects are connected early enough for recovered materials to inform design and delivery.

The remaining challenge is not one technology

By the end of ReCreate, the most important barriers were no longer primarily technical.

The project identified four interrelated bottlenecks:

  • quality assurance, permitting, certification, liability and contractual responsibilities remain insufficiently standardised;
  • demand remains fragmented, and supply and demand must align in timing, location, quantities and element properties;
  • costs and risks are unevenly distributed across deconstruction, testing, storage, design adaptation and coordination;
  • both formal institutions, such as regulation and standards, and informal ones, such as professional practices and attitudes, still need to evolve.

The project’s conclusion is therefore important:

the central challenge is not a single technical barrier, but the alignment of markets, regulations, processes and actors.

A roadmap from pilots to mainstream construction

ReCreate’s final roadmap identifies five developments needed to move reuse from pioneering projects into wider construction practice:

  1. Reuse becomes financially competitive
  2. New partnerships develop around element reuse
  3. Digital solutions support reuse
  4. Circularity becomes a core design principle
  5. New professional identities and competences emerge

The roadmap treats mainstreaming as a socio-technical transition: technological solutions need to develop together with business models, regulation, industry practices, societal attitudes and professional skills.

That is perhaps the clearest summary of what more than five years of ReCreate have shown.

A substantial open knowledge base

One of ReCreate’s objectives from the outset was to ensure that the work would remain useful beyond the life of the grant.

The project website now brings together a substantial body of material, including:

  • an interactive map and taxonomy of European precast systems;
  • digital element databases and BIM workflows;
  • pre-deconstruction audit guidance;
  • deconstruction methodologies;
  • quality-management procedures;
  • design and reassembly research;
  • LCA and LCC approaches;
  • business-model and ecosystem research;
  • legal and policy analysis;
  • scientific publications;
  • pilot documentation;
  • digital tools and datasets.

The ReCreate scientific-publications library includes research on deconstruction, quality assurance, digital workflows, structural reuse, design, business models, environmental assessment and policy.

→ Explore the complete ReCreate project structure 

→ Explore the ReCreate tools

→ Browse the scientific publications

→ Explore official project deliverables and results

Final Conference: bringing the complete reuse process together

On 23 September 2026, GBC Croatia organised the ReCreate Final Conference, bringing together 155 participants from 26 countries.

The conference was structured around the complete reuse journey of a precast concrete element — from deconstruction and digital documentation to quality assurance, redesign and reassembly. The four country clusters then showed how these approaches were tested in practice through demonstrators in Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany.

The discussion finally moved from individual technologies and pilot projects to the wider conditions needed for scale-up: viable business models, clearer regulatory pathways, functioning markets, digital tools, new design approaches and the professional competencies required to make reuse part of everyday construction practice.

→ Watch the full Final Conference

22 partners, one circular construction challenge

ReCreate brought together universities, research organisations, cities, public building owners, architects, structural engineers, precast manufacturers, contractors, deconstruction companies, digital specialists and organisations working on sustainable construction.

The final consortium included:

Tampere University, LIIKE Oy Arkkitehtistudio, Ramboll Finland, Consolis Parma, Skanska, Umacon and the City of Tampere in Finland;

KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Helsingborgshem and Consolis Strängbetong in Sweden;

Eindhoven University of Technology, TNO, Circular Structural Design, Consolis VBI, Lagemaat and IMd Structural Engineers in the Netherlands;

Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, ECOSOIL Ost, P. Jähne Ingenieurbüro, the City of Hohenmölsen and Lohmann und Robinski in Germany;

and Green Building Council Croatia.

→ Meet the ReCreate partners

From “can it be done?” to “how can it become normal practice?”

ReCreate closes with a much stronger evidence base than existed when the project began.

Across four European contexts, precast concrete elements have been identified in donor buildings, carefully deconstructed, assessed, digitally documented, refurbished, redesigned and integrated into new construction.

The project has developed practical methods and tools for pre-deconstruction audits, deconstruction, quality management, logistics, traceability, redesign and environmental and economic assessment. It has generated guidance for future projects and roadmaps for industry and policymakers.

It has also demonstrated where the next challenge lies.

The question is no longer simply whether structural concrete elements can be reused.

They can.

The next phase is about making reuse predictable, scalable and economically viable: connecting demolition and construction projects earlier, creating regional markets for reclaimed elements, standardising quality and certification procedures, developing digital information flows, clarifying responsibilities and ensuring that architects, engineers, contractors, clients and authorities have the knowledge and confidence to work differently.

ReCreate officially ends on 30 September 2026.

Its results do not.

Continue exploring ReCreate

More than five years of research, development and demonstration cannot be captured in one article.

We invite professionals, researchers, policymakers, students and everyone interested in circular construction to continue exploring and using the knowledge produced through ReCreate.

Explore the ReCreate project pilots
Explore project results and Work Packages
Explore ReCreate tools
Explore Section for practitioners (reports explained)
Browse scientific publications
Meet the project partners
Browse ReCreate news and project stories
Explore official project results on CORDIS

To the project coordinator, all ReCreate partners, researchers, industry partners, cities, pilot teams and everyone who contributed to the project over more than five years: thank you for the knowledge, work and collaboration that made ReCreate possible.

The project ends here. The work of making structural reuse part of everyday construction continues.

 

 


September 25, 2026
Final-Conference-12-1280x640.png

The ReCreate Final Conference took place online on 23 September 2026. Over three hours, the project partners showed what came out of five years of work on reusing precast concrete elements. They also discussed what still has to change for reuse to become normal practice. The conference was organised by GBC Croatia and brought together 155 participants from 26 countries.

Why reuse?

Project coordinator Satu Huuhka (Tampere University) opened by setting the scale of the problem. Human-made mass now exceeds all living biomass on Earth. Cement alone is the third-largest source of human-made CO₂ emissions. ReCreate’s answer is to treat existing precast concrete buildings as a source of building elements, not as waste to be crushed.

What ReCreate developed

The first panel, moderated by Ena Luketić (GBC Croatia), followed a single concrete element on its journey. It starts in the donor building, goes into a database and through quality checks, and ends up in a new design. Each panelist led one step of that journey in ReCreate:

  • Simon Wijte (TU/e) on deconstruction
  • Kjartan Gudmundsson (KTH) on digital tools and tracking
  • Jukka Lahdensivu (TAU) on quality assurance
  • Patrick Teuffel (CSD) on redesign and reassembly
Four countries, four demonstrator stories
  • Finland: Inari Weijo (Ramboll Finland) and Eric Rawlins (LIIKE) presented the Finnish cluster. About 260 elements were salvaged from a 1982 office building in 2023. They were then reused in four pilots: two residential buildings, an industrial building and the Sammonkatu exhibition pavilion in Tampere. The pavilion was built in 2026 from 30 columns, 6 beams and 5 hollow core slabs.
  • Sweden: Helena Westerlind (KTH) presented the Swedish pilots, including the H22 exhibition pavilion.
  • The Netherlands: Sebastiaan van Hellenberg Hubar (IMd) presented the Circular Centre Netherlands office building. It is built from elements of the deconstructed Prinsenhof building in Arnhem. The main lessons were that the elements have to sit at the centre of the design, and that it pays to keep things simple, because every adjustment adds cost. A full-size mock-up was used to test the structural design, the tolerances and the connections.
  • Germany: Jakob Fischer (BTU Cottbus-Senftenberg) presented the extension of the Kolkwitz sports club, built with 80 elements from a donor building about 40 km away. He also presented the youth centre in Hohenmölsen, which will reuse 484 elements. It is set to become the largest reuse project with precast concrete elements in Germany.
Cross-cutting lessons

The second panel stepped back from the individual pilots. It asked what holds true across all of them, once the technical side is solved. The topics were:

  • business models and value chains (Leena Aarikka-Stenroos, TAU)
  • policy, legal, social and organisational conditions (Paul Jonker-Hoffrén, TAU)
  • architecture, design and acceptance (Erik Stenberg, KTH)
  • the project-wide synthesis (Satu Huuhka)
From pilots to wider practice

Lauri Alkki and Eetu Lehmusvaara (TAU) summed up the key lesson: reuse is technically feasible, but it challenges existing processes and project logics.

The main bottlenecks they identified are:

  • quality assurance, permitting, certification and liability are not yet standardised
  • demand is weak and fragmented
  • costs and risks are unevenly distributed along the value chain

To guide the way forward, ReCreate developed a roadmap built on five developments:

  1. reuse becomes financially competitive
  2. new partnerships form around element reuse
  3. digital solutions support reuse
  4. circularity becomes a core design principle
  5. new professional competences emerge
An engaged audience

Participants kept the Q&A and chat busy all afternoon. Questions covered element refurbishment, connections, storage hubs, insurance, design for disassembly and whole-life carbon.

Missed it? Watch the recording

The full conference recording is available on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnaJS6lShxo

The reports mentioned during the conference are available in the Resources section of this website.

Thank you to all speakers, partners and participants who joined us!


September 7, 2026
Final-Conference-5-1280x640.png

The ReCreate project is coming to its final conference, bringing together the key results, experiences and lessons learned from several years of research, development and demonstration work on the reuse of precast concrete elements.
ReCreate explores how precast concrete elements from existing buildings can be identified, deconstructed, assessed, documented, redesigned and reused in new construction.
At the final conference, project partners will present the key results, practical demonstrator experiences from Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany, and the main lessons learned for circular construction practice. The detailed agenda is provided below.

The event is free and open to everyone interested in circular construction, resource efficiency and low-carbon building practices, including professionals, researchers, public authorities, policymakers, students and other stakeholders.
Register for the online conference using the link below and join us to discover what ReCreate has developed, tested and learned about bringing precast concrete reuse closer to practice.

REGISTER HERE

 

 

 


September 1, 2026
Dizajn-bez-naslova-20-1280x474.png

After more than five years of research, technical development, real-life demonstrations and collaboration across the construction value chain, the Horizon 2020 project ReCreate – Reusing precast concrete for a circular economy officially concludes on 30 September 2026.

ReCreate started on 1 April 2021 with a clear objective: to investigate how precast concrete elements from existing buildings can be identified, carefully deconstructed, assessed, documented, refurbished, redesigned and safely reused in new construction.

Originally planned as a 48-month project and later extended to complete the demonstration activities, ReCreate was coordinated by Tampere University and received €12.49 million in EU funding.

The project brought together 22 partners from five countries, organised around real-life pilot activities in Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany. Its ambition went well beyond proving that individual concrete slabs or columns could be reused. ReCreate set out to develop the technical, digital, economic, regulatory and organisational conditions required to turn reuse into a repeatable construction process.

More than five years later, the project leaves behind not only buildings and reused concrete elements, but also methods, tools, datasets, technical guidance, publications, business insights and practical lessons for the next generation of circular construction projects.

Why reuse precast concrete elements?

Concrete is the most widely used construction material globally, and the built environment represents a substantial share of the world’s human-made material stock. Cement production alone remains one of the world’s largest sources of anthropogenic CO₂ emissions.

When a concrete building reaches the end of its first use, conventional practice typically involves demolition followed by crushing and recycling of concrete.

ReCreate investigated a higher-value alternative: keeping structural elements intact and using them again as structural components.

This distinction is fundamental. Recycling preserves material, but destroys the product. Reuse preserves the concrete, reinforcement, geometry and much of the value already invested in manufacturing the component.

However, ReCreate recognised from the beginning that technical feasibility alone would not be enough.

Existing buildings were rarely designed for disassembly. Documentation may be incomplete. Connections can be difficult to separate without damaging the elements. Reclaimed components need reliable quality assurance. Supply and demand need to meet at the right place and time. Designers need information about available elements early enough to design with them. Permitting, liability and certification need workable procedures.

The project was therefore structured around one central question:

What does the complete system for concrete element reuse need to look like?

A complete reuse chain – from donor building to new construction

ReCreate’s research followed the entire journey of a precast concrete component.

The project addressed six core questions: how to deconstruct existing buildings while recovering different element types; how to verify their properties and quality reliably and cost-effectively; how to refurbish and reassemble them; how logistics and information should be managed; which regulatory and practical barriers must be addressed; and what type of business ecosystem can make reuse commercially viable.

This resulted in a project structure covering the complete reuse process:

precast concrete systems → pre-deconstruction audit → deconstruction → logistics and processing → quality management → redesign and reassembly, supported by work on environmental impacts, business models, policy and social acceptance, communication and transferability.

The current ReCreate knowledge base is organised across 11 Work Packages, ranging from analysis of precast systems to ethics and project management.

Knowing what exists: precast systems, inventories and digital data

Reuse begins with knowledge of the existing building stock.

ReCreate analysed precast concrete systems used across Europe since the post-war period, looking at building typologies, component types and connections. The project developed an open taxonomy and interactive digital map covering archival material from eleven European countries: Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechia, Romania and Bulgaria.

This matters because visually similar buildings can contain very different structural systems, while technically comparable elements may exist across different national contexts.

ReCreate also developed digital workflows for capturing data about individual reclaimed components. The project’s database links elements to their donor buildings and stores information including provenance, geometry, condition and material properties, using traceable identifiers and interoperable data exchange through IFC/BIM environments.

Technologies investigated within the project included laser scanning, portable X-ray, RFID and QR identification, BIM integration and digital marketplace concepts. The goal was to ensure that data collected before and during deconstruction could remain connected to the physical element throughout testing, refurbishment, design and installation.

The project also developed ReCreate Studio, a prototype Autodesk Revit plug-in intended to allow designers to work directly with a database of available reclaimed components.

In parallel, ReCreate developed an LCA & LCC Tool for Precast Concrete Reuse, combining an element catalogue with project-specific calculations for transport distance, associated CO₂ emissions and transport costs, allowing reclaimed elements to be compared with equivalent newly produced components.

Deconstruction instead of demolition

The second major challenge was physical recovery.

Most existing precast buildings were assembled with connections intended to remain permanent. Grouted joints, reinforcement and cast-in-place connections can make clean separation difficult, and poor deconstruction methods can damage otherwise reusable components.

ReCreate therefore developed a BIM-aided pre-deconstruction audit to identify the number, dimensions, properties and connections of elements before work begins and to support sequencing, logistics and worker safety.

The project then tested and evaluated different deconstruction methods and equipment through real-life pilots.

The objective was not simply to remove elements from buildings. It was to maximise the number of components recovered without compromising structural integrity, quality or safety.

The methodology has already moved beyond the research environment. In Finland, project partner Umacon applied the ReCreate deconstruction approach in its first commercial project, Melkinlaituri.

Erik Stenberg

Quality assurance: can a reclaimed element safely carry another building?

One of ReCreate’s most technically important areas was quality management.

Reclaimed structural elements may have been in service for several decades. Their original documentation may be incomplete, their previous exposure conditions uncertain, and additional damage may occur during deconstruction, transport or storage.

ReCreate therefore developed systematic assessment procedures combining:

  • available technical documentation and knowledge of the original building;
  • visual inspection and damage classification;
  • non-destructive testing;
  • targeted destructive testing where required;
  • assessment of load-bearing capacity;
  • durability and remaining service-life evaluation;
  • documentation linked to the digital identity of each element.

The testing addressed concrete strength, reinforcement configuration, carbonation, corrosion, frost damage, chlorides, alkali–aggregate reaction and mechanical damage, as well as potentially harmful substances and other conditions relevant to future use.

Results across the four pilot countries were encouraging. The tested reclaimed elements were generally in good condition, concrete grades measured in the investigated elements were higher than original design values, and identified harmful substances could be removed before detachment.

The Dutch cluster developed a particularly structured framework for reclaimed hollow-core slabs, based on knowledge assessment, damage evaluation, structural reliability and aesthetic checks, complemented by damage catalogues, inspection checklists and classifications according to the intervention or further testing required.

ReCreate partners have also contributed to standardisation work. In Sweden, project researchers have been involved in developing a standard for the reuse of precast concrete elements, addressing structural integrity, durability, remaining service life and appropriate testing procedures.

Designing with what already exists

Reuse also changes the logic of architectural and structural design.

In conventional construction, a design is developed and components are manufactured to specification.

With reuse, the components already exist.

Their dimensions, geometry, reinforcement, condition and connection details become design parameters.

The Dutch final demonstrator clearly captured this shift: designing first and searching for elements later is time-consuming and creates risk. A more effective approach places available elements at the centre of the design process, while keeping adjustments as simple as possible because every modification adds cost.

ReCreate therefore investigated new architectural and structural design methods, connector solutions and approaches to reassembly.

The project also showed how reuse requires stronger collaboration between architects, structural engineers, contractors, deconstruction specialists and component suppliers much earlier than in conventional linear construction.

Proof through real projects

The most important feature of ReCreate was that the methodology was not confined to laboratories.

It was tested through real donor buildings and reuse applications in Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany.

Each country brought different construction systems, regulatory conditions and market structures, allowing ReCreate to test whether knowledge could be transferred across contexts.

Finland: one donor building, four reuse pilots

The Finnish pilot began with a 1982 office building in Tampere.

During deconstruction in 2023, approximately 260 elements were salvaged, primarily hollow-core slabs, columns and beams. The components were subsequently refurbished in a precast factory for reuse.

Those elements were then used in four separate pilot applications.

The first residential pilot installed 25 reclaimed hollow-core slabs in floor structures in autumn 2024 and provided practical experience with quality control, product approval and environmental permit requirements. Installation itself was reported as straightforward.

The second pilot used 27 hollow-core slabs in roof structures in an industrial construction project in 2025, testing reuse in a larger and more complex project environment.

The third pilot, a residential project in Tampere’s Hiedanranta district, incorporated 55 reclaimed structural elements: 35 hollow-core slabs, 13 columns and seven beams. Columns and beams were refurbished to suit the new building frame.

The fourth and main Finnish pilot was the Sammonkatu exhibition pavilion, constructed in 2026 using 30 columns, six beams and five hollow-core slabs. The project tested how architectural and structural design must adapt to an existing stock of reclaimed components and served as a public demonstration of the Finnish cluster’s work.

The Finnish case also produced significant regulatory and commercial lessons. Finnish authorities clarified that reclaimed building elements do not automatically become waste if they remain in a usable state throughout the process, removing an important potential barrier to reuse.

ReCreate methods also moved into commercial practice through projects including Melkinlaituri, demonstrating that the reuse process could operate outside the original research pilots.

Sweden: from H22 to stock-based design

Sweden explored reuse through two distinct pilots.

The first was the H22 exhibition pavilion in Helsingborg, completed in 2022.

According to the final Swedish demonstrator presentation, 94% of the pavilion by weight consisted of reused material, with concrete elements sourced from four different places. The pilot also tested a partnering model in which architectural design, structural design and constructability were addressed simultaneously, creating a more flexible design process and new roles for project participants.

The pavilion also demonstrated design for disassembly, using connections that allow the reused components to be separated again.

The Swedish cluster then expanded the work through the Grönkulla row houses, ongoing in 2026. This pilot combines renovation, partial deconstruction, conversion of existing structures and new row houses incorporating reused concrete.

A central concept developed through the Swedish work was stock-based design: instead of treating reclaimed elements as substitutes added late in design, available material stocks become an input from the beginning.

The Swedish cluster investigated reuse from several donor sources, including a multi-family residential building, an industrial warehouse, an office building and an existing preschool foundation.

The Netherlands: from Prinsenhof to Circular Centre Netherlands

The Dutch pilot centres on the transformation of elements recovered from Prinsenhof A in Arnhem into components for the Circular Centre Netherlands in Heerde.

Prinsenhof A contained more than 8,000 m² of floor area, with a precast structural system dominated by hollow-core slabs spanning between load-bearing façade elements. Deconstruction was carried out in 2022. Because of the wet connections and structural topping, the slabs and façade elements had to be separated by sawing before they could be lifted and transported.

The reclaimed components were stored at Lagemaat and systematically inventoried for geometry, reinforcement, structural capacity and material properties.

The new Circular Centre Netherlands consists of five buildings, with the office building serving as the main ReCreate pilot. Its structure combines reclaimed hollow-core slabs and precast façade elements with other reused structural materials.

Structural reuse here required more than checking individual components. The design team had to investigate the stability function of reused load-bearing façade panels, reinforce certain lintels and determine where elements were sufficiently stiff for longitudinal and transverse stability.

A full-scale mock-up became an important part of the Dutch methodology.

It was used to test structural design assumptions, tolerances and connection details before construction of the full building. The testing revealed practical issues such as dimensional mismatch between hollow-core slabs and façade elements and highlighted the importance of effective diaphragm action in floor joints.

This pilot demonstrates a central ReCreate lesson: successful reuse requires technical verification at the level of the whole structural system, not only assessment of individual elements.

Prinsenhof

Germany: reuse rooted in decades of experience

The German cluster built on more than 25 years of research into precast concrete reuse at Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg.

Two major applications were developed.

The Youth Center in Hohenmölsen is designed as an approximately 835 m², two-storey building incorporating 484 deconstructed precast concrete elements from a local GDR-era “P-Halle” residential building only around four kilometres away.

The available element stock includes exterior wall panels, interior walls and floor slabs and directly informs the architectural and structural design of the new building.

The second pilot is the Sports Club Kolkwitz, an approximately 290 m² extension and associated public-use facilities, designed to incorporate 80 reclaimed precast elements recovered from a donor building in Großräschen, approximately 40 km away.

The deconstruction campaign at that donor building illustrates the difference between theoretical technical reusability and what can actually be recovered for a specific reuse project. Of 707 deconstructed elements, 211 floor slabs, 224 interior wall elements and 104 exterior wall elements were classified as technically reusable; a smaller subset was ultimately “rescued” for planned reuse, including spare and test elements.

The German pilots therefore provide particularly valuable evidence on element portfolios, selective recovery, stock-based design and the logistics of matching donor and recipient projects.

Environmental performance: reuse must be assessed as a whole process

ReCreate also evaluated the environmental implications of reuse through life-cycle assessment.

The environmental benefit comes primarily from avoiding the production of equivalent new structural components. However, the project also accounted for the impacts of deconstruction, transport, storage, refurbishment and reassembly.

This is important because reuse is not automatically the lowest-impact solution in every possible situation. Distance, processing requirements and the condition of the reclaimed elements all matter.

Research developed within ReCreate has therefore focused not only on embodied-carbon savings, but also on practical methodologies for calculating climate benefits and on the development of EPD approaches for reclaimed building components.

The project’s work confirms one of the central principles of circular construction: preserving value locally and regionally is critical. The closer donor buildings, processing facilities and recipient projects can be connected, the stronger both the environmental and economic case for reuse becomes.

From technical feasibility to a functioning business ecosystem

A structurally sound reclaimed element is not yet a market.

For widespread reuse, the sector needs functioning supply chains, clear responsibilities, predictable quality-assurance procedures, logistics, storage solutions, digital information systems and viable business models.

ReCreate therefore devoted an entire work stream to the business ecosystem surrounding reuse.

The project examined profitability at company level as well as the broader circular value chain: which actors are needed, where new roles may emerge, how technology creates economic value, how risks are allocated, and how regulatory and social barriers influence business viability.

The final project synthesis makes the key lesson particularly clear.

Concrete element reuse is technically feasible. Precast elements can be safely deconstructed, assessed, refurbished and integrated into new construction.

But the process requires flexibility. Donor buildings, available elements and recipient projects must be matched, and design teams need to work with the dimensions, properties, condition and availability of existing components rather than fully predefined solutions.

Coordination is equally critical because deconstruction, testing, storage, transport, refurbishment, design and construction overlap and involve several actors. Reuse therefore works best when demolition and future construction projects are connected early enough for recovered materials to inform design and delivery.

The remaining challenge is not one technology

By the end of ReCreate, the most important barriers were no longer primarily technical.

The project identified four interrelated bottlenecks:

  • quality assurance, permitting, certification, liability and contractual responsibilities remain insufficiently standardised;
  • demand remains fragmented, and supply and demand must align in timing, location, quantities and element properties;
  • costs and risks are unevenly distributed across deconstruction, testing, storage, design adaptation and coordination;
  • both formal institutions, such as regulation and standards, and informal ones, such as professional practices and attitudes, still need to evolve.

The project’s conclusion is therefore important:

the central challenge is not a single technical barrier, but the alignment of markets, regulations, processes and actors.

A roadmap from pilots to mainstream construction

ReCreate’s final roadmap identifies five developments needed to move reuse from pioneering projects into wider construction practice:

  1. Reuse becomes financially competitive
  2. New partnerships develop around element reuse
  3. Digital solutions support reuse
  4. Circularity becomes a core design principle
  5. New professional identities and competences emerge

The roadmap treats mainstreaming as a socio-technical transition: technological solutions need to develop together with business models, regulation, industry practices, societal attitudes and professional skills.

That is perhaps the clearest summary of what more than five years of ReCreate have shown.

A substantial open knowledge base

One of ReCreate’s objectives from the outset was to ensure that the work would remain useful beyond the life of the grant.

The project website now brings together a substantial body of material, including:

  • an interactive map and taxonomy of European precast systems;
  • digital element databases and BIM workflows;
  • pre-deconstruction audit guidance;
  • deconstruction methodologies;
  • quality-management procedures;
  • design and reassembly research;
  • LCA and LCC approaches;
  • business-model and ecosystem research;
  • legal and policy analysis;
  • scientific publications;
  • pilot documentation;
  • digital tools and datasets.

The ReCreate scientific-publications library includes research on deconstruction, quality assurance, digital workflows, structural reuse, design, business models, environmental assessment and policy.

→ Explore the complete ReCreate project structure 

→ Explore the ReCreate tools

→ Browse the scientific publications

→ Explore official project deliverables and results

Final Conference: bringing the complete reuse process together

On 23 September 2026, GBC Croatia organised the ReCreate Final Conference, bringing together 155 participants from 26 countries.

The conference was structured around the complete reuse journey of a precast concrete element — from deconstruction and digital documentation to quality assurance, redesign and reassembly. The four country clusters then showed how these approaches were tested in practice through demonstrators in Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany.

The discussion finally moved from individual technologies and pilot projects to the wider conditions needed for scale-up: viable business models, clearer regulatory pathways, functioning markets, digital tools, new design approaches and the professional competencies required to make reuse part of everyday construction practice.

→ Watch the full Final Conference

22 partners, one circular construction challenge

ReCreate brought together universities, research organisations, cities, public building owners, architects, structural engineers, precast manufacturers, contractors, deconstruction companies, digital specialists and organisations working on sustainable construction.

The final consortium included:

Tampere University, LIIKE Oy Arkkitehtistudio, Ramboll Finland, Consolis Parma, Skanska, Umacon and the City of Tampere in Finland;

KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Helsingborgshem and Consolis Strängbetong in Sweden;

Eindhoven University of Technology, TNO, Circular Structural Design, Consolis VBI, Lagemaat and IMd Structural Engineers in the Netherlands;

Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, ECOSOIL Ost, P. Jähne Ingenieurbüro, the City of Hohenmölsen and Lohmann und Robinski in Germany;

and Green Building Council Croatia.

→ Meet the ReCreate partners

From “can it be done?” to “how can it become normal practice?”

ReCreate closes with a much stronger evidence base than existed when the project began.

Across four European contexts, precast concrete elements have been identified in donor buildings, carefully deconstructed, assessed, digitally documented, refurbished, redesigned and integrated into new construction.

The project has developed practical methods and tools for pre-deconstruction audits, deconstruction, quality management, logistics, traceability, redesign and environmental and economic assessment. It has generated guidance for future projects and roadmaps for industry and policymakers.

It has also demonstrated where the next challenge lies.

The question is no longer simply whether structural concrete elements can be reused.

They can.

The next phase is about making reuse predictable, scalable and economically viable: connecting demolition and construction projects earlier, creating regional markets for reclaimed elements, standardising quality and certification procedures, developing digital information flows, clarifying responsibilities and ensuring that architects, engineers, contractors, clients and authorities have the knowledge and confidence to work differently.

ReCreate officially ends on 30 September 2026.

Its results do not.

Continue exploring ReCreate

More than five years of research, development and demonstration cannot be captured in one article.

We invite professionals, researchers, policymakers, students and everyone interested in circular construction to continue exploring and using the knowledge produced through ReCreate.

Explore the ReCreate project pilots
Explore project results and Work Packages
Explore ReCreate tools
Explore Section for practitioners (reports explained)
Browse scientific publications
Meet the project partners
Browse ReCreate news and project stories
Explore official project results on CORDIS

To the project coordinator, all ReCreate partners, researchers, industry partners, cities, pilot teams and everyone who contributed to the project over more than five years: thank you for the knowledge, work and collaboration that made ReCreate possible.

The project ends here. The work of making structural reuse part of everyday construction continues.

 

 


June 12, 2024
Dizajn-bez-naslova-41.png

In June 2024, the ReCreate project reached significant milestones with two pivotal meetings held in Zagreb, Croatia. Hosted by GBC Croatia, these gatherings brought together partners, and experts to discuss progress, share insights, and plan future actions in our mission to revolutionize the construction industry through sustainable practices.

Consortium Meeting: 5th June 2024

The consortium meeting on the 5th of June was a vibrant assembly of all project partners. The event provided a platform for members to review the project’s achievements, address challenges, and align on upcoming objectives.

Highlights of the consortium meeting included:

  • Project Progress Updates: Each partner presented detailed updates on their contributions and advancements, showcasing the collective progress made since the last gathering. The emphasis was on the general status of the project management, communication and dissemination activities, and the status of the each project pilot.
  • Technical Discussions: In-depth discussions were held on the latest innovations in reusing precast concrete elements, highlighting technical challenges and solutions of each project pilot in Sweden, Finland, The Netherlands, and Germany.
  • Collaborative Workshop: Interactive workshop fostered collaboration among partners, focusing on differences, as well as advantages and disadvantages in centralized and decentralized pilot approaches.
  • Future Planning: During the meeting, partners outlined the next phases of the project, setting clear goals and timelines to ensure continued momentum and success.

Review Meeting: 7th June 2024

Following the consortium meeting, the review meeting on the 7th of June brought together WP leaders and external reviewers. This critical session aimed to evaluate the project’s progress against its objectives and deliverables.

Key aspects of the review meeting included:

  • An assessment of the project’s achievements to date, including a detailed examination of technical milestones and deliverables.
  • External reviewer Helena Granados Menéndez provided valuable feedback, highlighting strengths and offering recommendations for improvement to ensure the project’s success.
  • Discussions focused on the broader impact of the project on the construction industry and sustainability practices, emphasizing the importance of innovative solutions in real-world applications.
  • The meeting concluded with a clear roadmap for the upcoming months, emphasizing continued collaboration, innovation, and dissemination of results.

Both meetings were instrumental in driving the ReCreate project forward, reinforcing the commitment of all partners to transforming the construction industry through sustainable practices. We look forward to the next phases of the project with renewed energy and focus.

Stay tuned for more updates on our journey towards more sustainable future in construction.


November 13, 2023
M-Rokio.png

Matias Rokio, Tampere University – 13 November 2023

My name is Matias Rokio, and for the year 2023, I’ve been doing research in ReCreate. My background is in industrial engineering and management, and I have been studying since 2017 at Tampere University. I graduated with an M.Sc in June 2023 and wrote my Master’s thesis on resilience in Finnish health care with an emphasis on information asymmetries. My minor in sustainable production steered me towards the areas of sustainability and circular economy, which I feel should receive a lot of attention in research in varied fields. Currently, I am in the process of applying for a doctoral position at Tampere University, which I will hopefully receive sometime during this year. In my personal life, along with my work as a researcher, I am a semi-professional drummer in a few different groups and doing all kinds of session work for different artists.

Currently, I am working at Tampere University in a CROPS research group, which collaborates with ReCreate’s WP7 through my research. According to WP7 objectives, the work package aims to accelerate the development of a scalable and profitable business model for reused precast concrete components in different environments. Especially within the construction industry, the circular economy has tremendous potential in driving a transition towards more sustainable practises, as concrete manufacturing alone generates around 4-8% of the world’s CO2 emissions.

My research article on ReCreate approaches the concrete element reuse from project management’s perspective, with an aim to unveil how applying circular economy principles in projects affects the inter-organisational collaboration and value creation in the project front-end. In my research, the front-end spans the planning phase of the Finnish country pilot, where the deconstruction of an office building in Tampere city centre and the subsequent phases to it were planned in detail. The purpose of the research is to enrich the discussion around sustainable project management and showcase a project where sustainability is promoted through circular economy practises. Also, the circular economy discussion, despite its trending and important nature, is currently still lacking in the project management context, which makes the research interesting for project management scholars.

In the research, we found out that when a construction project is based on the reuse principle, the front-end phase requires more actors to collaborate in the project planning and some actors are required to take on new tasks in the project. For example, a structural engineering company was an integral part of the deconstruction planning of the building, whereas, in a conventional demolition project, the demolition company does the planning by themselves. It is also evident that there are several new business opportunities for the actors involved that could build new services and marketplaces around the reusable concrete elements and reach new customers through collaboration in the project. Currently, several barriers to the wider adoption of concrete elements reuse still remain, as manufacturing new concrete elements is relatively cheap whilst detaching, and refurbishing the old elements is somewhat time-consuming, and a regulative incentive for adopting the reuse principle is lacking.


June 19, 2023
You-have-the-power-to-protect-your-peace.-–-kopija.png

As part of the activities under Work Package 2 of the ReCreate project, our project partners developed a BIM-based pre-deconstruction audit. We sat down with Marcel Vullings from TNO to gain more insight into the audit and to get more details. Here’s our full interview with him:

 

I: What is the main focus of the pre-deconstruction audit in the ReCreate project?

M: The main focus of the pre-deconstruction audit in the ReCreate project is to gather and validate the information that is crucial for the deconstruction process. This involves putting significant effort into tasks such as inspecting archives, conducting inspections and testing, and ensuring the traceability of information. The goal is to establish a comprehensive understanding of the structure and elements involved, making connections between the gathered information and the actual components. By undertaking these steps, the pre-deconstruction audit aims to provide a solid foundation for the subsequent deconstruction activities.

 

I: What type of data is gathered during the survey of the existing building in ReCreate?

M: The pre-deconstruction audit process begins with gathering information from the archives to prepare for the building inspection. Once the necessary preparations are made, the next step is to inspect the building itself. Before conducting the inspection, it is important to strip the building of loose items such as carpets and wallpaper to ensure clear visibility of the structural elements. This provides an opportunity to thoroughly examine the structure.

During the inspection, several factors are considered. The overall state of the structure and its elements is assessed, looking for any signs of damage, cracking, or corrosion. Deviations from the norm are noted, such as brown spots that may indicate possible corrosion. Detailed documentation is crucial, including taking pictures and measurements of cracks and other issues. Videos are recorded to allow for a review of the inspection back at the office. Both overall views and close-ups of specific details are captured.

To ensure accurate understanding, it is important to make sense of the gathered information and create a cohesive narrative. Measurements of various dimensions are taken, and a comparison is made between the building’s drawings and its actual construction. Changes may have been made over time or during the building process. Digitalizing the building, its structure, and its elements is also part of the process, utilizing different types of measuring devices.

Finally, both the interior and exterior of the building are inspected to ensure a comprehensive assessment.

 

I: How is the identification system in ReCreate utilized to trace and couple physical elements with data?

M: Tracking and tracing each separate element is of utmost importance throughout the entire process. This is essential because when designing a new structure, structural engineers need to provide calculations, reports, and drawings to demonstrate that the structure is safe and compliant with regulations. Various checks, including those by municipalities, are conducted to ensure that each part of the structure performs as specified in the documentation.

For reused elements, the information associated with each element is crucial. Any mix-up or uncertainty regarding the information of a particular element can have severe consequences. Therefore, if there is any doubt about the information of an element at any point in the process, it cannot be reused and becomes useless. The objective, however, is to reuse elements whenever possible.

To achieve effective tracking and tracing, it is essential to connect the information to the corresponding elements such as columns, beams, walls, slabs, etc. This can be accomplished by attaching tags to the elements during the initial phases of deconstruction or up until the moment an element is deconstructed. It is crucial not to delay this process. The location of an element in the old structure serves as the only clue to establish the connection between the physical element and the associated information.

Tags can take the form of marks, such as barcodes, QR codes, or plastic tags placed on the elements. Alternatively, electronic tags can be used. These marks and tags need to be secure and durable enough to withstand deconstruction, transportation, storage, handling, reconstruction, as well as exposure to various weather conditions, heat, and sunlight. They must be foolproof.

In addition to secure marking, establishing and maintaining a robust connection with a database or information system is essential. Building Information Modeling (BIM) models of the elements can also be utilized to ensure a continuous and reliable link between the physical elements and their corresponding information.

 

I: Why is it important to identify hazardous and/or toxic materials before dismantling a building in the ReCreate project?

M: Strict regulations are in place to address hazardous and toxic materials, aiming to establish and uphold a healthy work environment for workers, ensure the well-being of the surrounding area, and contribute to a healthy overall environment. It is crucial to adhere to these regulations to create a safe and sustainable space. Materials falling under this category cannot be reused and must be handled separately and disposed of in a safe and environmentally friendly manner.

To effectively manage these materials, it is essential to determine their presence within the building. For instance, in the case of asbestos, special suits are required for safe removal. The process of identifying and dealing with hazardous materials is subject to scrutiny by the department of health. Mistakes in handling these materials can have severe consequences, including loss of life or significant fines.

Compliance with the regulations ensures the protection of both workers and the environment, emphasizing the importance of following proper protocols for the safe removal and disposal of hazardous and toxic materials.

 

I: What methods are used to record visual or detectable damage to elements in the pre-deconstruction audit?

M: At various stages throughout the process, the structure and elements undergo inspections to assess any damages, degradation, or cracking. These inspections occur from the initial assessment until the element is reassembled in a new building. The goal is to determine whether an element can be reused and ensure its proper performance throughout its new lifespan, which could extend for several decades or even longer.

Inspections rely on a combination of visual examination by experts, along with the use of pictures, videos, and electronic measuring devices such as point cloud measurements. Additionally, simple tapping on the surface of the concrete can provide valuable information. Specialized equipment like the Schmidt hammer and ferro scanners may also be employed for more detailed analysis.

However, it is crucial that these inspections are carried out by specialists, as not every crack or damage is necessarily catastrophic. Concrete structures commonly exhibit cracks, which are even accounted for and described in the Eurocodes—design standards for concrete structures. The size and location of cracks play a significant role in assessing their impact and determining whether they conform to acceptable limits. Therefore, the expertise of specialists is vital in accurately interpreting the findings of these inspections.

 

I: How does the surveying process in ReCreate address stability issues during deconstruction?

M: Before carrying out the deconstruction itself, a structural engineer investigates the precast concrete structure to determine the optimal approach for dismantling the building, including the sequence of removing each element. This process must prioritize safety and ensure the stability of the remaining structure throughout the deconstruction process. To achieve this, a comprehensive deconstruction plan is created, which may involve implementing measures such as temporary scaffolding to stabilize the structure during the deconstruction phase.

 

I: What information does the survey aim to gather regarding the construction methods and structural systems of load-bearing elements?

M: This process can involve a considerable amount of technicality, but it can also be straightforward. Take, for instance, the location of a building, which provides valuable insights into its wind loading. Various factors differentiate a building situated at sea, inland, on an open plain, or within a city. Additionally, the dimensions of the building are crucial. Larger buildings must withstand greater and higher wind loads compared to smaller ones. However, for a structural engineer to accurately assess the load-bearing capacity of each precast concrete element, precise knowledge of the element’s location, layout, and dimensions is required. It is also essential to have information about the material properties of the steel and concrete, as well as how they are interconnected within the structure.

Furthermore, even the positioning of an element within the building, such as a column, provides relevant information. A ground-floor column typically exhibits greater load-bearing capacity than a column located at the top of a building. All of this information serves as valuable clues to determine the load-bearing capacity of each precast concrete element. The more comprehensive the available information, the more accurate the assessment becomes. In essence, if the dimensions of an element, a detailed description of the reinforcement, and the correct material properties are known, a structural engineer can reverse engineer the load-bearing capacity of that element. This process can be complex, but having additional information significantly simplifies it.

 

I: How does the acquired knowledge during the survey stage contribute to deconstruction planning in ReCreate?

M: Yes, this information is crucial for creating a deconstruction plan and ensuring the feasibility of the deconstruction process. Without it, the undertaking becomes unsafe and hazardous. A comprehensive deconstruction plan is essential, requiring detailed information about the building, structure, materials, connections, and the shape of the elements, among other factors. For instance, if the method of connection between elements is unknown, it becomes challenging to determine the appropriate cutting approach to separate the elements from the structure effectively. Consequently, incorrect cutting can lead to damage and render the elements unusable.

 

I: How does the pre-deconstruction audit combine modern survey technologies with traditional building surveying techniques?

M: During the audit, a wide range of methods are employed, with each task requiring its own specific technique. Various techniques and tools are utilized to simplify the process and gather accurate information quickly and reliably. These techniques and tools can be quite straightforward, such as visual observation, using a simple ruler for measurements, or employing a laser scanner to measure distances. Drones may also be employed to access challenging locations, such as high facades of buildings. Ferro scanners play a crucial role in detecting reinforcement within the concrete elements, while even a loupe can be utilized to measure the width of cracks in concrete. Additionally, pictures and videos are used to digitally measure elements. The available range of techniques and tools is extensive, offering a diverse array of options for conducting the audit.

 

I: What role does non-destructive electromagnetic and radar identification play in the ReCreate project, specifically during the survey of the donor building?

M: The non-destructive nature of obtaining information from precast concrete elements is evident, as the goal is to avoid damaging or destroying the elements in the process. Therefore, techniques employed to gather information must be non-destructive. In concrete, one critical aspect of obtaining information pertains to the location and dimensions of the reinforcement within the precast concrete element. These factors determine the element’s load-bearing capacity. Concrete elements require steel reinforcement, with concrete handling compression and steel managing tension—an ideal combination.

Steel can be detected using magnets, whether traditional or electronic magnets utilizing electromagnetics. A scanner is used to glide over the surface of the concrete, while the magnets detect variations and discrepancies. The scanner’s software interprets this information, providing readable details about the reinforcement within the concrete element. However, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of this technique. In certain situations, these methods may not be entirely reliable. To ensure accurate findings, it is essential to gather collaborating information from various sources, such as drawings, old calculations, and even resorting to destructive testing if necessary. Destructive testing involves breaking a portion of the element to visually examine it. Although this may result in sacrificing some elements, it becomes a last resort when other methods fail to provide satisfactory information.

 

I: How does ReCreate plan to bridge the gap from deconstruction to controlled disassembly for future buildings?

M: ReCreate plans to bridge the gap from deconstruction to controlled disassembly for future buildings through extensive data gathering and knowledge sharing. The project aims to learn from real-life pilot projects, examining what works, what doesn’t, and identifying areas for improvement. One important observation made during these pilots is that plastic tags are not suitable due to the fading of text under sunlight, rendering them unreadable. This highlights the need to explore alternative tagging methods.

Various methods of cutting through elements were explored, including sawing (using blades and cables), drilling, and high-pressure water jets. Each method has its pros and cons, and it is essential to understand and utilize them appropriately. There is no one-size-fits-all approach or tool for deconstruction. Efficiency and safety must be combined, taking into account the specific requirements of each project.

The ReCreate project, with its pilot projects conducted in different countries, aims to collect valuable data, information, and experiences. This wealth of knowledge is expected to have a significant impact, benefiting numerous projects in the future. TNO, as part of the project, plans to apply this new knowledge to other projects, including different types of deconstruction projects such as infrastructure, as well as exploring other materials like steel and wood structures. The research conducted within ReCreate has the potential for widespread application across various domains.

 

I: What role does cost-efficiency play in the development of the pre-deconstruction audit process in ReCreate?

M: Cost-efficiency plays a significant role in the development of the pre-deconstruction audit process in ReCreate. Currently, cost remains the primary factor driving the choice of methods for recycling concrete structures. Traditional demolition is often perceived as the cheapest option and, consequently, the most widely employed approach, despite its limited environmental friendliness. However, there is a need for a shift in societal mindset towards normalizing the reuse of materials and products as the first and natural step, rather than defaulting to purchasing new ones.

Lowering the costs associated with deconstruction and the reuse of precast concrete elements is a crucial objective. In this regard, ReCreate’s efforts are commendable, as the project strives to provide valuable services in enhancing efficiency within the field. Furthermore, implementing regulations and other measures can contribute to achieving cost efficiency and promoting sustainable practices in the industry. By addressing cost barriers and highlighting the economic benefits of deconstruction and material reuse, ReCreate aims to drive the adoption of more environmentally friendly practices in the construction sector.

 

I: How does ReCreate aim to optimize the detection methods in relation to the prefab systems and decoupling methods?

M: ReCreate aims to optimize the detection methods in relation to prefab systems and decoupling methods by considering them as additional tools rather than the sole approach. While detection plays a role, it is not the sole method employed. The study of original design drawings and calculations serves as the primary source of information for decoupling. Additionally, inspections and a comprehensive understanding of precast concrete structures provide a complete picture of the building. Detection techniques can be utilized to identify reinforcement in connections and other anchor systems where applicable. By integrating various approaches, ReCreate seeks to enhance the overall effectiveness of detection methods in relation to prefab systems and decoupling processes.

 

I: What is the significance of testing and validating the generic approach developed in ReCreate’s real-life pilot projects?

M: Testing and validating the generic approach developed in ReCreate’s real-life pilot projects holds great significance. It offers a comprehensive understanding of the entire deconstruction and reassembly process involving reused precast concrete elements. This includes all the associated aspects such as life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing (LCC), compliance with regulations, development of business models, effective planning, information management, data gathering, innovative design approaches for structures using reused elements, creation of new connections, and the integration of old and new components through demountable connections.

The ability to observe these processes in real-life scenarios through four distinct pilot projects in different countries, involving diverse organizations and companies, provides invaluable insights. It allows for a thorough examination of the practical implementation of the generic approach, assessing its feasibility, effectiveness, and potential for scalability. These pilot projects serve as a robust testing ground, offering the opportunity to refine and validate the developed approach based on real-world challenges and outcomes. Ultimately, the knowledge gained from these pilot projects will contribute to advancing sustainable practices in the construction industry and facilitating the widespread adoption of the ReCreate project’s principles and methodologies.


Grey-White-Minimalist-Congratulations-Card-1280x908.png

The awesome people and organizations working on the ReCreate project continue to be recognized by their peers and the wider community. This time, we are proud to announce that our very own project coordinator, Satu Huuhka, has received the annual Sustainable Development award from the Finnish Association of Architects for her work and contribution towards achieving circularity in the construction sector through the projects she is heading, one of which is the ReCreate project.

Upon receiving her reward, Prof. Satu Huuhka said that she believes that the circular economy is now really taking off and that she can already see a future where factory-renovated concrete elements are on the warehouse shelf waiting for new projects.

However, this was not the only reward where the ReCreate project was recognized. Tampere University, specifically the Faculty of Built Environment, also received an award for the Advancement of the sustainable built environment because of their involvement in the ReCreate project.

Seeing our partners and their hard work recognized fills us with pride and motivates us to carry the project forward. We congratulate everyone on the received awards and we look forward to seeing what lies ahead for the project!


March 1, 2023
You-have-the-power-to-protect-your-peace.-1.png

The success of the ReCreate project would not be possible without the expertise of people that stand behind it. Our second interviewee is Erik Stenberg – Work Package 1 leader and Swedish country cluster leader. Ivan Fratrić of the Croatia Green Building Council will be conducting the interview. Here is his story:

 

I: Hello Erik and thank you for doing this interview! For starters, can you introduce yourself a bit and describe your role in the project and your organization?

E: Of course. I’m an architect and an associate professor at KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden and I have a history both as a practicing architect and a teacher I’ve been (for the last 20 years or so) working especially on housing from the post-war period in Sweden and I’ve specialized in prefabrication system in concrete which was used in mass housing during the period from 1965. – 1974. in Sweden which was called the Million program era and how we renovate and update those housing areas. I work a lot with issues concerning sustainability and also technology and history. In ReCreate, I’m the Swedish country cluster leader and I’m also the Work package 1 leader.

 

I: You’ve mentioned that you have experience with sustainability – can you maybe tell me more about what made you inclined to join the project?

E: There were a couple of major reasons. One of them was to work and collaborate with Satu Huuhka who is an amazing person and researcher so that was very enticing in itself because she’s such an authority on the subject in Finland and has strong connections to Sweden and these other countries. The other one is following the trajectory of my interests and seeing prefab housing from the post-war era from yet another angle and as something positive or in other words as a resource and not something expensive to upkeep and generally as something bad. This is another way to describe the incredible effort of the post-war era and to test it on a 1:1 scale. Basically, I want concrete to be seen as an asset and not a liability. In every sustainability discussion today, concrete is always looked at as a liability – it’s too expensive to make in terms of carbon footprint, it represents a period in history where we were mass-producing housing and we have several words in Sweden when you add concrete or grayness it immediately has negative connotations. This project provides a way to turn that around and see concrete as an asset, as something positive, especially by using high-quality concrete we made in the ’50s, 60’s, and 70’s, we can now also lower the carbon footprint of new construction through it.

Erik Stenberg

I: Moving toward the Swedish pilot and the project itself. Can you shed more light on how you collaborate with other partners in your country cluster?

E: Sure! There aren’t many of us in the Swedish country cluster. There’s Helsingborgshem – a municipal housing company and Strängbetong – a material producer of concrete and KTH. The situation is a little different here in Sweden with regard to the pilot building. Helsingborgshem already has a long-term project on rejuvenating a housing area called Drottninghög, which is a typical post-war massive housing area with 1100 units of housing that are very similar and all built within the same 5-year time span. Now, that area has a weak socio-economical development and they have engaged in a long process of dialogues, they have changed zoning and are even producing new housing. The goal is to increase the number of housing from 1100 to 2600 units by 2030. To do this, they are tearing down some of the original housing which is prefabricated. When I approached them I said to them not to just crush the concrete, but to join the ReCreate project and see how we can actually reuse the concrete – both to provide a better history and a new story on the panels so they are not seen as something bad, but as something good and we also test new ways of sustainable construction. They agreed to this and have actually had a city-wide movement to have a city expo. It was in the spring of 2022. We had a very short time to do a physical pilot in the Swedish country cluster, but with the help of Strangebetong, we managed to build a small physical pilot as an exhibition pavilion for the H22 Expo. We tested the whole process in a physical pilot so we can make a digital pilot which is more precise and better but aimed at the future development of Helsingborgshem’s Drottninghög housing. This is the opposite of some of the other country clusters because we’re first working on a digital pilot to then prepare a larger, physical one.

 

I: That being said, one can presume that there were no issues with getting everyone on board for the project and that they were quite motivated to join the project and were sold on the idea of it.

E: They were. But again, it’s important to stress that we (the Swedish country cluster) consist of a few members. Part of it can be attributed to the fact that we have the municipal housing company as one member and they have to follow the rules of procurement so we could not have other partners join the team before we went through the process of public procurement so as we build the physical pilot and went through all of those stages we also engaged the construction company and other architects and engineers.

 

I: Returning to you – do you have some kind of internal motivation for the project? Something that intrinsically motivates you?

E: Of course! I’ve touched upon it earlier and I can say that it’s definitely the high regard for post war housing in Sweden, a subject I have been working on for the last 25 years. That is a very strong driver for me. The other driver is sustainability in the construction sector. As architects, we have to become much more knowledgeable about what the climate impact of what we’re designing. I think that’s where reusing really opens up an avenue where it’s not just about the regard for historic buildings but also how we produce new buildings with a lower climate impact and also a great architectural design.

Erik Stenberg

I: On a broader scale, can you describe why the ReCreate project is important from your perspective and what you see as its ultimate goal?

E: The project is important because it aims to reduce both the carbon footprint and the waste of the construction sector. These are two huge that we have. As a goal – I think if we can provide the tools, methods, and examples to cover some of the value chains, then we will have come a long way in the four years of the project.

 

I: That’s something that I also want to touch upon a bit further. So the project will last for four years and will officially end sometime in 2025. How do you see its progression after its official conclusion? What do you see as some of the hindrances of its uptake and what are some of the challenges it will be facing once it is over?

I think the business sector will move very quickly with many of these new findings and with the findings other projects are making. In a few years, I think there will be a few business models in action which will continue after ReCreate. I hope to see that there will be more pilots after the project. Those are some of the short-term effects. In the case of long-term effects – I hope we’re also starting to set in motion the way we educate architects and engineers to deal with existing buildings, the way we value the existing building environment in planning processes, the way that we set up future research projects to include reuse in the existing environment. Those are outputs that are just as important, but we won’t see them immediately. Redoing education for architects for instance can take decades. Those are the things that we contribute to ReCreate, but are not yet tangible as of this moment.

 

I: The process will definitely take time. This will also be a more personal question in that regard – do you think that we have the time for such a steady transition while also having the pressure of encroaching negative effects of climate change? Basically, what I’m asking is whether you have a positive or negative outlook on our chances of succeeding in ”saving ourselves” from climate change.

E: Well I’m very positive that we won’t meet the 1.5-degree goal by 2030. But I have a very positive outlook with regard to the engineering and architecture sector. I think the construction sector is in for a major change but we have faced these challenges before. Maybe not on the same scale and with the same level of threat, but I still think we will be moving ahead with that change even though we won’t meet the climatic goals and we won’t reduce the waste at the EU level fast enough. We won’t solve the problem in four years, but that is something that we need to do for the construction and demolition sectors regardless. We need to contribute and work as hard as we can.

I: Of course. Especially if we look from the global perspective and when you take into account emissions coming from elsewhere. We definitely hope that the findings we produce with the project will be recognized by the market.

How do you find collaboration with other country clusters and other partners on the project? Do you find it challenging or do you find it exciting to work with experts from other countries?

E:  Of course, it is a huge benefit. When counting the country clusters and Croatia, there are five different countries in the project. The benefit is also present in terms of the multidisciplinary approach of the project. At KTH, for instance, we have three different departments engaged. It’s very easy to fall into working with colleagues within the same department because those are the ones you see every day and they don’t really challenge your knowledge boundaries. This is really one of the bigger benefits – working with building sciences and the environmental department, as well as the architecture department, we actually have just as exciting discussions here, let alone with colleagues from other countries. It’s not difficult to work with an expert from other countries at all as they are all highly knowledgeable, highly engaged engineers, architects, and researchers. The companies have been really interested. When we had the annual meeting in Helsingborg where it was 40-50 people, we could have easily spent days in smaller meetings just discussing our work. I’ve been part of difficult research projects and this is definitely not one of them. Maybe in its scope, not in terms of people working on it.

 

I: Of course! When you work with highly motivated individuals, where everyone is an expert in their field, it can garner special results.

E: I would just like to add that this can most definitely be attributed to the way the project was written and the way it is led. The team around Satu Huuhka is doing a great job.

 

I: Agreed, definitely agreed. Let’s think about the future for a bit. We talked about the market uptake of the project results in the future – do you have some other impact that you would like to see 10, or 20 years down the line? For instance architects – do you think they will have enough creative range for new buildings?

E: I think so and I think this is quite intriguing. The reason I think so is because we have tested it in a design studio in project similar, but not attached to ReCreate. We tested the design with the reuse of prefabricated concrete panels and the students were a bit confounded at first because they are not educated to deal with them. But once they figured it out and understood the limitations they have, they could all devise a strategy or method for using the elements and many of them involved finding new forms or shapes or details of the buildings, which is directly attributed to the reuse of the panels. So they were shifting sizes of the panels, which left gaps or there were structural dimensions that led to certain rooms, sizes, or proportions. There were ways of combining elements that led to also different heights and widths of the buildings. All of these things may seem minor, but I think they are quite important. Now I’m wondering about if whether this is something that just happens in this type of shift or whether it is going to be a reuse style in the end which you can then understand that this is high-quality architecture because it is using reused elements and not because it has a certain color or look or proportion.

 

I: That’s something we will see with time. How the creatives will utilize it and what they will create down the line. With that in mind, do they have to deal with any technical constraints when reusing precast concrete elements?

E: Yes (laughs). From a technical and engineering perspective there are several issues, but I think that we have enough pilots now historically and Satu knew this when she was writing the project. There have been enough pilots in Germany and even in Sweden and we know that concrete has a longer material lifespan than a building has a socioeconomic lifespan. Cities are being developed and office buildings are being torn down to make room for housing and vice versa. The material can be reused but rules, regulations, financing, and business models is not adapted to this yet. So these are the big technical challenges that are not on the material side. Then, of course, there’s the whole question of knowledge. We’re not educated to deal with the existing environment and now it takes a lot of time to work that way, but in the future, we hope it will take less time.

 

I: Once the knowledge enters the curriculum, the dissemination of the knowledge should be more efficient. Actually, that is something I want your comment on – do you see the curriculums changing? Will there be some kind of specialization for reuse in that regard?

 On a general level, I think we’re seeing small research groups, and small parts of programs being adjusted towards sustainability issues and global climate change is the main driver behind the changes, but the ideas involved in ReCreate can influence them. One example is the Royal Institute of Art in Stockholm which opposed graduate degree in restoration architecture because they started a new program this year in restoring the recent past – the modernist heritage. They are actually starting a new program to engage from a building conservation and preservation perspective, and from a heritage perspective to garner a better understanding of the recent past. We’re not seeing that in architecture schools on the curriculum level yet, but we’ll see it, albeit as small changes.

 

I: So it is possibly still too early to talk about it. The changes might be incremental, but not paradigm-shifting.

E: I agree. I think there will be incremental changes, although the climate is screaming for a radical change

 

I: You were present at several architectural events where you represented ReCreate. What was the reaction from your peers and what kind of feedback did you receive from them?

E: Well, they are following ReCreate with great interest. For example, at the Lisbon Triennale we not only exhibited but I was invited as a speaker and when I held a presentation, part of it was about the content of ReCreate. It was received with great interest from all architects. We had architects from both North and South America, Asia, and Australia – almost all the continents were represented. They were all interested in the topic of Terra (the Earth) and different angles on sustainability and I would say it was a surprising and positive engagement with the ideas that I presented. It’s very positive. I usually try to lower expectations because the truth is that currently the rate of reuse in Europe is 0% and the goal is to move to 1% or 2%. Some people might think that we’ll have 50% of new buildings being made from reused materials 5 years from now but that’s not going to happen.

 

I: Understandable, but the proof of concept is definitely here and it’s definitely exciting.

E: Yeah! I was wondering how the architectural community of exhibiting architects, not just constructing architects, would react to the subject of reuse, but I have found that it was indeed highly regarded.

I: And they will certainly one day be a valuable part of that process. It’s a vast and long value chain of stakeholders and architects are certainly one of the more important parts as they will surely be one of the driving factors behind the uptake of reuse.

E: The exhibit in Lisbon was part of an overarching theme was ‘Terra’ and the exhibit we participated in was called ‘Cycles’ the curator Pedro Alonso from Chile and his partner Pamela Prado made a great selection of different academic professional practices and 15-17 practices that are all working with cycles in their daily projects. So ReCreate was shown among others. We have lots of friends out there and in that group, ReCreate was seen as very hands-on and that can have a very strong impact, which is because of the prevalence of prefabricated concrete as everyone is aware that it is being used all over as a resource.

 

I: Of course and it can certainly be deduced (even to the wider public) that the project can create great impact, it is very tangible and it can be pitched very easily to other people, which is why it is so widely acclaimed. Working on it can feel like being on the cutting edge of something really important.

E: Yes, exactly!

 

I: We’re nearing the end of the interview and thank you for your time, Erik. Do you have any closing comments or something you would like to mention with regard to the project?

E: I would just like to stress the collaborative aspect of the project. The EU projects are set up in such a way that you have to collaborate with partners from all over Europe and even across disciplines and I think this one is really critical because the effort to move towards increasing the amount of reuse will need experts from many different areas. It’s not just inventing a new material, putting it on the market, and seeing what happens, but this is about shifting a paradigm and moving the construction sector into a circular movement and we’re contributing towards that.

 

I: To top the interview off – who is Erik Stenberg when he’s not working on the project and what does he like to do in his free time

E: You’ll most likely find me in the woods or the mountains – basically far away from any architecture. I spend a lot of time with my family and friends in the backcountry, hiking, sleeping in tents, and walking across low mountains as we don’t have high mountains in Sweden. We can move across them easily as there are no dangerous animals, insects, or anything and we have potable water still so it’s a great way to recharge batteries from working hard all winter.

 

I: I also spoke to Satu and she said something similar, which is why I will use the opportunity to ask whether this has something to do with Scandinavian people always ending up on lists of the happiest people on Earth. Do you think this is true or is it overblown?

E: It s a little bit of a cliche but I think there’s some truth to it. I spent some time in the US when I was younger and I think the relationship with nature there was that nature is something that you conquer and you put up a fence and you own it somehow, apart from here where the dominant mindset is that we’re just borrowing some time from nature to be here and when I go outside the door I’m in the nature, I’m part of nature and I think that, as a mental construct, is something I try to cultivate. When I sit by a blue lake, it’s not because I’m interested in meditating, it’s because there’s some fundamental connection to being part of nature, instead of trying to dominate it, or water-ski. I’m not using the water in that sense. That’s an extreme form of affluence and richness. In most of the world, you don’t have to time or the money or nature to do that, but we’re very lucky in Scandinavia that I can do that. For example in my specific situation in Sweden where I can, for a few weeks a year, just be part of nature and not do anything else.

Erik Stenberg


February 17, 2023
sams-solutions-qsk_ifUucWE-unsplash-1280x851.jpg

Not long after ReCreate was featured in an esteemed Chilean magazine, the project is at it again! Just recently, the project found itself sitting atop the #93 spot on this year’s Maktlistan – a list of the most powerful and impactful in Swedish architecture and design.

The list is created and published by Rum – a well-known and established Swedish architecture journal that recognizes and applauds great achievements in architecture and design, as well as the people behind them. Each entry in the list receives its own whimsy, positive (and sometimes even comical) comment and ReCreate was not ”spared” in this manner.

The authors of the text playfully acknowledged the aim of reducing carbon emissions through the reuse of precast concrete by saying that Mr. Stenberg ”will ensure that the rest of us will be able to breathe” because of the project.’

The ReCreate project would like to thank Rum magazine for recognizing the effort, expertise, and hard work that the Swedish country cluster, along with other country clusters and project partners are investing in the project.





EU FUNDING

“This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 958200”.

Follow us: