Tampere University

June 23, 2026

Author: Satu Huuhka, Tampere University

The Finnish cluster’s last pilot entails temporary exhibition pavilions, where anyone can learn about the circular building decommissioning and construction practices developed in the ReCreate project. The exhibition is open between July 1 and August 31, Monday to Friday, 9.30–16.30, at the address Sammonkatu 42, Tampere (Finland). The admissions are free. Larger groups can also request visits outside the normal opening hours up until mid-September.

In its last pilot, ReCreate’s Finnish cluster got to test in practice the cooperation between architects and structural engineers when designing with reclaimed elements. These experiences reinforced the finding emerged earlier in the project: the dialogue between the architectural and structural design is different from linear construction and more intimate in nature.

The pilot also contributed to finalising the collection of research materials on the techniques for refurbishing and reconnecting the elements. Valuable final missing puzzle pieces of research data were also gathered for life cycle assessment of reused elements. The learnings from analysing these materials will be distributed in full after the end of the project in September 2026.

Whether you are a demolition or construction sector professional or an intrigued member of the public, the Finnish partners are excited to give everyone the rare chance to see precast element reuse in action in the pavilions. In the exhibition, the visitor also gets to learn about the approaches, findings and lessons of the ReCreate project, as seen from the Finnish cluster’s perspective, though various illustrative materials, from posters to 3D models, videos and physical objects. Please note that the exhibition is open for a limited time – by the end of September, the pavilions will have been deconstructed again.

The pilot was commissioned by Tampere University and designed by LIIKE Architects and Ramboll Finland as structural designers. The reclaimed elements reused in the pavilions originate from the Finnish cluster’s deconstruction pilot – an office building dismantled by Umacon and Skanska in 2023 – and they were refurbished at the factories of Consolis Parma according to the designers’ specifications.

Anyone visiting Tampere in July or August is warmly welcome to visit the pavilions and the exhibition!

ReCreate’s circular construction exhibition

Address: Sammonkatu 42, Tampere, Finland (Google maps)

Tram: Line 3, stop ’Uintikeskus’ (Google maps)

Opening hours: Mon-Fri, 9.30–16.30

Free admissions

To book group visits (e.g. company excursions) outside the normal opening hours, please contact: professor Satu Huuhka, satu.huuhka@tuni.fi, +358503009263

by ReCreate project

June 15, 2026

Paul Jonker-Hoffrén, Tampere University

Introduction to the reports: “Work Processes Practice Change Checklist” and “Roadmap for Educational Needs”. The full reports are available here and here. These two documents deal with the near future of work in the circular construction economy.

How circular construction work restructures actor relations

At its core, the report “Work Processes Practice Change Checklist” is a practice–oriented document that is intended to be used by project planners. It is based on the work processes research in ReCreate, and it follows the general structure of phases in circular construction projects as identified in ReCreate. In each phase, there is a checklist, with a number of work processes and the actors involved. The purpose of structuring the document this way is that the project planner can easily see which actors should co-operate with each other, organised by work process. Below, an example checklist is shown, which covers the deconstruction phase

The idea is that by having a single document with all phases and the major work processes, the project planner also easily can manage information needs between actors that occur at different times. For example, labelling the deconstructed materials is a work process that connects to logistics, quality assurance and refurbishment. The labelling should be planned between the deconstruction firm and the refurbishment company, so that information needed for logistics and quality assurance can be easily added to a digital content management system (i.e. a common data environment). This is also why documenting data needs is a separate work process for all actors and all phases.

Skills, material knowledge and digital proficiency

The “Roadmap for Educational Needs” is also based on the empirical material. In this document, I discuss skills needs, again distinguishing the circular construction process by phase. The intention is to show that in circular work, there are many aspects that remain similar to existing construction work, although there are definitely features that are unique to circular work. The aim of the document is to provide content for the EU’s transition policies, as circular construction work relates to both the green and digital transitions.

In the report, I show that many work processes feature mostly a reconfiguration of skills towards a new goal, rather that fully new skills. This should be interpreted as good news, as the construction sector does not necessarily need a full overhaul of its curriculum in education. However, there should be sufficient attention to BIM-modelling, data processing and near-future developments like materials passports. In other words: digital skills and digital infrastructure will be more important in the future. This could also entail the use of AI to aid supply and demand matching in architectural or structural design. Moreover, in line with the findings behind the other report, “Work Processes Practice Change Checklist”, there is great need for transversal skills, i.e. communication and knowledge sharing. This includes also knowledge of materials and how they behave – this may greatly reduce damage to recoverable materials and products.

The report also shows that the values inherent in circular construction may have an impact on making the sector more attractive to young people, as circular economy imbues construction with a different meaning that traditional linear construction. This may be a pull factor. The report concludes with a few recommendations to current educational institutions in construction. Beyond the need for transversal skills, the report also calls for multidisciplinarity, e.g. structural engineers study more public policy and vice versa, or architects acquaint themselves to a greater extent with the work at construction sites. The overarching message is that in circular work, it is important to know what other actors do, and why they need information of a certain kind.

by ReCreate project

May 27, 2026

Paul Jonker-Hoffrén, Tampere University

Introduction to the report: Guide to national implementation differences of norms applicable to reuse. The full report is available here.

Transitioning the construction sector from a linear “take-make-waste” model to a circular one is a monumental task. The ReCreate project is researching how to reuse precast concrete elements—originally never meant for disassembly—across four European countries. However, as the project has progressed, actors on the ground have found that the biggest barriers aren’t always technical; they are often found in the fine print of national regulations.

“Guide to national implementation differences of norms applicable to reuse” looks at the practical aspects of translating existing regulation for reuse of reclaimed precast concrete elements. It is based on the experiences gained from interactions with regulations and policies in ReCreate’s pilots.

Finland: reclaimed precast concrete elements are not waste

In Finland, the ReCreate pilot faced a difficult question in conjunction with the temporary storage of the reclaimed elements: Are deconstructed concrete elements “products” or are they “waste”? If labelled as waste, the elements would be subject to expensive, time-consuming administrative processes like the “End-of-Waste” (EoW) process. In addition, such labelling also would possible have required different environmental permits.

However, the Finnish ReCreate cluster was convinced reclaimed elements could not be waste. After intensive negotiations and dialogues with the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry published a landmark policy clarification: reclaimed elements do not automatically become waste if they are kept in a usable state throughout the process.

This general statement was coupled with further criteria. The Ministry established that “certainty of further use” could be proven without a specific building address. Instead, actors must show that the reclamation is systematic and there is demand for the products. The municipality of Kangasala then formally decided, using the clarification, that the reclaimed elements stored at the Consolis Parma plant do not constitute waste.

Beyond removing hurdles, the City of Tampere successfully tested a “land allocation competition” model, which ReCreate helped develop. In this system, developers who commit to circular methods (like reuse) are given preference in securing valuable land, providing a powerful financial incentive to innovate.

Sweden: temporary storage and chemicals

In Sweden, a similar interpretation of the waste status has not been reached as in Finland. Under the Swedish Environmental Code, reclaimed materials and products can only be stored for up to three years before the site is legally reclassified as a landfill. At the time of the report’s research, this issue was not resolved, and temporary storage remains a risk for the owner of the reclaimed elements.

In Sweden, much attention is paid to adherence to REACH legislation, because the developer bears legal responsibility for this issue. However, the Swedish country cluster received a clarification from the Swedish Chemical Agency that the limit values according to REACH restriction rules only apply to chemical products, such as cement. In this legislation, reused concrete elements are rather defined as goods.

The Netherlands: self-assessment of the waste status

In the Netherlands, the waste status of recovered elements has not formally been discussed in ReCreate’s pilot project. However, in the context of environmental permits, the project partner Lagemaat was obliged to use a self-assessment tool, to determine whether the recovered materials constituted waste. This tool followed similar logic as the Finnish authorities, and the outcome indeed was the elements would not constitute waste. The tool only offers guidance, however.

Germany: A case-by-case bureaucratic battle

The German regulatory situation is complicated because each state has differing regulations. The report therefore only deals with the states the pilot projects have been active in.
To some extent, the complicated issue in Germany revolved around quality assurance rather than the acceptance of reclaimed elements as building materials. The latter, through the site-specific permits, is possible according to existing German law. Regarding quality assurance, the issue was mostly which authority would be responsible for acknowledging the adherence to standards. At the time of research for this report, the issue was not fully clear. One further issue that is a potential challenge to the scalability of the reuse of reclaimed elements is the liability of owners for the materials. On the other hand, this could spur innovations in insurance products.

Common Themes: The Need for an “EU Umbrella”

All countries had very specific regulatory issues, but the ReCreate report identifies several common threads that affect everyone:

Quality management is probably the single most important issue for reuse regarding building permits.
Reusing materials currently requires significantly more negotiation and consensus-building than standard construction. This “interaction tax” is a hidden cost that currently burdens circular pioneers.
There is a unanimous call for the EU to provide a single, unambiguous definition of when reclaimed products become waste. Relying on 27 different national interpretations prevents the creation of a true cross-border market for reused materials.

In conclusion, the message to companies is clear: start early, negotiate and communicate often, and document everything. The path to a circular future is currently being paved—reused element by reused element—through these difficult but necessary regulatory conversations.

by ReCreate project

May 12, 2026

Aapo-Rasanen-and-Jukka-Lahdensivu-Tampere-University.jpg

Authors: Aapo Räsänen and Jukka Lahdensivu, Tampere University

Introduction to the reports: Procedure for quality management of reclaimed concrete elements, Properties and quality of precast concrete elements deconstructed in ReCreate’s pilots and Quality management best practices in reuse of precast concrete elements of the ReCreate project. The full reports are available on the website.

The ReCreate report Procedure for quality management of reclaimed concrete elements presents the six stages process for safe reuse of reclaimed concrete elements as a part of bearing structures in new buildings. The key process stages are:

Pre-deconstruction audit, where the main actions are finding out the type and number of elements, assessing their reuse potential, and gathering information for the next stages.

Structural investigation, where the main actions are ensuring material properties of elements primarily with non-destructive (ND) or semi-destructive (SD) methods, determining the condition of the elements, and finding out the existence of possible hazardous substances.

Deconstruction design and execution, where the determination of safe deconstruction and lifting methods is the main action, together with transportation and storage of deconstructed elements.

Full-scale testing is carried out if the structural capacity of reclaimed elements cannot be uncovered through other means or if there is doubt about safety factors. Also newly developed retrofit connections need testing if original connections cannot be reused.

Redesign and reassembly, where the main actions are designing the reclaimed elements according to Eurocodes and standards in force. Also, the refurbishment of the reclaimed elements must be designed and carried out before delivering elements to new construction site.

Product approval and authorisation is the final stage, where documents from the previous stages, together with technical drawings and calculations, will be presented to authorities to obtain official permits for reuse.

Visual investigation and thorough documentation are an essential part of each stage. Information must be carried through from stage to stage.

Properties and quality of reclaimed elements

Properties and quality of reclaimed elements were determined in four piloting countries: Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. The report provides description of used test methods number of samples and measurements, and all test results carried out in laboratories of each donor buildings. In short, concrete grade used in reclaimed elements was higher than original design value, the elements were in good condition in general, and all found harmful substances could be removed before detaching of elements.

Knowledge Level

The ReCreate report Quality management best practices in reuse of precast concrete elements focuses on test methods and sufficient number of tests/samples needed for determining the material properties of concrete and the bearing capacity of elements. The actual condition, material properties, remaining service life, and probable repair needs of elements intended for reuse can be assessed through a systematic investigation. The need of testing depends strongly on the extent of available information. Therefore, four Knowledge Levels (KLs) are introduced:

Knowledge Level 1 (KL1): No information is available regarding the concrete quality, reinforcement properties, or the manufacturer of the elements.

Knowledge Level 2 (KL2): No information regarding the material qualities is available, but the manufacturer is known.

Knowledge Level 3 (KL3): Some specifications describing the concrete and reinforcement properties of the elements exist, but no further information about the manufacturer or quality control applied during production is available.

Knowledge Level 4 (KL4): Detailed archives of specifications describing the used concrete quality and reinforcement steel design are available, and both the manufacturer and its quality control system are well-documented.

The first two knowledge levels (KL1 and KL2) describe situations where no design specifications are available on the donor building. In these cases, extensive non-destructive testing (NDT) and destructive testing (DT) is required. For KL3 and KL4, partial or complete archives of original documents are accessible, and the specified properties only need to be verified through selective testing, reducing the workload.

Parallel test methods

Many different test methods are available for determining properties of concrete elements. Some methods are simple, while others are more complex, potentially causing more damage and costs. Additionally, the reliability of the tests varies depending on the method used. The testing methods used should always selected to suit each specific situation, based on the project’s criteria. The criteria may include, e.g. the type of element, required level of reliability, requirements of the new building, or the test methods available.

Ideally, the test methods should be selected to maximise the amount of knowledge gained while minimising costs and time. By using parallel test methods, reliability can often be improved by complementing each method’s shortcomings to create a more reliable aggregated method. In the report different test methods are presented for:

compressive strength evaluation of concrete

cover depth and diameter measurements of reinforcement

carbonation measurements of concrete

chloride content of concrete

corrosion of reinforcement

freeze-thaw resistance of concrete

deteriorated concrete.

The methods are presented in tables containing information on suitable standards, representativity, reliability, workload and number of needed tests of each presented test methods when the information is available.

Number of samples

Number of samples needed for each test are mentioned in standards in the first place. Several tests presented in report have no standard, e.g., cover depth measurements reinforcement. Sufficient number of test specimen or full-scale tests for high reliable results is based on scientific research on the results from the pilot projects. High deviation of test results gives a recommendation of higher number of samples/tests than the minimum number in standards. The recommended number of samples are presented in the report.

Conclusion

Quality assurance measures carried out in the ReCreate project varied somewhat across different pilots. The best practices presented in the report are based on the necessary actions taken at each pilot. In particular, damage and deficiencies in structural elements required significant interventions. These defects were discovered at different stages of the pilots, leading to immediate responses each time, which resulted in multiple actions being taken.

Overall, the quality assurance measures are especially useful in validating the reusability of elements. These measures will also benefit the structural designers by helping anticipate potential deficiencies and necessary modifications during refurbishment. Well-documented processes will provide evidence of reusability to authorities and other stakeholders involved in the reuse process. In Finnish pilots the developed quality management process was used successfully. The building inspection authorities in Tampere and Helsinki accepted the developed quality management process for reused concrete elements as a part of the site-specific authorisation.

by ReCreate project

April 20, 2026

Author: Satu Huuhka, Tampere University

ReCreate’s Finnish cluster announces the completion of its third mini-pilot! You can read about the first one here and the second one here.

The third Finnish mini-pilot was built during autumn-winter 2025, with the last reused elements installed in December. Like the first mini-pilot, this building is also a block of flats. It was built by Skanska in the new Tampere district Hiedanranta, with the housing provider ‘TA’ as the client. It involves 55 reused elements originating from the project’s donor building: 35 hollow-core slabs, 13 columns and 7 beams. As was for the second mini-pilot, Ramboll Finland acted as the responsible structural designer, and the elements were refurbished by Consolis Parma.

For hollow-core slabs, the reuse application was slightly different from previous. Whereas the first mini-pilot reused these types of elements as floors for residential spaces, this time they were mainly employed in the ceilings. Despite the distinct conditions, the mini-pilot provided no new major observations regarding reuse of hollow-core slabs vis-à-vis to the learnings acquired already in the previous pilots. The replication nevertheless served the important purpose of routine creation for the involved ReCreate companies, which is a prerequisite for mainstreaming reuse as a part of regular business operations.

This mini-pilot was, however, the first time that columns and beams reclaimed from ReCreate’s Finnish donor building were reused, even if in small numbers. Some learnings were acquired, but the practical conditions of the housing project also limited what could be achieved. Because there was no aim in the project for an open or adaptable floor plan, there was no architectural benefit to using columns instead of load-bearing walls. However, it still was an opportunity to test the columns and beams in a multi-storey building from a structural perspective.

Regarding hollow-core slabs, all the mini-pilots together validated the fact that at the construction site, their reuse is no different from using virgin elements. This is great news business-wise, as this kind of observation can lower the adoption threshold for construction companies, and hollow-core slabs could be a ‘low-hanging fruit’ of precast concrete reuse. Nevertheless, it should be noted that despite their seeming simplicity, hollow-core slabs are highly optimised engineering products, with little structural margin. Thus, their reclamation and quality management call for in-depth expertise about their structural behaviour.

Moreover, both the first and the third mini-pilots demonstrated the economic viability of reusing precast concrete elements in the context of affordable housing projects, which come with tight budgetary conditions.

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

Video & photo credit:

Creamframe / Mikko Laaksonen

Tampere University / Eetu Lehmusvaara

by ReCreate project

February 24, 2026

Author: Satu Huuhka, Tampere University

ReCreate’s Finnish cluster shares news about its new mini-pilots. This is the second of them. You can read about the first one here. Stay tuned for more info on the third mini-pilot, which will follow shortly!

The second Finnish mini-pilot was implemented in summer 2025 in conjunction with the construction of the industrial production complex ‘Lokomotion Technology Centre’, which Skanska is building for the client Metso in the Lahdesjärvi district of Tampere. It involved reusing 27 hollow-core slabs in two buildings: a small self-standing building with technical spaces, and staff facilities located as ‘space within a space’ inside a larger industrial hall.

As opposed to the first mini-pilot where the elements were reused in intermediate floors, here the hollow-core slabs were employed in roofs. A different application of the same type of elements contributed to new learnings, as different requirements can posed on elements depending on where and how they are used, for example with regard to surface smoothness or outwardly appearance. In addition, different construction projects can have individual processual requirements for how the reuse is integrated as a part of the whole with elements made of virgin materials, regarding e.g. the assembly order and suitable assembly equipment. Organising logistics is another consideration when reused and virgin elements come from different suppliers, though this is not essentially different from regular building projects, which can also have a large number of suppliers for various construction products.

Like all elements in ReCreate’s Finnish reuse pilots, also the ones used in the second mini-pilot originated from the same donor building in Tampere city centre, originally built in the early 1980s and deconstructed by the ReCreate partners in autumn 2023. The distance between the original donor building site and the reuse site in Lahdesjärvi is 7 km.

Before reuse, the elements were refurbished by Consolis Parma. The ‘economy of scale’ of the second and third mini-pilots, together with the commercial reuse project that occurred in parallel, enabled Parma to temporarily dedicate a factory line in Nummela for the refurbishment of reclaimed hollow-core slabs. This helped to improve the efficiency of the refurbishment process, as opposed to the more customised approach of the first mini-pilot.

Ramboll Finland acted as the structural designer, responsible for all structural engineering aspects of the reuse in this pilot, including all the documentation for a site-specific approval process. The first mini-pilot set the foundations for how to conduct the approval process with the local building inspection authorities, and it was replicated in this pilot.

The mini-pilot successfully showcased the viability of reused elements in industrial buildings and as a part of a particularly complex and extensive construction project.

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

Video & photo credit: Creamframe / Mikko Laaksonen

by ReCreate project

February 17, 2026

Authors: Jyrki Tarpio & Tapio Kaasalainen, Tampere University

A Circular Economy Course is held for fourth– and fifth–year architecture students at Tampere University each year. In 2025, the students’ assignment was to study how to reuse load-bearing structural precast concrete elements deconstructed from an office building in new-build multifamily housing. The Finnish deconstruction pilot building of the ReCreate project, the load-bearing structural elements of which were dismantled in 2023, acted as a reference donor building in the course.

Figure 1. Load-bearing elements of the Finnish donor building. Axonometric images and floor plan of a standard floor, excluding stairs. Image: Tapio Kaasalainen (adapted from an original plan drawing by Suunnittelutieto Oy).

A combination of hollow-core floor slabs, massive concrete slabs, columns, beams, and wall elements formed the load-bearing structure of the office building. Architecture students were asked to utilise these elements, bearing in mind that hollow-core slabs can be cut shorter or narrower and massive slabs shorter, but other elements must be used in their original size. Instead of being asked to design new buildings themselves, the students were handed drawings of two recently constructed apartments buildings in Tampere. Their task was to examine how to use the reclaimed elements as the load-bearing structure of one of the two reference apartment buildings maintaining its shape, main dimensions, and housing unit allocation (i.e. size and number of apartments). The main challenge was caused by the fact that the load-bearing structure used in both reference cases consists of walls and slabs, but the students had to mainly apply a column-beam-slab structure designed for a different building type and function. The task was limited to examining one recurring floor of one reference building per a student pair. To keep the workload manageable and focused, students were instructed to apply the reference buildings’ exterior wall structures as-is, even though in reality some modifications might be needed due to the altered overall structure.

Figure 2. Reuse applied to a rectangular apartment building. Column, beam, and wall reuse (coloured parts) shown on the left, slab reuse on the right. Design and images: Helmi Haapalainen & Viola Rytkönen.

Of the two references, the case ‘rectangular apartment building’ shared basically the same building depth as the office building, but its length was shorter. This made it possible to use nearly the same structural composition in the apartment building as in the original office building. The design by students Helmi Haapalainen and Viola Rytkönen (Fig. 2) reuses most slabs in their original or nearly original length, with two massive slabs and one hollow-core slab shortened notably and one hollow-core slab cut narrower. In the design, the locations of bathrooms and WCs are slightly modified so that they are concentrated in the middle of the building on the zone consisting of massive floor slabs. This arrangement is beneficial for organising plumbing and vertical building service stacks in a cost-effective way and also allows horizontal runs ”within” the inverted-U-shaped slab. The columns and beams are generally placed so that they don’t diminish the functionality of the rooms. However, in one room there is a slight aesthetic compromise with a beam running across it in the middle.

Figure 3. Reuse applied to the cut-corner apartment building. Column and beam reuse (coloured parts) on the left, slab reuse on the right. Design and images: Minttu Puustinen & Veetu Varala.

The shape and overall dimensioning of the other case, the ‘cut-corner apartment building’, was more challenging. Its frame depth is approximately one metre narrower and its length is shorter than the office building’s. However, students Minttu Puustinen and Veetu Varala proved in their design (Fig. 3) that, utilising the given columns, beams, and hollow-core slabs creatively, the load-bearing structure can be implemented successfully. They reused longer beams on both sides of the building and suggested a short new special beam in the middle of the building frame as well as shortened most hollow-core slabs—mostly cut only moderately, but some more extensively. The moderate cuts were similar in length to what might be required when salvaging some slabs in any case, although on the course all components were assumed to be as originally designed. Additionally, they narrowed one slab zone near the middle to fit the whole design into the required frame depth. With one exceptional column and beam location, they managed to fit the columns and beams along the party wall or walls separating apartments.

Concluding notions

Twelve groups of architecture students provided slightly different designs to the two reference buildings. In general, all students were able to grasp the idea of structural reuse with the notion that some additional material layers need to be installed on reused slabs and walls to meet the current soundproofing requirements of domestic spaces. As the final part of the course, the students made calculations on the embodied CO2 emissions and corresponding CO2 savings with their suggested reuse solution.

Most student designs had lower embodied emissions than the original reference buildings even without reuse (Fig. 4). This was largely due to the post and beam structure inherently reducing the amount of concrete used. Many designs also reused concrete panels from partition walls, in partition walls. These were thinner than are typically found in new construction, and thus even with added sound insulation led to lower emissions even for the ‘without reuse’ scenario which assumed virgin materials for the same structures. In contrast, however, in the same scenario a few student designs ended up exceeding the reference case’s emissions when concrete panels were used where not necessarily needed, such as under a beam along an apartment boundary.

Figure 4. Embodied emissions in the reference cases and corresponding student designs. Each design comprises a single storey of a single stairwell unit in the middle of a building. Thus there is no roof or foundations included, and floor slabs are only counted once. Each pair of columns corresponds to a single design, with the ‘without reuse’ scenario (all virgin materials) on the left and ‘with reuse’ on the right.

Based on feedback, the students found the course interesting and considered the skills acquired relevant for their future work as architects. Many specifically pointed out the technical design aspects and emission calculations as being important and at the same time something they had not learned to the same extent in other parts of the degree.

The course was organised in collaboration with ReCreate and supervised by Prof. Satu Huuhka, Dr. Tapio Kaasalainen, and Dr. Jyrki Tarpio.

by ReCreate project

December 15, 2025

Matias Pajarre, Tampere University

In the ReCreate project, groundbreaking work has been done in researching the technical, societal and economic feasibility of concrete element reuse. But still, it is also good to remember that we are not alone on this mission and there is a lot we can learn and have learned from others, both unconsciously and through intentional imitation. This topic might not seem attractive at first as imitation as a concept is often frowned upon and we tend to have a strong preference towards novelty, but this is exactly the reason why it might be good to stop to think about its importance.

How often is something entirely new in the first place? Innovation and imitation can be seen as two ends of a continuous spectrum where almost everything we do has an innovative element and an imitative element. For example, airfryers are a relatively novel product category that takes an existing technology such as convection ovens but brings novelty with a new form factor. In almost everything “new” we do we can see that we are just adding a varying degree of novelty to an existing product, process, technology or even capabilities.

Because of this, it is interesting to highlight the learnings we have received from others. In the interviews conducted for the WP7 research, many ways can be seen how existing knowledge from other fields and situations has helped us towards our circularity goals in ReCreate and also in a wider context. Here are some of them:

People transferring their previously learned skills to new situations

Even though the demolition workers deconstructing the Finnish pilot building were faced with a new challenge, they had already gained valuable experience from a different situation: disassembling paper machines. Because of this, they had developed important skills needed for the careful disassembly process without breaking the elements and the right attitude for the task.

While this is a relatively simple example, it highlights the way some fundamental skills can be transferred to surprising new contexts also for the benefit of sustainability. Especially in an era where the industry borders are expected to vanish when circular value chains start flowing more and more across companies of different industrial fields, there could also be much wider potential for widely applicable circular economy skills than just deconstruction work.

People carrying ideas across industries

While having widely applicable circular work skills might make work easier in diverse situations, it is also ideas and knowledge that can be useful across various fields. We have talked about how some companies and entire industries have been renewed by people arriving from different fields, sometimes with lots of experience on how things could be done in the ways commonly used in their previous work areas. This, in a way, echoes the long-known facts that more creative outputs are more likely from work teams with diverse backgrounds and individuals with knowledge from multiple fields.

Developing novel technologies and ways to use them

When new technologies arrive to the market, different trajectories and cases of exaptation can be seen where new use cases are found, both close and from the existing ones as the technological development advances. For example, drones are a technology originally developed for military purposes, but they are being adapted for many new tasks in different fields. In ReCreate, their potential for scanning tasks has been discussed.

We have also had talks about the prospects of using robotics and automation for various tasks in deconstruction work. The technology is already being developed for a similar task. Recovering elements from steel buildings has been noted to be much easier due to the connection types and indeed, robots are being developed elsewhere for that purpose. For concrete elements, however, the consensus in our interviews has been mixed so far with a fair amount of skepticism.

Despite the evident challenges in the automation of deconstruction, it is interesting to see what the future holds. A major technological change has already happened globally after these interviews with the way AI technologies have exploded in performance and popularity. I cannot tell if the development of AI will bridge the technological gap here, but we can certainly hope and keep our eyes open in case someone will come up with an innovation that could become a solution to some of our problems.

by ReCreate project

November 26, 2025

In this interview, we are speaking to Jukka Lahdensivu from Tampere University, whose work lies in WP4 in the ReCreate project. WP4 is focusing on new safety standards for reusing precast concrete components to promote sustainable construction practices. It captures the technical challenges and the practical goals of balancing safety, regulatory standards, and sustainability in the reuse of materials.

Can you explain the primary motivation behind creating a new quality management process for deconstructed precast concrete components?

Jukka: The primary motivation, in my view, is to demonstrate to customers and authorities that reclaimed components can be safely repurposed. It’s essential to ensure these elements meet safety standards when reused, and that’s why we’ve developed this process to verify their viability. We’re actively studying various aspects of these materials to ensure reliability.

How does this process differ from existing practices for virgin materials?

Jukka: There are quite a few similarities. In a factory setting, you test the raw materials, like cement and aggregates, before creating concrete and verifying it meets quality standards. However, for deconstructed materials, we’re testing the structure itself, often on-site, which is a big departure from standard practice with new materials. New components are generally tested during manufacturing, but here, the focus is on validating reclaimed components in their current state.

How challenging was it to integrate the investigation of harmful substances into the pre-deconstruction audit? What obstacles did you encounter in developing a standardized procedure for this?

Jukka: It wasn’t particularly difficult, especially since building renovations often require these studies before demolition. Finland, in particular, has a heightened awareness of harmful substances, likely because of extensive media coverage and prior issues with building materials. We’ve taken a thorough approach here, often exceeding regulatory requirements to ensure safety.

So, you would say people in Finland are more aware of these substances?

Jukka: Probably. It’s discussed frequently in the media, and we’ve faced issues in some newer buildings due to materials being enclosed prematurely. These problems have led to a deeper understanding and greater caution regarding harmful substances.

Work Package 4 focuses on ensuring reusable elements meet material and structural standards. Can you describe the testing process for these elements and their role in maintaining safety?

Jukka: We conduct tests on material properties before deconstruction to confirm the elements can be reused safely in new projects. This includes taking core samples for compression strength testing, measuring concrete cover depth over reinforcement, and conducting full-scale tests on beams and hollow-core slabs in the lab. These tests align with existing standards, ensuring consistency.

What are the key differences between assessing deconstructed versus newly manufactured components?

Jukka: With new concrete structures, we know the exact composition of materials. We need to analyse the concrete strength, reinforcement type, and other specifics for existing buildings. This lack of prior knowledge is the main difference when evaluating reused materials.

In this work package, you mention variability in material properties due to inhomogeneity. How do you manage these variations during testing?

Jukka: We conduct multiple parallel tests to gather a distribution of results. This approach is similar to testing new materials, but in a factory setting, components are consistently produced. With reclaimed materials, we often have only a few components to test, which means sample sizes differ from typical factory conditions.

Could you elaborate on potential challenges, such as deterioration, during deconstruction, transportation, or storage?

Jukka: We detected most deterioration, like cracking, in hollow-core slabs after deconstruction. These cracks weren’t visible in the building but appeared after detachment, likely due to the removal process. In Finland, we’ve also had cases where water entered hollow-core slabs, froze, and caused cracking. We had about six slabs damaged this way. When we removed the levelling on top of these slabs, accidental holes were created in the slab decks, though this was rare. In storage, however, we didn’t encounter any issues.

How do you decide on the reuse of these cracked components?

Jukka: It depends on the severity of the cracks. Small cracks with a width of 0.1-0.2 mm are often acceptable for reuse. Larger cracks, 0.3-0.5 mm or wider, need further assessment. We’ve created guidelines for visual assessment in the factory, and if significant cracking is found, a construction designer reviews it to decide on further action.

What are the most significant technical or regulatory hurdles in obtaining approval from authorities for reused components, and how might these be addressed in the future?

Jukka: The main hurdle is that authorities aren’t yet familiar with the requirements for approving reused components. We’re the first to bring this approach forward, so they’re unsure what documentation and standards to ask for. We’ve been holding meetings with local authorities in Tampere to explain our processes and the documentation we provide. This helps reassure them that we’re following a rigorous process to ensure the safety and usability of these reused components.

Best of luck with your upcoming meetings. Now, as we wrap up, what impact do you hope this work package will have on the construction industry’s approach to reuse and sustainability?

Jukka: Our goal is to develop a process that’s robust but not overly burdensome. Striking this balance is crucial to encourage widespread adoption of reused materials in construction.

Lastly, what inspired you personally to focus on sustainable construction and the reuse of materials?

Jukka: My research career has centered on the durability of structures—how they degrade and what measures can prevent damage. At our university, we’re also focused on adapting construction practices to climate change. While some researchers study climate change directly, we’re more interested in its impact on the built environment. Reusing materials is an important part of this, as it allows us to avoid new resource extraction and reduce environmental impacts, contributing to a more sustainable future.

by ReCreate project

July 9, 2025

Eetu Lehmusvaara,
Project researcher, Multimedia Creative Specialist
Tampere University

I worked as a videographer for the Finnish deconstruction pilot during autumn 2023 and spring 2024. I filmed the pilot project—a seven-storey office building located in Tampere—on multiple occasions during the autumn, which helped me realize the importance of documenting the stories of construction sites.

Consumers and users play an important role in the transition from a linear economy to a circular one. It challenges us to rethink what we value and what we don’t. And to value something, we need to understand it. Understanding requires experiences, and this is where videography can come into play.

The role of a documentary videographer is not only to show how things are but also to help people experience them. This is why seeing is not enough, emotions play a critical role in how we understand the world.

The Craft of Deconstruction

The craftsmanship behind deconstruction is something easily overlooked. To a passerby, a deconstruction site might look like any other building project. Cranes lift slabs, pillars, and beams, and workers move among various tasks.

But with a closer look, something different becomes apparent: Rather than building something new, the structure is being taken apart. The slabs, pillars, and columns are carefully removed and stacked like valuable resources, to be reused rather than discarded like waste.

When I first walked past the site, the loud but shallow clinks of hammers mixed with the high-pitched screeching of saws echoed through the building. These sounds were familiar from my previous visits to construction sites— but something about them felt different this time. I wasn’t sure what to expect. How would the workers perceive me? Would they be willing to be filmed? Were they proud of their work, or indifferent to it?

A moment of realization came a few weeks later. The workers were detaching an element from the building, as they had many times before. After about 30 minutes of effort, it became obvious that something wasn’t going smoothly. Seven men were gathered at one point on the building, all secured to the floor for safety, as they worked on the fourth story. One worker used a machine for extra leverage, others used circular saws and iron bars to free the element. The element was already attached to the crane, and the team was in constant communication with the crane operator. You could read the frustration on their faces, but their work remained precise and cooperative, as always.

Then it started to rain. I had to step away for cover, as did the managers who were observing the process. I waited under the stairwell for another 20 minutes, hoping to film the moment the element was finally lifted into the sky.

Sadly I missed the lift. My need to stay dry meant I missed the key moment of the lift. The construction workers, who didn’t have the luxury of stepping away, pushed through the difficulties and successfully removed the element—again.

Later, I realized the highlight wasn’t the lift itself. It was the story of skill and craftsmanship the workers demonstrated in making it happen.

Understanding Through Stories

To drive the shift toward circular construction, people need to see the work behind in it. We value historic buildings because they were hand-crafted, with all the imperfections that came with that. These structures tell stories, and their age gives them meaning.

The same goes for deconstruction. The knowledge and craftsmanship required to take buildings apart—carefully, responsibly, and with reuse in mind—is something people can value, once they understand it. This slow, demanding, yet environmentally positive work deserves recognition.

And for that, we need stories—compelling visuals and narratives that help us make sense of the world.

Hopefully, this short documentary can be one small contribution to a much larger shift.

Older Posts