Master Thesis - Transformation potential of existing buildings

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

MASTER THESIS

Transformation potential of existing building Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

Submitted 24th of June 2022

Supervisors:

Lotte Bjerregaard Jensen

Associate Professor

Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering

Technical University of Denmark

Rune Andersen

PhD student in circular construction Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering

Section for Design and Processes

Technical University of Denmark

Best viewed in a two page layout, with cover page enabled

The thesis investigates different ways of dealing with a built up area which needs transformation to answer to current needs of the society, and the consequential outcomes in terms of architectural design, environmental, social and economic impact.

Cities nowadays deal with a rapid and important shift towards new ways of living. Urbanization rates are on all time high levels and the industry is completely shifting towards new technologies and methods. This leads to a lot of outdated areas of built environment, which must be suited for the new needs. Until now, majority of these areas were simply demolished, making space for new buildings and spaces. While this is still viable way of dealing with mentioned problem, it might not be the most environmentally conscious approach.

Construction industry accounts for almost 40% of CO2 emissions through construction and operation of buildings. While cuts in the use phase of the buildings is addressed through more strict energy efficiency requirements, that is not the case with the construction phase, and the emissions from the new construction are still increasing.

Thus, the main question this thesis is trying to answer is:

Isdemolishingoftheexistingbuildingsnecessaryandjustifiable?

A mapping of performance of existing buildings will be done to illustrate the transformation potential of them. It includes 3 pillars of sustainability and analyses possible outcomes with arguing whether it is better to be transformed or demolished and replaced with a new building.

The analysis is tracking the whole life cycle of the buildings in the given area existing building and its state, design process of the transformation to the new use, performance in the use phase, and comparing environmental impacts of these to a baseline scenario which is demolishing the existing, designing and construction of the new buildings.

Another alternative to conventional demolishing and construction process would be circular approach to reuse materials from the existing buildings, and the impact of this choice can also be assessed from architectural and environmental aspect

Set of analysis will be done for the design proposal to justify the decision. A proposal is to include a BIM implementation for visualization will be done at the end for better communication and utilization of the tool.

All the mentioned above is done with close supervision from DTU and collaboration with industry partners which are working on the presented case. The finished thesis can be used as a demonstration of a new approach and as walk through for similar developments, promoting all the benefits that were proved during the work process.

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

ALINA BARUN

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING

• Architectural design

• Social impact analysis and research

KIN SUN TSANG

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING

• Architectural design

• Economic impact analysis and research

TOMISLAV MARTINOVIĆ ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING

• Architectural design

• Environmental impact analysis and research

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The journey at DTU, for all three of us, meant moving to another country, finding our ways in a new community, forming new friendships all for the sake of educating ourselves to be the ones who are going to make a difference. Even though we have embarked on that journey alone, accomplishing it alone would be impossible (and less fun certainly). Because of that, we would like to say

Thank you!

To all our educators, especially our supervisors Lotte and Rune, for transferring their knowledge to us and supporting our professional and personal growth.

To our friends and family, for providing encouragement and help when the times would get hard.

And finally, to each one of us for sticking together for the past two years and providing a home away from home.

Alina Barun

Kin Sun Tsang

Tomislav Martinović

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY & SUSTAINABILITY 1

1.1 A NEED FOR CHANGE 2

1.2 DESIGNING A NEW FUTURE 6

1.2.1 CIRCULAR ECONOMY IN THE PROJECT DESIGN 6

1.2.2 SUSTAINABILITY CERTIFICATION SCHEMES 15

1.2.3 TRANSFORMING EXISTING BUILDING STOCKS FOR THE FUTURE 20

1.3 CONSERVING A NEW FUTURE 38

1.3.1 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT 38

1.3.2 REUSE OF EXISTING MATERIALS 42

1.4 LIVING IN A NEW FUTURE 48

1.4.1 ENVIRONMENT AROUND US 48

1.4.2 PEOPLE AND BUIDLINGS AROUND US 51

1.4.3 SOCIAL ASPECTS IN SUSTAINABILITY 56

1.4.4 SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY IN BUILT ENVIRONMENT 58

1.5 PAYING FOR A NEW FUTURE 64

1.5.1 COST EVALUATION IN A HOLISTIC CONTEXT 64

1.5.2 ADVANTAGES OF THE LCC APPROACH 66

1.5.3 CHANGE OF BUSINESS MODEL IN ADAPTIVE REUSE CASES 67

AVAILABLE RESOURCES 71

2.1 DESIGN PROBLEM ANALYSIS 72

2.1.1 ARCHITECTURAL LANGUAGE OF COPENHAGEN 72

2.1.2 VERMUNDSGADE 5 76

2.2 SELECTION OF USED TOOLS 81

2.2.1 TRANSFORMATION POTENTIAL TOOL (TPT) 81

2.2.2 THE CONVERSION METER 85

2.2.3 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT 89

2.2.4 SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY 92 2.2.5 LIFE CYCLE COSTING 99

WORKFLOW 109

3.1 BIM MODEL 110

3.1.1 MODEL FOR EXISTING BUILDING 110

3.1.2 MODEL FOR DEVELOPED SCENARIOS 111

3.1.3 MODEL APPLICATION 112

3.2 URBAN ANALYSIS 113

3.3 TRANSFORMATION POTENTIAL ANALYSIS 117

3.3.1 TRANSFORMATION POTENTIAL TOOL (TPT) 117

3.3.2 THE CONVERSION METER 126

3.4 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 132

3.5 MATERIALS ANALYSIS 135

3.6 ENERGY PERFORMANCE AND SAVING ACTIONS 138

3.7 DAYLIGHT ANALYSIS 141

3.8 LCA 144

3.9 SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY TOOL 152

3.10 LCC 155

3.11 BUILDING EMBEDDED VALUES 163

3.12 IMPACT SCORE 166

PROPOSED SOLUTION(S) & ARGUMENTS 169

4.1 URBAN CONCEPT 170

4.2 BUILDING CONCEPT 175

4.2.1 TRANSFORMATION TO RESIDENTIAL USE 178 4.2.2 NEW CONSTRUCTION 188 4.2.3 DO NOTHING 188

4.3 EVALUATION 190

4.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL LCA 190

4.3.2 SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY TOOL 196 4.3.3 ECONOMIC LCC 199 4.4 IMPACT SCORE 210

DISCUSION AND CONCLUSION 213

5.1 DISCUSSION 214

5.1.1 REFLECTION ON THE WORK DONE AND LIMITATIONS 214 5.1.2 FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS 216 5.2 CONCLUSION(S) 219

BIBLIOGRAPHY 221

APPENDICES 235

APPENDIX I KEY FACTORS FOR BUILDING RENOVATION CONTEXT 236

APPENDIX II EXISTING DRAWINGS OF THE BUILDING FROM THE ARCHIVE 238

APPENDIX III – TRANSFORMATION DESIGN DRAWINGS 239

APPENDIX IV – QUANTITY TAKE-OFFS 240

APPENDIX V ENERGY LABEL REPORT 242

APPENDIX VI TRANSFORMATION POTENTIAL TOOL 243

APPENDIX VII – CONVERSION METER 244

APPENDIX VIII – RISK ASSESSMENT EXAMPLES 249

APPENDIX IX – SIGMA REPORT – AVERAGE CONSTRUCTION COST 252

APPENDIX X SUSTAINABLE STRATEGIES BY DURMISEVIC 253

APPENDIX XI EPDS LIST FOR THE “DO NOTHING” INVENTORY 254

APPENDIX XII – EPDS LIST FOR THE “TRANSFORMATION TO DORMITORY” INVENTORY 255

APPENDIX XIII – EPDS LIST FOR THE “TRANSFORMATION TO APARTMENTS” INVENTORY 256

APPENDIX XIV – LCA RESULTS REPORT 257

APPENDIX XV – RENT ESTIMATION 258

APPENDIX XVI – LCCBYG REPORT – CASE 1: AVERAGE CONSTRUCTION DATA 259

APPENDIX XVII LCCBYG CALCULATION CASE 2 DETAIL CONSTRUCTION DATA 260

APPENDIX XVIII SIGMA REPORT EXISTING MIXED USE 261

APPENDIX XIX – SIGMA REPORT - DORMITORY 262

APPENDIX XX – SIGMA REPORT - RESIDENTIAL 263

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

APPENDIX XXI LCCBYG REPORT - CASE 2.1: PERIODIC REPLACEMENT FOR OFFICE 264

APPENDIX XXII – LCCBYG REPORT – CASE 2.2: 10% DEVIATION OF RENT 265

APPENDIX XXIII – LCCBYG REPORT – CASE 2.3: 110% UTILITIES CONSUMPTION 266

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

INDUSTRY & SUSTAINABILITY

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

1.1 A NEED FOR CHANGE

It is a well known fact that human activities impact the environment and society in many ways, both negative and positive. As Abdallah (2017) puts it: “For many centuries mankind has been building its infrastructure in the natural environment, and disturbing the balance of nature, with historic environmental destruction. Humans destroyed wetlands, and other valuable ecosystems to build cities, knocked down hills and filled in rivers, built ports in the coastal areas, essentially rearranging the natural landscape.” While we owe our current lifestyles and the level of societal advancement to these somewhat inconsiderate processes, the consequences are starting to catch up rapidly. This is mainly evident in recent climate changes that are affecting our lives, but the impacts of careless activity can also be seen in forms of poverty, hunger, inequality, lack of education, etc.

On the other hand, our planet has a remarkable ability to recover from these disruptions. For example, so called “carbon sinks” can absorb CO2. Keenan and Williams (2018) state that terrestrial carbon sinks removed an estimated 28.5% of total emissions, while oceans removed 22.1% of total emissions, over the period from 2007 to 2017. However, this is simply not enough. The numbers changed for the worse from then. European Parliament (2021) reports that, on a global level, estimated natural carbon sinks remove from 9.5 to 11 Gt of CO2 annually (Neier, Neyer, & Radunsky, 2018), while emissions reached 38 Gt (Crippa, et al., 2020). Furthermore, it is not just carbon emissions that are left as a trace of human activity there are plenty of other impacts such as increased land use, land and water eutrophication, ozone depletion, and many others.

We have known about these problems for some time now. Already in 1859, Irish scientist John Tyndall suggested that there is a connection between temperature and H2O and CO2 This was followed by a theory from 1896 when Swedish chemist Arrhenius said that CO2 emissions could lead to global warming. These theories would be confirmed 70 years later by analysing ice cores from Antarctica. In a period following these early discoveries, several other findings would be published, explaining the effect of pesticides on the wildlife, Sulphur causing acidification and acid rains, the link between human population and climate, etc. (Grace, 2004) All of this accumulated to a Commission organized by United Nations, with an aim to define sustainability and sustainable development. The Commission would come up with a report named “Our Common Future”, also called the Brundtland Report after the head of the commission, Norwegian prime minister at the time, Gro Harlem Brundtland (World Comission on Environment and Development, 1987).

Figure 1 Mrs. Gro Harlem Brundtland, Prime Minister of Norway, addressingtheGeneralAssemblyonEnvironmentandDevelopment (UnitedNations,1987)

In the meantime, human population has been growing at the rate never seen before, along with a production to support it To try to tackle the impacts of that, in 2013 United Nations assembled an Open Working Group to develop, what later would be called, Sustainable Development Goals. In 2015, they were presented at the Sustainable Development Summit as seen on the Figure below (United Nations, General Assembly, 2015):

Figure2 Sustainabledevelopmentgoals(UnitedNations,GeneralAssembly,2015)

Since then, data relevant for the listed goals and belonging indicators is collected and monitored to measure performance on them According to the latest Sustainable Development Goals Report (2021) average overall score for all countries is 66.8, which combined with the fact that 2030 is just eight years away, shows that efforts must be drastically increased.

Figure3 Overallscoreforall17goals(Sachs,Kroll,Lafortune,Fuller,&Woelm,2021).

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

As general consciousness about our unsustainable behaviour grew, construction industry slowly but surely started being aware of the impact it is making through their actions. For example, an article from 1995 (Spence & Mulligan) explains all the different ways construction industry is contributing to increased environmental stress, such as loss of soil and agricultural land, loss of forests and wildlands, air pollution, use of non renewable energy sources and minerals, etc. The authors do leave space for improvement, mentioning, at the time still developing, technologies such as materials made from organic waste, use of recycled materials, increased recycling rates in general, etc. In one of the closing chapters, the importance of governments is mentioned, who should try to reduce the strain on the environment through laws and regulations.

The whole industry experienced a shift from those early days. Countries started introducing environmentally conscious regulations, while the modern technologies and digitalization enabled for a better management of how the resources are used. All of this led to more responsible behaviour. For instance, waste management has improved significantly. According to Eurostat (2022), 89% of waste coming from construction and demolishing in EU is recovered. Looking at the same database, we can see those levels from 2010 were around 65% which shows how much was done over the last decade. Furthermore, development of Life Cycle Assessment methods allowed for assessment of other impacts, such as human toxicity, acidification, ecotoxicity, etc. (Ortiz, Castells, & Sonnnemann, 2009).

Lately, a concept that is getting a lot of attention is Circular Economy. Contrary to linear economic model, where the product is simply disposed at the end of its initial use, circular model suggests reuse of materials and products. As it is stated in “The Circular Economy: What, Why, How and Where” (2019), the concept became mainstream after Ellen MacArthur Foundation published “Towards the Circular Economy”. In the first publication, out of three, the famous butterfly illustration was presented (Figure 4).

This approach is extremely sensible in the construction industry, purely by the fact that it extracts a lot of natural resources, and generates a lot of waste, which would in this case be addressed quite differently and more responsibly. A review of the literature on the topic from 2020 (Benachio, Freitas, & Tavares), mentions several definitions of circular economy, but finds that there is a lack of specific ones that are considering circular economy focused on construction industry, hence giving us one as “the use of practices, in all stages of the life cycle of the building, to keep the materials as long as possible in a closed loop, to reduce the use of new natural resources in a construction project”. The same overview finds six dominant areas of research, which give us a good impression of what kind of change it brings to the industry development of the circular economy in the built environment, reuse of materials, material stocks, circular economy in the project design, LCA and material passports. Some of these will be introduced with more details later in the thesis.

As with everything, there are clearly challenges with the wider implementation of circular economy principles in the construction industry which is extremely slow when it comes to adopting new principles. Every single building presents a one of a kind challenge, with a lot of requirements, involved stakeholders and, in the end, different ways of approaching all the mentioned. Furthermore, as linear way of utilizing resources has been in use for so long, business models that will support circular use of resources need to be explored and researched. As the topic is getting more attention from the governments and the public, some successful practices and models are emerging, showing us that there is a way.

UK’s Green Building Council states that 80% of the buildings that are going to be used in 2050 are already built Replacing that stock with newly constructed one is unrealistic and would additionally increase environmental impact. An answer to achieving set goals lays in addressing the existing stock, improving the performance of it, and avoiding additional impacts from their replacement. The inspiration for the work done in this thesis was to demonstrate that it is possible without making any compromises. Quite contrary to it, it most probably could be the favourable option. The ways to go about it that are discussed and demonstrated in four aspects mentioned in the title – architectural design, environmental, social, and economic. We believe that this framework is the foundation of sustainable future of architecture.

Figure5 Concentriccirclesschemeofsustainability

TRANSFORMATION

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

1.2 DESIGNING A NEW FUTURE

The design phase of a project is a crucial one. Decisions taken in this phase are influencing all the other ones coming after and can lead the project into many different directions. With beforementioned challenges, it is the responsibility of the stakeholders in this phase to coordinate these decisions in a most sustainable way possible. Modern information technology is enabling us to have a better control of a great number of parameters, and even projecting some of them into the future. Utilizing these possibilities became a regular practice with designers and engineers, and this chapter will cover some of the current advances in this field as well as possible challenges and opportunities.

1.2.1 CIRCULAR ECONOMY IN THE PROJECT DESIGN

In the literature overview about circular economy in the construction industry from 2020 (Benachio, Freitas, & Tavares), it is stated that implementing circular economy principles should be done from the early phases of the project, and that exact topic is one of the most discussed ones. Furthermore, they stress the importance of BIM, with half of the articles in this research area mentioning it. BIM enables collection of additional data associated with elements and analysing that data can improve the end of life treatment of them. More specifically, this improvement means reduction in environmental impact that production of completely new materials would make and keeping the value of the existing elements as high as possible for as long as possible. Strategies to go about this are numerous, and some of the most interesting ones covering design phase are explored in this chapter.

DESIGN FOR DISASSEMBLY (DfD)

Design for disassembly is one of the approaches is recently getting more attention, both from academia and practice. As per definition from an article by Cruz Rios, Chong and Grau (2015), DfD is “practice to ease the deconstruction processes and procedures through planning and design” with the key principles being:

1. proper documentation of materials and methods for deconstruction

2. design the accessible connections and jointing methods to ease dismantling (e.g., using bolted connections instead of welds)

3. separate non recyclable, non reusable, and non disposal items

4. design simple structure and forms that allow the standardization of components and dimensions

5. design that reflects labour practices, production, and safety

Figure6 Abilitytoinfluencevs.Timechart(CivilEngineering Academy,u.d.)

More DfD manuals and guidelines are emerging regularly, and they agree on majority of the principles such as avoiding inaccessible connections and complicated composites, using mechanical fasteners opposed to glues and binders, etc. An example from 3XN/GXN can be seen below.

Materials

Choose materials with properties that ensure they can be reused.

Quality

Use materials of a high quality that can handle several life cycles.

Healthy Use nontoxic materials to provide a healthy environment now and in the future.

Pure

Use as pure materials as possible, which can be recycled with ease.

Service Life

Design the building with the whole life cycle of the building in mind.

Layers

Make the long lasting building elements flexible, so the short lasting elements can be easily changed.

Flexibility

Make a flexible building design that allows the functions to adapt and change in the future.

Interim

Think of the building as a temporary position of materials and design with the preservation of material value in mind.

Standards

Design a simple building that fits into a larger context system.

Modularity

Use modular systems where elements can easily be replaced.

Prefabrication

Use prefabricated elements for quicker and more secure assembly and disassembly.

Components

Create a component when the composition of elements become too complex to handle

Connections

Choose reversible connections that can tolerate repeated assembly and disassembly.

Accessible

Make the connection accessible in order to minimize assembly and disassembly time.

Mechanical Use mechanical joints for easy disassembly without damaging the materials.

Deconstruction

As well as creating a plan for construction, design the building for deconstruction.

Strategy

Create a simple plan for deconstruction, to ensure a quick and easy disassembly process.

Stability

Make sure that stability of the building is maintained during deconstruction.

Dissolvable

Avoid binders, but, if necessary, use binders that are dissolvable.

Environment

Ensure that the deconstruction plan is respectful to the nearby buildings, people and nature.

It is important to stress that not all materials are currently equally suitable for this kind of design approach. As it is, for the most part, impossible to disassemble concrete elements without damaging them concrete ranks rather low when it comes to reusability. On the other side of the spectrum, there is timber and steel, with reported reusability of 65% and 93%, respectively – as reported in the study case from 2019 (Akanbi L. A., et al.). Opposing to this, W. Salama from Leibniz University Hannover states the following in his doctoral dissertation (2019) “Reinforced concrete as a building material should not be distinguished from steel or timber regarding the ability of producing demountable elements.”

7 CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY & SUSTAINABILITY Figure7 Fiveprinciplesofdeconstruction(3XN/GXN,2016)

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

There are advances in this field and practices on how to make concrete reusable on par with other materials, using DfD principles. Precast concrete promises great prospects with controlled factory production and ability to precisely manufacture connections and fittings, excluding the need for poured in situ concrete completely or to an extent that should not compromise future reuse (Figure 8).

Looking at the mentioned principles, it is rather easy to see how BIM can help implement DfD in the design process with including needed information that is attached to the building elements in the BIM model. The analysis can be done through so called “plug ins” for BIM authoring software such as Autodesk Revit, Graphisoft Archicad and similar. An example of this is a plug-in for Revit called D-DAS, developed by Lukman Akanbi with his team (2019) es (Figure 9). Making tools like this available to anyone through open source platforms mark the next step in the development, phasing out the need for a dedicated authoring software.

Figure9 DDASRevitplug ininterfacefor“DfDAdvisor”module(AkanbiL.A.,etal.,2019)

Figure8 Boltedconnectionfortheprecastedwallsystem(Cai,etal.,2019)

Furthermore, putting this into a recently relevant perspective following COVID 19 pandemic, we had an opportunity to observe a wide shortage in construction materials and with it, increase of their prices. As an answer to disruptions like this one, many propose circular concepts such as DfD and Material passports. An ability to reuse is going to reduce the need for virgin materials and new production. While this is not a definite solution to presented supply issues, it is for sure a way to mitigate them to a certain extent (Schwartz, 2021)

We can observe a successful demonstration of DfD from Denmark’s first circular housing project called “Circle House”. A joint effort from many partners and three Copenhagen based, architectural offices 3XN Architects, Lendager Group and Vandkunsten. The aim of the project was to design and build a residential building, that can be disassembled after it becomes obsolete, and its elements can be reused in the same or different context for a second time (and most probably even more). The 1:1 display example is already built, and the construction of a bigger development consisting of 60 units started in March 2022 in city of Aarhus.

Figure 10 Circle house structural assembly/disassemblydiagram(3XN/GXN,2018)

Figure11

Assembledstructuralconnectionfor 1:1displayexample(3XN/GXN,2018)

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

MODULAR BUILDINGS AND BUIDLING ELEMENTS

Modularity as an idea has a rather wide approach. It is hard to think of an engineering branch that does not have “module” or a “modularity” somewhere in their technical terminology. The theme spanning through all of them is an individual, consistent but still somewhat flexible, part that functions in a bigger whole. Talks about where and when it began in the construction industry are various, going all the way back to modular prefabricated Roman army forts (GKV Architects, 2021).

Nowadays, modular approach to construction is utilized in almost every project to a certain degree, ranging from smaller linear or planar elements, all the way to large volumetric elements. It provides several benefits when compared to in situ construction methods more controlled production environment, increased quality, faster construction, and possibility of reuse, just to name a few. However, the extent to which these benefits are utilised could be better, primarily they are aiming at the reusability.

Designing a modular building, or a building made of modules, comes somewhat differently when compared to anything conventional. A report from American Institute of Architects points to some important aspects that should be taken care of such as geometrical constraints, close coordination with the manufacturer from the early starts, distance, and the production capacity of the production plant in charge, etc. (2019).

A lot of times, opinions are heard that designing in a modular way hinders designer’s creativity and reduces possible options. Interesting take on this is presented from N.A. Salingaros and D. M. Tejada in a paper titled “Modularity and the Number of Design Choices” (2001) They expressed the limits in a mathematical way, where there is a finite number of combinations with a set number of given unit shapes and/or sizes, while that is not the case when there are no such limitations. While this approach has a mathematical sense, it is missing a more holistic overview of the problem. Aren’t exactly the limitations and constraints what makes the difference between architecture and all the other forms of art? What about the other limitations such as plot size, height limits, or even gravity? Built environment was and always will be managed in consideration with limitations, and there are ways to route through them without compromising the number of possibilities when it comes to architectural design. Sustainable architecture is exactly that producing high quality spaces while managing constraints of our environment, society and economy.

Figure12 Cubicalmodulesasabasisofstructuraldesign (Femis,1936)

Continuing this topic and once again stressing the overall importance of BIM, we are slowly advancing towards an automatic design of modular buildings. Utilising the data available in the BIM models, it is possible to generate optimal module combination according to pre set constraints. For example, Vincent J.L. Gan presents such work in his article, where he developed a workflow for modular design. In his conclusion, he mentions an ever more exciting possibility of integrating the data models from his work into deep learning algorithms, leading to even more optimised designs in the future (2022).

While there is an endless pool of examples of modular buildings, the same is not the case with reuse of those modules. The benefits of doing so are obvious but it is, at this point of time, not a common practice.

Figure 13 Apex House in Wembley, upon opening the tallest modular building in Europe with 29 stories constructedwithselfsupportingmodulesaroundaconcretecore(HTADesignLLP,u.d.)

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

RESOURCE DRIVEN DESIGN

Architectural design workflows differ to a great extent, depending on an individual practitioner, architectural office, type of project, etc. All of them take pride in their philosophies and approaches to the design problems they try to solve. Simplified, we can say that it starts with early studies, goes through development and the making of construction documentation, and ends with administrating the construction of the building. Early studies and design development are the phases when majority of the decisions are made, and the inputs to the analyses in those phases are crucial including materials and resources is crucial in achieving a sustainable result. An idea of this is presented by A. K. Ali (2019) he imagines a “Virtual Repository” with materials and components from buildings that are in their end of life phase. The design offices have access to that repository and use the available materials and components for their work. Process map can be seen in the Figure 14.

Improvements to the other parts of construction projects are needed to get closer to this presented workflow. Assumptions used in the same article confirm this. For example, there needs to be a set up business model between de construction sites and reuse stores/warehouses. Furthermore, the decision about the purchase of different materials and elements must be pushed to an earlier phase. This is particularly complicated because it requires additional involvement from even more stakeholders in the project. Current practices include a bidding process after the construction documentation has been made. After the bidding winner has been chosen, the collaboration with them goes into the construction phase. This new design workflow would need a complete rethinking of the bidding process. Another issue is the standardisation of the reclaimed materials and components. In order to have a safe working and living environment, they must be inspected and approved, followed by categorisation and sorting in physical spaces and online database.

Because of the previously mentioned obstacles, there are no examples of utilizing the idea to its full potential. There are, however, examples of efforts where a particular available resource or material was the centre of the design. Building with containers gained a lot of popularity in recent years, so much that some went as far as getting completely new containers for this purpose, making them questionable from a sustainable point of view. But upcycling discarded shipping containers makes a lot of sense when solving some of the problems regarding circularity and DfD. Danish architecture office Vandkunsten did exactly that with student housing assembled in Copenhagen brownfield area Refshaleøen Another life cycle for the containers was enabled, hence avoiding the impact that a completely new produced housing would make, and a design problem of developing an affordable and sustainable student accommodation.

It can be said that the philosophy of the transformation projects follows along this as well. The differences are evident in more limitations regarding the mobility of reused materials because they are reused on the site, without utilizing a large scale repository on a municipal or regional level. For example, structure of the building is usually a big part of the transformation design considerations. Because of the way the buildings were built, it is not possible to move the structure to a warehouse and reuse it somewhere else, but it is obviously true that the design revolves around that resource and ways to keep its value at the highest possible level.

Figure16 AerialviewoftheCPHVillagebyVandkunsten(CPH Village,n.d.)

Figure 16 CPH Village in Refshaleøen by Vandkunsten (CPH Village,n.d.)

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

PARTICIPATORY DESIGN

Participatory design (PD), also known as cooperative design, is relatively new approach that has been developed in Scandinavia. The design requirements are being developed together with all parties – stakeholders, designers, researchers, and end users. This helps to ensure that developed design meets needs of its intended user. It is both, a process, and a strategy which brings customer and user to design process (Cipan & Anic, 2019). In building industry, it could be applied in all phases, during the design process and execution phase Design choices could have a big impact on community wellbeing and creating a “third space” between work and home that invite social connections and interaction can help building a sense of belonging.

Often use terms related to PD are co creation and cooperative design or co design. The main point is to bring users as the main stakeholders into design process, from the beginning to the end. It is important to mention, that even though users are a valuable source of information and ideas they are not allowed to make the final decision.

During PD many workshops are held when designers and final users can brainstorm, share requests, wishes and knowledge respectively.

EVIDENCE BASED DESIGN

Evidence based design is an outcome driven approach to design built environment where all the decisions are made on basis of scientific findings with empirical data. One of the first studies related to EBD was conducted in 1984 by Ulrich and showed that a window view in health care facilities accelerates patient recovery (Hamilton & Watkins, 2009).

EBD is aiming to enhance the experience of all users by creating tailored design on a case-bycase basis. This approach could be divided into 3 steps:

• Vision & Goals

o articulate the projects objectives

o identify user and client specific design challenge

• Research & Design

o starts with reviewing relevant Evidence based design research

o Identify research tools applicable to project specific requirements

o Develop strategies that target improving outcomes based on the client’s vision and goals

o Monitor the project throughout design and construction

• Outcomes

o Validate that the vision and goals were achieved using reliable metrics (Post Occupancy Evaluation for example)

o Determine how the research will impact future projects

o Add data to repository to grow the database of Evidence Based knowledge

EBD is especially being used in Health care and Aged Care organisation design to prevent and mitigate known issues. As for example, people that are suffering with dementia experience anxiety and confusion and therefore interior designer will aim to create a space that is rather open, not too complicated not to provoke those feelings (Hamilton & Watkins, 2009) (What is evidence based design?, n.d.) (Architecture and psychology, n.d.).

1.2.2

SUSTAINABILITY CERTIFICATION SCHEMES

Through years of discussion of sustainability in the construction industry, different assessment schemes were introduced as the tool to realise the idea of ‘sustainability’. In contrast to innovative design solutions, they serve the purpose of defining what sustainability is and quantifying the sustainability performance. They are important to contemplate emerging sustainable design approaches, and to evaluate how sustainable they are. Occasionally, these assessment tools also become a certification which could benchmark the level of sustainability of the building so that developers and clients could visualise the performance of the project.

There are a lot of both national or international certification schemes in the industry, and each of them differs slightly in their scope, criteria and weighting. This brings each scheme a different flexibility, robustness and thus representativeness. Therefore, despite that each country has their own concern and focuses on terms of sustainability, some schemes stand out among all and become more commonly adapted. In the current industry, three of the most followed schemes are 1) BREEAM from the UK, 2) LEED from the USA and 3) DGNB from Germany (Figure 17) According to (Hamedani & Huber, 2012), the benefits of the three are as follow:

BREEAM – The oldest and one of the most used certification tools

LEED The most famous and widely applicable

DGNB One of the newest certificates and the first one from Germany (the most industrial European country and the most active in the construction and development of sustainable cities)

Yet, the three of them differ in rating system and criteria. It is generally stricter to be certified in DGNB as there is not any rating for a score lower than 50%, then flowed by LEED and BREEAM which a score of under 40% and 25% respectively would be not certified. However, the highest rating of BREEAM is more representative as the cut off score is 85% compared to 80% in LEED and DGNB.

Figure17 ThreeofthemostadaptedsustainabilityschemesinDenmark

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

Furthermore, even though they were all built upon the 3 main pillars of sustainability, extended criteria were made in each scheme and have different contribution to the overall score The criteria are characterised, and their distribution is illustrated in below Figure 19 and Figure 18.

Figure19 Comparisonofcharacterisedcategoriesconstitution betweenBREEAM,LEADandDGNB(Hamedani&Huber,2012)

Figure 18 Categories of criteria in BREEAM,LEEDandDGNB(Hamedani& Huber,2012)

Overall, DGNB distributes scores evenly and has a stronger focus on the cohesion of sustainable development aspects (environmental, economic, and social) than the other LEED or BREEAM. This gives DGNB a strong standpoint on being holistic and accounts for all the aspects in sustainability.

ADAPTATION OF DGNB IN DANISH AEC INDUSTRY

Since 2012, the Green Building Council Denmark (DK-GBC) published the first version of DGNB certification for the Danish AEC industry after an extensive study of 4 international leading sustainability standards (BREEAM, LEED, HQE, DGNB) with professional experts (Green Building Council Denmark) The reason fell into DGNB being holistic, innovationpromoting and future proof.

The assessment of DGNB score is separated into 6 categories, with Environment Quality, Economic Quality, and Social Quality being weighted equally, taking 22.5% each, following by Technical Quality, Process Quality and Site Quality sharing 15%, 12.5% and 5% respectively (Figure 20). The Danish version is being adapted to the Danish building regulations,

standards, building traditions and the Danish legislation, and thus has a different score distribution to the German version.

Figure20 MaincategoriesinDGNBassessmentandtheirconstitutions(DGNB Nyebygningerogomfattende renoveringer,2020)

One of the standing out features of DGNB is the emphasis on economic impact. Compared to the other sustainability assessment schemes that usually regard mainly environmental impact, the higher attention to economics and the more even distribution of categories makes DGNB differentiates itself to be a holistic sustainability certification instead of an environmental certification.

The adapted version of DGNB also includes different construction types such as new buildings, existing buildings, urban areas, and accommodates a variety of building typologies While the types of buildings or urban areas are included by having their own manuals, different building typologies (office, residential, education, children's institutions, hotel, shop, logistics and production) are included in the manual for new buildings and extensive renovations as different scenarios.

DGNB can also be easily adapted to different uses, due to its extensive selection of criteria.

Scholars have incorporated DGNB criteria into specific studies and to assess some newly emerging sustainability areas that their assessments are still not well established. For example, the transformation potential of existing buildings, and the performance of social sustainability performance is not yet supported by international standards, but parts of their indicating factors could be measured using DGNB criteria.

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT AS A DECISION-MAKING TOOL

As the industry has slowly (and quickly accelerating in recent years) conforming with the idea of sustainability, and along with the Circular Economy approach, we should start to recognize sustainability as a decision making actor in the designing process.

The AEC industry has always been evolving along with academic research. Throughout the years, factors like indoor climate and daylighting have been adapted to govern the designing process to develop energy saving solutions. Numerous national or international standards had been produced and updated with time to provide the newest and best guidelines for the industry and simulation tools were developed to calculate and visualise complex problems which often have various variables and solutions. Due to the complex nature of engineering problems in the AEC industry, the difficulty and cost of making changes rise exponentially as the project progresses and the possibility to implement changes diminishes substantially (Figure 6, Figure 21 green line).

From the below figure of Ability to Influence (Green) versus Cost and Effort for Changes (Black), it can be observed that the main decline of the ability to influence happens between the preliminary planning phase and the main project phase. It is thus more effective to integrate designing considerations in the early stage and revise it regularly along with the project development.

Figure21 RatioofAbilitytoInfluenceversusCostandEffortforChangeswithrespecttoconstructionphase (GreenBuildingCouncilDenmark,2020)

The consideration of lowering the cost and effort for changes then fits into the workflow of DGNB certification. A 2 step submission including a pre certification and a final certification stage is used and it makes sure that the foundation of the assessment has already been laid at the early stage of the design process. As the pre certification being applied, a set of DGNB goals would need to be decided. Since the criteria in DGNB consist of design factors like material choice, building dimensions, extent of sustainability measures, universal designs etc., it greatly influences how the design proposal would be.

In another sense, sustainability could become a decision making actor by adapting this workflow and include the consideration of sustainability in the preliminary design. This is utterly important, as we can only move towards a higher sustainability level (or towards absolute sustainability) by introducing an upper limit of impact and comply with it

It is like the development of the inclusion of indoor climate or daylighting as a decision making actor through the past time, and now it is time for the AEC industry to put sustainability into the same priority, if not higher, to design and measure building performance, instead of using sustainability serving a documentation purpose.

USE OF SUSTAINABILITY SCHEME IN THIS THESIS

In this thesis, sustainability schemes are not directly put in use, since the goal is not to compare to a benchmark and rank the performance of the building. Instead, this is a comparative study which compares the different impacts of alternatives, thus, it is more sensible to extract a part of the criteria from the sustainability schemes and use them in our analysis.

For instance, when assessing the transformation potential, 20 DGNB criteria were incorporated in the Transformation Potential Tool (TPT) out of the total 57 assessment criteria. Although it does not give a cumulative score like in DGNB to the transformation potential assessment, since the evaluating metrics are different, the performance in each criterion goes into a final TPT score which follows a 1 9 scoring scale.

The example of it is the evaluation of building depth, DGNB ECO2.1 3. A fixed point of either 5 or 10 will be awarded if the building depth falls into the respective brackets, and it contributes to the total accumulated awarded points and thus a given DGNB level.

However, in the evaluation in TPT, a 9 point scale inspired by SAVE (Kulturministeriet, Kulturarvsstyrelsen, 2011)was employed. The range of the criterion is broader, and three scoring brackets are available for assessing. Depending on the building performance, it can score 1, 4 or 7. A final score is calculated by taking the average of scores within the category.

Figure22 DGNBECO2.13Bygningsdybde(DGNB Nyebygningerogomfattenderenoveringer,2020,pp.P. ECO2.1,siden4)

Figure23 Screenshot TransformationPotentialTool(TPT)(Tram,2020)

On the other side, DGNB is also incorporated in the social sustainability evaluation. In the assessment scope proposed by A.P. Otovic, 11 out of 67 indicators are related to or inspired by DGNB, spanning across criteria such as Comfort and Safety/Security from theme Equity/QualityofLife, Urban connection and Services/jobs from Connection/Accessibility, and Social diversity from Socialcohesion. The assessment detail is discussed in Chapter 2 2 4 SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

1.2.3 TRANSFORMING EXISTING BUILDING STOCKS FOR THE FUTURE

With years, the awareness of Circular Economy in the construction industry has been raising, however the concept has been introduced in a slow manner. The lack of knowledge, high complexity of the supply chain and the short term goals of most of the companies, not giving the needed attention for the end of life stage these are some of many problems that are slowing it down. Pomponi and Moncaster (2017) mention that the industry is focusing too much on the global vision of cities or the construction materials, and not enough on the buildings themselves. Another obstacle is a lack of standards for use of the circular concept, as well as better development of waste management in developing countries. Dealing with the existing building stock is going to be crucial if we want to tackle these challenges with the available tools and resources. The following chapters are discussing different aspects of approaching the transformation of currently available buildings

BUILDINGS LIFESPAN

As the real estate market is changing, the building sector must become more consumer oriented, in line with other industries. It will be paying more and more attention to building performance. In Western Europe the post war quantitative need for buildings, both dwellings and offices, is mainly fulfilled and therefore the demand is concentrating on quality aspects. The market is changing from supply driven to demand driven. The building must fulfil user requirements that contain a mix of building regulations, social and cultural standards and specific, individual requirements set by the building owner and user (Hermans, 1999).

Figure24 Examplesofthelifespanofacomponentinrelationto itsperformanceandrequirements(Hermans,1999)

Most of the attention for building performance is being paid to during the hand over. At that moment or a few months after that the building team is officially being dismissed and the building process is deemed to be over. Although for building owner and users, that’s the moment when everything starts. They are starting to deal with the performance of the building that it is also changing over the time. The attention for building performance over time supports an increasing awareness of life spans. When can the building lifetime be said to be ended or, in other words: when does the building or building component’s lifetime end (Hermans, 1999)?

The life span of a building component can be defined as the period a building component can fulfil its requirements. Both, performance, and the requirements are changing with the time and depending on the type of change, the life span of a product will be longer or shorter.

Life span information could serve several goals in the different phases of a building’s life cycle, starting with choosing between alternative building components, long term maintenance planning or calculating the environmental impact of components, etc. Back in past, durable material was meant to last as long as possible. Nowadays, we see it as fulfilment of set requirements for as long as possible and with minimal environmental impact. While talking about the sustainable buildings it is implied that the requirements of future building users are known as well as the duration

respectively. In addition to that all the effects to the environment are minimized (Hermans, 1999).

Manufactures use life span information as possibility to present their product in the most favourable way, therefore agreements on how to determine a life span should be made. Depending on the perspective, it could be defined as time of existence, period of use or for example depreciation period. When giving the information about it, it is important to state that perspective. The different types are as follows (Hermans, 1999):

• Technical life span (or physical lifespan)

o In its straight meaning stands for the time that a product physically exists. But there are many factors that influence that time such as, what materials are used, detailing, building location or maintenance are some of those factors. Also, masking weak spots of component could prolong the life span therefore the question is how many repairs are acceptable and when the component should be replaced. Therefore, it is always important to define the circumstances in which the life span will be reached precisely. In daily practice, the technical life span is the period that building component can physically supply the requirements.

• Functional life span (or period of use)

o It is the actual time when the building component is being used but what type of use is still considered to be functional? If the door is being used as a tabletop, is that still included in the functional life span? From environmental and circular point of view the reuse and high or low level of recycling possibilities should be indicated and if there is any kind of function the component will not be disposed

• Economic life span

o The period that no alternative exists with lower or at least equal exploitation costs for a building component. This goes closely with the environmental impact and often can be on the bad terms.

• Aesthetic longevity

o The perception of aesthetical quality and awareness of beauty has changed over years and will continue changing g in future. The modern trends in architecture particularly applied to the building façade is no exception. Often the reason for the façade replacement /renovation is frequently related to the change in fashion or design trends. Materials used in construction must be compatible with the specific local, cultural, and aesthetic circumstances as well as.

Figure25 Agreementonminimumperformanceovertimeand minimumlifespan,(Hermans,1999)

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

Buildings and/or their elements usually become obsolete when one of these spans comes to an end. After that, it goes into its end of life stage following one of the possible scenarios landfill, incineration, partial or full recycling, etc. However, it is rarely a case that efforts are made to consider possible reuse options.

Just because a material, or a whole building for that matter, is at the end of one type of the lifespan, it most probably is not the case with technical and functional lifespans. The most obvious example of this is a life expectancy of a building, which is, in UK for example, 50 years but the building structure of the same buildings can easily reach as much as 100 years (Akanbi L. A., et al., 2018). Such buildings are usually demolished after mentioned 50 years, effectively wasting the embodied impacts of all the materials that had a longer lifespan. These numbers get even more extreme according to some other authors, which will be mentioned later.

DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS

In ideal case, not only in building industry, the goal is that every particle of any manufacturing process should leave as part of a saleable products, that the materials and components in every product should be used to create other useful products at the end of product life (Graedel & Allenby, 1996), and that the main structure of every building could accommodate different uses during its total life. A major contributor to research on this topic is Elma Durmisevic with her numerous articles and books on this matter, and a lot of this chapter is collecting and building upon that work.

Building industry is one of the most influential contributors to sustainable development and as whole cities rapidly rise and fall, buildings are taken down and new ones go up, building sites and infrastructure are subject to continuous transformation (Durmisevic, 2006). Very often buildings are being seen as finished and permanent structures without possibility of change. They are designed around short term prediction of building use. Therefore, they do have a long physical lifespan, but do not offer the flexibility to maximize their functional lifespan. To be changed, upgraded, or replaced, large amount of such fixed building structures or whole buildings must be broken down. Some of them are being demolished because their technical characteristics have deteriorated, but most of them, however, are being demolished because they do not satisfy the needs of their users (Durmisevic, 2016) According to her, the technical and functional service life of a modern buildings is approximately 50 75 years, yet buildings with an age of 20 years are sometimes demolished to give a way to new construction.

The materials are not designed as reusable for other useful applications, but as future waste. The concept of upgrading and adaptability to dynamic social, economic and climate activities therefore could not be proceeded (Durmisevic, 2015). In general, demolition can be defined as the process whereby the building is broken up, with little or no attempt to recover any of the constituent part for reuse. A lot of buildings that are built after 1945 are designed for assembly but not for disassembly and recovery of elements and components (Durmisevic, 2016).

Different functions and building materials creating building system are integrated in one closed and dependent structure that does not allow alterations and disassembly. Such structures make it impossible to exchange building systems without high energy and material consumption and increased waste. Furthermore, they lack spatial adaptability and technical serviceability. It is crucial to consider that building components and systems have different degrees of durability.

For example, cladding of the building may last only 20 years, while the structure may have service life of up to 75 years depending on the material. In the same way services may be functional for 15 years, whereas the interior fit out might be changes as often as every three years (Durmisevic, 2006). Faster cycling components such as space plan elements conflict with slower materials, such as structure, and site because of the permanent physical integration between different time levels. For example, many buildings are built using concrete slabs, brick facades, and block partitioning walls, with installations fixed into the concrete slabs or walls. It is obvious that those components have different life cycles and uses, unfortunately they are assembled in a way that they form one physical time level. Therefore, when use life span reaches the end, fixed physical level will also be finished even though some elements have longer durability (Durmisevic, 2016)

REVERSIBLE BUILDINGS

Looking into concept of circular buildings and circularity of the material streams through all life cycles, E. Durmisevic describes three types of reversibility that could be identified: Spatial, StructuralandMaterial.

• Spatial transformation ensures continuity in the exploitation of the space through spatial adaptability

• Structural transformation provides continuity in the operation of the building and its components through replaceability, reuse and recover of building components

• Element and material transformation providing continuity in the exploitation of the materials through recycling of building materials

Figure 27 Three dimensions of building transformation, (Durmisevic,2006)

Important indicator of building circularity is the potential to transform from one spatial configuration to another and therefore determine level of building reversibility. This will enable possibility for buildings last longer while ensuring that all the components will be used to their full potential. The key element of each dimension is disassemblyas can be seen on Figure 28

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

Figure28 Designfordisassembly,(Durmisevic,2006)

It allows building to become more compliant with modifications and change of use. Thinking of the DfD since the beginning will stimulate conscious handling of raw materials through their reuse and recycling. Instead of demolishing every structure and system, it would rather be dismounted and assembled in new functional combinations. To benefit from DfD, this strategy should be implemented in all life cycle stages. Finally, future sustainability design greatly relies on the disassembly potential of building assemblies that determine the transformation capacity of building structures.

Durmisevic made research where she assumes that the level of buildings transformation capacity that relies on the disassembly potential of the building has a direct relation with the level of a building’s sustainability. Figure 29 below shows how higher transformation capacity means lower negative impact and therefore higher sustainability.

Figure29 Hightransformationcapacity=HighSustainability,(Durmisevic,2006)

According to that, buildings can be divided into three groups:

1. Building with low disassembly potential (70 – 100% down cycling and demolition)

2. Building with partial disassembly potential (30 70% down cycling, land filed or incinerated)

3. Building with high disassembly potential (0 30 % down cycling, land filed or incinerated)

In scenario when design for disassembly would be adopted as common practice, existing and new building stock would serve as a primary material source for new construction, rather than harvesting from natural resources. The perception of the buildings technical disposition would be switched, from permanent and fixed, to changeable and open.

BUILDING LEVELS

As buildings are complex entities, many researchers have described its complexity through building levels. The theory of levels introduces systematization and hierarchy accordingly to fast changing and slow changing layers. Duffy (1990) mentions in his article “Measuring Building Performance” that there is no such things like “building” and referring to it in singular is not correct. But he describes it as a multidimensional system of a several layers of longevity of building components.

For example, Habraken (1998) introduced in his paper division of levels according to control and decision making. The three levels are: urbanfabricortissue,basebuilding,orsupport, andfitorinfill. He argued that those levels could be observed in the way the build environment transforms. A support remains constant during interior renovation. Lower level (infill) configurations transform more easily and therefore with greater frequency than higher (support) level configuration.

Duffy (1998) and Brand (1995) have defined functional levels within building to identify functions with different changing rates in a building.

Duffy defined so called four S‘s that were:

• Shell main structure has a life span of building on average of 50 75 years

• Services cabling, plumbing, air conditioning, vertical communications with design life 15 20 years

• Scenery layout of partitions, dropped ceilings, finishes that change every 5 7 years

• Set furniture that is placed by occupants and is moved within weeks or months

Brand is building on top of that and expanding it to 6 layers, namely:

• Site urban location

• Structure – foundations and loadbearing system, which lasts between 30 300 years,

• Skin exterior finishing including roofs and facades, they are upgraded or changed approx. every 20 years

• Services the HVAC, communication, and electrical wiring, they last for 7 15 years

• Spaceplan the interior layout including partitions, doors, ceiling, and floors. Brand says that commercial spaces could change every three years

• Stuff– furniture that could be moved daily, weekly, or monthly

Durmisevic stated that previously mentioned approaches are multidimensional and therefore do not have consistent life cycles. As an example, she mentions installations that are stated as one functional level. However, there are six major installation services: electricity supply, water supply, sewage system, ventilation, air conditioning, and heating, they all have different changing rates. All those systems can be divided into further parts and therefore increase the initial Brands 6 layers.

Introduced is additional view on building structures through levels of technical composition that represent integration of functional and material building levels. It helps to identify materials that have different functional use and technical life cycles.

Figure30 Buildinglayersaccording(Brand, 1995)

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

How a specific physical level is called depends on level of technical composition within the building. According to technical composition method major levels of technical composition can be called components, systems, and building and will have number of sublevels. Division into many technical levels goes in hand with transformation requirements, and the greater number of physical levels, the better transformation potential of the building.

TRANSFORMATION FROM SPATIAL POINT OF VIEW

Every building has a basic function of accommodating its users’ activities and providing a shelter. But the needs of users are changing with time and therefore affecting spatial and technical configuration. There is no ideal transformation model that would assess all the possible scenarios. Therefore, it is crucial to understand spatial requirements for set scenario and identify set of spatial configurations that will form one transformation scenario (Durmisevic, 2009). A scenario could be transformation of existing building into offices or educational building, into residential or public building and others. Four key indicators that are addressing capacity of building to accommodate different spatial configurations and their impact on technical characteristics are presented in the diagram below.

TRANSFORMATION FROM STRUCTURAL AND REUSE POTENTIAL

Durmisevic introduced the transformation capacity as a measure of disassembly and reuse potential of a building and its components. When building has high transformation capacity it means that buildings function can be reversed to a different one, and that the components are reversible to set of initial elements that could be used for creating a new system (Durmisevic, 2016). This method uses so called high and low level indicators. The high level indicators assess functional dependencies in the building while low level indicators assess physical dependence such as – can components be easily removed. Structural transformation capacity could be broken down into functional,technical,andphysicaldesignof structures.

Figure31 Transformationpotential(Durmisevic,2009)

Typology of the building and its reversibility is defined by three design domains (Durmisevic, 2016):

• Functional domain: deals with functional decomposition and allocation of functions into separate materials, which respond differently to changing conditions. This domain defines functional dependences

• Technical decomposition deals with hierarchical arrangement of the materials, and relations as well as with hierarchical dependences between material levels

• Physical decomposition deals with interfaces that define the physical integrity and dependences of the structure

Technical composition of the building has additional sub assemblies on every level. On the lowest part of the building could be seen elements as the basic parts. Elements could connect to create low or high level assemblies, called components or systems respectively. The whole is scheme is relative, a subsystem on one level could be a component on another one. According to that Durmisevic identify building level, system level and component level as can be seen on below.

Figure32 Hierarchyofmaterialsinbuilding(Durmisevic,2006)

With help of domains, it is possible to determine if two key indicators, independency, and exchangeability, can be met.

Independencyof components play major role in building reversibility and the more independent component is the better environment for assembly/disassembly and transformation is created.

Exchangeabilitygoes in hand with the independency therefore the more independent element is, the better ability to replace one component with another one without damaging itself or surrounding will be

Concept that Durmisevic introduced confirms that the greater number of independent physical levels, the better level of adaptability and transformability could be achieved. As well as the life cycle of levels of technical composition is extended by their ability to accept shorter use phases. Another interesting take on this is presented from Wilkinson and Remøy (2018), where even the location is a layer, hinting at a possibility that in the future, we are probably expecting completely relocatable buildings.

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

KEY FACTORS IN BUILDING TRANSFORMATION

When developing a sustainability framework, it is important to ensure the possibility to apply it from the pre retrofit or start up stages in renovation process. Along with traditional sustainability pillars social, economic, and environmental. It should address building renovation performance with respect to local, cultural, and urban context. The values of the architectural quality of the building must be included as well as the context of building renovation. A. Kamari et.al (2017) has developed key factors that shall be included for any retrofitting case. They intend to address the building as well as involvement of the building occupants and understanding both their demands of the renovation and their behaviour or special habits while living in the building. Key indicators will identify if there is a potential for building renovation before taking any action. A brief description is provided for each factor in the Appendix Key factors for building renovation context.

Table1 Listofkeyfactorsforretrofittingprojectsduringprojectsetupandpreretrofitsurvey(AliakbarKamari, 2017)

Value Building type Tenancy

Climate Building story

Location Unit area

Buy and sell

Occupancy daily stay

Site Structure Occupancy monthly stay

Neighbourhood Shape Occupancy yearly stays

Building function Ventilation Occupants’ consumption habits

Ownership Material Occupants demands

orientation installations Occupants’ income age Retrofitting yet Occupant’s job Lifespan Balcony and chimney

Together with eighteen main value oriented criteria A. Kamari et.al (2017) also developed three newly defined categories, which uncover objectives regarding sustainability perspectives and relevant stakeholders. The categories were defined as,

Functionality refers to technical, environment and used resources Feasibility refer to the financial, processes, management, education, and institutional indicators

Accountability embraces municipal, architectural, cultural, human and community indicators (society)

Table2 Listofthreedifferentcategoriesandtheirrelatedsustainablevalue(AliakbarKamari,2017)

Functionality Accountability Feasibility

Indoor comfort Aesthetics Investment costs

Energy efficiency Integrity Operation & maintenance cost

Material & waste Identity Financial structures

Water efficiency Security Flexibility & management Pollution Sociality Innovation

Quality of services Spatial Stakeholders’ engagement & education

Factors that correspond to the functionality are mostly quantifiable and therefore could be measured in an objective way. Factors regarding Accountability or Feasibility on the other side, are qualitative. They need to be performed; however, the outcomes are to a far larger degree relevant to stakeholders’ perception.

Now when the underlaying principles supporting this are presented, the same needs to be done with the approaches on how to achieve the transformations. Because of the variety of the topic, it is especially important to make clear distinction between used terms.

CONSTRUCTION

In a definition overview from 2020 (Shahi, Esfahani, Bachmann, & Haas), they present two main categories refurbishments and adaptive reuse. Refurbishments are focused on improving the existing buildings quality, be it regarding energy use, repair works, renovations, etc. Adaptive reuse usually means bigger scale interventions, focusing either on the building and the change of use for it, or on the materials and their reuse (Table 3).

Table3 Scopeofapplicationassociatedwithdifferentsubcategoriesofbuildingrefurbishmentandadaptivereuse (Shahi,Esfahani,Bachmann,&Haas,2020)

Adaptation Terminology

Refurbishment

Retrofitting

Adaptive Reuse

Rehabilitation

Structural Improvements

Other Improvements

Existing Building Adapted Building Existing Building Adapted Building

Renovation

Reinforcingoffailingstructuring

Replacing windows, increasing insulation and addition of renewable energy sources and efficient HVAC

Conversion

Changing the interior layout, replacing wallswithcolumns Replacingexteriorcladding

Material Reuse

Convertingspacesthroughanaddition

Changing use of the building and convertinginterior/exteriorspaces

Demolition and retrieval of salvageable materialsforreuseinotherstructures

Removalandreuseofbuildingmaterials inthesamebuilding

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

Transformation of the buildings has been achieving increased attention for several years now in many European countries. According to the Buildings Performance Institute Europe BPIE (European Buildings under the microscope, 2011) a substantial share of the building stock in Europe is older than 50 years with many buildings in use today that are hundreds of years old. More than 40% of them were constructed before the 1960s when building regulations were very limited. Denmark belongs on the list of the countries with the largest components of older buildings together with UK, Sweden, France, Czech Republic, and Bulgaria (European Buildings under the microscope, 2011). They are becoming less attractive if they were not maintained thoroughly during their lifetime in areas with insufficient indoor air quality and thermal comfort.

Alternatives for existing buildings can also decrease operation and maintenance costs, reduce environmental impacts, or increase adaptability and durability of the building. However, the energy performance of the building is not the only focus area. Energy and resource conscious architecture are known as environmentally friendly issues although if they are costly, non functional, and malformed, considering only them, for a project in general it might not sustainable. The historical value of the building, identity, aesthetics, integrity with the surroundings, etc. are all rich unmeasured proofs of why people still emphasize and keep living in their existing buildings over time. Many different methods were developed over the past few decades to evaluate the building from a technical and non technical perspective (Aliakbar Kamari, 2017).

The terms mentioned in the Table 3 and explored below are not an extensive overview of the topic. Both academia and practice use them in a looser format, and often combining them when talking about certain projects. In the thesis, they are used in respect to how the referenced author used them.

Figure33 AgecategorizationofhousingstockinEurope

RETROFIT

Majority of currently used buildings were built before energy savings started being a concern for stakeholders, and they simply do not satisfy current standards and requirements that have those aspects embedded. Furthermore, an advancement in the technology introduced possibility to improve quality of life in the spaces, and once again, majority of existing buildings are not instantly suitable for implementing them. Retrofits aim to improve on those terms.

There are active and passive strategies when it comes to retrofits. Passive ones mostly include thermal envelope improvements, as well as roof greening, fixed shading systems etc. Active strategies can, for example, include installation of more efficient heating or cooling, smart control systems, PV and solar collector systems, etc. (Passer, Ouellet Plamondon, Kenneally, John, & Habert, 2016) (Shahi, Esfahani, Bachmann, & Haas, 2020).

Following recent efforts to upgrade the examples of successful retrofitting projects are plentiful. The benefits coming with retrofitting are energy savings, smaller environmental impact and lower operating costs (Yu, Tu, & Luo, 2011), (Ardente, Beccali, Cellura, & Mistretta, 2011).

“Evaluation Into Practice to Achieve Target for Energy Efficiency” (EPATEE) was an EU funded project that was tracking such projects in order to improve the policy making. One of their findings is that while there are savings made (25% on average), they are in some cases far from estimations (Valentová, Karásek, & Knápek, 2018).

Figure34

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

REHABILITATION

Rehabilitation projects focus on structural systems and basic building systems essential for buildings functionality. For example, repair or replacement of structural components or whole systems, dealing with moisture and leakage problems, replacements of the broken doors and windows, etc. Opposite to retrofits, rehabilitation projects do not aim to improve the building. Their purpose is to make a building aligned with relevant requirements and regulations. They equally consider cost, energy use and social impact (Shahi, Esfahani, Bachmann, & Haas, 2020).

Aesthetical changes are usually non existent, but rehabilitation interventions are crucial for avoiding impacts from demolishment and new construction that would otherwise happen. Furthermore, old city centres are desperate for rehabilitation in order to avoid becoming obsolete and abandoned. Heritage embedded in such buildings is not replaceable in most cases (El Asmar & Taki, 2014) (Ornelas, Guedes, & Breda Vázquez, 2016).

Disasters are unfortunately becoming more frequent. Be it natural disasters as a result of climate change, or ones coming from humans themselves. Such a disaster happened in Beirut, in 2020, when an explosion of ammonium nitrate shook the city, damaging around 40 000 buildings. In an interview with some of the architects behind the cities recently built buildings (Khoury, Kaloustian, & Ghotmeh, 2021), they present a wish for a rebuild that is including what is left from buildings after the explosion, leaving trace of the trauma city went through, but still giving the opportunity to start fresh with new facades and possible additions. Structural rehabilitation would be necessary to achieve this, accompanied with other interventions.

RENOVATIONS

As already disclaimed, the presented terms are not strict when it comes to what kind of changes they include. Renovations are the most obvious example. The definition varies from country to country, some associating it with maintenance and improvement of occupant’s comfort, while others consider renovations improve MEP systems and energy efficiency, or even updating the buildings to meet the current demand (changing the layouts, interior finishes, etc.) (Itard & Meijer, 2008)

Following the definition from the Table 3, we can say that renovations include a wide range of works on the building, but excluding the use change, construction of any new additions or demolition of the existing parts of the building. According to Femenías, Mjörnell, & Thuvander (2018), renovations usually happen when a building loses one of the three sustainability aspects, for example, energy efficient building gets an interior upgrade if it does not satisfy the occupants requirements. With it, the economic aspects and social aspects are addressed, avoiding the building being abandoned and losing money that way.

Examples are once again numerous, ranging from small scale residential renovations, updating family homes to meet the requirements of the tenants, all the way to big office buildings accommodating to more open space work layouts.

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

CONVERSIONS

Once again, the literature is somewhat split when it comes to conversions, but looking at the examples around the world, they mostly include the change of the use, including the needed works to achieve that of course Change of use is also known as ‘adaptive reuse’ or ‘conversion adaptation’ in different parts of the world. In each definition, the key characteristic is that the original land use of the building is no longer economically or socially viable or desirable and a change is required; otherwise, the building may be left vacant or, as it is often termed, redundant or obsolete (Baum, 1993). Adaptation occurs ‘within use’ and ‘across use’. For instance, if an office is adapted and remains an office, it is within use adaptation. Adaptation is defined as: “any work to a building over and above maintenance to change its capacity, function or performance or any intervention to adjust, reuse, or upgrade a building to suit new conditions or requirement” (Douglas, 2006: 14)

With cities moving out their industry further away, a lot of the building stock is left unused, mostly due to their unsuitability for new demand primarily residential and/or commercial (Chan, Cheung, & Wong, 2015), (Petković Grozdanovića, Stoiljković, Keković, & Murgul, 2016). The building’s suitability for new use is something that must be explored for a successful undertaking, and such procedure is demonstrated in the Study case of the thesis. Aspects such as building depth, story height, daylight availability, position of the building according to important points of interest (distance to public transport, shops, education, work, etc.).

There are many benefits of converting existing buildings to a new use, but it is important to say that they are highly dependent on the context. Due to existing structural capacities, conversions can go only so far, before exceeding them. Furthermore, hidden risks could be a driver for an increase of costs and construction time (Bullen P. A., 2007). Even though at this point of time we still don’t have means of predicting such shortcomings, but with increased interest in existing building stocks, this will change, hence making conversion an even more sustainable option.

MATERIAL REUSE

This matter is discussed in detail in Chapter 1.3.2 REUSE OF EXISTING MATERIALS

Figure37

Figure38 NursingschoolinNorway

SUSTAINABILITY DEVELOPMENT PARADIGM

One of the descriptions of sustainability is, the incontestable development of society and economy on a long term basis within the framework of the carrying inclusion of the earth’s ecosystem (United Nations, 2015). It refers to a dynamic process from one state to another which means there is no exact definition for it. In fact, all societies and cities are evolving bypassing the time to become more superior or inferior (United Nations, 2015). From a sustainability perspective, many factors must be taken into consideration all together to gain the goal which is known as a ‘sustained prosperity’ relevance to different stakeholders and so their various priorities. The optimal renovation solutions are a trade off among a range of energy related and non energy related factors that must be taken into consideration (Boeri, Antonini, Gaspari, & Longo, 2015).

The problem of knowledge management in building renovation corresponding to the sustainable development paradigm is one of the barriers that slow down the process. Before approaching a project, it is crucial to develop a holistic sustainability value map for building renovation purposes to support project development and to communicate the outcomes with relevant stakeholders. (Aliakbar Kamari, 2017). Many different methodologies have been developed for the design of the new buildings, but they could also be applied to the renovation projects. Methodologies such as BREEAM (by British Research Establishment), LEED (by US Green Building Council), ATHENA (by ATHENA Sustainable Material Institute in Canada), BEAT (by Danish Building Research Institute) or DGNB (by German Sustainable Building Council) are particularly intended or adapted for building renovation context. One of the assessment methodologies is the DGNB DK analysis of different indicators through various categories including Social, Environmental, and Economic.

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

Many of the methodologies attach importance to the traditional three pillar system of the sustainability although they may emphases on different sustainability indicators which underlines that ‘holism’ in sustainability is a relative term. Even though many of the methodologies are characterized as holistic by the developers e.g., ( Aktiv hus Danmark, 2015) not all methodologies address social, economic and environmental sustainability as well as processes related issues equally (Aliakbar Kamari, 2017). Often the systems focus very little on the softer elements of social sustainability that are crucial to the public housing sector, such as resident democracy, communities, and services.

Most of the environmental assessment methods have been designed to suit a specific territory, they were developed for different local purposes, and are not fully applicable to all regions. Alyami and Rezgui (2012) made a comparative study analysing different methodologies, and how do they approach sustainability pillars. They identify certain environmental factors that hinder the direct use of any existing environmental assessment including:

• climatic conditions

• geographical characteristics

• potential for renewable energy gain

• resource consumption (such as water and energy)

• construction materials and techniques used

• building stocks

• government policy and regulation

• appreciation of historic value

• population growth

• public awareness

Often, developed tools have a narrow environmental or energy focus, while key factors that are connected to the society are being left out (Jensen & Maslesa, 2015).

The success of a building retrofit is a complex system that must be addressed with comprehension of the interconnection and interactions between its technical objectives, its society as well as the influences of the development impact on its environment and world (neighbours and city that the building is located) as whole (Aliakbar Kamari, 2017). Some of the key elements that have significant impact on building retrofits include policies and regulations, client resources and expectations, retrofit technologies, building specific information, human factors, and other uncertainty factors (Ma, Cooper, Daly, & Ledo, 2012). Each building is unique with distinct characteristics, therefore retrofits measures used in one building may not be suitable for use in another building.

TRANSFORMATION OUTLOOK

Demolition and new build create possibilities for a good fit with current and future user’s needs, however, redevelopment takes time and causes interruptions to income streams. When building is in a good technical state, redevelopment can be considered as a waste of resources and conflicts with global aims for sustainable development. Also, many cities are facing with lack of land for building new homes, therefore project developers are looking for the alternatives If the building has even partial historical or cultural value or adds value to the identity of the location or wider area, demolition is not a suitable strategy either (Wilkinson & Remøy, 2018). Therefore, conversion to a new use is the proper choice. It may sustain a beneficial and durable use of the location and building, implies less income disruption than redevelopment, and can have high social and financial benefits (Bullen & Love, 2011). Moreover, the value of accommodated new function must be higher than for continued use with the same function.

Hence, it is important to ask (Wilkinson & Remøy, 2018):

• Which factors enable successful conversion to other functions?

• Which functions hinder adaptive reuse?

• What are the main opportunities and risks, and how can they be reduced or eliminated?

The transformation strategy starts with the initial analyses of future real estate market (demand and supply), characteristics of the location, building or number of buildings, their interest, preferences, and prerequisites of variation of stakeholder. Points that are related to the cultural, functional, technical, and legal aspects, they all have an impact on the opportunities and risks of the conversion potential.

The longer a building has been vacant, the more likely the current owner will be willing to convert. Vacancy can occur due to market factors; in that case the transformation is not desirable from viewpoint of owner. If the office is vacant due to its location, the outlook for transformation into homes is favourable. Often the affordable housing is the most suitable choice (Remøy & Van der Voordt).

Another important aspect for successful adaptive reuse is that the new supply meets the demand, both with regards to the location and the living environment, as well as regarding the building characteristics and the individual homes. The type of home, size, attractive and safe living environment, and payable price are key factors for every target group.

Looking into office building conversions in the city centres, they can offer valuable additions to the existing housing stock and interesting target groups (buyers or renters) can be found. On the contrary mono-functional business parks are not regarded as good fit for conversion into housing and greater location transformation would be necessary. Usually, building characteristics do not make conversion impossible, but can influence the financial feasibility substantially Successful building conversions are often buildings with a cultural-historicalor symbolic value, or listed monuments (Remøy & Van der Voordt).

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

1.3 CONSERVING A NEW FUTURE

The mentioned design and transformation methods are going to help us lower our impact. However, in order to make sure these methods are effective, we first need to quantify the impacts each design decision and/or scenario makes. A lot of times, intuition may lead towards one option, even though it might not be the best possible path to take. In rare occasions, some of these decisions may be supported with special requirements that different contexts bring. The truth is, unfortunately, they are usually taken without a proper analysis. Available methods for doing these analyses certainly have their issues, but it can be comfortably said that they are mature enough for reliable use. Secondly, many of the presented design approaches will be resulting in an impact reduction in the future, e.g., benefits from buildings designed with DfD principles are going to be evident only after the life cycle of that building is over, meaning 20 or more years. While there definitely is a great importance in developing these design methods, the harsh reality is that we need something better and faster. In fact, we are probably late already with efforts to put things back to balance, but the next best time to start making changes is now, with the technologies and opportunities that we have on our disposal right now. A part of this chapter is going to explore different options of reusing materials that are in use right now, even though we might face larger obstacles while doing so

1.3.1 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) started developing in 1960s, as companies started seeing effects of pollution and possible material scarcity coming, and thus searching for methods to tackle it without sacrificing their business models. One of the terms for the analysis back then was Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis (REPA). First versions were mostly aiming to make an inventory of all the materials, energy used, emissions and waste made in the life cycle processes of the product. With time, product systems became more complex, and methods for doing these kinds of assessments went through numerous iterations. LCA practitioners and researchers started agreeing on acceptable methods, and the first version of ISO standards on LCA published in 1997 (ISO 14040:2006 ) , which was later updated and serves as a basis for majority of other methodologies as well (Hauschild, Rosenbaum, & Olsen, 2018).

UN Global status report for buildings and constructions (2021) states that 37% of all energy related CO2 emissions come from construction industry and use of energy in buildings (Figure 40). This means that by making changes in the construction industry, and related sectors, there is a great space for general improvement of environmental impacts and using LCA in order to do so makes great sense. However, it is also important that the LCA is not a definitive answer to the question of sustainability. One of the ways to address this is

Figure40 Buildingsandconstruction’sshareofenergy relatedCO2 emissionsin2020(UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme,2021)

through so called IPAT equation, formulated by Holdren and Ehrlich (1974). This, on the first glance, simple formula states that environmental impact (I) is controlled by population on the planet (P), their affluence (A) and the impact of the technology that is used (T) formed as follows, �� =�� �� ��. Rather than solving the whole equation, the LCA is evaluating the last part, impact of the technology (T). Continuing this, one mustn’t forget that there are essentially three areas of sustainability – environmental, social, and economic. Even though environment is the enabler of everything else in a context of sustainability (Figure 5), it cannot be said that it answers that question completely.

Application of LCA in the construction industry is somewhat different than in some other fields. Mainly because of individuality of each project and functional unit in question Dissecting those big amounts of data would be timely.

A comprehensive overview of this topic is available in several chapters of a Ph.D. thesis by Anne Rønning Travels with LCA: the evolution of LCA in the construction sector (2017) where these strengths and weaknesses are discussed per LCA stages as follows:

1. Goal and scope definition

a. In this first stage, a functional unit of the analysis is defined which gives answers to questions such as: “What?”, “How much?”, “How well?”, “How long?”. This approach tends to be quite a challenge when we talk about buildings which are, in their essence, large and complex systems of products, processes and in the end service they provide in the use phase. To tackle this, a functional equivalent was introduced in one of the standards (EN 15978:2011) and it should include (but not limited to):

Building type (e.g., office, factory)

Relevant technical and functional requirements (e.g., the regulatory and client´s specific requirements)

Pattern of use (e.g., occupancy)

Required service life

2. Inventory analysis

• In usual LCA practices, this stage is done in two ways. Input output LCA (IO LCA) deals with inventories through quantified transactions between industries (usually monetary). On the other hand, process LCA (P LCA) considers emissions and energy use based on inflow and outflow from all the processes in the lifecycle stages of the product. Both have shortcomings, but some benefits as well. Hence, a third method emerges hybrid LCA. Using this approach, process information that are gathered in inventories (p LCA) are complemented with flows from economic models (IO LCA). Even though data availability has been improved with development of databases, the lack of it can still pose a big problem in the inventory analysis, especially with big and complex inventories such as whole buildings.

3. Impact assessment

• The choice of impact categories which are going to be assessed should be done in the first stage of the LCA – Goal and scope definition. Unfortunately, available tools for inventory analysis and databases are restricting this choice. For example, current practice is to form an inventory comprised of EPDs from all the products and materials in the building. While this eases the collection of data and all the impacts, it also restricts the impact assessment only to the impact categories included in those EPDs. Furthermore, not all the EPDs are going to include the exact same set of impact categories, thus, the addition of the impacts to get the total amounts of emission equivalents might draw us to wrong conclusions. There is clear improvement on this issue with new studies, so the analysis preformed in the future can be more accurate and transparent.

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

4. Interpretation

• This step is supposed to discuss different limitations of the study, how the system boundaries were formed, what assumptions were made, etc. Added to the usual practice for this stage, one must include building specifics such as how it was designed, where is it located, how it is used… This is sometimes done in line with environmental guidelines, ambitions of the investor, but also in order to explain to results and choices made in the design (if the LCA is a part of the design process). Finally, building related LCA is very specific to every case, so the conclusions drawn on one analysis, cannot be used on another case, at least not without clear transparency about how and why it was done.

To deal with the mentioned specifics, industry, at least for now, settled down on using so called EPDs, which can be defined as separate LCA study for a specific materials and products. The results from these studies are then aggregated and managed in predetermined ways to get final impacts for the building within the chosen scope. As outlined by A. Rønning (2017), EPD development can be separated in three phases the initial design (1995 2006), the transition phase (2007 2013), and the implementation phase (2014 present). The idea started without any formal or governmental initiation, led by industry that was aiming to perform in a more environmentally friendly way. Making this a requirement happened later into development when certain countries started making it a requirement (e.g., Norway in 2008). The number of published EPDs has increased significantly since those early beginnings, and now it is widely used to facilitate LCAs in the construction industry, be it on a product level, or bigger.

However, it can be said that EPDs come as “a blessing and a curse”, and Rønning is clear about it as well in a study from 2014 that was reviewing 50 EN 15804 compliant EPDs published by EPD Norway. In 27 of them errors were found concerning different aspects such as accuracy, transparent disclosing of the numbers used, etc. Furthermore, use of EPDs in LCA of buildings is questioned in general. One is used on product level, and the other one is considering a whole building across all life cycle phases, respectively. Combining one with another is not impossible, and there are standards that explain into detail how it should be done, but it is complex and error prone.

BIM made the process of making a life cycle inventory a lot easier with its ability to associate elements and their properties with EPDs. Because of that, LCA stopped being just a tool for analysing already developed design solutions, and it is used earlier in the design process as a foundation for decision making. In this kind of LCA application, the focus is mostly on CO2

emissions. An extensive example of this comes from a team behind a “LCSA application” (LLatas, Soust Verdaguer, Hollberg, Palumbo, & Quiñones, 2022). They went a step further from implementing just LCA and included economic and social aspects as well. They build upon previous work on a new version of EPD Sustainable Product Declaration (SPD) (Kloepffer, 2008). SPDs would, along environmental information, include economic and social information, covering all three pillars of sustainability and allowing for analysis like these.

It is once again needed to emphasize the importance of BIM on the road to sustainability. This area of research gives great promise, and we can surely expect great developments in the future, making the analysis easier, hence leading to better and more sustainable decisions when designing.

The application of LCA is constantly developing. Currently, we are mainly using it for comparing between two or more variants, to determine which one is better. In the future, this will most probably change with the development of “absolute sustainability”. We still don’t know what planetary boundaries for some of the impacts are. Furthermore, distributing these impact boundaries needs to be done in a robust way so double counting or underestimating does not happen. Once these and other important questions regarding this topic are answered, we will have more insight in how good or bad are we in our goals to save the environment.

Figure 42 Early design sustainability analysis framework (LLatas, SoustVerdaguer, Hollberg, Palumbo, & Quiñones,2022)

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

1.3.2 REUSE OF EXISTING MATERIALS

The principle is rather simple – produce less to emit less. As already mentioned, design methods that are developing are going to reduce the impacts with a delay. Some authors go as far as questioning the effect of those, because it will only a fraction of the building stock (Poelman, 2009) We need something to start making cuts immediately, which means addressing materials that are present in the existing building stock.

This topic can be approached on different scales. Current research done is focused either on the reuse of a specific material or on how the materials in general can be reused. In order to facilitate the reuse, different methods are followed. For example, the way we were building is making majority of the elements almost impossible to reuse at the end of their (initial) life. Imagine a concrete element, casted in situ. There is no way to detach it from its neighbouring elements, without compromising their properties. To approach that problem, B. Sanchez and C. Haas (2018) have developed a method for planning disassembly of elements in adaptive reuse projects. In their research, they found that a complete disassembly is usually not even possible for existing buildings, which confirms the example mentioned earlier. However, in many cases there are still many of the elements left that could be reused, so the planning method developed by Sanchez and Haas considers the way elements can be disassembled, putting them in the “disassembly levels” to determine relationships between them. Furthermore, environmental cost matrix is developed in order to determine GWP for all the activities needed to disassemble a certain element, as well as economic cost matrix to calculate the total cost. Concepts and methods such as these push the narrative even more, expanding the possibilities of reusing existing buildings, as well as developing a way to go for designing new buildings.

As discussed previously, reusing the whole buildings is an option as well. As cities make efforts to move away from traditional, polluting industry, the infrastructure used by them is left behind. Reusing those existing buildings has proven to be beneficial through many different aspects. Industrial areas became a part of the urban environment, and nowadays present an attractive location for both commercial activity and residential use. In general, reuse of buildings creates new opportunities for unproductive property, reduce unnecessary land use, revitalize neighbourhoods, and control sprawl (Bullen P. A., 2007).

Another interesting tool was developed to determine how much materials can be reused from an existing building at a certain age (Akanbi L. , et al., 2018). It considers different factors such as age of the building, modelled quality of the materials, where was it installed etc. More specifically, they find that frame structure materials (concrete, steel, timber) for example, retain more than 90% of their quality for up to 90 years of age. If we combine this with a fact that on average, buildings stand for around 50 years on average (Huuhka & Kolkwitz, 2021) (Aksözen, Hassler, & Kohler, 2017), we can conclude that there is a big probability that a lot of materials, with more than substantial quality, is wasted.

The largest scope of this topic considers reuse of materials on the level of the whole construction industry. If we invest a lot of time and money into developing these new ways of treating materials that are already a part of the built environment, we cannot allow them to become waste again, just with a slight delay in the whole timeline. To determine the difficulties that could lead to those outcomes, Geldermans (2016) facilitated four workshops, each discussing different topics (see all key findings in Table 4). Conclusions from the workshops are following use of materials must be changed across all phases, different technical conditions must be set up for materials to increase its “circular value”, we are lacking a good quality tracking tool, and finally, clear distinction must be made between the users and investors, as well as legal conditions upon which the new business models can function Similar work was done by other authors to analyse different construction industries, and the

findings are mainly identical some stress the need for change in the culture of the industry which is short term oriented as of now, others see potential in more formal encouragement such as laws and regulations coming from governing bodies (Nordby, 2019) (Guerra & Leite, 2021).

Table4 Keyfindingsfromtheworkshopsessions(Geldermans, 2016).

Session I – Circular building basics

Regenerative capacity implies: no loss of quality or value.

If we manage to substitute all resources, a circular economy comprises few incentives. Clear definitions are required of which components belong to which 'shearing layer', with specific attention for intersection zones.

Distinguish between legal & economic ownership, in relation to who has decision power in making changes (investor user).

Session II Adaptability and Flexibility

Dimensions and connections are two main ‘Design for Adaptability' themes strongly related to circular building

Adaptability and flexibility are not the goal but means to an end, and instrumental in generating quality and adding value (or save costs).

Flex 2.0 scores are arbitrary and as yet not useful for comparative analyses.

User awareness is key: in order to appreciate and apply adaptable, extendable or demountable design solutions.

Session III – Materials, Products and Standardization

By standardizing materials, you define conditions for recycling. By standardizing products, you define conditions for connections.

Standardization is not always an effective option, e.g., in case digital production techniques can regulate demand for customized elements in a material efficient way.

If the connections between elements are standardized, the (dimensions of the) elements do not necessarily need to be.

Defining the use and performance span of a building has to be part of the design process in order for material and product choices to be adjusted to it optimally.

Session IV – Context and System Conditions

High quality data (availability) on materials and related supply chains has advantages in every stage, for all stakeholders.

The transition from a linear to a circular economy takes place in two directions: bottom-up and top down.

Law & regulations need adjustment, regarding intrinsic material qualities (e.g., toxicity, purity, etc.), and tendering procedures (e.g., contract methods, procurement, etc.).

Regeneration technologies and processes need to be improved and diversified in order to make significant not only incremental next steps.

Figure43 StepwiseapproachtoCircularBuilding (Geldermans, 2016)

To approach this, Geldermans (2016) proposes a so called “Stepwise Approach” (Figure 43), presenting ideas such as integrated change design to categorize elements with longer and shorter lifespan, and make connections and dimensions a leading principle for designing, intelligent dimensioning aims at slightly over dimensioning the current design in order to make future changes easier, and similar.

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

MATERIAL STOCKS, MATERIAL PASSPORTS AND BUILDINGS AS MATERIAL BANKS

If we develop new ways of managing materials the definition of “material stock” is changing drastically. Rather than having endless warehouses filled with newly produced materials, we are talking about already standing buildings and utilized materials in the built environment, that are waiting for the new chapter in their life cycle. Furthermore, quantifying this stock comes with a lot of challenges that were not present before. There are some databases that are created and maintained that could be used to estimate this, and while their aimed use was not measuring the material stock in the built environment, they can be useful as a good starting ground for that

Figure44 ExampleofcalculatedmassofmaterialstocksfromRheinRuhrMetropolitanarea(Oezdemir,Krause, &Hafner,2017)

For example, GIS (Geographic Information System) was initially used to store and manage land use data in Canada (The Evolution of GIS, 2021) As computers became even more powerful, the possibilities of GIS expanded amount of information that could be attached to digitalized maps became virtually limitless. Utilizing this feature to quantify material stocks in existing buildings requires relevant information to be available in GIS models. For example, in a paper that explains efforts to create a Resource Cadaster in a Rhein Ruhr area in Germany (Oezdemir, Krause, & Hafner, 2017), some of the information that were used came from ALKIS Dataset which has information about floor count, roof type, and function. Furthermore, to get information about a year of construction for every building, they used a residential building catalogue from Institute Wohnen and Umwelt. Even though the original use of these databases was not to determine the size of materials stock, they proved it to be a robust basis for a model that would result in exactly that. Ideal scenario would of course be a completely dedicated GIS model with all the necessary data to quantify the new material stock, but works such as this one, and many others, prove that it is possible to do so with the data we have right now, which might be scattered, but still is usable.

If GIS is giving us a general overview of what kind of materials we have on our disposal, and estimates the amounts of those same materials, we still need a more discrete insight into the groups of materials that stand behind that general data. One of the proposed ways to do that are material passports. The aim of these is as follows (Buildings as material banks, u.d.):

• Increase the value or keep the value

• Create incentives to produce better and sustainable products

• Support material choices in building projects

• Support easier decision making

• Facilitate logistics for reclamation and reuse

It is a set of data, which follows a particular material through its life cycles and gets updated on that journey. This decreases the number of uncertainties that are usually present when dealing with reclaimed materials and/or components. Passports would be stored in a central database, building on a “repository” idea that was already presented with some other concepts such as DfD (Ali, 2019) Another approach is integrating these datasets with BIM models Even though it seems like a straightforward and logical development, combining the two technologies, there are voices suggesting caution regarding it. In a report from 3XN, which among material passports, covers a lot of other topics regarding sustainability and circularity in the AEC industry, they warn against possible information overload making the models work slower (2016). On the other hand, we have a concept of digital twins, that are utilizing BIM models for asset management during the use phase. Hence, BIM models obviously have a potential of following the elements throughout the life cycle of the building. Two approaches could be complementing each other, with BIM models being actual “material banks” while the materials and elements are a part of the building, and the central database being a repository for the materials and elements that are in between their use cycles.

Once again, one can ask how can this help us reduce our impacts with what we available right now? An article from C.M. Rose and J.A. Stegemann (2019) is exploring implementation of material passports in the management of components that are currently in the existing buildings existing buildings as material banks (E BAMB). Several interesting developments of the field are mentioned. For example, laser scanning and object recognition processes should be at a level that can enable creation of information populated BIM models, making the process of evaluation and deconstruction less labour intensive and easier if the data was not collected previously. Furthermore, they explore both supply and demand end of this possible market, finding that existing building audit needs to happen as early as possible, so when the demand happens, reclaimed materials are ready to go from, how they call it, reused material marketplace. In the Figure 45, coming from the same article, we can see they even proposed an opportunity for new business models around managing the reclaimed stock and preforming quality control procedures. This is extremely important possibility of making revenue is going to attract more interest meaning faster development, improving, and guaranteeing the quality of these materials and elements will make them competitive with virgin counterparts. This leads us to another crucial topic to discuss, which is the quality of reclaimed materials.

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

In order to introduce reclaimed materials and components it is necessary to have reliable methods of quality control. Even though some principles remain the same as with the new materials, additional challenges appear because of materials history, use patterns, construction and deconstruction methods, etc. FCRBE (Facilitating the circulation of reclaimed building elements in Northwester Europe) is a project a part of Interreg North West Europe area, with an ambitious goal of increasing the amounts of reclaimed materials reuse on those territories by 50%. In 2021, they released seven booklets, covering important topics in this field, and in one of them, the technical performance of reclaimed materials is discussed (Poncelet & Nasseredine, 2021).

Firstly, they made the comparison of requirements for new and reclaimed materials mentioning that the materials must be suitable for their function, no matter the origin. An approach called “cascade use” was mentioned, meaning reuse of materials in a less demanding context than it was used previously. For example, reusing lower quality bricks as garden pavement, or making a greenhouse from old window sashes. However, the information used for evaluating the functionality comes from different sources. New materials are produced in a controlled condition, on a single location, using regular procedures and accredited externally. Reclaimed materials have history which must be considered. Because of that, rather than having a big batch of a certain type of material (which is the case with new materials), reclaimed materials must be sorted to several batches, according to their history.

Secondly, they describe the evaluation process through four steps, as seen on the Figure 48. In order to know what the requirements for the material are, we need to know what the intended use is, which is the first step. The requirements can be from relevant regulations, concerning health and safety, or determined by the new use. Second step is gathering information about the reclaimed material and its history. After the two is known, evaluation methods and the level of confidence for the evaluation results can be determined. Final step is the evaluation itself and documenting the results which will serve as a quality guarantee for the next use. Testing approach is covered to a greater detail. Properties that are essential for the use of materials must be tested with greater confidence in results. In the Table 5, these methods are described with an example. Additionally, some tests can also be done to determine the performance of other relevant properties of the reclaimed materials.

Figure46 Reusingoldbricksaspavers(deAraujo,2019)

Figure 47 Reuse of steelpostelementsfor arooftruss(2019)

Table5 Evaluationmethodsforreclaimedmaterials(Poncelet&Nasseredine,2021)

Principal evaluation methods

Direct Indirect Laboratory

Visual check, measurements, non destructive tests

Example: measuring cracksin concrete, measuring dimensionsof bricks

Indirect evaluation from available data

Example: mineralwool technicalsheet confirmsthat thematerial doesn’tlose fireproperties overtime

Alternative evaluation methods

Chain control PostconstructionDestructive Customised

Majority of laboratory tests will require “sacrificial” amounts of materials, which must be considered

Example: compressive strengthtest, fireresistance tests

Some tests may not be suitable for reclaimed materials due to their variation in shape and form, caused by deterioration

Example:slip resistancetest forflatsurfaces isnotsuitableif thereclaimed materialhasa curvedsurface

Control of batches according to characteristic properties, tested by trained practitioner

Example:clay rooftilesare testedfor crackswith gentlehitswith metalrodand listeningtothe sound

Testing is done after installation. Not preferred, but sometimes needed due to specific conditions

Example: performanceof ventilation equipment needstobe testedafter installing

While most of the testing methods already available can be used with the reclaimed materials, the opposite is the case with statistical approach. As previously mentioned, sorting them to more batches according to their history is a necessary step to avoid compromising their future reuse. It is important to have enough testing samples to prove the quality of the batch, but with reclaimed materials that are limited in number that can be a challenge. A strategy presented is to always test the batches of the material with most degradation first. If they prove to be of satisfactory quality, better quality batches don’t need as rigorous tests as initially planned. Furthermore, increasing the reliability of indirect evaluation methods could be done with utilising material passports for materials that are currently a part of the building stock.

Figure 48 Four general steps for evaluating technical performanceofreclaimedmaterials (Poncelet&Nasseredine, 2021)

Once a robust standardised framework is set up regarding the quality control procedures of reclaimed materials, we can truly expect a lower impact to our environment. Disciplines that are included in the construction industry have the means to use the materials, they need guarantees for the quality and safety to be able to offer them. As presented in the literature, and in the study case later, environmental benefits of reusing materials are obvious. In order to secure liveable future, we must start reusing sooner rather than later.

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

1.4 LIVING IN A NEW FUTURE

A great number of studies were made to explore how are building and people related on different levels. What is the relation between shapes, colours, textures, and humans and how does it directly influence their behaviour and response towards the environment? One of the main functions of architecture is to create a physical environment for people to live in, as well as it represents the culture, how the nation sees themselves and how they see the word. Starting with the layout of the spaces to material finishes, everything can contribute to humans’ behaviour, their mood and productivity. Several studies proved that people that are working in well designed spaces, stay more focused and contribute more to their company. On the contrary, sterile unimaginative buildings cause higher level of stress (Vangelatos, 2019).

“Spacehasthepowertoconditionbehaviourandformpersonality.…The environmentaffectsouremotions,feelings,andreactions.” (Scuri,1995)

1.4.1 ENVIRONMENT AROUND US

As the population is constantly and rapidly growing, more and more people are living in urban environment. Epidemiologists provides studies that show that people raised in cities are more prone to mental disorders than those raised in the countryside. For example, specific brain structures in people from the city and the countryside respond differently to social stress. (Meyer Lindenberg), which is one of the main contributors to disorders such as schizophrenia.

The main trigger seems to be “social stress” – the lack of social bonding and cohesion in neighbourhoods. Even though it may seem counterintuitive on the first glance, as number of people should make social interaction more likely. But the important, meaningful social interactions are more difficult to build in the city environment. Social isolation is now recognised by urban authorities as a major risk factor for many illnesses.

The connections between people are being formed on three different levels: intimate personal and family relationships, links with broader network of friends, relatives and colleagues, and collective connection our feeling of belonging in our communities (Kelly, et al., 2012).

Figure49 credit:C.B.Pedersen&P.B.MortensenARCH. GEN.Psychiatry58,1039 1046(2001)

The general idea about hierarchy of people needs, when one would first need to satisfy physiological needs (such as need for food and shelter) before the psychological (Maslow, 1943), may not be fully applicable The general idea about hierarchy of people needs, when one would first need to satisfy physiological needs (such as need for food and shelter) before the psychological (Maslow, 1943), may not be fully applicable for younger generation. A study by the Young Foundation reveals that:youngpeoplearegoingwithoutfoodinordertokeeptheir mobilephonestoppedup,leadingtheFoundation’sformerchiefexecutive,GeoffMulgan,to concludethatthehumanneedforconnectednessoutweighsalmosteverythingelse.(Kelly, et al., 2012). Kelly, et al., (2012) mention that according to Cacioppo and Patrick (2008) the sensation of loneliness and the sensation of physical pain are both created by similar neurological processes; therefore, loneliness could be seen as a social pain.

Thus, is it possible to design in a way to encourage the connection? As the awareness of the importance of people connecting with buildings has been raising many psychological studies have been being conducted to bring the better idea of the kind of environment that people like or find positively stimulating. In 2017 during the Conscious Cities Conference in London, one of the conference speakers, Alison Brooks, an architect specialising in housing and social design told BBC Future: “Ifsciencecouldhelpthedesignprofessionjustifythevalueofgood designandcraftsmanship,itwouldbeaverypowerfultoolandquitepossiblytransformthe qualityofthebuiltenvironment.”

The sociologist William Whyte, for example, advised urban planners to arrange objects and artefacts in public spaces in ways that nudged people physically closer together and make it more likely that they would talk to each other. Enriching public spaces could help people feel more engaged and comfortable with their surroundings even if it will not completely banish the loneliness from the city (Kelly, et al., 2012)

Study by Colin Ellard (Ellard & Montgomery) shows that people are strongly affected by building facades. When it is simple and monotonous people tend to react negatively, while when its complex and interesting the responses are rather positive. Whereas most of the studies are based on the lab environment, Ellard’s study was conducted in three different cities, New York (Aug Oct 2011), Berlin (June July 2012) and Mumbai (Dec 2012 Jan 2013), measuring the city’s effects on human mind and body. While people are wondering across the different streets it helps to open their minds and thoughts and this way receive much more valuable feedback rather than experimenting in the lab environment. During the city tour people were answering location specific questions about their mood. The emotions

Figure50 Asociallifeofsmallurbanspaces,(Whyte,1980)

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

development was measured also with the wrist bracelets that measured their skin conductivity a standard measure of psychological arousal1 (Ellard & Montgomery)

The city tour was made through different types of streets, with variety in facade designs and outdoor spaces. The main findings were presented as follows:

• Greenspaces have the highest level of positive mood

• Closed spaces are less preferred than the permeable ones

• Self reported mood was consistently more negative in congested and noisy locations

In 1886 Swiss critic and later professor of art, Heinrich Wölfflin mentioned in his dissertation paper that architecture forms are expressions for certain spirits or moods (Roessler, 2012). He claimed that psychologically architecture had its basis in form through the empathetic response of human form. Proportions of length and breadth along horizontal and vertical plane created a base of architecture through gravity and inflexibility. The relationship between those dimensions will determine if the building seems light, static, or flexible. Inspiration for that he found in humans’ body, its weight, form, and power.

Paper Healthy Architecture (2012) expanded Wölfflins approach with the impression. It investigated an interrelation between subjective emotions and architecture and tried to answer the question if certain environments can provoke or reinforce emotional impressions and support health behaviour. Two examples are being presented city square in Germany and public garden in Sweden

The Potsdamer Platz is a place where large number of people are passing every day at any given time. Author says “It is transparent and unambiguous in its structure, but I can’t find opportunities to withdrawandexperienceasenseofsafety.

Crossing the Potsdamer Platz, I am constantlyvisibleandhavenowheretohid.I feelaloneandalienatedevenIknowthatIam constantly surrounded by other humans” (Roessler, 2012). According to previously mentioned paper two German psychoanalysts already brought up the idea of feeling of alienation during the 1960s. Alfred Lorenzer described that because of functional architecture, that prefers aesthetics instead of meaning, an emotional isolation of individual is being developed. Followed on that, Alexander Mitscherlich states that there is lack of hospitality in modern cities.

1 Arousalisthephysiologicalandpsychologicalstateofbeingawokenorofsenseorgansstimulatedtoapointof perception.Itinvolvesactivationoftheascendingreticularactivatingsystem(ARAS)inthebrain,whichmediates wakefulness,theautonomicnervoussystem,andtheendocrinesystem,leadingtoincreasedheartrateandblood pressure and a condition of sensory alertness, desire, mobility, and readiness to respond. (https://en.wikipedia.org/)

Figure51 PotsdamerPlatz,photoby(Sygictravel,n.d.)

Figure52 AlnarpGardens, (Natuur,2019)

On contrary, Healing Gardens in Alnarp (Sweden) affect people completely differently. While the Potsdamer Platz mostly appealed to the aspect of isolation, Alnarp gardens offer a more complex mix of feelings. That was supported by the study by (Stigsdotter & Grahn, 2002). The presence of nature has a positive influence on people’s mind, in helps, for example, to restore the attention, as it provides gently stimulation to the senses and offers range of smells and sounds. (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989) According to Kaplan, so called soft fascination of nature can enhance the recovery from stress disorders as well as health and wellbeing could be promoted by existence of green spaces. The garden is communicating to individuals through different levels connected to number of garden spaces, plants, and colours.

1.4.2 PEOPLE AND BUIDLINGS AROUND US

Close to 90% of our lives are spend inside the indoors. We are surrounded by lights, shapes, colours, and soundscapes. All those aspects have and influence on inhabitants. A relatively new field of research, so called Architectural Psychology, is looking into impact that architecture make on humans, their feeling and behaviour. How the spaces are designed can affect the way people think, feel, learn and just comprehend the world in general. The implication of the research could help to create hospitals where patients heal faster, offices configurations can improve productivity and homes can adapt to hypersensitivity of humans with special needs. It explores how simple features like a window or natural light can reduce the stress and improve sleep (Berg, 2016)

From the wider perspective, Environmentalpsychologyis focusing on the relation between inhabitants and their physical surroundings, (includingbuildingsandnaturalenvironment,the use and abuse of nature and natural resources, and sustainability related behaviour). (Ackerman, 2018). Ingrid Gehl, Danish environmental psychologist, described in the book Bo miljø (Living environment) a framework for living environment identifying eightenvironmental psychologicalrequirementsthat all living spaces should address if the aim is for people to have a satisfying, socially sustainable environment. (According to (Peters, 2016))

1. The need for human contact to see and meet with others

2. The need for privacy

3. The need for varied experience

4. The need for purposefulness

5. The need for play

6. The need for structure and orientation within the environment

7. The need for sense of ownership and identification with the community and environment

8. The need for aesthetics and beauty

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

Ingrid Gehl stated that architecture shapes our behaviour. She mentioned that good or bed housing estate do not just happen, but it is product of a connected series of design decisions that impact on how people perceive the spaces

One of the questions that is needed to be kept in mind is what are the emotions and state of mind buildings should trigger in the occupants of the building? Architecture is affecting everyone differently, different personalities, patterns of perception and cultural inputs play their role. Tanja Vollmer (Klaassen, 2017) underlines some of the healthy patterns of design.

1. The five pillars of the SANCT model Self esteem, Autonomy, Normality, Control and Motion, should be takin into consideration during the planning process

2. During the design phase various interest groups such as health managers, architects, city planners, but also psychologists should be integrated As the planning process is developing the voice of users should be included as well

3. For the renovation projects, one of the key steps is to identify what is needed and what do people want? There are many solutions that could be developed, sometimes people just need to forsake old concepts and leave room for creativity.

The main function of our senses is to enable us to experience the world around us. “Oureyes seeit,ourearshearit,ournosessmellit,ourmouthstasteit,andthesealongwithafewother sensesprovideuswithmostoftheknowledgethatwehaveaboutworld.” The surrounding environment has a great impact on users mentally and physically. Hansards says: “Weshape ourbuildingsandafterwardsourbuildingsshapeus.”According to Jan Lang “Information abouttheenvironmentisobtainedthroughperceptualprocessesthatareguidedbyschemata motivatedbyneeds.Theseschemataarepartiallyinnateandpartiallylearned.Theyformthe linkagebetweenperceptionandcognition.Theyguidenotonlytheperceptualprocessesbut alsoemotionalresponses(affect)andactions(spatialbehaviour),whichinturnaffectthe schemataastheoutcomesofbehaviourarediscerned.” (Lang, 1987) The principal process concerning the interface between human, and environment can be seen in Figure 53.

Figure53 ThefundamentalProcessesofHumanBehaviour(Lang,1987)

INSIDE THE BUILDINGS

According to the report Building, environment, architecture, and people (Clements Croome, 2004) building environment should provide triggers which stimulate humans’ senses. And with all the technological development, modern architecture tends to be incoherent in human terms. Buildings should provide multi sensory experiences for its inhabitants and therefore the concern of architects is always to create an appropriate physical environment that helps the user and improves his physical and psychological condition.

Following part of the study is providing description of some of the key elements: Composition: Unlike most of the other arts, architecture, is not often conceived independently of its surroundings therefore the harmonic configuration with its natural environment is one of the big tasks for architects. Space and Mass are the raw materials of architectural form used by architects as tools to create a composition the conception of single elements, the interrelating of these elements, and the relating of them to the total “Thepurposeofcompositionistoexpressparticularconceptsandexperiences,andit is successful only when these are fully communicated to the observer.” (Expression of technique, n.d.)

Views: The need for windows is a complex development it includes the natural light, an interesting views and connection between interior and exterior. The Building Services Journal describes how important the daylight is for building industry, hospitals, and offices. It has been proved that natural sunlight has a more positive effect on workers sense of wellbeing. According to Antonio F. Torrice (1988) when people are surrounded by natural outdoor light, there is an equal balance of each of the colours of the spectrum in our bodies. Especially nowadays, when so much work is done with computers at close quarters and requires the eye muscles to be constrained to provide the appropriate focal length, when one looks outside towards the horizon, the eyes are focused on infinity and the muscles are relaxed (Clements Croome, 2004). As light is moving and changing it character it brings the living quality of nature to the inner mass of architecture.

Figure54 TheVerticalVillaProject,Alanya,Turkey:photoby(archdaily,n.d.)

Figure55 Naturallightingandviews,(Planlux,n.d.))

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

Lighting: The way the building is lit may affect the experience of the user. For example, bright lights could heighten the way people feel in both positive and negative manner. As well as the position of the light source might evoke different mood or feeling. Lower placed and dimed lights invoke privacy and intimacy while lighting on the walls and ceiling emphasises the spaciousness of the building.

Colours: Colour palette selection can invoke different mood or emotions, especially as colours are constant features of architecture. Lacy (1996) underlines the importance of the therapeutic effects of colours.

Materials: Without materials there wouldn’t be “life”, originality, and character of the spaces. Therefore, it is important to take into considerations which materials function better in different scenarios and which material triggers what part of our brain. To fully express feelings of the building, modern architecture often uses materials with historical sense and new materials together. This help enrich the total expression and find a perfect balance between modern and historical. Nowadays, reused, and recycled materials come into picture. They bring the possibility of artistic vision and expression while preserving historical value.

Concrete gives almost overpowering impressions, it associates with rigidity, focus or uniformity. It could be suitable to work environment where a fact of little maintenance and no distraction is appreciated. But this at first glance monotonous materials can shape dynamic and creative spaces (Zaidi, 2021).

Wood, a natural material that is often associated with warm, home feeling and comfort. As there are more than hundred species of wood with different textures, grains and tones a great amount of combination could be created to stimulate emotions and productivity levels. Many studies across countries such as Norway, Japan, Canada, or Austria carried out studies confirming that wood has a positive effect on the emotional state of people.

“Environmentswithwoodenstructurescauseadropinbloodpressureandpulseandhavea calmingeffect”(Wood construction reduces stress and offers a healthy living environment, u.d.). Specifically, bamboo is great flexible and sustainable material that has calm influence on human’s mind. Architectural psychologist Tanja Vollmer has suggested that with human’s insecurity comes also increased sensitivity to our surroundings (Vollmer). Therefore, using materials such as bamboo can help stimulate a positive attitude and improve behaviour.

Figure56 RecycledstudiosbyLendagergroup,photo by(Dezeen.com,n.d.)

Figure 57 Concrete House by Ângela Roldão Arquitetura,(archdaily,n.d.)

Raw and confident materials, such as bricksandstone, are bringing the feeling of outdoor spaces to indoors. Depending on the technique of processing the stone rustication (uneven, rough finishing), drafting (more refined, linear cutting) or polishing, the different effects could be achieved (Stone, 2022).

Figure58 PrisenparkVisitorcenterbyStudioJanVermeulenandTomThysarchitecten(archdaily,n.d.)

Figure 60 TheResourceRowsbyLendagerGroup (LendagerGroup,n.d.)

Figure 60 Rodia Stone House Nikos Smyrlis Architect,2012(archdaily,n.d.)

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

1.4.3

SOCIAL ASPECTS IN SUSTAINABILITY

Social aspect of sustainability is one of its three main pillars. While environmental and economic aspects seem to be well developed and in use, social aspect is lacking consensus and standardization.

Many different definitions were conducted over years, but it seems like there is no complete agreement on what terms must include and what focus to adopt, therefore the meaning might be adapted depending on the context. Manzi et al. (2010) states “Different people mean different things when they discuss social sustainability” , some say that it is about wellbeing and good quality of life, while others emphasize its relation to safety, equal opportunities, and social justice. A key factor that makes it even more difficult defining social sustainability is that its dynamic is changing over time (Shirazi & Keivani, 2017)

A definition by Social Life (a UK based social enterprise specializing in place based innovation) states that: “socialsustainabilityisaprocessforcreatingsustainablesuccessful placesthatpromotewellbeing,byunderstandingwhatpeopleneedfromtheplacestheylive andwork.Socialsustainabilitycombinesdesignofthephysicalrealmwithdesignofthesocial world infrastructuretosupportsocialandculturallife,socialamenities,systemsforcitizen engagement,andspaceforpeopleandplacestoevolve”(What is Social Sustainability?, n.d.).

There are five most common principles of sustainability that were developed by Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen. Each of principles incorporates several different key aspects. The main principles are (Hodgson), (What is Social Sustainability?, n.d.), (Barron & Gauntlett, 2002):

UN Global Compact (UN Global Compact, n.d.) principles focus on social dimension of corporate sustainability, with human rights being the key one (equity) . It covers human rights of specific groups: labour, women's empowerment and gender equality, children, indigenous peoples, people with disabilities, as well as people cantered approaches to business impacts on poverty. As well as covering groups of rights holders, social sustainability encompasses issues that affecting them, for example, education and health.

Based on review of different publications and studies, report by Shirazi and Keivani (2017) describes hey principles that are being repetitively used across different industries. Seven elements are mentioned with various of key aspects. As can be seen, they include five previously mentioned principles, but for some have used a different name.

There has been a shift from the macro scale focus on city and region into micro scales of communities and neighbourhood. It therefore makes it the primary spatial unit for investigating social sustainability (Shirazi & Keivani, 2017). According to the goals and objectives of social sustainability study, indicators could be scale based. For example, unemployment is more related to the city scale, while sense of place can be investigated at the neighbourhood scale. Another shift is from rather physical aspects to more non-physical ones. Indicators such as feeling of safety, well being or social interaction are being more included in recent studies rather than qualitative aspects such as economic prosperity. This switch underlines the relevance of connecting social sustainability to sociocultural and spatial contexts. For example, sense of place indicator is highly related to the inhabitants of the community and to the historical cultural background. Social interaction and satisfaction with home will also vary in different countries, where optimal in one place could be perceived as unfavourable (Shirazi & Keivani, 2017).

Table6 Socialsustainability,principles,andkeyaspects,(Shirazi&Keivani,2017)

Equity

Democracy, participation, civic society

Social inclusion and mix

quality of life for all segments of the population/ fairness in distribution of opportunity/ adequate provision of social services/gender equity/socially justice/equity of access to key services/equity between generations/ equal learning opportunities/ equality in employment, education, health, etc./proportionate social infrastructure/environmental equality/equality of rights

effective appropriation of all human rights political, civil, economic, social and cultural – by all people/harmonious civil society/political accountability and participation/freedom and solidarity/emancipation/ widespread political participation of citizens/a sense of community responsibility/empowered community/political advocacy/democratic civil society/people oriented governance/community empowerment

lack of spatial segregation/cohabitation of culturally and socially diverse groups/social integration/cultural diversity/effective cultural relations and protection of cultural values

Social networking and interaction viability of human interaction, communication, and cultural development/ social cohesion

Livelihood and Sense of place

Safety and security lack of violent intergroup conflict/chronic political stability

Human well-being and quality of life human dignity/happiness/health/individual and collective well being

vitality/solidarity and common sense of place among citizens/ a decent quality of life or livelihood for all the people

Looking at social sustainability from a business perspective, it would be about understanding what the impacts of corporations on people and society are. In business the concept of sustainability is also called triplebottomline, when in addition to the financial performance firms should commit to measuring their social and environmental impact. Sometimes it is being refer to it as “three Ps”: profit, people, and the planet (Business Insights, n.d.) According to UN Global Compact (What is Social Sustainability?, n.d.), social sustainability can help businesses to:

• Unlock new markets

• Help retain and attract business partners

• Raising internal morale and employee engagement

57 CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY & SUSTAINABILITY • Improve community company conflicts

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY IN BUILT ENVIRONMENT

While environmental and economic aspect of sustainability has been developed in number of certification systems the softer elements of social sustainability that are essential to the public housing sector were paid less attention. The connection between individuals and buildings is not something that could be easily established, but because of its importance, there is a need to measure it.

Social sustainability could bring the answers to questions such as: how could we utilise differentiation between economically diverse communities within cities? Or how do we combat the continuous increase of the world’s population, and make sure that our cities retain our inherent desire to have a connection to the natural environment (Vangelatos, 2019)? When developing new neighbourhoods or transforming the existing housing estates, social framework appears to be highly relevant for improving people’s quality of life and opportunities to get involved. It could serve for better promoting of local communities and their relationship with the surroundings (Shirazi & Keivani, 2017)

As already mentioned, in social sustainability, there is no consensus regarding suitable approaches and types of development. Different perspectives and issues are being prioritized by different theories which might lead to different outcomes. Some of them addresses the connection between inhabitants and the environment, some are focusing on the wellbeing and quality of life.

Several selected approaches and methods have been chosen and are presented below.

EYE LEVEL, HUMAN SCALE, AND PUBLIC LIFE

The perspective of eye level, human scale and public life have been developed over time by authors such as Jane Jacobs, Jan Gehl, Glaser et al and Talen. (Bertlin, 2014) Jacobs addressed human perspective of planning in 1950s when he reacted against modernist planning, that result into large scale, monotonous development with a conscious division of functions. Jan Gehl (Gehl, Cities for people, 2010) argues that urban design shell be done from the eye and behaviour of the pedestrian by looking at, hierarchically, life, spaces, and buildings. At first, it is needed to understand people’s daily life, how they interact between each other’s and what are their daily tasks. Next step is to analyse what type of spaces are needed for different activities and what are the physical conditions required. Lastly, design and layout need to be proposed with desirable spaces and good opportunities for public life.

Figure61 TherightandwrongapproachaccordingtoJanGehl

PUBLIC LIFE

One of the main goals is to ensure that everyone can move on foot and design spaces prioritized for humans needs (Gehl & Svarre, 2013). To ensure that in city design, a lot of observation and mapping of people’s movement patterns and use in different physical settings are needed. In which way and to what degree are people using the space and engage in different activities, may indicate a good level of urban quality and possibly positive effect on wellbeing (Bertlin, 2014)

HUMAN SCALE

Before, our cities were built on walking distances and that led to compact, walkable, mixed use cities, that were adapting to local climate. But with mass car introduction in 1960s a lot has changed. To understand human scale, it Is worth mentioning some of the universal aspects of how we experience our surroundings. Even though they might seem obvious, sometimes they are still being forgotten. Bertlin (2014) summarizes them based on Gehl’s approach as follows:

Humans are:

• Linear, frontal, horizontal mammal walking at max 5 km/h

• Able to identify and read other people at a certain distance (i.e., less than 100 m distinguish body movements; less than 25 m accurately read facial expressions and dominant emotions

• Able to hear people at a certain distance (i.e., less than 50 70 m hear shouts for help: less than 7 meters genuine conversation)

• Comfortable in a certain span of temperature

For example, when designing a theatre, the maximum scale should stay within the possibility of audience to be able to distinguish facial expressions. Therefore, when designing public spaces for certain activities or planning urban space in general those aspects should not be forgotten.

Figure62

Exampleofhumanscale IsraelsPlads,Copenhagen;photobyKinSunTsang

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

EYE LEVEL CITY

To understand the city, it needs to be experienced from the view of a pedestrian, an eye level. What is it what people see when they walk around the city, what kind of environment on a small scale is inviting people to stay, talk and interact? Public life studies through an eye level helps to increase the attractiveness and mobility for pedestrian and therefore invite more investors and tourists, his way increasing the economic benefits of the city.

Plinth is a ground floor of the buildings, and it is what pedestrians see and experience the most. Therefor providing an attractive environment, connecting pedestrian flows in urban area and creating an experience for pedestrian is very important (Karssenberg, Laven, & van't Hoff, 80 lessons to a good city at eye level, 2016).

In the existing areas one of the most important aspects is to build a community network active property owners, entrepreneurs, and experts and visioners. The development starts with the interdisciplinary analysis. Each area has its own context and character and requires different strategy. Some buildings might already have a good connection with public space, others might have good facades but require better programming, and yet other buildings might need a complete makeover and longer term approach to ensure a better interaction with street (Karssenberg, Laven, Glaser, & van't Hoff, 2016).

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

Figure63 “Plinthlife” EssexStreetEast,Dublin;photobyKinSun Tsang

Figure64 Cityfromeyelevel Graven,Aarhus;photobyKinSunTsang

12 QUALITY CRITERIA

Based on the Gehl research a set of criteria for the design of the public landscape has been developed at the Centre for Public Space Research in Copenhagen. The quality criteria are divided into three groups: (Twelve quality criteria, n.d.), (Gemzøe, 2006)

Protection focusses on how to minimise unpleasant experience such as traffic accidents, crime, or climate conditions. It aims to create an environment when one could feel safe and secure

Comfort address quality of walking and staying in the place. It is referring to places where people need to walk, stand or sit, talk/listen and play/exercise (Gehl, Cities for people, 2010)

Enjoyment covers the human scale, enjoying the positive aspects of the experience that user gets from the place. Gehl mention a human scale from an eye perspective and suggest avoiding large dimensions

Fulfilling the set of criteria brings a high possibility to create places where people will be able to use their human senses, enjoy walking as much as staying.

THE SOCIAL CITY INDEX

Figure65 12qualitycriteriabyJanGehl

According to International Federation of Housing and Planning (IFHP, n.d.) In 2015, 4 billion people lived in urban areas. This number is expected to rise with 1 billion by 2030 which means that cities are crutial for our homes and lives. While environmental and economic aspect could be measure with hep of numbers and spreadsheets, measuring social sustainability is not that straightforward. Also, in a well functioning cities, we might say in ideal city, all three pillars are balanced and are being given same importance. Unfortunately, it is still not the case in the world we live.

As for social sustainability it is not easy task to decide on goals for social livew in the cities. Is it about number fo pedestrians and cyclists, or maybe about number of restaurant, shopping facilities, is it about education, jobs, safety, housing, etc. , should all those aspects be included or some of them are more iportant then the other? And because there is no universal tool or agreed way of measuring it, often it is being neglected as intangable concept.

The International Federation for Housing and Planning (IFHP) with support from Realdania, Rambol Foundation and other partners are developing program that could be the solution to the problem. The programm is Called Social Cities and consist of three steps:

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

Figure66 SocialCityIndex,(IFHP,n.d.)

STEP1:The Social City Index is a tool to measure SS in cities. It indentifies the parametrs and indicators that have greatest effect on social sustainability. That would help indentify risks and possibilities that relevant city has. The Index indentifies indicators in three dimentions:

Household affordability, availability, quality

Neighbourhood safety, services, social capital

City job and education, mobility, citizenship

STEP 2: The Social Cities programme will develop and propose concrete solutions to indentified problems from step 1. It will be done in an Ideation Lab through design thinking involving citiyens, experts, oliticians and corporations.

Step3: In this step the gained knowledge and experience will be sharedon the Social Cities knowledge sharing platform. This will help to improve the quality of the knowledge as well as the quality of people’s life.

CONCLUSION

As already stated, there is lack in transparency on what social sustainability is and what is the best way to approach it and measure. But based on research studies this absence of certainty arises due to hight complexity of the social dimension of sustainability. This forces researchers to develop case specific and place specific formulation. As there is no single framework applicable to all disciplines and scales, the evaluation framework should identify relevant indicators and measures based on the goal and scope of the study. After all, number of key themes, such as equity, social interaction, participation, to name but a few, have been integral across different tools to argument social sustainability.

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

1.5

PAYING FOR A NEW FUTURE

Along with the development of environmentally friendly construction techniques, the economic concern of ‘green solutions’ has always been a controversial topic, or an area that deters investors from investing on new solutions. Common arguments such as high price of environmentally friendly products, extra cost of labour, high uncertainties of construction techniques or high uncertainties of the new business model etc are often brought up to the discussion of alternatives. It is even more noticeable in the conversation over adaptive reuse, as it is a relatively new approach, and the number of practices is still low. Therefore, though it is challenging to convince investors and decision makers to accept the new approaches, it is necessary to prove that a more sustainable solution does not compromise profitability, and to bring down uncertainties in such solutions and develop a viable business model for investors to evaluate. In the other sense, the business model should be sustainable.

1.5.1 COST EVALUATION IN A HOLISTIC CONTEXT

This could be achieved by introducing the idea of Life Cycle Cost (LCC). LCC is an approach to assess the total cost of an asset over its life cycle including initial costs, maintenance costs, operation cost, and the residual value of the asset at the end of its life (Sesana & Salvalai, Overview on life cycle methodologies and economic feasibility for nZEBs, 2013) With an LCC approach to evaluate economic aspect of the project, a holistic cashflow could be visualised and the net saving of different alternatives could be brought onto the evaluation despite the higher initial cost.

Figure 67 Scope of LCC suggested by DS/ISO 15686 5:2017

Same as environmental performance, the operation and maintenance of a buildings over its lifetime could be significant. According to the Guidelines for Life Cycle Cost Analysis published by Standard University (Davis, Coony, Gould, & Daly, 2005, p. 3), the operation and maintenance cost for Gates Computer Science Building took up 42% in a 30year LCC calculation model. Gupta Yash P. (1983) also mentioned in his conference paper "Life Cycle Cost Models and Associated Uncertainties" (pp. 535 549), that approximately 75% of the life cycle cost of an asset is related to the operation and maintenance phase As a result, an optimisation of life cycle cost is critical to making an economically beneficial decision.

Figure 68 LCC analysis by Standard University(2005)

The first reported use of LCC dated back to 1930s when the US General Accounting Office purchased tractors and studied its operating and maintenance costs, way before the idea and methodology or even the name of LCC were developed (Gluch & Baumann, 2004) (Hoogmartens, Passel, Acker, & Dubois, 2014) (Toniolo, Tosato, Gambaro, & Ren, 2020). However, it was only until mid 1960s that the idea of LCC was used by the US Department of Defence for the acquisition of military equipment, and then another 20 years passed until attempts were made to adapt LCC to building investments (Gluch & Baumann, 2004) (Toniolo, Tosato, Gambaro, & Ren, 2020) According to (Gluch & Baumann, 2004), all the way until around early 2000s that researchers started to carry out research that aimed at developing LCC methodology for the construction industry and placing LCC in an environmental context. Examples are Abraham and Dickinson's study on the disposal cost of a building in 1998 (Disposal Costs for Environmentally Regulated Facilities: LCC Approach, 1998) and Sterner’s study on the total energy costs for buildings in 2002 (Green Procurement of Buildings: Estimation of life cycle cost and environmental impact, 2002) Even in 2000, Aye et al (2000) used LCC to analyse a range of property and construction options for a commercial office building in Melbourne, Australia, including the comparison between rebuilding and renovating

HARMONISING ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

Recently, LCC studies in combination with LCA has been emerging, especially being used on the construction industry. For example, Schmidt and Crawford (2017) developed a framework for the integrated optimization of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and cost of buildings. Balasbaneh et al. (2018) analysed the choice of different hybrid timber structures for low medium cost single story residential buildings. In 2017, J. H. Miah et al investigated the integration of LCA and LCC and created a novel hybridised framework after a comparison of 6 integrated method critically selected and reviewed from 333 articles (A hybridised framework combining integrated methods for environmental Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing, 2017).

It is essential to align LCA and LCC analysis, when the goal is to create a comprehensive analysis that account for different actors, which is the intention of this thesis. Therefore, it is important to determine the similarities and differences of the two. J. H. Miah et al. proposed the following differences:

Table7 DifferencesbetweenLCCandLCA(Miah,Koh,&Stone,2017)

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

Main differences could be spotted to be

1) a mono unit flow in LCC (currency) compared to a multi unit flow in LCA (kg or kWh for mass or energy etc.), 2) cashflow in LCC is time dependent and often reflected by several discount/escalation factors, compared to that in LCA are mostly independent to time.

While these are elemental discrepancies due to the difference in nature in the impact components since costs are not natural science figures but perceived values, the ground of the LCC studies should be laid down in a similar manner to the LCA studies. The concept of Environmental Life Cycle Cost (ELCC) was proposed by Swarr Thomas E. et al., on behalf of the SETAC LCC Task Force (Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry). A Code of Practice was published by SETAC in 2011 after almost 8 years of work (Swarr, et al., 2011) The framework was further explained on the LCA XI conference in October 2011 by Ciroth et al., on behalf of GreenDelta, an independent sustainability consulting and software company located in Berlin, Germany which developed openLCA, a leading LCA software. The ultimate aim of the framework of ELCC is to build upon the existing international standard ISO 14040 and align with the current LCA practice so, for example, the Goal and scope, LCI and LCIA; interpretation etc. would be in a comparable manner and equivalent to that in LCA, in order to create a consistent study result (Ciroth, Hunkeler, Klöpffer, Swarr, & Pesonen, 2011).

Even though different international standard organisations have laid the ground for both LCA and LCC quite long ago,

1. ISO published the first edition of 14040 Principles and framework; and 14044 Requirements and guidelines in 1997 and 2006 respectively for LCA, and

2. 15686 5 Service life planning Part 5: Lifecycle costing in 2008 for LCC, while

3. IEC published 60300 3 3 Dependability management Part 3: Application guide Section 3: Life cycle costing in 1996, the development of LCC framework is still in an early phase comparing to LCA, and a full integration of LCA and LCC is still being developed.

ADVANTAGES OF THE LCC APPROACH

The typical use of LCC includes,

1. Evaluation of different investment scenarios, adapt or redevelop,

2. Evaluation of alternative designs,

3. Estimation of future cost for budgetary purposes.

For example, the debate between adaptive reuse and redevelopment could have different result, depending on the scope of economic consideration. The main discrepancy between the two lies onto the big difference in initial acquisition investment in the beginning of the project, large amount of capital can be saved by reusing the existing structural elements. On the other hand, A redevelopment with the options of

utilising state of the art construction technology and more up to date simulations could bring down energy consumption to minimal. However, the initial investment on its own cannot show the whole picture of the performance of the building through its lifetime. Therefore, the scope of economic evaluation should cover the whole lifetime of the building, from planning until the end of life. The concept of Life Cycle Cost is then critical to reflect the true cost behind the scenarios.

The same idea goes to the comparison between alternatives, and is essential to evaluate the business case. Different building typologies can be made based on the same type of building acquisition, in spite of it being a renovation, adaptive reuse or redevelopment. However, the target group of user and their behaviours, the generated income characterised by the typology, and the subsequent maintenance level and utilities consumption could be different. In the long run, the cumualtive cashflow could be significant and could possibiliy overthrow the decision made based on only initial investment.

In addition, LCC is also useful for determining a thorough budget plan by including forecasted maintenance and replacement. Since the LCC reviews all the cash inflow or outflow in a time dependent matter, the amount and the period of time of each financial incident will be presented in the analysis result. A timely future expenditure pattern as well as the total cost could be illustrated and help investors to evaluate the financial capability or arrange capital accordingly.

1.5.3 CHANGE OF BUSINESS MODEL IN ADAPTIVE REUSE CASES

In the construction industry, the normal cooperation procedure would include a design proposal provided by a collaboration between project owner and the architect and being brought to the tendering process. Contractors of different disciplines and other parties will then be selected through the tendering process, according to the quotation price or the fulfilment to other client requirements.

The procedure could be considered one directional and top down. Verification and detailing of materials and construction methods rely on the contractors and the influence of the architects on the choice of material is lessened. In case of a preference of using reuse/recycling material, or in other ways applying Circular Economy thinking, a high demand of decision making would be put on the project owner or the architect. Another form of cooperation procedure is then proposed in the Figure 71

Figure70 Proceduresofnormalconstructioncooperation

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

As seen from Figure 71, a large part of information exchange happens before the tendering part, since materials in this case might not have standardised properties compared to normal factory made mass produced products. Therefore, an extra set of professionals such as Pre demolitionAuditor, ReuseExpert, Deconstructorand ReclamationDealerwould have to be involved in the process, and an extra process of communication between these professionals and the ProjectOwnerand Architectwould be necessary to secure available materials and to discuss the possibilities of incorporating them. There are also additional responsibilities for the original stakeholders, circled with a dotted line, in order to complete a CE thinking construction design process.

Figure71 ProceduresofconstructioncooperationthatincorporatesCEthinking

IN CASE OF USING REUSED/RECYCLED MATERIAL

Ideally, an already established material stock/bank would be readily in use in the market, and designers could choose among materials in the same way as choosing materials from a factory catalogue And a Reclamation Dealer would be handling all the related procedures, for example,

• Buying and reselling

• Sorting, cleaning, packaging, and transportation

• Ensuring the aesthetical homogeneity of reclaimed of batches

• Prescribing and performing tests to evaluate technical performances

• Documenting material performances and specifications

The Project Owner and Architect would then need to examine the possibilities of incorporating these reuse/recycled materials. A resource based design thinking is then critical in making decisions in this case, since the variety of product would be limited, as well as their properties. In some cases, a material manufacturer would also recycle their own products and resell, the responsibilities of quality assurance and documentation would then be on the materialmanufacturerinstead of an external ReclamationDealer.

IN CASE OF REUSING DECONSTRUCTED BUILDING MATERIAL

When a project includes demolition of an existing building and follow by a redevelopment, a CE thinking construction design process would include a set of actions before the demolition. The extra procedures include a pre demolition audit which quantifies the reclaimable materials prior to deconstruction. Their amount, typology, quality should be looked at and recorded, so the usage of each reclaimed materials could be designated accordingly For example, the amount of materials reclaimed highly influence the unit price for recycling, and materials with different shapes and sizes could be either reused directly or repurposed. This would be determined by a ReuseExpert, and a proper communication between that and a specialiseddeconstructoris essential to ensure all the reclaimable materials will be carefully extracted, sorted, and stored. Follow up tests and validations should be carried out to ensure technical properties and aesthetical homogeneity.

In general, extra effort is needed to achieve a CE thinking construction design process, even for the original stakeholders such as contractorand technicalcontroller, in order to ensure that the performance of such materials matches with the expectations and meet the requirements from project specifications and national regulations, since they tend to have a higher uncertainty compared to normal factory made mass produced products. It can be imagined that inclusion of such additional steps would incur additional cost. It is then important to oversee the overall budget and determine whether such a business model would be financially viable. An LCC approach will be useful in visualising all the arouse costs and provide a perspective. In this thesis, the possibilities of a transformation case study will be examined, and the economic sustainability will be discussed.

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

AVAILABLE RESOURCES

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

2.1 DESIGN PROBLEM ANALYSIS

2.1.1 ARCHITECTURAL LANGUAGE OF COPENHAGEN

Copenhagen is one of the greenest cities, the world's best city for cycling, and a city with a very high quality of life for residents and visitors alike. The city is very compact and diverse, where every neighbourhood has its special character and pulse. And that is exactly what the architecture policy is aiming to support and promote (Københavns Kommune, 2021). Despite all the positivity, Copenhagen is facing several big challenges over the coming years. The fast growth of population, as more and more people want to move into the city and use its limited area. The city also needs to adapt to deal with more cloudbursts and become CO2 neutral by 2050. The new building policy aims to enhance the quality of the city's buildings, green areas, and other public spaces and improve the quality of life for everyone. The new Copenhagen policy is called Architecture for people. It is important to put people first, have in mind the human scale and accommodate all human senses and needs. (Vihelm Lauritzen Architects, 2016).

Before designing an individual building, the architecture policy insists on considering urban life and urban space, to create a setting for collective as well as individual needs. While designing residential areas it is crucial to realize that no matter who we are, we have the same basic needs. We need to sleep, and eat, we need light, we have days when we need to be alone and when we need to be together. But we also differ in individual needs such as different lifestyles, use of public spaces, and where and when meet others. The architecture design therefore should focus on providing settings for the community we are all part of as well as making room for diversity and individual needs now and in the future. Architecture should encourage eye contact between the people inside the buildings and other people outside. Jan Gehl said in his book Making Cities for People: “Peopleexperiencethecityateyelevel.We useoursenses:ourearsandnosesandespeciallyoureyes.Thatiswhyweneedcitiesthat stimulate our senses with a wide variety of sensory impressions, a rich stock of tactile experiences from different materials and a human scale where we can hear and, most importantly,seeeachother.” (Gehl, Cities for people, 2010)

Figure72 Copenhagen,photo:MartinHeiberg

Homes with comfortable indoor climate, good access to daylight and effective noise reduction improve the resident’s health and well being. Also, areas with a high degree of diversity are the foundation of urban life. In addition, according to Danish Nature Agency 2013 and attractive commercial life with many different shops can increase the value of homes by up to 30 %. A nearby park can boost the value of homes by up to 10%. (Vihelm Lauritzen Architects, 2016)

Aim of architectural projects is to come up with the right idea or concept for the specific place where the project is to be implemented. Districts have individual character with special features and local narratives, and it requires architect’s attention while designing new buildings or transforming old ones. Public spaces should be created as the natural extension of our homes where we can be outside all year around. The public space is complemented by the city's private spaces, particularly courtyard gardens which provide a secure setting for neighbourliness and social activities. To save resources, as the population is growing, it is necessary to rethink ways of living and being closer together. The space needs to be used more efficiently, for example by introducing multi functional solutions that meet many needs at the same time or at different times throughout the day. The design and layout of developments, buildings and public spaces should minimize the consumption of resources needed. We shouldn’t be afraid of experimenting and finding new ways of doing things, so even better, sustainable and resource – conscious city is created.

Figure73 NordrefælledKvarteret,ONVarkitekter(ONVarkitekter,n.d.)

Figure74 UpcycleStudios,LendagerGroup (LendagerGroup,n.d.)

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

Circular economy in the construction history should be supported by incorporating the circulation of resources into the architecture. Flexible architectural solutions in which buildings and public spaces are designed so they can be adapted to new functions and needs over time.

URBAN ANALYSIS BASED ON LOCAL PLAN

Nørrebro neighbourhood is known as the most multicultural and full of life part of Copenhagen. It is located north of the city centre and is easily accessible. Big number of different cafes and pubs are attracting mixed types of people, and especially students. Housing options consist primarily of cooperative housing, owner occupied apartments and state subsidized housing association apartments. This mix is making area attractive and affordable for most of the people.

Figure75 Haraldsgadekvarteret

Northern part of Nørrebro is undergoing a lot of transformation and has more to come. The area renewal will ensure that the neighbourhood socially, physically, and culturally develops and moves away from the status of exposed urban area. The outer Nørrebro offers both relics from 20th century’s large industrial workplaces, mixed architecture, several large industrial institutions, and housing. For example, the Titan factory was the largest manufacturer of electrical machines and plants at the time. As the area was developing and a lot of factories and the industries moved out, the place has become a new home for number of large educational institutions, including the University of Copenhagen and the Copenhagen Professional High School.

In comparison to Copenhagen that has rapidly developed over the last 20 years, the Haraldsgade district together with other neighbourhoods in the city has developed slowly and, in some areas, had even negative development. The neighbourhood’s residents have a lower average income compared to the rest of Copenhagen, unemployment is higher and the level of education lower (Københavns Kommune, 2021). New local plan is promising to focus on urban spaces and greening the area, but also on culture, health, and communities, as well as creating a foundation for better life changes and better education for children and young people in local area.

The Haraldsgadekvarteret is perceived to be the area bounded by 4 main roads Tagensvej on the west, Jagtvej on the south, Lersø Parkallé on the east and the S train track on the north.

According to the latest renovation plan “The Neighbourhood Plan is Created Area renewal at Skjolds Plads (2021 2026)”, 4 areas of improvement are considered: 1. Active City Space (Aktive Byrum), 2. Green and contiguous neighbourhood (Grønt og Sammenhængende Kvarter), 3. Towards Education (På vej mod uddannelse), 4. Culture, health, and communities (Kultur, sundhed og fællesskaber) (Københavns Kommune, 2021).

Because of its industrialized background, the area is surrounded by oversized road profiles, and it contains few public spaces and green areas. These major roads surrounding the neighbourhood became barriers and residents found it being disconnected with the rest of the city. The high-speed cars passing through major roads also increased insecurity in traffic to residents.

It is also pointed out that recreational spaces for example parks, ball courts or street sports related facilities should be developed in order to invite residents to meet, stay or move around the area. This especially focuses on bringing together children and youngsters. In addition to recreation, education is also highlighted. Facilities to promote better connection and motivation towards education for youngsters are also included in the plan.

Lastly, a good cultural identity of the area should be unveiled and creates a sense of belonging of residents. Cultural facilities are presented in the area but not visible, and activities are scattered. It is proposed to open existing cultural providers, to make the activities visible and to build up communities. (Center for Byudvikling, 2019)

Figure76 TheHaraldsgadekvartet

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design,

2.1.2 VERMUNDSGADE 5

HISTORY

and economic impact

The initial purpose of the building was a machine factory. K.A. Hartmann’s factory was built in 1934. Two story building, built with reinforced concrete column and beam system, with ribbed slabs on each floor, and wooden truss for the roof structure. During the Second World War there was a sabotage on the building. An explosive was placed in the middle of the production hall. The explosion destroyed furniture, electrical installation, and exterior brick walls, as well as several apartments nearby. In 1947 reinforced concrete was renovated and soon after that, in 1949, one story additional building with basement area were added. Part of it was serving as storage and the rest as additional space for the factory.

As the factory was growing, building also needed an extension. In 1952 an additional floor was added over the main part of the building and new external staircase was constructed on the southern part of the façade. In 1977 the annexed building was expanded and transformed into office building, following that, in 1989 the main building was transformed into office building as well. Latest major changes were done in 1997 when external façade of the main building was cladded with aluminium panels.

Figure78 Vermundsgade5timeline(continuesthenextpage)

Figure77 ViewontheVermundsgadestreetin1936(Dingeo.dk,n.d.)

After all alterations, Vermundsgade 5 (parcel number 5657) now consists of one 3 storey building (Main Building) and one 1 storey building (Annex Building) which were built in 1934 and 1977 respectively. The total footprint area is 2140 m² including the two buildings and the courtyard. The Main Building has a built area of 813 m² and a total GFA of 2439 m², while the Canteen Building has a built area of 716 m². As a result, the overall built percentage (Bebyggelsesprocenten) of Vermundsgade 5 is (2439+716)/2140 = 147%.

USE OF THE BUILDING

This thesis has followed all the available drawings from different times and has modelled the existing building at its as built state as accurate as possible. According to the documentations, the latest major structural change happened in 1952, which an extra floor was added on top of the main building, and in 1977 the annex building was rebuilt to be one single storey office. Most recent renovation, according to our site visit, was carried out approximately 2 3 years ago (2019 2020). Therefore, the as built state was taken to be structurally the same as what was shown on archived drawings, but the interior layouts are according to the actual status.

Currently, the building is occupied by Hans Knudsen Institute (HKI), a non profit organization that is helping people with special needs to integrate with the society. It includes an order producing workshop of cardboard and packaging production for people with significant limitation in their ability to function, an education centre for youth people with special needs. This constitutes to Vermundsgade 5 being of 40% office use, 25% educational use, 25% workshop use and 10% canteen use.

Figure79 HKILogo

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

STRUCTURE OF THE BUILDING

The main building has a concrete reinforced frame with concrete foundations. In situ concrete is used for load bearing elements except for the roof, where wooden trusses can be found.

The exterior of the building is covered with mineral wool insulation, façade substructure and cladded with Eternit cement fibre board and lacquered aluminium plate on top.

The annex building is also constructed with reinforced concrete, including the interior and exterior walls and the roof.

Two sides of the Canteen Building are connected to the neighbouring buildings, so only other two sides are open to exterior. One of them is cladded with wooden plinths and the other one is cladded with bricks. The built up roof is covered with insulation, screeding, water proofing and roofing felt.

TOXIC MATERIALS

Additional consideration for any alterations to the building is the layer of Eternit (cement fibre board) in the façade. According to the Energy Label Report and archival drawings of the building, there are existing Eternit panels in the façade, behind the layer of aluminium cladding. Eternit is an alternative name for cement fibre board, which is a composite material made of cement and cellulose fibres that exhibits excellent durability, moisture absorbency and thermal properties. However, Eternit or in general cement fibre board is considered to consist of asbestos before the EU wide banning came out in 1999 and was fully in force in 2005 (The European Commission, 1999).

According to an interview with Anders Holte, CEO of Eternit Switzerland since 1990, by Maria Roselli, an investigative journalist for asbestos issues, migration, and economic development from The European Trade Union Institute (ETUI), in her publication (The asbestos lie. The past and present of an industrial catastrophe, 2020), Eternit stopped using any asbestos in their production in 1990. Also, according to the Danish Working Environment Authority (WEA), asbestos can still be found in buildings built before 1989 (Beskyt jer mod asbest, 2020)

Figure80 Structuralsystemofthemainbuilding

Figure81 Explodedfacadesystem

Since the building was constructed before 1990, there is a high chance that they contain asbestos. Though according to DinGeo, a public geodata source, the building is assessed by a Machine Learning algorithm developed by Niras to have no risk of asbestos (Dingeo.dk ApS, 2022). However, it is advised to consider the material being asbestos containing when in doubt, and in case of finding some, extra standardized procedures must be taken in handling asbestos containing materials according to WEA. (Arbejdstilsynet, 2019)

Basic rules include not allowing the reuse and recycling of asbestos containing material. This means that in case of any alteration of the asbestos containing layer, the material considered to be asbestos containing must be disposed of, regardless of the scale of the works or whether the material would stay intact, and the possibility of any asbestos being exposed.

This brings extra consideration in determining alterations because if any change is to be made to the exterior walls, the Eternit panels must be taken down completely. The outer façade panel thus also need to be first removed, and then reinstalled after the cleaning of Eternit panels. However, the Eternit panels can stay in the same position in do nothing scenario, if no action would be done to the Eternit layer.

ENERGY PERFORMANCE

In 2015, an energy labelling audit was carried out by The Danish Energy Agency (Energistyrelsen) for Vermundsgade 5 and the Energy Label Report #311213116 was published with the measured and calculated energy consumption of the auditing year, and a list of potential improvements for the building that is valid between November 2016 to November 2026.

Figure82 Recommendedsafetyprocedureswhenhandlingasbestos(TheDanishWorkingEnvironment Authority,2020)

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

Since its introduction in 1998, the scheme has been used to classify buildings on a from scale A to G and was further extended to class A2010 (former class A), A2015 and A2020 in 2008 after passing a new energy agreement. The official thresholds for each class are shown below.

Table8 ThresholdsandaverageenergyconsumptionofDanishEnergyLabel(NæssSchmidt,Heebøll,& Fredslund,2015)

Table9 ThresholdsofEnergyLabelClassA2015andA2020

Class A2015 Class A2020

Residential building 30.0 kWh + 1000/A [kWh/m². year] 20.0 kWh [kWh/m². year]

Non residential building 41.0 kWh + 1000/A [kWh/m². year] 25.0 kWh [kWh/m². year]

Besides grading the building’s energy performance, Energy Label Report also proposes potential energy saving actions and accesses their financial viabilities. Financial viability is the indicator telling whether the annual monetary saving times the lifetime of the improvement could exceed 1.33x of the investment cost, which is also equivalent to a payback period of 3/4 of the lifetime. It is mandatory to carry out any improvement that is financially viable, or the lack of financial viability must otherwise be proven. (BR18, §274 275.)

In the Energy Label Report #311213116 prepared for Vermundsgade 5, the building was calculated to have an annual heating consumption of 264.94 MWh by district heating and 58,994 kWh by electricity and correspond to a cost of 241,604 DKK and 117,988 DKK per year and a total CO2 emission of 76.33 ton. This put the building at energy label class D.

The energy saving proposals are presented with the amount of investment and the annual saving in CO2 tonnage, energy consumption and the associated electricity and heating bills. It can be seen from the report that the most suggested option is to improve the insulation of the building. Since the building is built from long time ago, even the last major renovation came in 33 years ago or 26 years at the time when the Energy Labelling was carried out (1989), most of the building envelop no longer match the thermal insulating property required in the updated Building Regulation.

Improving the thermal envelope and thus the energy performance has been under consideration by the team when studying the possibility of transformation, and since it matches with the recommendations by the Energy Label Report, the recommended changes were incorporated in the analysis of environment and economic sustainability.

2.2 SELECTION OF USED TOOLS

Number of diverse tools are used in this study to evaluate different characteristics of the building. At the same time, it serves the purpose of testing available tools and evaluate their robustness. To kick start the analysis, after understanding the background of the building, the study of the transformation potential of the building is the most prioritised.

As seen in Table3 - Scope of applicationassociated with different subcategories of building refurbishment and adaptive reuse , there are many ways to go about transformation projects, depending on the requirements, aims of the projects, possibilities, etc. However, not all buildings are suitable for different kinds of uses. To address this issue, an analysis is needed to evaluate the buildings appropriateness for the aimed use. There is no standardised approach to this, unfortunately, but different tools are developed over the years. In our case, two tools were chosen for the analysis and the assessment of the appropriateness of a transformation project for Vermundsgade 5 is made using them.

2.2.1

TRANSFORMATION POTENTIAL TOOL (TPT)

A previous bachelor thesis completed by former DTU student Maria Wiksell Tram in collaboration with Arkitema Architects, investigated the possibility to measure and visualise an existing building’s transformation potential into different building typologies. A measuring metric named Transformation Potential Tool (TPT) was formulated in the form of an excel sheet. (Design of a method for assessing and visualize transformation potential of existing buildings in the circular economy Case : The PFA Dorm in Aalborg by Arkitema Architects, 2020)

The purpose of TPT is to assess a building’s potential to transform into another function by obtaining a sustainable design based on a circular life cycle approach (Tram, 2020). This idea came from the case study project from Arkitema Architects in Aalborg, where encompasses the idea of developing and designing a method for assessing and visualising the transformation potential of a building, aiding the planning of urban development, and helping remain the buildings within the circular loop. In another way, this tool helps backing the Circular Economy thinking decisions, so that potential buildings could stay within the cycle and prolong their lifetime. This development targets at a municipality level, and it is made for aiding municipalities as a client with urban planning in the early phase with the focus on exploring the existing building stocks.

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

METHODS

The ideology of how to evaluate transformation potential has been developing for a long time, different scholars have proposed methods and criteria in order to achieve a fair assessment. After an extensive literature review, the main structure of TPT was decided to follow the transformation criteria defined by Dr. Elma Durmisevic in her book “Green design and assemblyofbuildingsandsystems:DesignforDisassemblyakeytoLifeCycleDesignof buildingsandbuildingproducts” published in 2009 (Durmisevic, 2016, p. 95), which was a preceding work from her proposed three dimensions of building transformation in her doctoral thesis in TU Delft. (Transformable building structures: Design for dissassembly as a way to introduce sustainable engineering to building design & construction, 2006)

The four main indicators are 1) Dimension, 2) Position, 3) Disassembly and 4) Capacity, and they are considered to belong to the two dimensions: SpatialTransformationand Technical Transformationrespectively.

Figure83 The4mainindicatorsunderspatialandtechnicaltransformation(Tram,2020)

These 4 indicators address the capacity of building to accommodate different spatial configurations and their impact on technical characteristics, however, the structural transformation and their reuse potential should be assessed separately. (Durmisevic, 2016)

STRUCTURE

The transformation assessment is considered an extension of the existing building preservation with SAVE method, since the goal is also to rate and classify the buildings with a scale, so to make it possible to decide on which building to be kept in the building stock and on the other side be demolished. As a result, it was decided to align the transformation potential index with the SAVE framework: a scale from 1 9 with 1 being the highest preservation value a building can obtain. By adapting an existing framework in the similar and connected field, it could be more convenient for the target users to use the newly proposed measuring metric.

TRUSTWORTHINESS

Spreading among 4 categories (main indicators), there are 57 criteria in total. Though the numbers of criteria are not evenly distributed, it is possible to adjust the weighting of each according to the focus of the study. These criteria are inspired by nationally or internationally recognized guidelines and standards, for example, SBI, BBR and DGNB. The report “Klimapåvirkningfra60bygninger MulighederforudformningafreferenceværdiertilLCAfor bygninger” (Zimmermann, Andersen, Kanafani, & Birgisdóttir, 2020) was referred to obtain reference values for comparing GWP and for the consideration period. Data from BBR was also used as reference values in relation to dimensions such as corridor width, free passage width, elevators, distance to parking lots etc (Tram, 2020) By obtaining professionally recognized average values, and verified standard values and calculation metrics, TPT was made with high credibility and robustness in evaluating different scenarios.

SCOPE

TPT is designed for and tested with 3 scenarios (3 building typologies), 1) office, 2) multi storey, 3) education. This decision is made based on the consideration of these 3 building typologies, being able to cover a wide variety of building typologies today. Although a more robust tool should be made and tested in the future development to cover as many building typologies as possible, TPT is a perfect fit for our study since our focuses are the same as the 3 included scenarios.

COVERAGE

For all 3 scenarios, different criteria are evaluated with different benchmark values. Regardless, a wide range of properties are examined. For example, the structural dimensions such as room height and building depth, the distance between technical shafts are measured to determine the flexibility of the layout; the distance to external facilities, and the relative distance of internal are measured to determine the positioning; the level of DfD and possibilities of reusing materials for measuring disassembly; and the possibilities to extend spatial and service for measuring capacity.

Figure84 TheSAVEpreservationvaluescale(Kulturministeriet,Kulturarvsstyrelsen,2011)

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

Dimension Disassembly

Free room height, building depth, distance between shafts, flexible floor plans and the possibility of the building type for differentiated use.

External environmental factors such as storm, noise etc., traffic connections, access to facilities. Internal positioning such as the influence on vertical access and daylight performance, load bearing characteristics.

Level of DfD, accessibility and adaptability of the building’s technical installations, spare service life of elements, possibilities to reuse elements

Spatial efficiency, possibility to extend building services, possibilities to extend the use of rooms

Position Capacity

Figure85 CoverageofTPT

CONCLUSION

After all, TPT easy to use and the automated calculation with pre set equations and colour coded result visualisation are comprehensive. The result is therefore easy to be understood. TPT fits our study case, and therefore it is used as a major evaluation tool in terms of transformation potential. Further development and testing are undoubtedly needed to sharpen the tool, and it would be useful to broaden the possible use case. Nonetheless, TPT provides good insight on the possibilities of transformation.

2.2.2 THE CONVERSION METER

Another tool that has been used for assessing transformation potential is Conversion Meter. Initially known as the Transformation Meter, tool was developed at Delft University of Technology by Geraedts and Van der Voordt. On contrary to previous tool, Conversion meter addresses only vacant office buildings and their potential conversion to residential use. The first version of the tool was developed in late 1990s when the Netherlands suffered from high level of office vacancy. Later, after several iteration and reviews tool got its latest appearance.

STRUCTURE

The following description is provided based on the publication Building Resilience through Change of Use (Wilkinson & Remøy, 2018). Analyses are divided in number of steps, from more peripheral to more detailed and specific, as could be seen in

Figure86 Conversionmeterprocess,(Wilkinson&Remøy,2018)

• Initial PRE STEP ZERO includes an inventory of the market supply of office buildings in a particular municipality, area, or portfolio. It includes placed that have been unoccupied for a long time or may be expected to become vacant soon

• STEP ONE incorporates a quick scan approach that doesn’t require many data. If six veto criteria under headings Market,Stakeholders,Location,andBuildings are not being satisfied, the residential conversion option will be rejected and therefore further detailed study is not necessary.

• STEP TWO continues when no veto criteria has been confirmed (no single question is answered “No”) in step one. More detailed study is carried out by assessing several gradual criteria: criteria do not lead to a go/no go decision but express the conversion potential of the building and its location through numerical score. The feasibility scan is provided on location and building level and has substantial number of sub criteria. They are subdivided into functional, cultural, legal, and technical aspects respectively. A “yes” answer indicates higher suitability for conversion. Author mentions that some

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

criteria may somewhat vary depending on the target group considered. For example, students prefer to live closer to the city centre with more night life, while young families with children tend to opt for a peaceful suburban environment.

• STEP THREE incudes the evaluation and score calcaulation when buidling then can be assigned to one of five conversion classes ranging from „No transformation potential“ to „Excelent transformation potential“. Results may lead to a no go decision or to further refinemnt of the feasibility study in two subsequent phases. A total number of „yes“ answers are multiplied by weightning factor that has been choosen as 5 for the location and 3 for the buidling, to stress out the importance od buidling placement.

Figure87 Exampleofdeterminationofconversionpotentialclassofofficebuilding,(Wilkinson&Remøy,2018).

• STEP FOUR is financial feasibility scan based on the key features regarding cots of conversion and revenues from rental income. It is not a complete LCC (life cycle cost) analyses but, among other things, it depends on acquisition costs, current condition of the buildings, amount of modification work required, the number of extra dwelling units that can be created in the building and the project yield by rental income and/or sales prices. Possible layouts of the building after conversion are being sketched to get a number and types of dwellings that can be incorporated in the building. Financial feasibility of the building could be increased through additional number of floors, horizontal extension, or inclusion of commercial functions, usually at the ground floor.

A part of this step is a residual value approach to adaptive reuse. It resides of three steps:

• The potential yield of the new use is calculated

• The costs for the building adaptation are determined

• The residual value results from the yield minus the costs calculation

It can be performed on different potential new uses, when results will help to decide on the “highest and best use” of adaptive reuse.

• STEP FIVE outline possible risks and ways how to mitigate them. Author provides an example of risk assessment list with possible solutions at market and

TRUSTWORTHINESS AND COVERAGE

Spreading across 3 groups of categories: Veto Criteria, Building and Location related criteria, there are 62 indicators in total. Table 10 Distribution of indicators across categories. Eventhough the numbers of indicators are not evenly distributed, it is possible to adjust the weightning depending on the focus of the study.

Table10 Distributionofindicatorsacrosscategories

1.Veto criteria

2.Buidling

Aspect Number of indicators

Market 1 Stakeholders 6 Location 2 Building 1 total 10

functional 9 technical 9 cultural

legal

total 29

3.Location functional 15 cultural 6 legal 2 total 23

Initial weightning is set to 3 for Building related indicators and to 5 for Location, to stress out its importance. Indicators were developed based on detailed literature review and interviews in Netherlands with diverse range of parties involved. Especially it was important for the Veto criteria which has to be fulfiled in any case. For example Veto criterion-Building adresses the free ceiling height which could not be less then 2,6 m. That is crucial measurement because according to regulations it is the minimal free height for residential buidlings. The checklist was tested then in case studies in Rotterdam and after that it was furthered refined to achieve transparancy and credibility.

CONCLUSION

One could say that on the first glance the tool is not detailed enough and due to number of qualitative indicators, outcome will vary based on the evaluator. The Conversion Meter is an easy to use tool, and it could be handy as a quick check for transformation potential of office building as it is also visually appropriate and straightforward in use. Although the final decision should be made on more detailed evaluation and potentially combination with other tool.

The main difference between tools is that Conversion Meter analyses only possible transformation of office buildings in residential and therefore it is very use specific. TPT can be seen as more flexible as it covers transformation of any existing use into 3 possible typologies (office, multistorey, education). Looking at the number of indicators, it can be said that Conversion Meter has more detailed approach on assessing the potential. Transformation into residential use is evaluated based on 62 indicators in total. While TPT assesses

AVAILABLE RESOURCES 87 TOOLS COMPARISON

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

transformation into 3 different scenarios based on 57 indicators, Conversion Meter assesses one scenario based on 62 indicators

It could be concluded that one tool is developed more deeply, another one is developed more widely. Thus, a direct comparison is not fair. However, they are both considered new approaches and the development is in the beginning, compared to other well established tools. Since they are both useful in this study, it indicates the high need of developing a tool to measure transformation potential in both deep and wide dimension

2.2.3 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT

STRUCTURE

Following the beforementioned ISO 14040, LCA has several stages (Figure 88), which are always done in iterations to improve the accuracy of the analysis to the desired level. This thesis follows the main principles of this standard, as well as the other relevant ones presented below.

Figure89

Figure88

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

Alongside the ISO 14040 standard, which covers LCA in a general manner, there are several other standards developed in order to cover the field of construction industry. In 2004, a mandate was given for “the development of horizontal standardized methods for the assessment of the integrated environmental performance of building” (European Commission). Technical committee CEN/TC 350 was founded that started working on this. On the Figure 90 there is work programme of the committee as of 2021. The committee has six working groups and one subcommittee, and it currently has 12 published standards, with more in a draft state or waiting for approval. Furthermore, it is also serving as an advisor to other committees regarding horizontal implementation of EN 15804 (EPDs) (CEN, 2022). The LCA done follows standards from this framework, more particularly EN 15978 regarding the workflow of the analysis. The flowchart is visible below.

RELIABILITY AND COVERAGE

Another important specific of the building related LCA is the already mentioned EPD, which, as the title states, stands for Environmental Product Declaration. As stated in EN 15804 (2012), an EPD “communicates verifiable, accurate, non misleading, environmental information for products and their applications, thereby supporting scientifically based, fair choices and stimulating the potential for market driven continuous environmental improvement”.

EN 15978 (2011) deals with this matter in its Chapter 10. Following that, all the possible information that could be provided in an EPD are listed as follows:

a) The product stage alone, which includes modules A1 to A3. This is mandatory for all the EPDs compliant with EN 15804.

b) The product stage and selected further life cycle stages, which includes modules A1 to A3, along with other selected modules based on a scenario.

c) The life cycle of a product, which includes A1 to C4, with modules A4 to C4 based on a scenario.

d) Module D which includes benefits beyond system boundary (reuse, recycling, etc.).

From above mentioned, we can see that there is a wide selection of options, which confirms previously stated complexity when using EPDs on a LCA for a building. To address this, the standard suggests “Where relevant data for the building assessment is missing from an EPD, data may be taken from other sources provided that its relevance and appropriateness can be justified, in which case this shall be documented with reasons explained. Data shall be in line with general principles expressed in EN 15804.” and explains it into detail in the subchapters after. While these are completely viable ways of dealing with it, it increases the complexity of already rather complicated process, along with decreasing the accuracy of the result. LCA done in this thesis follows this principle.

Even though this is one of the burning problems in the LCAs in construction industry, it remains commonly used method in practice, and the sensitivity analysis that was done showed that results do not vary to a great extent upon choosing different EPDs.

The LCA use in this thesis was twofold. Firstly, it was done to evaluate embedded impact values for the existing state, so the best efforts can be made implement those in future scenarios. And secondly, to evaluate the proposed solutions and compare them to control scenarios.

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

2.2.4 SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY

As described in Chapter 1.2 DESIGNING A NEW FUTURE social aspect of sustainability doesn’t have consensus on how to assess and measure it. Some of the reviewed tools are focusing mainly onto urban development and puts aside person related aspects, the other ones focus only on general person wellbeing but disregard its relation to build environment.

After literature research on available tools and group analysing workshops two approaches were selected for further investigation.

ASSESMENT OF SOCIAL PERFORMANCE ACCORING TO SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY TOOL (SST)

The operational model for social sustainability assessment was developed as part of the master thesis project at Technical University of Denmark, at the Department of Civil Engineering, Section for Building Design in 2016 by A.P.Otovic (2016) with contribution of several authors such as Chalmers, KADK, White, Nordic Built and others. The following description of the tool is therefore based documentation provided by A.P. Otovic.

MODEL OF SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY

The model has 5 main themes that are followed by number of criteria further divided into indicators. They derived from theoretical studies along with review of existing tools such as Renobuilt, Telos and DGNB with authors changes. The themes are describes as followed:

Equity/Qualityoflife the criteria within this theme relate to the fundamental needs of people, existential needs, such as the ability to choose and influence your own environment.

Connection/Accessibility theme is focused on the ability of the built environment to strengthen interconnectedness by providing necessary facilities

Prideandsenseofplace adapted from ReBo model, it deals with internal and external opinion and factors (mostly physical) that influences them

Socialcohesion adapted from ReBo model, theme approaches mix/diversity, stability, and networks (as opposed to the physical prerequisites included within connection/accessibility)

Democracy this theme weight user possibilities in communication and participation through the design process

Main theme and criteria were further developed with great number of indicators to support scope and goal of the project. Initially tool was developed with influence of scope of the project transformation of Nordic modernist social housing, but the indicators themselves can be regarded as universal. “Aftertoolrevision,chosenindicatorsdelimitthegeneralscopeofthe model, which can then be adapted to specific projects through judicious selection and weightingofkeyindicators.”(Otovic, 2016)

Selected indicators could perform on the several levels Apartment level, Building level and Neighbourhood level. Tool therefore includes the possibility of positioning the criteria within the context of scale they reflect the most. There is a tendency of criteria to focus on the urban scale and its interfaces, in contrast to level of apartment and building. Although, based on the research, it can be said that it is often in the interfaces between apartment, building and neighbourhood that social sustainability can be most successfully supported. For example, Bjørn and Holek (2014) in their findings favoured interventions on the urban scale, especially the one which improved the structural logic, as they seemed to yield the most tangible results.

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

SELECTION OF INDICATORS

Social sustainability often operates with semi quantitative or qualitative data (Otovic, 2016) in contrary to environmental sustainability that is based on quantifiable indicators.

Otovic based selection of indicators on: Research Site visit Stakeholder involvement

Supported by research and inspiration by the MCDM method proposed by Balcomb in connection with the IPD framework by Lohnert, the report recommends that no more than 8 criteria are used, with number of indicators not exceeding 30 to keep complexity at a reasonable level (Otovic, 2016) .

CHARACTERISATION OF INDICATORS

The characterisation of S LCA can include both weighting and scoring of indicators according to Benoit and Mazijin (2009).

For weighting was selected scale from 4-10 with indicators weighting below 4 being deselected from the beginning.

Similarly, a scale of 4 10 is used to score indicators. “A “measurement”scalewasdevelopedforindividualindicators, whichcanbecomparedtothesamequalitative scale. As an example,adaylightfactorof5%inthecentreofroommightbe considered “excellent”, while 1 % might be “marginable acceptable” (Otovic, 2016)

TRUSTWORTHINESS AND COVERAGE

Figure 92 Qualitative scale by Balcomb

Figure 93 Measurement scale fordaylightfactor

Spreading across 5 themes, there are 78 indicators in total. They are not evenly spread across different themes but due to weightning possibilities the importance of selected indicators can be raised with assigning it with weight „10“ (the maximum point). From Table11 - Distribution of indicators across 5 themesn it can be seen that the highest number of indicators are related to Urban connection. That is followed by Freedom of choice and Comfort with Public image respectively.

In the chapter 1.4.3 SOCIAL ASPECTS IN SUSTAINABILITY main principles of social sustainability were described with the key aspects. It can be said that themes and criteria that Otovic has choosen for final vision of his tool are closely related to the mentioned points in Table 6 – Social sustainability, principles, and key aspects,

Many of the indicators were developed based on, or taken from tools such as DGNB, Renobuild or ReBo. That could be seen as a reason to consider the tool being relatively reliable. The great number of indicators allows evaluator make the tool case and location specific and underline the importance of different aspects. On the contrary the high level of flexibility could be chalanging for the justification of the choice of indicators and their weightning.

Another thing that can be mentioned is that author suggests to reduce selection of final indicators practically to half. That decision is not being further developed except stating that „itkeepscomplexityatreasonablelevel“, (Otovic, 2016). One of the reasons for that could be that through reducing number of indicators, the uncertainty of final outcome can be reduced

as well. The more indicators would be selected the more decisions about weighting the score have to be made. In addition to that, the same outcome of the study might be achieved with lower number of indicators. Therefore, there is no reason to spend more time assessing all 78 indicators because final answer will be the same as assessing 30. Those reason are rather theoretical and would need to be developed in further, detailed study to confirm those statements or deny respectively. This brings space for improvement and many additional analyses. Testing tool on number of real world cases would help to find the weaknesses and suggest improvements.

Distributionofindicatorsacross5themes

Themes Criteria

Number of indicators

Affordability 5

Freedom of choice 8 Comfort 6 Health 3 Education 2 Safety/Security 5 total 29 Connection/Ac cessibility

Equity/Quality of life

Transportation 3 Urban connection 11 Disabled access 2 Services/job 4 total 20

Identity of place Public image 6 Resident’s image of area 3 total 9 Social cohesion Social diversity 2 Social networks 4 total 6 Democracy Participation 1 Communications 1 total 8

CONCLUSION

After group discussion it was decided to select this tool for assessing social sustainability of study case. The tool fits to the goal and scope of the study while enabling to assess different building scenarios and selected the best option. In comparison to other available tools, SST covers wide range of aspects that are crucial to social sustainability and offers great number of indicators that can be selected and evaluated in accordance with the specific case. Although, it is importance to mention that choice of indicators and their weight play crucial role in results transparency.

AVAILABLE RESOURCES 95 URBAN CONNECTION connection to the city garbage collection entrances car access to area parking facilities pedestrian plan bike paths meeting places foot traffic to and through area area used by non residents common facilities

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

ASSESSMENT OF SOCIAL PERFORMANCE ACCORDING TO DS_EN 16309 + A1_2014

The European Standard DS_EN 16309+A1_2014 provides specific methods and requirements for the assessment of social performance of a building while considering the buildings functionality and technical characteristics. It applies to both, new and existing buildings.

Purpose of the assessment is defined by the goal, the scope, and the intended use of the assessment and is divided into 6 steps as seen in Figure 94

Figure94 Stepsintheprocessofassessment,EN16309:2014+A1:2014(E)

EVALUATION ASPECTS AND INDICATORS

Existing standard has developed indicators that are only covering use stage B1 to B7 of the life cycle. The assessment of social sustainability shall only be declared for an information module if a scenario is specified. If information module has nothing to declare that shall be stated as Module Not Assessed (MNA).

• Accessibility

This category is assessing provision included in the building to facilitate access to and use of its facilities and building services. It applies to people with additional needs (e.g., disabled people, elderly people, etc.).

• Adaptability

This category assesses the provisions included in the building that allow it to be modified/suitable for possible future change in use or adaptation of its current state. In case of adaptation the specific scenario should be stated.

• Health and comfort

Health and comfort are being assessed through five aspects:

thermal characteristics indoor air quality - acoustics visual comfort spatial characteristics

• Impact on neighbourhood

For this assessment, firstly, the area that is named ‘neighbourhood’ has to be specified on the national level.

For this category following aspects are being considered: noise emissions to outdoor air, soil, and water shocks/vibrations

• Maintenance and maintainability

This aspect is assessing the consequences for users and neighbourhood of maintenance activities that must be provided to keep building in a state in which it can perform its required function. It is assessing frequency and extend of the regular maintenance (including cleaning, repair, replacement, or refurbishment), impact that it may have on building users and neighbourhood. In addition, safety of users and the usability of the building during the maintenance activities are being assessed.

• Safety and security

This category is a measure of the capacity of a building to resist projected current and future loadings, as well as security from criminality and security from disruption of utility supply. This category is a measure of building ability to withstand exceptional events that have a potential impact on safety of its users and occupants, maintain its function and appearance and minimize any disruption.

DATA FOR THE ASSESSMENT

The reliability of the results and their precision depends on the data selection for the assessment. The data used shall represent building in its current state at the time of the assessment.

The choice of the data type depends on: the scope and intended use of the assessment the availability of the information when the object of assessment is assessed within the decision making process (sketch, final design, construction, in use) the significance of the data in relation to the respective aspect and aspect indicators (s) in the study

REPORTING VERIFICATION OF RESULTS

The report is systematic and comprehensive summary of the assessment documentation. The importance is the transparency and traceability of used information and therefore the reporting and communication shall be accurate, relevant, and not misleading or deceptive. The decision making for selecting the information must be presented in transparent manner and any third party must be stated.

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

TRUSTWORTHINESS AND COVERAGE

As this approach is part of European Standard it could be said that information stated are highly reliable. Across 6 indicators many aspects about the building and its technical characteristics are being assets. The description that needs to be provided for each indicator could be considered based only on quantitative data relating to building performance (often based on building regulations and national standards, codes, etc.) therefore the level of subjectivity is close to none. Many indicators require providing technical calculations and/or simulations and therefore third parties might be included.

CONCLUSION

Evaluation according to DS/EN 16309+A1_2014 provides overview of crucial aspects that shall be fulfilled in a successful building design. Although, the standard doesn’t provide quantified benchmark of the performance. It may be prescribed in client’s brief, building regulations, national standards, and codes of practice, etc.

Therefore, it was decided not to use this tool for evaluating the proposed future scenarios, as no grading scale is provided. The standard also, doesn’t assess softer elements of social sustainability such as social relations, social equity and interaction, to name but a few, while those are being considered as crucial for human wellbeing. Yet, the mentioned indicators from the standard were taken into consideration during the design development as a guidance for successful proposal.

2.2.5 LIFE CYCLE COSTING

PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT

Same as in environmental performance, the economic performance of a building should also be observed through its whole lifecycle because of the hidden costs from the initial investment. Without a doubt, being cost effective has always been on the investors’ highest interest in order to sustain a project. However, for a long time the initial cost has been the only factor to determine that and even though the initial investment might contribute to a big amount, the recurring cost from operation of the building could have a significant impact. The application of LCC should be used to uncover the hidden costs and provide an input for a decision making process to rank and choose the financially viable option.

SCOPE

The guidelines from DS/ISO 15686 5:2017 Service life planning, Part 5: Lifecycle costing is being referred to under the context of this project. According to that, the cost to include in LCC analysis should include all basic elements such as structure, building envelope, building services and surface finishes, and the same scope should apply to all alternatives within the study. However, the final system boundary should be determined and agreed with the client and the level of detail should be achieved for the key project stages.

As seen in Figure 95, ISO 15686 5 defines the term WLC (Whole Life Cycle) in comparison to LCC to separate the ‘wider’ costs which include income and externalities, and cost for feasibility study is not included in LCC but WLC.

However, in this study case, the system boundary is extended to also include income and feasibility study, since these are key components when considering the changes among transformation scenarios and especially the building typologies, and because this study focuses on the difference between rebuilding and transformation. The specific system boundary is enclosed with a red bracket on Figure 95.

Feasibility study

Figure95 TypicalscopeofcostsbyDS/ISO156865:2017with casespecificsystemboundaryenclosedinredcolour

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

This system boundary also accommodates another guideline proposed by SETAC (Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry) that introduces the definition of ELCC (Environmental Life Cycle Costing) proposed by Hunkeler et al. in the book Environmental Life Cycle Costing. The difference between ELCC and CLCC (Conventional LCC) is that ELCC also includes revenue across the life cycle (Miah, Koh, & Stone, 2017) The key feature of which is the inclusion of externalities, which is the income in this case.

As a result, the cost to include in this study consists of the followings:

o Investment costs

- Demolition cost

Construction cost

o Operating costs

Utility cost (energy, electricity, water, sewage)

(Potential renting income)

o Maintenance costs

Cleaning Maintenance

Periodic replacement

o End of life costs

Disposal

ANALYSIS SETUP

As proposed by Ciroth et al. in the new book (Life Cycle Costing – a Code of Practice. Key messages and critical evaluation, 2011), which are also produced by the SETAC LCC Task Force, the practice of LCC should align with LCA in order to create a consistent and comparable result. Therefore, in order to achieve this, the Goal & Scope, Life Cycle Inventory are equivalent to that in the LCA study, with the same functional unit and the same lifetime 50 years. However, because of the mono unit nature of the inventory of LCC, which is currency, compared to the multi unit nature of the inventory of LCA, which is a mix of kgCO2, kgCFC11, kgNMVOC etc., the impact analysis and interpretation part of LCC are not identical to LCA but in a similar manner.

In connection with LCA, concept of comparing the economic impact of an environmentally friendly alternative is used. For example, the cost to implement better insulated thermal envelope and the corresponding saving in energy consumption is estimated. Detail approach is presented in Chapter 3.10 LCC.

PROCESS

The LCC analysis is prepared using Sigma Estimates to assemble required price data with the use of Molio Prisdata and calculated with LCCbyg. All three software are Danish made and fit for the Danish construction industry, so the data required for the estimations and the workflows are structured in a manner that accommodate the conventional data arrangement in Denmark. They are renowned in the industry, have a long history of development which brings them a high reliability. The collaborations between them are also, though not perfect, well designed for users.

SIGMA ESTIMATES (7.1.3.11920)

Sigma Estimates is a cost calculation software that handles cost related to construction, while the database is referred externally to Molio Prisdata. In Sigma, customised libraries could be set up according to the project scope with selected items from the price data, and costs could be allocated into categories such as structural/surface finishing/building services etc. Except adapting the price entirely, users can alter the unit price manually with a factor, by changing the amount factor or price factor, which is useful for interpolation of prices that are not available on Molio. In addition, a default equation would also respond to the amount of purchase and adjust the price automatically. This reflects how the market prices work, where a big purchase would usually result in a lower unit price.

One more feature of Sigma is the adjustment of labour price due to geological location of the construction site. Since the case study building, Vermundsgade 5, locates in Copenhagen city centre, the associated price should be the same to the reference price in the database, so the default values are being used.

MOLIO PRISDATA (2022.1)

Molio Prisdata consists of 6 libraries by default, that is 1) Building Services, 2) New Construction – trades, 3) New Construction – Building parts, 4) Renovation – trades, 5) Renovation Building parts and 6) Operations (Figure 97).

Figure96 SoftwareusedforLCCanalysis

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

It is useful to select prices according to the building parts, which is the basic classification and arrangement in Revit, but it is also sometimes very convenient to find prices in the library that arranges price in relation to trades when detail activities are referred to. The separated libraries for new construction and renovation are also very convenient, especially for this study, and detailed price from each library are used for the comparison of scenarios.

Molio Prisdata also contains average construction prices according to the typologies, for example, education, apartment, office etc., and are in the format of price per square meter of usage. The same format goes to also building services and operation activities. Therefore, a full estimation should incorporate amount and size of building components and the respective building typologies in order to reach a complete cost estimation.

For the price of a component, it is arranged following the SfB classification system, and in combination with both material cost and labour cost. This prepares the price to be thorough and easy to transfer to other software such as LCCbyg, due to the common data classification, and the inclusion of necessary elements.

Molio Prisdata is updated every year to make sure prices are up to a most current and realistic level and follow the price development in the area. This study refers to the 2022 version, which is the newest update.

However, Molio Prisdata does not cover 100% of the costs related to construction. For other costs that are unavailable in Molio, for example average deconstruction cost and also rent the built area, multiple online sources are used to sort out a reasonable average price. Details findings is provided in Chapter 3 10 LCC

LCCBYG (3.4.8)

After gathering and sorting the price data in Sigma Estimates and with Molio Prisdata, LCCbyg is used to incorporate all price data, integrate, and calculate the overall expenditure across the lifetime of the building. When a price is transferred from Sigma to LCCbyg, the SfB classification code relates the price data and the LCCbyg item. But since the classification

Figure98 ExampleofMolioPrisdatacomponentsandtheirclassificationcode

code does not reflect the material of the component, which is critical for the estimation of cleaning and replacement cost, another round of mapping is needed to perform.

While the acquisition cost is extracted from Molio Prisdata, the cost of maintenance and replacement are acquired by a pre-set rate, which is a percentage of the acquisition, from LCCbyg depending on the material. The rate of replacement is also given in the programme.

For the cost of cleaning, predefined values in LCCbyg are used instead of Sigma Estimates due to the different units and assumptions. The prices in Sigma Estimates have defined recurrence which differ from activity to activity, and that also would duplicate the default recurrence calculation in LCCbyg.

Since the idea of LCC is to reflect the true expenditure over the whole lifetime, the initial investment and all recurring costs are calculated in compound with discount rates and price development index and summed up together.

Discount rate is the percentage reduction of value of money over time, which is a derived concept from the idea of Time Value of Money (TVM). Since money is assumed to grow over time, a sum of uninvested money is considered to lose its value over time, precisely an opportunity lost. Therefore, a same sum of money in the future would be worth less than now, and discount rate is the tool to reflect this depletion of value. (Fernando, 2021)

LCCbyg allows users to choose between 4 types of discount rates, which are 1) Decreasing real interest rate, 2) Fixed nominal interest rate, 3) Fixed real interested rate and 4) Zero interest rate. The difference of the discount rates is out of the scope of this study, thus it is chosen to use 1) Decreasing real interest rate, since according to the instruction in LCCbyg, this “must be used by public customers”.

On the other side, since prices are changing over time, price development indexes are used along with the discount rate in order to make the estimation close to reality. While in the chosen assumption set the general price development is 0%, meaning no inflation, the price developments for each type of utilities and energy sources are distinctive. The price development indexes for all the operation activities are assigned accordingly. The set of price development assumptions used are listed below,

Figure99 ExampleofLCCbygcomponentwithdefaultmaintenanceandreplacementcalculation

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

STRUCTURE OF THE RESULTS

The result of LCC is reflected by two key figures, namely Net Present Value (NPV) and Residual Value (RV). They express the total cash flow and the worth of the building at that moment of time respectively, through the calculated lifetime, and convert them to match the current monetary value.

As seen in the equations above, NPV is affected by the cash flow, discount (interest) rate, and the number of years. A positive NPV indicates the projected income of the project exceeds the anticipated cost, thus the project is profitable.

Residual Value, also known as Salvage Value, is the depreciated value of the asset at that moment of time, through the calculated lifetime. It is dependent solely on the initial investment and the depreciation rate. Thus, the longer the service life, the lower its residual value.

At the end, Total Worth could be useful to see how valuable the building is, at different moment of time through its lifetime.

A summary of the definition of the three economic terms is presented below,

Definition of Economic Terminologies

Net Present Value (NPV)

Residual Value (RV)

Total Worth (TW)

Sum of all accumulated investment + income, which are developed with interest rate

Sum of acquisition cost, develop with interest rate

Sum of all accumulated investment + income, plus the developed residual value of that year

EXTENDED SCOPE

Further assumptions are proposed to reflect temporal changes, inspired by recent world wide events. These assumptions are not solidly proven, they are not fully adopted into the study and their predicted influences are presented with clearly disclamation marking.

Recent world wide events such as COVID 19 and the war in Ukraine shows the high uncertainty of the world’s economy. The needs for built environment, especially office space, could decline drastically, and the price for fuels could climb dramatically. Therefore, an allowance for unforeseeable changes should be applied in cost estimation especially when the lifetime is as long as 50 years, and the corresponding unpredictability is high.

Another unpredictability for office space is the change of tenant. It could be assumed a periodic change of tenant to happen every 10 years with several reasons, for example, expansion of office, and the alterations are often in large scale. An extra renovation cost should be incorporated to reflect this.

Lastly, the market behaviour is also an unpredictable variable. A new building could result in a higher rent and preference from the tenants, while the same building but renovated from old might not be as competitive.

LIMITATION OF LCC

Despite the advantages of applying LCC approach into economic estimation to help with decision making in construction industry, it has limitations for concluding an accurate result. As Sesana & Salvalai proposed in their journal article “Overview on life cycle methodologies and economic feasibility for nZEBs”, the main problem identified was the lack of reliable information, the high variability of information and the high uncertainty in forecasting long period of time. (Sesana & Salvalai, 2013)

For example, the cost estimation practice in Denmark highly relies on the Molio Prisdata, which refers to national wide construction related costs. A larger market or an infrequent update would result in lower accuracy of the cost data. Also, costs of the same component or materials, or the construction labour cost, vary between companies and along with the purchase quantity and the current availability. After all, price is a varying factor that is highly artificial, a large extent of human factor is associated. In comparison, environmental impact is based on scientific research and the uncertainties could be quantified and managed. In addition, the life cycle and performance of each component vary, and depend on the specific product. It is difficult to deduct a real replacement period and the acquisition for replacement might be duplicated during estimation.

Lastly, on the economic side, the practice of using discounting technique is under constant discussion by the economic industry. Even though the technique has been developed for years, the discounted rate is highly variable. Thus, more research on data collection, quality

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

assurance and also economic estimation techniques is undoubtedly critical in further development of LCC

Limitation of LCCbyg

Limitation of LCCbyg is mainly found in the unavailability of connection with any LCA analysis software. LCC and LCA are highly related and even interrelated, for example, an isolation of the total cost of acquisition + maintenance + replacement of a building element is useful in comparing the total economic impact of it with the total environmental impact of it over its lifetime. However, in the current version of LCCbyg, costs could only be extracted separately by the type of cost or the occurring year but not the inducing element. As a result, this study would only carry out the comparison of the economic and environmental impact in component level with acquisition price.

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

WORKFLOW

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

3.1 BIM MODEL

During the project developed Revit BIM model served as baseline for several analysis. The process started with reading of existing drawings and finding the most accurate data. All available drawings were hand drawn, not always providing all the measurements. Building underwent several reconstructions, extensions and change of use. Even though they were tracked in the best possible manner at the time, comparing to the precision and complexity of today’s data it can be said that there is level of uncertainty. Some parts of the building were provided with better description and measurements then others therefore, some assumption had to be made. In the end, the model was developed combining all available drawings and not focusing only at

3.1.1 MODEL FOR EXISTING BUILDING

Model for existing building was developed in two parts.

First, it was decided to separate structural (SM) and architectural model (AM). Main reason for that was that SM needed to be transferred into program called SCIA Engineer to make static analysis. This way it was easier to make needed changes without intersecting with AM. Structural calculations were made only for the Main part of the building and therefore SM contain all the loadbearing elements of that part, namely columns and beams systems, and walls around staircases. According to Specification of building Parts for selected building parts (Danish: Bygningsdelsspecifikation) (DiKon & BIM7AA, 2018) the structural model could be considered as LOD2300 DK.

Existing architectural model was made as accurate as the available date allowed. First version of the AM was made only according to older drawings, when the newest of them were dated to 1989. Although, after site visit and onsite inspection, the differences in the layout were noticed. Therefore, second version was developed according to the existing state and renovation done between 2019 2020. Drawings of the newest layout were provided by building workers and are attached together with other drawings in the APPENDIX II – Existing drawings of the building from the archiveStructural model was linked to the architectural, which means that all the elements are visible and accounted in the quantity take off but they cannot be directly modified.

2LevelofDevelopment(LOD)describesexplicitlywhichinformationaboutmodelelementsmustbepresentinthe BIMatdifferentstagesduringthedesignandconstructionprocess.

Figure101 Structural(left)andArchitectural(right)model

For the Canteen Building the structural system was also included. It consists of data about type, placement, and construction of the element. As an example, the partition walls include major openings, modelled with construction layer and divided by intersecting walls, organized by types. Therefore, according to DiKon & BIM7AA (2018) those are developed to LOD 400DK. On the other hand, staircases are modelled in a maximum outer dimension with general geometry of railings and handrails to LOD 325 DK. Overall, if one level needs to be selected, it could be said that AM is developed according to LOD 325 DK.

3.1.2 MODEL FOR DEVELOPED SCENARIOS

Model of future designs were based on the previously developed model of existing state. In behalf of Phasing function in Revit, the changes were very well tracked. All the elements that were kept same from the existing model were assign to the Phase: existingreused, any new changes were assigned to the Phase: newconstructionscenarioname. With the Phase filter it was then possible to set the desired state of the building and extract visual figures. Figure below shows an example of Phase filter being set to: Show Previous + Demolished with existing state of the building (grey) and elements that need to be demolished (red) for the developed future scenario.

Figure102 3Dsectionofarchitecturalmodel

Figure103 ExampleofphasingpossibilitiesinRevit

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

3.1.3 MODEL APPLICATION

After the model was finalised, it served as a source of information for several uses.

• Material quantity take off

o Revit has a possibility to provide material quantities, which were used to calculate amounts of materials used for single elements in the building

• Structural analysis

o Analytic model from Revit was exported to SCIA Engineer as a basis for static analysis and internal forces calculation

• LCC

o All the elements in Revit model were assigned classification type code according to BIM7AA or SfB classification system using Naviate Nexus plugin

• LCA

o LCA analysis were made using an online software One Click LCA (2015)

• Daylight Analysis

o Revit model was imported into Rhino 7 by plugin Rhino.Inside.Revit and the daylight analysis were made with built in tool Climate Studio

• Visuals

o For presentation of the developed scenarios renders were made based on the Revit model imported into Lumion (rendering software)

3.2 URBAN ANALYSIS

The building is located close to the corner of streets Vermundsgade and Sigurdsgade, North to the Vermundsgade 5 a residential block of apartments is situated. In the immediate surroundings there are several blocks of residential housing built between years 1920 and 1939, few educational institutions such as Københavns Professionshøjskole – Campus Sigurdsgade or Nørre Fælled Skole and Nørrebro Gymnasium. Additionally, offices and production industry can be found.

Several bus stops are situated in less than 5 minutes distance as well as a metro station Skjolds plads, that is located 10 minutes walking from the building. In the same distance area several restaurants, bars and shops can be found. Fælledparken can be reached in 15 min and is the biggest and closest park that exists in the area.

According to the zoning plan, the heigh of the building on the parcel restricted to 4 stories and maximum built percentage of the “Triangle” (all parcels that are bordered by streets Vermundsgade, Sigurdsgade and Titangade) is 96%. Vermundsgade 5 has the built percentage even higher, being 147 %.

Building itself is situated in close distance to other built up parcels, with east facade being connected to the neighbouring building. Therefore, views are limited to the courtyard, main street or some of the buildings. Vermundsgade street serves for communication mainly for residents and workers of the area and in general doesn’t get very busy, nor noisy. A few trees can be found along the street, but additional greenery could be appreciated.

Haraldsgadekvartet is part of the industrialized background and therefore area is surrounded by oversized road profiles and contains few public spaces and green areas. These roads can be seen as a barrier for residents to better connect with the city. Future development plan has been already proposed as described in 4.1 URBAN CONCEPT and the area is expected a lot of improvement in upcoming years.

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

Figure105

Sunpathduringthesummerday,15.July

Figure106

Sunpathduringthewinterday,15.January

GIS ANALYSES

BUILDING USE

Residentialbuildings Office Productionindustry

Biggest number of houses are residential with 51 %. That is followed by offices 17% and building that can be characterised as production industry 8 %. Teaching and research facilities make 4% as well as building for transport and parking.

51 % 17 % 8 %

CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 39 % 19 % 14 %

1920 1939 2010+ 1980 1999

OUTER WALL MATERIAL

Bricks outweighed all the other materials with 56 %. That is followed by wooden cladding of one of the new buildings in the area with 10%, followed with concrete elements of 8 %.

Great amount of building in Copenhagen are more than 70 years old. It is not a surprise that in the selected area 39 % of the buildings were building in years 1920 – 1939. bricks concreteelements woodencladding 56 % 10 % 8 %

21% of the buildings have no information about the materials, therefore it wasn’t included in the total material percentage.

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

Highpreservationstatus

Middlepreservationstatus

Lowpreservationstatus

Withoutpreservationstatus

Unfortunately, more then quarter (24%) of buildings in the Haraldsgadekvartetet does not have the information about preservation status. 32 % of buildings are under high preservation value and include mostly residential housing. The study case falls into category with low preservation value, that covers only makes 1 % of the area.

SAVE 32% 10% 1% 24%

BUILDINGUSE HEATING TYPE

Districtheating

Centralheatingfromownplant

Heatpump

Most consumers in Denmark receive their heating from the district heating system, as that could be also see in the area with 78%.

3% of the area consist of a newly built residential district that has a heat pump. A small number of buildings have central heating from own plant.

78 % 5 % 3 %

3.3

TRANSFORMATION POTENTIAL ANALYSIS

As being the main purpose of the study, the assessment of the transformation potential comes the first. The screening process involves the use of two tools, 1) Transformation Potential Tool (TPT) made by former DTU student Maria Tram as an output of her bachelor thesis and 2) Conversion Meter from the study of the Green Lines Institute for Sustainable Development from TU Delft. The analysis process will be described in this chapter.

3.3.1 TRANSFORMATION POTENTIAL TOOL (TPT)

Figure107 SummaryoftheTransformationPotentialTool(Tram,2020)

The tool is made in the form of an excel sheet, the inputs of the building data are typed in the 1st page following the instructions next to the input column.

The scores of each criterion will be shown on the 2nd page according to the pre set equations, which are also shown on the second page, and results of each criterion are colour coded for visualisation The result for each scenario is shown on separate pages, so in this case the 2nd to 4th pages are individual results for all 3 scenarios. On the last page, the scores of all scenarios and all criteria are gathered for comparison. The final score of each scenario is the sum of all scores divided by the total number of criteria (57 in this case). The total score average will be in the scale of 1 9, with 1 3, 4 5, 7 9 representing high, medium, and low brackets. The procedures are illustrated in below Figure 108 Procedures of applying TPT.

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

Figure108 ProceduresofapplyingTPT

DETAIL PROCEDURES

A workshop followed by several iterations were carried out in order to gather all information needed for TPT, due to the vast variety of sources required. For example, historic drawings, maps, and 3D BIM model were used and in the process. The first workshop was started in the beginning of the thesis after a preliminary review of historic drawings, so that the basic building geometries was recognised and used to fill in some assessment criteria. It also helped to screen what other information are needed and how to obtain them. This process was running parallel to the building of the 3D BIM model.

In TPT, both quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the building are necessary to complete the assessment. For example, in Indicator 1 Dimension, physical measurement of the building such as 1) free room height, 2) building depth, 3) distance between vertical shafts, 4) corridor width, 5) room and floor areas, together with some basic quantities such as numbers of lifts are taken from reviewing historic drawings (marked with a black arrow). At the same time, qualitative information such as 1) user accessibility, 2) level of support of the building towards urban development and surroundings comfort were discussed among the team during the workshop and sensible decisions were made (marked with a yellow arrow).

Among all the criteria, some of them require a deeper analysis before finding out the needed data (marked with orange arrow). For example, the building site surplus place which requires a calculation of total built area in comparison to the plot area, and the possible future scenarios were also prepared later.

Indicator 1 Dimension

While all the building data was retrieved and answered as accurate as possible, there are criteria that was decided with educated guess, due to the lack of information (marked with purple arrow). For example, in criteria 3. work effort in relation to separating and sorting components and materials since the detail jointing method are not specified excepted for the

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

insitu concrete part. Therefore, assumption on the construction detail of interior walls, roof etc. were made according to building period, and general practices. The same goes to criteria 4.3.2 Reserve surplus space in vertical shafts and technical centres, no documentations were found regarding the arrangement in technical shafts, assumption of the surplus space is made with educated guess.

The weighting is kept at 1 for all indicators, since no detail instruction on how the weighting should be assessed specifically to this tool, an equal weighting would be more appropriate.

Overall, the required data were obtained by 1) reviewing historic drawings, 2) measuring on maps, 3) measuring and simulations making with 3D BIM model. The rest of the assessed criteria are listed below:

Indicator 2 Position

2.1 The location of the building in relation to the surroundings

Geographical location (municipality inhabitants) 80.615 Inhabitants

Market relevant location in relation to external environmental impacts L Letter

Market relevant location in relation to traffic connections 0,2 km

Market relevant location in relation to access to facilities 0,5 km

Location to parking facilities 10 m

2.2. The location of the building’s core elements and access routes in the building (e.g. elevators and stairs)

Access to building (core/entrance/stairs/elevators)

G Letter

Vertical access routes (BGa floor/ N access core) 202 m2

Vertical access routes (SBa floor/ N access core) 265 m2

Horizontal access routes (internal corridor) B Letter

2.3 Examination of building parts and their location in order to obtain flexibility of the building

Non-load bearing facades Y Letter

Innerwalls are usually not load-bearing Y Letter

Modularsystems (prefabricated and standardized components) have been implemented P Letter

Stabilizing walls on max 1. side of technical shafts P Letter

The span of the floordecks corresponds to the building depth and facade columns are located integrated in the exteriorwall construction Y Letter

Partition walls can be installed on all facade axes of the basic module without encroachment on the floororceiling Y Letter

The static calculation has taken this into account and exists payload reserves fora wide range of conversion options P Letter

2.4 Location of installation as well as energy – and climate solutions/concepts

Daylight factor(DF)

3,8 %

Windows and facade windows to be opened Y Letter

Activation of roof surfaces/outdoorspace 0 %

Roof planting (green/sedum) N Letter

Solarpanels and/orshading N Letter

Rainwatercollection Y Letter

Indicator 3 Disassembly

3.1 Focus on independent building components that can easily be disassembled and replaced

The work effort in relation to separating and sorting components and materials S Letter

3.2 Accessibility and adaptability of the building’s technical installations

Accessibility to installations (e.g. visble installation ducts) B Letter

Adaptability of components (e.g. innerwalls) S Letter

3.3 Recycling/reuse of materials and efficiency (LCA)

Reuse of stairs/elevators

Reuse of windows

Y Letter

P Letter

Poorenvironmental efficiency (e.g. hazardous materials) P Letter

Poorenergy efficiency (e.g. single glazing) P Letter

3.4 Service life of building/materials (LCC)

Yearof construction/orlast renovation 25 Years

Service life of the facade materials 50 Years

Service life of the roof structue 20 Years

Service life of windowand exteriordoors 5 Years

Maintenance of the building (e.g. facade/roof) S Letter

Indicator 4 Capacity

4.1 Spatial capacity

Usable area (NA) / Total gross area (SBA)

4.2 Capacity of the building's technical installations and services to adjust/upgrade

Ventilation/climate technique

0,88 Number

Cooling S Letter

Heat S Letter

Drain S Letter

4.3 Transformation capacity

Transformation and disassembly capacity (the environmental and use efficiency of buildings)

S Letter

Otherinstallations e.g. el-installations S Letter

80 %

Reserve surplus space in vertical shafts and technical centers 15 %

4.4 Capacity of multifunctional rooms

Building capacity to support multifunctional rooms with focus on different userneeds

STRUCTURE OF THE RESULT

The structure of the results follows the SAVE framework, which is a scale of 1 9 with 1 being the highest value that a building could obtain, and 1/4/7 being the score for reaching each threshold value for high/medium/low respectively.

Each criteria gets a score in the 1 9 scale according to scenario specific pre set equation. For example, in criteria 2.4.1 Daylight Factor, different threshold values are used in each scenario. The threshold values for each typology are listed below.

High Transformation Potential

Medium Transformation Potential

Low Transformation Potential

Office DF >= 3.0% DF >= 2.5% DF >= 2.0%

Multi storey DF >= 2.0% DF >= 1.5% DF >= 1.0%

Education DF >= 2.0% DF >= 1.0% DF >= 0 5%

Therefore, a single input of the Daylight Factor value would calculate the score for the criterion automatically.

The final score is obtained by a sum of all points from each criterion and divided by the number of criteria (TotalScore), and the performance of the building typology in each main indicator (MainIndicatorScore)should be calculated also by dividing the sum of all scores in that main indicator by the number of criteria of it. If the score falls between 1 3, it indicates a high transformation potential; if it is between 4 6, the transformation potential is medium; and 7 9 for low transformation potential.

Levelsandcolourcodingof TPTresult

Since every main indicator are weighted the same by default, each criteria share the same importance. However, since the number of criteria differ from indicator to indicator, i.e., 15 for Dimension, 21 for Position, 12 for Disassembly, 9 for Capacity, a change in the points in Capacity would influence the Main Indicator Score.

WORKFLOW 121 S Letter

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

TPT RESULTS

The result of TPT is straight forward, the office building obtains 3.3, multi storey and education both obtain 3.7. This brings all the scenarios at a transformation potential of medium, while office building being the best case.

While the result is reasonable, since the current use of the building is mainly office, it is interesting to look at the score breakdown in order to compare the performance of each case in detail.

Criteria level

A visual comparison can be clearly seen in the scenario result sheets (2nd to 4th page of TPT), since each criterion is colour coded according to their scores, with light red (high transformation potential), pink (medium transformation potential and light blue (low transformation potential). A summarised visualisation with the specific colour coding is presented below.

Figure110 OverallTransformationPotentialscoresofeachscenario

Figure111 ColourcodedresultofTPTincriterialevel

According to the chart above, all scenarios obtain mostly a medium potential, and the light red colour which indicates a high transformation potential comes the second. Judging by the colour distribution, generally all scenarios perform the best in Indicator2 – Position, and fair in other indicators. The number of criteria obtaining each level is present in the below table,

Table12 Thenumberofcriteriascoringeachlevelofpotential,forall3scenarios

High transformation potential Medium transformation potential Low transformation potential Office 22 27 8

Multi storey 18 28 11 Education 18 29 10

Another observation is the equal performance in Indicator3 Disassemblyand Indicator4 Capacity. This could be since Indicators 3 and 4 are not usage specific. For example, in Indicator3 Disassembly, criteria like 1) the possibilities of the building being able to be disassembled without damaging the components, 2) accessibility to installations, 3) reusability of components and 4) remaining years of lifetime of components etc. are assessed in relation to the current state of the building instead of the future use of the building. The same goes to Indicator4 Capacity, which it assesses the existing building’s performance without relating to the potential future states.

Sub category level

The robustness of the tool is then also checked, by observing the differences of the scores among scenarios. The breakdown scores at sub category level are shown in the below chart, 16 sub categories with 4 from each main indicator are looked at.

Figure112 TPTResults,subcategorylevel

Among all sub categories, 5 of them has different scores across scenarios, with indicator 1.4 having two criteria that differ from scenario to scenario, a summarised table is presented below,

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

Table13 Criteriathatdifferfromscenariotoscenario

Indicator 1 Dimension

1.1 Typology in relation to depth and height of the building

1.2 Distance between technical installations shafts, elevators, corridors, stairs, doors and windows

1.4 Level of spatial reversibility, flexible floor plans and the adaptability for differentiated use of the building type

1.1.2 Building depth from exterior wall to exterior wall (without central atrium/core)

1.2.1 Distance between vertical shafts for vvs, electricity and ventilation

1.4.3 Flexible floor plans

1.4.4 The possibility of the building type for differentiated use

Indicator 2 Position

2.1 The location of the building in relation to the surroundings 2.1.4 Market relevant location in relation to access to facilities

2.2. The location of the building’s core elements and access routes in the building (e.g. elevators and stairs)

2.2.2 Vertical access routes (BGa floor/ N access core)

There are different cases on the distinction observed from the above. First of all, for criteria 1.1.2, 1.2.1, 2.1.4, different threshold values are set for each scenario, and since the answer filling into the equation falls onto different bracket in each scenario, the resulted scores are different.

For criteria 1.4.3 and 1.4.4, the inputs are scenario specific, as a result, though the threshold values do not differ much, the result show a clear distinction.

For criteria 2.2.2, however, it can be observed that the score for multi storey is much lower than the other two that is because of the unavailability of assessment with the current metric adapting from DGNB for multi-storey typology. With an answer of 202 on the assessing range spanning from lower than 400 to lower than 1200, it is quite likely than the same score would also go to the multi storey scenario. This shows the drawback of TPT being not complete on assessment of all building typologies.

level

Afterall, the performance of each scenario in each category (main indicator) are checked. Besides the already mentioned observation that the indicators 3 and 4 are the same across scenarios, the differences in indicator 1 and 2 gives insight on how each building typology performances.

The category level result shows that every categories perform differently, and no one typology should perform the best in all categories, a mixed use scenario could potentially obtain the best score. Thus, this thesis is inspired and would look at the possibilities of mixed-use scenarios.

After all, the study case – Vermundsgade 5 has a good transformation potential, therefore it is worth continuing the investigation in this direction.

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

3.3.2 THE CONVERSION METER

DETAIL PROCEDURES

Comparing to the previously described tool, the Conversion Meter (Geraedts & van der Voort, 2007) is looking specifically into transformation of office buildings into residential Because many indicators are overlapping across both tools the data gathering were done during the same workshops and analysis. While Transformation potential tool has four main categories; Dimension, Disassembly, Position and Capacity, second tool separate analysis according to three aspects; Veto criteria, Building and Location related aspects, with subcategories and various indicators. Tool includes both, qualitative and quantitative data for achieving complete evaluation.

Veto criteria indicators can be seen as the most important one. If assessed building cannot fulfil them, then automatically it is considered that the building has no potential for transformation. To be able to answer those questions research was done specifically focusing on existing market needs, what are the requirements for stakeholders and how does the municipality see the future development of the area. For this part the main source of the information were municipality and zoning plan. Veto criteria regarding the free ceiling height was evaluated based on old drawings and developed Revit model.

Figure114 Vetocriteriarelatedcriteriawithindicators,(Geraedts&vander Voort,2007)

Location related data are further subdivided into Functional, Cultural and Legal sub indicators. Needed data were found based on the study of municipality and local zoning policy plans. In addition to that many information such as different facilities location, their qualities or distances to specific places, were found by maps analysis To get a better understanding of how the place is functioning and what is a cultural context site visits were made.

Figure116 Locationrelatedcategorieswithindicators,(Geraedts&vanderVoort,2007)

Buildingrelatedinformation are further subdivided into Functional, Cultural, Technical and Legal aspects. Technical criteria are related mainly to the buildings measurements and structural grid to assess the possible change in future, those data were retrieved from existing plans and created 3D Revit model. While some information relatively easy to state and are based on quantitative data, cultural related indicators are rather qualitative and were based on group discussions. For example, indicator “identifiable compared to surroundings”, “own

Figure115

Buildingrelatedcategorieswithindicators,(Geraedts&vanderVoort,2007)

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

identity realizable” or “clear, safe and clarifying building entrance” could be answered yes and no depending on persons judgment.

STRUCTURE OF RESULTS

Results are based on simple evaluation using “yes” or “no” answer. Yes, is answered if the indicator is fulfilled and it translates into higher transformation possibility. The total number of “yes” are summed together and weighted with weighting score. The weighting is set to 5 for Location related indicators and “3” to Building related indicators. That could be changed if more importance needs to be placed on the building itself. The final conversion score is then translated into conversion potential.

Table14 Conversionscorewithtransformationclass

Conversion score (Location and Building)

0 40

41 80

Conversion class

No transformation potential

Hardly any transformation potential

81 120 Limited transformation potential

121 160

High transformation potential

161 202 Excellent transformation potential

After establishing transformation potential of the building two additional steps could be made. Step four is related to financial feasibility scan and step 5 include risk assessment. Those steps help to underline possible problems that might arise and check if its even financially favourable to undergo the transformation.

CONVERSION METER RESULTS

After performing a quick initial pre step using veto criteria it was verified that all of the necessary criteria are met and therefore it is possible to continue with following in depth analysis

Next, the feasibility scan based on gradual criteria was made with results as follows:

• The feasibility scan for the Location scored with 20 “yes” and 3 “no”. The “no” answers were related to the indicators such as: goodviewfromthe buildingin75%ofgrossarea,1parkingspotfor100m²oftheofficespace, and lastly directavailabilityofgreenenvironment. After weighting results the final score was 100.

• The feasibility scan for the Building scored with 23 “yes” and 6 “no”. The “no” answers were related to the indicators assessing thermal envelop of the building, horizontal and vertical extension of the building, that is not possible due to the zoning restrictions and the questions about building vacancy (as the building is currently in use). After weighting of the results, the final score was 69.

The weighting of two group was set to “5” for the Location part and “3” for the Building part to stress the importance of the building placement.

Based on the second step evaluation the total conversion potential score of the building was 169 (100 from the location assessment and 69 from the building assessment) that would transfer into conversion class 5 Excellenttransformationpotential. As the name implicates, the transformation into residential building has very high probability to be successful project. Different scenarios could be developed such as transforming into family apartments or focusing on social or student housing. Those possibilities are further developed and described in chapter 4.2.1 TRANSFORMATION TO RESIDENTIAL USE

Table15

Conversion score (Location and Building)

Conversion class

0 40 1.No transformation potential

41 80 2.Hardly any transformation potential

81 120

Total score

Feasibility scan A + B

3.Limited transformation potential Maximum Score Location + Building

121 160 4.High transformation potential

161 202

5.Excellent transformation potential

100 + 69 = 169

CONVERSION CLASS 5

Financial feasibility and risk assessment

While using only Conversion Meter as a main tool a financial feasibility scan is suggested to be made. Although, this study provides a full Life Cycle Cost analysis therefore this step was not carried out separately.

To make analysis complete is also recommended to carry out a risk assessment which helps to underline possible mistakes and uncertainties that might arise during the transformation. Several risks for study case are described below with potential solutions.

•

o

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

One of the possible risks could be insufficient number of parking places. In the close area of the building, there is only parking along the street which in some scenarios would not cover the number of parking spots needed for new residents.

o Cultural

Some parts of Nørrebro neighbourhood might be considered as area with bad reputation or unsafe. But a lot of development and future planning is being made especially for Haraldsgadekvartet.

o Legal

According to zoning plan there is a restriction heigh and therefore building could not be vertically extended. Possible horizontal extension could be considered and well developed and utilised floor plan.

o Financial

While changing from office into residential use there might be necessity for new facilities. It could be solved by enhancing financial feasibility by adding commercial functions for example in the ground floor of the building.

o Stakeholders

Without clear future development plan, it might be difficult to find investors willing to take bigger risks that sometimes come with transformation projects. A way to answer this might be increasing the efforts of proper monitoring existing state of buildings in order to lower the uncertainties. The new building model could be a solution to this problem as can be seen in chapter 1.5.3

CHANGE OF BUSINESS MODEL IN ADAPTIVE REUSE CASES

• Building

o Functional

Building doesn’t have a basement for adding parking/storage. After detailed calculations and soils check, basement could be additionally extended. Another problem is insufficient number of elevators or stairs which leads in general insufficient access. Depending on the structural system, additional elevators can be installed.

Another problem is the lack of outdoor spaces. That is also related to target groups, for example balconies could be added or part of the façade could be recessed.

o Cultural

Building has insufficient distinguishability of building entrance. During the transformation, entrance could be emphasized by louvre or similar or replace to other location.

o Technical

As technical requirements are different in office building than residential ones, often a problem with insufficient acoustic insulation of floors might occur. That could be solved by doble floors and/or double ceilings.

Similar problem might occur with insufficient thermal insulation of facades, roofs and windows. The extra insulation outside or inside (monumental status) could be added with replacement of windows with double glazing or extra secondary frame addition.

In case of insufficient carrying capacities, building could be additionally reinforced, or a secondary loadbearing system could be added. In case of potential vertical extension, lightweight structures such as steel or wood should be used.

o Legal

Very common problem in buildings built before 1999 when the EU wide banning came out, is presence of asbestos. While buying the building the lower selling price can be negotiated and later the removal of elements must be done (More can be seen in chapter TOXIC MATERIALS

o Financial

Large investment in initial phase might be needed. That must be investigated with detailed financial feasibility study

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

3.4 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

First structural analysis and calculations were done for the initial project, before construction, in 1934. Since the building had several additions built, renovations and adaptations done to it, most of them were documented, so the qualitative data about it was not missing (full documentation available in APPENDIX II Existing drawings of the building from the archive). After detailed inspection of the documentation, several conclusions were drawn regarding the structure of the building:

• Loadbearing system is done as a reinforced concrete column and beam system, with ribbed slabs on each floor, and wooden truss as a roof structure

• Original structural calculations were done with outdated method no load factors nor material safety factors were used

• Soil conditions are good, and foundation capacity should be substantial for new adaptations and transformations

• The addition to the main building is a one storey building with flat roof, and since there is no larger above ground usable areas, structural analysis for that part will be out of scope for this thesis.

It was decided that since the calculations were outdated, critical elements should still be checked according to new standards and planned use category residential. Calculations were done for floor slab ribs, and longitudinal beams on floors above ground floor and 1st floor.

Workflow

1. Load bearing concrete structure was modelled in Revit according to available documentation and photographs

2. Analytical static model was adjusted and exported to SCIA Engineer.

5. Loads were defined as seen on Figure 119 Applied loads for structural analysis Live loads were applied according to Eurocode (DS/EN 1991 1 1 DK NA:2013). Additional floor layers correspond to common noise insulating floor assemblies seen in new residential constructions.

Figure118 Concreteloadbearingstructure

3. Different live load cases were applied to determine design loads for cross section checks, as seen below in the Table 16

Table16 Liveloadschemesforslabsabovegroundfloorand1stfloor

Load scheme

4. In SCIA Engineer, internal forces were calculated in combinations according to (DS/EN 1991 1 1 DK NA:2013), and cross section utilization was calculated according to (DS/EN 1992). Results can be seen in the Table 17

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

Table17

The calculations proved the building to be suitable for new, residential, use. As seen from the Table above, majority of the calculated elements are passing the requirement, except a few ribs above the first floor. Furthermore, it is important to mention that the calculations were extremely conservative and done with a lot of assumptions due to the uncertainty on the actual state of the structure of the building. Due to a limited scope of the thesis, it was decided that a brief analysis like this one is enough, but if the project is to continue into a more detailed development, an extensive study on this matter is recommended.

3.5 MATERIALS ANALYSIS

Site visit involved checking condition of some materials and components to assess their potential for reuse and recycling. Building was assessed internally and externally where possible. The material quantities are based on developed Revit model as described in chapter 3.1 BIM MODEL. The weight of the different materials has then been calculated using the densities from information on material suppliers’ websites or from One Click LCA that has been used for assessing life cycle of the building.

As there is a high potential of reusing or recycling great amount of the materials, several ideas were developed during group briefing and are presented below.

Table18 Preliminarycheckingonreusing/recyclingpossibilities

Concrete structures Roof trusses

Aluminium cladding Doors/wind ows Insulation (walls)

How/where Reuse/ recycle New roof Cladding /roofing

Greenhouse /partition walls Roof insulation

Obstacles Crushing reinforced concrete Storing and transport Removing asbestos Dismountin g/cleaning properties

GWP high low high medium Medium

CONCRETE

The total amount of concrete was estimated to 2743 tons with equivalent of embodied carbon being 293 tons of CO2. It is second highest material with embodied CO2 after steel and therefore it is more than reasonable to try and reuse/recycle of it as much as possible. One of the options is to completely reuse the structure of the building with no demolition at all. Second proposal is to demolished Annex building; in that case concrete could be (1) processed and used as aggregate to manufacture recycled concrete, or (2) deconstructed or possible and straight reused in other projects.

Figure 121 Studio gang Architects reused debris from abandoned constructions near the site’s surroundings.

“SOSChildren’sVillagesLavezzorioCommunityCenter” Illinois,Chicagoby(Rethinkingthefuture.com,n.d.)

Figure121 Escofetproducesmodularpiecesof urban furniture built from reused concrete; by (Rethinkingthefuture.com,n.d.)

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

ROOF TRUSSES

Assuming that there is no structural damage, they could be reused for the new roof structure. Other option is, after deconstruction, timber elements can be reused as structural components for secondary buildings such as green houses, pergolas or for outdoor and indoor furniture.

WINDOWS and DOORS

Interior doors that are in good condition could be directly reused with minimum additional cleaning or fixing in the new projects. As the requirements for U values are improving every year reusing windows in a common way is very likely not possible. Therefore, one of the suggestions would be to use them for secondary buildings (greenhouses) or as interior partitions.

INSULATION

First of the steps would be establishing if any of the properties haven’t been compromised. If insulation was exposed to moisture, there are a high chance of mold and bacteria development. According to the Energy report the fiberglass insulation has been used for Vermundsgade 5. Usually, this type of insulation is being installed in battes, which makes the removal and reuse easier.

ALUMINIUM CLADDING

Existing aluminium cladding is used in several sizes. First option would be removing it from the façade, cleaning, polishing, and reusing as it is. Because there is a variety of sizes many new patterns designs could be made. Additionally, depending on the desired finish, panels could be painted.

Figure122 Exampleofreusedwindows anddoors,photo(pinterest.com,n.d.)

Figure123 Example of posisble layout of reused aluminium panels

Figure 124 Existing façade with aluminiumpanels

TRANSFORMATION

EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

3.6 ENERGY PERFORMANCE AND SAVING ACTIONS

CALCULATION ASSUMPTION

According to the Energy Label Report, the composition of the thermal envelop are as follow and their U values are calculated using an online U value calculator Ubakus (Plag, 2009):

Table19 Envelopelayers

Main Building Annex Building

External wall 100mm concrete + 80mm insulation + Eternit panel + aluminium panel Estimated 30% of the wall is post insulated with 100mm extra insulation

0.362 W/m2K (0.170 with 100mm extra insulation)

100mm concrete, 50mm insulation, wood boards 0.519 W/m2K

Window

Double glazed 1.5 W/m2K

External door Double glazed 0.5 W/m2K

Double glazed 1.5 W/m2K

Double glazed 0.5 W/m2K

EXTERIOR WALL, ROOF AND CEILING

The suggestion of a post insulation of different part of the building was raised, including different part of exterior wall, roof and ceiling. An extra layer of 200mm (100mm for the exterior wall of the main building) of mineral wool insulation should be placed on the external side, so that it could not only increase the average thermal property but also protect the building from cold bridges. These suggestions would bring the U-value of the external wall of Main Building and the Annex Building down to 0.170 W/m2K and 0.122 W/m2K respectively.

Figure126

However, the suggestion is not financially beneficial as it was calculated that the payback period is greater than 50 years, which is the assumed lifetime, for most of the parts. For the exterior wall of the annex building, the payback period is less than 50 years but more than 37.5 years, which is not financially viable according to the definition in BR18. As a result, even though the post insulation contributes to almost 25% of the saving in the consumption of district heating, the amount of investment is not presented though the expected saving is shown.

WINDOW

Apart from walls and roofs, replacing window with higher performance glazing could be drastically beneficial. Because all the windows in Vermundsgade 5 were double glazed and given the time of construction, the u value is expected to be high. Thus, it is suggested to replace all windows with new triple glazed windows that could meet a u value lower than 1.1 W/m2K. The report shows that by replacing all windows, an annual saving of 26.95 MWh of district heating consumption could be achieved, which contributes to over 50% of the saving.

If all the changes to the thermal envelop was implemented, the average U value of the walls in the Main Building could be lowered from 0 59 W/m2K to 0 39 W/m2K, and that in the Annex Building from 0.54 W/m2K to 0.14 W/m2K.

IMPLEMENTATION OF DISTRICT HEATING IN ANNEX BUILDING

The source of heating in the building now consists of both electricity and district heating While electricity is used in the form of electric radiator in the Annex Building, it constitutes to 18% of the total heating consumption of the building. Thus, apart from improving thermal envelop, the most beneficial measures suggested is connecting the Annex Building to existing districting heating system. This contributes to 75% of the reduction of electricity use, over 50% of the monetary saving and almost 60% of the CO2 tonnage, with a payback period of approximately 9 years.

In addition, the form of energy source has an influence on the final consumption for energy requirement calculation by multiplying with their specific Primary Energy Factor (PEF). Since the amount of required energy is in the form on secondary energy, which was subjected to transformation or conversion from primary energy, PEF is a metric used to reflect the actual expenditure on the resources depending on the source and production of energy and the local condition. The current PEF in Denmark are as follow:

Table20

Energy type 2015 2020

District heating 0.8 0.6

Other heating 1.0 1.0

Electricity 2.5 1.8

District heating has a lower PEF than electricity which indicates that switching from electricity to district heating can lower the calculated energy consumption for energy frame calculation even with the same end use expenditure.

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

CONCLUSION

The actions recommended by Energy Label Report provides an insight on what should be changed in a renovation case, this is particularly useful in determining transformation design. When incorporating CE design thinking, it is useful to determine what to be reused.

Table21 AllimplementedenergysavingactionssuggestedbyEnergyLabelReport

Potential Saving

Investment [DKK]DKK District heating [MWh] EL [kWh] CO2 [ton]

replacing door 800 0.65 164 0.2 10,400

replacing window 31,400 26.95 6736 8.27 622,000 heating canteen with district heating 79,000 58.99 58994 30.8 720,000

insulating pumps 3,300 5 07 48 0 68 1,500 replacing pump 8,300 / 4107 2 72 40,000 new circulation pump 2,100 1.59 518 0.57 10,000

LED light 3,300 0.78 1864 1.13 6,200 motion detectors in toilets 600 0 18 347 0.2 4,100

solar cells 7,100 / 4649 3.08 97,200

Total 135,900 25 69 77331 47 65 1,511,400

It is calculated that, if all the financially viable changes were implemented, the building Vermundsgade 5 could receive an energy label class C. On account of this, these suggestions are considered in this thesis and implemented in the design proposal in different scenarios about both environmental and economic sustainability. Since the Energy Label Report was prepared professionally by third party, the presented data with environmental and economic saving are considered reliable. The findings of reductions in capital, CO2 and energy are incorporated into corresponding analysis in the following chapters.

3.7

DAYLIGHT ANALYSIS

The access to daylight has been proven by numbers of cognitive studies to be critical to healthy urban environment and the well being of occupant comfort, therefore, huge efforts from both the academic and the industry have been put to create assessing metrics to guide the design to optimise daylight availability. Among all, the most widely adapted metrics include Daylight Factor (DF), Daylight Autonomy (DA), Useful Daylight Illuminance (UDI).

Daylight Factors (DF) expresses the amount the of daylight available inside a room in a percentage of the illuminance of the interior space to an unobstructed overcast sky. In order to reflect the reality, a validated climate data at the building location is used and it provides the accurate reference overcast sky outdoor diffuse illuminance. An example from Velux is shown on the left. (VELUX, 2022)

Daylight factor is being adapted in DGNB SOC1.4 1, Visual comfort availability of daylight for the entire building. For both office, residential and education building, a Daylight Factor higher than 1) 1.0%, 2) 1.5% and 3) 2.0% for 50% of the Usable Area (UA).

Daylight Autonomy (DA) is another assessment metric that accounts for also the occupied period. Instead of the ratio of indoor illuminance to outdoor illuminance, the target level of 300 lux and the threshold of 50% of the daylight hour are used to evaluate the space. The passing value would be 50% of the relevant floor area. This set of assessment metric is adapted by both the international standard EN 17037:2018 and the Danish national building regulation BR18.

Useful Daylight Illuminance (UDI) however looks at the amount of occupancy hours that meet a range of illuminance, opposite to Daylight Autonomy. The daylight illuminance in the range of 100 3000lux is effective while the range of 300 3000lux is desirable. While 80% of the occupancy hours is the threshold value, the percentage of relevant floor area that meet the threshold is then evaluated.

Among all the assessment metrics, Daylight Factor (DF) is chosen for this study, solely since it is used in the Transformation Potential Tool (TPT). And since the Daylight Factor method is also well accepted by international standards e.g. DGNB, it is considered to be robust enough for this study, especially in this case, a detailed daylight optimisation is not the goal.

RESULT

The simulation is carried out with Rhino 7 and the built in tool Climate Studio, with the building model imported from Revit using Revit.inside.Rhino plugin. The existing state of Vermundsgade 5 has been evaluated and the goal is to check if the existing state could obtain sufficient daylight, or if more window openings are need.

Figure127 Locallyadjustedoutdoordiffuseilluminance

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

The figures below illustrate the Daylight Factor results, where yellow being the highest side and purple being the lowest side. The average DF for the whole building is 3.73%, which is higher than the recommended value. The building, at least the existing state, is well lit with sufficient daylight.

Ground floor*

DF = 3.50%

1st floor DF = 3.97%

Figure128 Daylightanalysisresults(*combiningmainbuildingandannexbuilding)

2nd floor DF = 3.92%

The building has a generally high portion of yellow, and if there is no partition wall in the middle of the building, there is not much purple colour which means the depth of the building is well designed with enough daylight illuminating the centre of the building. One example is the left part on the ground floor as shown in below Figure 129 Blow up image of the Daylight Factor result on Ground floor

Figure129 BlowupimageoftheDaylightFactor resultonGroundfloor

However, a dark purple can be seen where the Main building and the Annex building connect, since daylight towards the main building is blocked by the annex building, and where a partition wall is erected to create a corridor in the middle of the building along the long side. As a result, the new transformation design should consider the removal of the corridor and create more open space in the middle of the building, or utilising skylights and glass partition walls to allow daylight shining through. However, the area that is shaded by the Annex building is challenging to recover, as it requires the demolition of the annex building and potentially major alteration on the existing wall where the two buildings connect. On the other hand, facilities that do not have a daylight requirement could be arranged in these areas, for example storage or bathrooms. Nonetheless, this analysis result still provides an insight of the potential blockage of daylight in case of building up above the Annex building.

This analysis serves the purpose of a preliminary checking, and the level of daylight availability is sufficient in the current design. If the glazing area will not be reduced, it could be assured that the building would still achieve the minimum recommended daylight level.

Figure130 Potentialimproveareafordaylight

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

3.8 LCA

BIM INTEGRATED LCA WITH ONE CLICK LCA

The tool of choice for LCA was One Click LCA (2015) As built and design variations BIM models were built for the purpose of case study. The creation of LCI was done using One Click LCA plugin for Revit, utilising the information sets from the models, to extract needed amounts of materials and products, and map the EPDs accordingly. The layout of the plugin can be seen on the Figure 131. Once the materials and products were mapped, the work continues in the browser based variant of the tool.

LCI is finished after inserting information about the energy and water use, construction site operation, gross area and calculation period, depending on the scope of the study and/or available data. The results are available as soon as first inputs are in, but it is on the practitioner to decide when to use and extract them. There are available charts visualizing the results in the tool, as seen in the Figure 132 For the sake of formatting and editing freedom, the results for the study case were exported to MS Excel and manipulated there.

Figure131 OneClickLCAplugininRevit

Figure132 ResultscomparisonchartinOneClickLCA

GOAL

From January 2023, Denmark is implementing a new requirement regarding environmental performance of the buildings. To achieve this, they have opted, along with other requirements, for a phased implementation of a limit on carbon emission in kg CO2 eq/m2/yr. The very first phase puts this limit at 12 kg CO2 eq/m2/yr (The Danish Housing and Planning Authority, 2021). The aim of this study is to roughly estimate embedded impacts of the building in its current state, evaluate environmental performance of the transformed study case building (done in two variants) and compare it to the control scenarios and already carried out LCAs from the available database from 2020 (Zimmermann, Andersen, Kanafani, & Birgisdóttir). The analysis must be of satisfactory accuracy and comparable to the database reference.

INTENDED USE

The analysis and its results are going to be used to determine the benefits and/or disadvantages of transforming the existing buildings compared to their demolishing and new construction. Furthermore, the analysis can be used as a critical review of the current practices in the construction industry.

This LCA is not intended to be used as an official disclosure of environmental performance of the building nor the performance of the presented design variations, since it is not reviewed. It is rather meant to be an explorative study which can be a basis for decision making regarding the future of the study case building, and other similar projects.

FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT

As already mentioned, two different transformation designs were developed, to be analysed. Their functional equivalents are as follows:

• Transformation to dormitory

o Building type

▪ Ground floor, main building commercial use

▪ Ground floor, annex building – common spaces for residents

▪ 1st and 2nd floor, main building student housing

▪ Roof, annex building open terrace for common use

o Technical and functional requirements

▪ BR18 compliant

o Pattern of use

▪ The spaces are used daily in the normal expected regime for their use category (e.g., commercial spaces 7:00 20:00, student housing 0:00 24:00, etc.).

o Required service life

▪ The service life of the building is expected to be 50 years or more. However, different elements in the building are still going to have shorter or longer service life.

• Transformation to family apartments

o Building type

▪ Ground floor, main building commercial use

▪ Ground floor, annex building kindergarten or day care for children

▪ 1st and 2nd floor, main building family apartments (2 4 persons)

▪ Roof, annex building open terrace for common use

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

o Technical and functional requirements

▪ BR18 compliant

o Pattern of use

▪

The spaces are used daily in the normal expected regime for their use category (e.g., commercial spaces 7:00 20:00, student housing 0:00 24:00, etc.).

o Required service life

▪ The service life of the building is expected to be 50 years or more. However, different elements in the building are still going to have shorter or longer service life.

The drawings of the analysed designs can be seen in the APPENDICES Drawings of the design scenarios

REFERENCE STUDY PERIOD

The reference study period for both design variants is 50 years.

SYSTEM BOUNDARY

The environmental performance of the two variants will be analysed including the phases as seen in Figure 133.

Figure133 Systemboundaryforenvironmentalperformanceanalysis(phasesincludedintheanalysisaremarked)

However, in order to keep the results comparable to the beforementioned database, systems boundaries were adjusted to align with the ones used there. Adjusted system boundaries for comparison can be seen in the Figure 134.

Figure134

Systemboundaryforcomparisonanalysis(phasesincludedintheanalysisaremarked)

BUILDING MODEL PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

The building has two parts, main three story part along the street side of the plot, and a one story annex in the courtyard. Both have a section of the footprint with a basement. Total amount of gross area achieved is 3597 m2 excluding basement. Heating is provided by the district heating system. Other building services include water supply, drainage and sewage systems, electrical installations for lighting, appliances and equipment, ventilation.

The building information models were built in Autodesk Revit, and include the following:

• Foundations

o Concrete

▪ Strip foundations ▪ Column footings

▪ Slab foundations

• Basement

o Concrete ▪ Walls ▪ Stairs

• Loadbearing system

o Concrete

▪ Columns ▪ Primary and secondary beams ▪ Walls ▪ Staircases and elevator shafts

• Floor assemblies

o Concrete ▪ Floor slabs

o Wood ▪ Floating floor substructure ▪ Hardwood finishing

o Insulation ▪ Acoustic floor insulation

• Main building roof assembly

o Concrete ▪ Roof slab

o Insulation

▪ Thermal insulation ▪ Waterproofing

• External wall assemblies

o Concrete ▪ Wall core

o Insulation ▪ Thermal insulation

▪ Waterproofing

o Aluminium

▪ Façade panels

o Plaster

▪ Wall finishing

• Internal wall assemblies

o Wood

▪ Loadbearing stud system

o Gypsum

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

▪

Sheets on both sides on the wall

o Insulation

Acoustic insulation

• Doors and windows

o Wood/aluminium

Doors and windows frames

o Aluminium

Skylight frame

o Glazing

Glazing with U value equal or less than 1.1 W/m²K

Skylight glazing

The BIM models do not include MEP, hence the material phase (A1 A3) of that aspect is not included in the study (except PV panels on the roof). All the BIM models will be included with the thesis as an attachment.

BUILDING MODEL – TIME RELATED CHARACTERISTICS

The building is analysed for a reference period of 50 years. Materials that have a service life shorter than that are assumed to be replaced with new ones. One Click LCA (2015) states that “This includes environmental impacts from replacing building products after they reach the end of their service life. The emissions cover impacts from raw material supply, transportation, and production of the replacing new material as well as the impacts from manufacturing the replacing material as well as handling of waste until the end of waste state”. The service life can be seen in the EPDs listed in the Appendices

LIFE CYCLE STAGES

Included life cycle stages for different analysis can be seen in the Error! Reference source not found. and Error! Reference source not found.. As previously mentioned, the scope for environmental performance assessment is different than one for comparison with available database because of comparability.

SCENARIOS FOR EACH LIFE-CYCLE STAGE AND BENEFITS AND/OR BENEFITS BEYOND THE SYSTEM BOUNDARY

The life cycle stage scenarios as described by One Click LCA (2015) are:

• A1-A3 Construction materials

o Product stage, cradle to gate. This covers impacts of a product or material that is ready to ship to construction site, including raw materials extraction, transport, and manufacturing emissions. In case recycled or reused materials are used in this stage, their emissions may be accounted as zero.

o Reused components and materials

▪ Impacts related to the initial manufacturing (A1 A3) and installation (A5) of reused or retained materials will be ignored. Impacts are still accounted for transportation of reused products, replacements, and waste treatment.

• A4 Transportation to site

o This covers impacts of a product transport from the factory to the construction site. The transport chain may include interim steps through wholesaler or

storage. In cases where transport vehicle can be used for other transport for a return trip, only the actual transport required by the products should be accounted for.

• A5 Construction/installation process

o Not included.

• B1-B5 Maintenance and material replacement

o This includes environmental impacts from replacing building products after they reach the end of their service life. The emissions cover impacts from raw material supply, transportation, and production of the replacing new material as well as the impacts from manufacturing the replacing material as well as handling of waste until the end of waste state.

• B6 Energy use

o This covers all building energy import (including electricity, district heat and cooling and fuels. Any energy produced from renewables on the site is not in the scope (excluding any fuels or imported electricity needed to produce it). Exported energy is not deduced from this. This does not cover plug loads (tenant energy use), which is outside of the assessment.

• B7 Water use

o Water use of the building systems and building envelope (excluding in the standard accounting, the water uses of tenants). This covers the life cycle environmental impacts of water, including production and transportation and wastewater treatment.

• C1-C4 End of life

o This includes impacts for processing recyclable construction waste flows for recycling (C3) until the end of waste stage or the impacts of pre processing and landfilling for waste streams that cannot be recycled (C4) based on type of material. Additionally, deconstruction impacts include emissions caused by waste energy recovery.

• D External impacts (benefits)

o Not included.

NET AMOUNTS

As previously mentioned, net amounts were exported from BIM model built in Revit. Full quantities for both design variations can be seen in the APPENDIX IV Quantity take offs.

GROSS AMOUNTS

Gross amounts were not used in this analysis due to construction operations stage being excluded and gross amounts would account for losses and waste made in that stage. Furthermore, the most contributing materials such as concrete, reinforcement steel and aluminium façade were reused, so accounting for losses/damage from them would not produce a significant difference in the LCA results.

TYPES OF DATA

Data for inventory analysis and BIM model was collected from several sources.

As built BIM models were built upon available documentation about the original design of the building as well as renovations that followed (APPENDIX II Existing drawings of the building from the archive). Transformation design variations were then modelled on top of that model,

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

and the documentation about them can be seen in APPENDIX III Transformation design drawings

Energy use data, both for existing state and after implementing improvements, was taken from calculations in Energy label available in APPENDIX V – Energy Label Report

Water use data, both for existing state of building and design variations after transformation, is taken from a Study on water performance of buildings (European Commission (DG ENV), 2009).

USE OF EPDs

One Click LCA enabled the access to many EPD databases and collections, as well as their generic database. Following the nature and scope of this assessment, EPDs from generic database were mainly chosen. However, in a few cases, where that was no possible because no applicable EPDs were available for a certain material and/or assembly, the choice was to use the most appropriate and realistic EPD available.

The list of EPDs can be seen in the following appendices:

• APPENDIX XI – EPDs list for the “Do nothing” inventory

• APPENDIX XII EPDs list for the “Transformation to dormitory” inventory

• APPENDIX XIII EPDs list for the “Transformation to apartments” inventory

DATA QUALITY AND CONSISTENCY

As always, using high quality data is of great importance. However, when dealing with projects that are in context like this, it is not always possible to do so, hence different assumptions were made to carry out the assessment with a satisfactory completeness and without compromising the reliability of results and conclusions. While mapping the life cycle inventory, best efforts were made to include EPDs that are compliant with the relevant standards, mainly EN15804 and ISO 14025. Furthermore, all the EPDs selected were relevant for EU area. EPDs were for the most part valid in the time of making the study, except where there was no valid EPD available for the given material or component, which was not the case with the most contributing materials, so the impact on the reliability of the whole study is not compromised.

When it comes to verifying plausibility of material inputs, One Click LCA provides a “checker” which considers the type of the project, total area, existing loadbearing frame, and different materials modelled into a building model. The tool is indicative but serves very well for pointing out amounts that are not expected for given situation. Top rating from this tool is A. Two design variations got a plausibility grade B, while “Do nothing” scenario was graded with a C, which was acceptable because the material phase (A1 A3) was not considered for that scenario.

While modelling different design variations, extra attention was being put on mapping reused materials and products with the same EPD in order to have satisfactory consistency between variations and scenarios.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS AND IMPACTS

One Click LCA has provided us with results for seven different impact categories: Table22 EnvironmentalimpactcategoriesasfromOneClickLCA

Indicator Abbreviation Unit

Global warming GWP kg CO2 eq.

Acidification AP kg SO2 eq.

Eutrophication EP kg PO4 eq.

Ozone depletion potential ODP kg CFC11 eq.

Formation of ozone of lower atmosphere POCP Kg Ethenee

Total use of primary energy ex. raw materials PEtot MJ

Biogenic carbon storage

CALCULATION METHOD

Bio CO2 storage Kg CO2 eq. bio

The calculation method used by One Click LCA is following EN 15978 standard:

where

������ is the indicator value of the module

���� is the vector containing the amounts of the products and services used in the module

�� is the matrix containing the indicator value per unit of the product and service

and economic impact

3.9 SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY TOOL

DETAILED PROCEDURES

To assess social performance the Social Sustainability Tool by A.P.Otovic (2016) was selected. The general model has 5 themes that are divided into 8 criteria’s which are expanded with 78 indicators.

5 THEMES

CRITERIA

INDICA TORS

From all available indicators, only 30 had to be selected across maximum 8 criteria. The selection was done during group workshop in several interaction. Choice of criteria and indicators derived from local and community plan analysis, literature research and finally group educated decision.

The selected criteria and indicators are described below and Table 23 includes weight and score that were assigned to the indicators.

• Freedom of choice

o Apartment size variation – the bigger the variety of options is provided the greater number of mixed inhabitants will be attracted to the area

o Variation in tenure could positively influence the financial feasibility of the building

o Apartments for residents with special needs creating spaces for everyone is important part of social sustainability

o Balcony access – a solution how to connect with outside, when there is lack of common outdoor areas

o Access to greenery or recreation area it is important to have the possibility to

• Affordability

o Range in rent prices and good quality apartments will attract people from various financial classes

• Services jobs

o Local jobs opportunities

o Support system for entrepreneurs

• Safety/Security

o Ensuring lack of violent intergroup conflicts will compliment into nice liveable neighbourhood attracting mixed inhabitants

• Urban connection

o Bike access

o Entrances

o Pedestrian access

o Area used by non residents

o Public/private meeting places

• Public image

o Heritage value keeping in mind the history of the building ant its connection to neighbourhood could bring new creative ideas for future design development

o Differentiation of private and public especially in the residential areas it is crucial to have the possibility of private space, but at the same time have the

option to spend some of the time with other residents or friends in common public space

• Social diversity

o Social mix & Social inclusiveness cohabitation of socially and culturally diverse group will empower cultural knowledge and cultural relations

• Social networks

o Local societies and communities human interaction and communication together with social development has a positive effect on human wellbeing

Table23 Selectedcriteriaandindicatorswithgivenscoreandweight

8 SELECTED CRITERIA 25 SELECTED INDICATORS

apartment size variation

Weight

DO NOTHING DORM APARTMENTS

score weighted score weighted score weighted

9 0 0 6 1 10 2.0

Freedom of choice

variation in tenure 8 5 0.9 7 1 10 1.7 apartments for residents with special needs 9 5 1.0 6 1 8 1.6

balcony access 10 0 0.0 10 2 10 2.2 access to greenery or recreation area 10 4 0.9 10 2 10 2.2

Affordability

rent price 10 0 0 9 3.2 8 2.9 possibility for food production 8 0 0 7 2.0 7 2.0 good quality apartments 10 0 0 7 2.5 9 3.2

Services jobs

local job opportunities 10 7 3.5 8 4.0 7 3.5 support system for entrepreneurs 10 7 3.5 9 4.5 5 2.5 0

Safety/Security

road safety 10 6 1.6 8 2.1 8 2.1 vandalism removal 10 7 1.8 8 2.1 8 2.1 lightning 9 7 1.7 9 2.1 9 2.1 visibility 9 7 1.7 8 1.9 8 1.9

bike access 9 9 1.5 9 1.5 9 1.5 entrances 10 6 1.1 9 1.6 9 1.6

Urban connection

pedestrian access 10 6 1.1 9 1.6 9 1.6 area used by non residents 8 6 0.9 9 1.3 7 1.0

public meeting places 9 5 0.8 8 1.3 8 1.3 private meeting places 9 4 0.7 10 1.6 6 1.0

Public image

Social diversity

heritage value 5 4 1.5 6 2.3 6 2.3 differentiation of private and public 8 5 3.1 9 5.5 7 4.3

social mix 10 6 3.2 7 3.7 9 4.7 social inclusiveness 9 9 4.3 7 3.3 7 3.3

Social networks local societies and communities 10 9 9.0 8 8.0 6 6.0

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

STRUCTURE OF RESULTS

The process of evaluating the results could be divided into 4 steps and example of step by step calculation for Affordability criteria is presented below.

At first, selected indicators receive score from 4 to 10 (10 being the highest point and grade lower than 4 is disregarded from the list). In the same step the weight for indicators is being distributed and normalised score is calculated. (For example, normalised score for rent price indicator is calculated as: 3.2 = [10 / (10+8+10)] * 9)

Secondly, weigh is assigned to the criteria level and normalised weigh is calculated. (Normalised weight = weight for specific criteria / summarized weight of all criteria)

In next step is total score for criteria is calculated as: criteria normalised weight * sum of normalised score for indicators of selected criteria: 1.1 = 0.14 * (3.2+2+2.5)

Lastly, weighted score of all criteria is summarized into final score that establish the quality of social sustainability on the scale 4 to 10, with 10 being the best result.

Final results are presented in Evaluation chapter Error! Reference source not found.

graded by evaluator

Criteria

Weight for criteria Normalised weigh

Table24 Exampleofresultscalculation score normlised score

154 Indicators

DORM Theme Equity

Affordability 10 0.14

Weight for indicator

rent price 10 9 3.2 possibility for food production 8 7 2 good quality apartments 10 7 2.5

calculated from assigned values

Total score 1.1

3.10 LCC

ANALYSIS SETUP

As mentioned in Chapter 2 2 5 LIFE CYCLE COSTING, the LCC analysis is carried out with the use of three digital tools, Sigma Estimates, Molio Prisdata and LCCbyg. Before that, another essential part is the data congregating in the 3D Revit model, and the plugin Naviate Nexus is used to connect the building component with typecodes in order to ease the importing process to both Sigma and LCCbyg.

Naviate Nexus is a digital tool for writing a classification code (typecoding) in Revit for the building components. Classification codes are specific for building components in terms of their usage and type. A common typecoding structure could create coherence between building projects and costing lists, which is critical to the quantity extraction and mapping process the most.

The structure of BIM7AA typecoding is built upon the well known and proven SfB system, it is well adopted in the current Danish construction industry and widely used among Danishbuilt software. When the typecodes are assigned, they will be shown on the lists for quantity take off and the mapping process in Sigma and LCCbyg is done by matching the typecodes of components and typing in the quantities. This could speed up the mapping process.

Figure135 ExampleofclassificationofbuildingelementwithNaviateNexusinRevit

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

The quantity take off is done with the function of creating component schedule or list of material quantity in Revit, an example of wall schedule is shown in below Figure 136,

Figure136 ExampleofelementschedulesetupinRevitforquantitytake off

The typecode (212) can be seen in the most left column in the list for exterior wall, each type or dimension of wall could be isolated according to the use and the total amount is shown in the bottom of each sub list.

According to the classification code and the stated dimension and type of the element, an equivalent product is selected in Sigma under the Molio Prisdata, and its amount is typed into Sigma. The major building components are first modelled and integrated in the cost list according to the existing state of the building. Items such as:

• Structural framing

• Façade layering

• Partition wall

• Flooring

• Door

• Window

• Suspended ceiling

• Curtain wall are modelled. The list in Sigma could be seen in below Figure 137,

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

The modelling of existing state is done to be as accurate as possible, as the same time not to be over complex. Small items such as screws and nails are omitted, but all the major components are included. On the other hand, the scenarios are made upon the existing model, with the detail alteration activities added into the list.

The reason behind is that LCCbyg does not have a function of assigning elements to be ‘reuse’, which should have no acquisition cost but the same maintenance and replacement. Since the cost for maintenance and replacement are derived from the acquisition, it is not possible to remove the acquisition for the reusing materials but keep the maintenance and replacement. Thus, the elements modelled for the existing state, are kept in the model, while their acquisition costs are manually removed. In this way, the cost for maintenance and replacement are kept.

The alteration activities are listed in “changes 2 for dorm” and “changes 3 for residential” and are shown in below Figure 138,

Figure138 Detaillistingofalterationactivitiesfortwotransformationcases

In comparison to building components that are modelled with price per area or any relevant physical amount of component, or per workhour if it is a labour cost, the cost for operation and building services are modelled per square meter for each building typology. Thus, the area of each typology for each scenario are first measured in Revit, and then gathered in Sigma for the aggregation. The modelling for operation cost, including heating, electricity, domestic water and waste water are listed in below Figure 139 Example of modelling operation utilities for each scenario and the modelling for building services, including ventilation, heating and VVS are listed in Figure 140.

ALTERNATIVE METHOD

Besides calculating with detail construction price, an average construction cost provided in the Molio Prisdata is used for the purpose of comparing building typologies in a way that all uncertainties should be managed in the same manner across scenarios. Solely prepared and verified by Molio, this set of data is believed to be reliable and have minimum human error.

The average cost for 1) primary building components, 2) building completion and 3) surface finishings are used, these groups of cost items in the database are shown in the below Figure 141 Example of getting average construction data in Sigma / Molio.

Figure139 Exampleofmodellingoperationutilitiesforeachscenario

Figure140 Exampleofmodellingconstructioncostforbuildingservicesforeachscenario

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

OTHER PRICES

There are, however, still some cost items that are not covered by the Molio Prisdata, such as average demolition cost, that is useful in the evaluation of rebuilding scenario, and average rent for different building typologies. These data are found online with multiple sources to make sure a reasonable estimation.

The average demolition cost is taken as €20,000 as proposed by Jensen, Jesper Ole in his research paper “VacanthousesinDenmark:Problems,localizationandinitiatives” published at ENHR Conference 2017 at Tirana, Albania. (Jensen J. O., 2017)

The housing rent is referred to mixed sources. First of all, average rent from Copenhagen Municipality (Average renting costs, 2022) and Numbeo, a crowd sourced global database, which contain multiple quality of life data such as cost of living but also like housing indicators, perceived crime rates, healthcare quality etc. (Cost of Living in Copenhagen, 2022) are used. The average housing size from Statistics Denmark is also utilized in the estimation. (BOL106: Dwellings with registered population (average) by area, unit and use, 2022)

The average office rent is first approached by looking at a statistic from Statista (Monthly prime office rent in Copenhagen from 1st half 2019 to 1st quarter 2021 (in euros per square meter), 2021). It is then also referred to real rent from a local leasing website, and this apply to the other commercial uses as well. (Restaurant for lease, 2022)

Detail calculation can be found in APPENDIX XV Rent estimation and a colour coded legend with average rents and their corresponding building typologies and area is shown in below Figure 142.

Concludedassumption: Dorm- 2076kr/m2/year residential- 1574kr/m2/year Commonplace- 1038kr/m2/year Office - 2052kr/m2/year Education- 1928kr/m2/year Commercial- 1975kr/m2/year Canteen- 1778kr/m2/year Workshop- 1211kr/m2/year Daycare- 1928kr/m2/year

Areasandpotentialrentsofeachbuildingtypology

Figure141 ExampleofgettingaverageconstructiondatainSigma/Molio

When all the price values are ready, they are put into LCCbyg to calculate the total lifecycle cost. As mentioned, the mapping in LCCbyg utilises the common classification typecode,a building element is chosen according to the typecode, and the major material. An example of an exterior concrete wall is shown in the below Figure 143.

A default maintenance rate and replacement rate derived from the acquisition price (1% and 125% respectively in this case) is provided by LCCbyg depending on the element. And the lifetime and calculation period also have a pre defined value.

SETUP OF DIFFERENT SCENARIOS

As mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, a basic calculation case and an alternative case are set up in LCCbyg.

Basic calculation case

The basic calculation case is done with the detail cost model with 4 scenarios. The first scenario in this calculation is the baseline model according to the existing state and its corresponding typologies. The acquisition cost is omitted to represent a do nothing concept which the building should remain its functions without alterations made.

The second and third scenarios are the transformation to dormitory and transformation to residential respectively. The acquisition cost in these two scenarios is also omitted, but on the other hand the cost for alterations is added in order to represent the transformation works. Another additional cost is the investment needed to implement the recommended energy saving actions from Energy Label Report. Since the saving stated in the Energy Label Report is in the form of a sum of annual monetary saved derived from the consumption saving in

Figure143 ExampleofmappinginLCCbyg

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

electricity and heating, it is chosen to incorporate the saving in the form of a percentage reduction of the original energy consumption in the individual form instead of using the monetary value.

In addition to that, is the potential salary cost for extra professionals for the preliminary check of the possibilities of transformation. An hourly salary of 350 DKK derived from average salary in Denmark, multiplied by the 20 days and 7 hours is used. And the amount of total work hour is assumed to be the length of this thesis with 3 persons, which in total gives 735,000 DKK.

Lastly, the fourth scenario is a rebuilding scenario. It is assumed that a new building would be built after demolition of the existing Vermundsgade 5. Due to limited time of this thesis, it is not possible to develop two other design proposals with smaller GFA. It is then decided to represent the new build scenario with a scaled down version of the existing mixed use, with the 75% factor according to the lowering of overall built percentage (Bebyggelsesprocenten). The cost for demolition, being assumed 150,000 DKK converted from 20,000 EUR, is added on top.

As a result, the acquisition cost is kept in this scenario, and multiplied by 75%, and the same goes to utilities, cleaning, and rent. Since the existing main building does not have a mechanical ventilation system, and it would be expected to install mechanical ventilation systems in case of a new construction, an extra cost for building that is included in this scenario with the corresponding use area.

For all the cases, cleaning cost is calculated by multiplying the area of windows, floors, interior walls etc. with predefined values in LCCbyg.

Alternative case

The alternative case is, as mentioned, calculated with average construction costs depending on the building uses. The models are built upon the original ‘new build’ model, the calculation setup follows that and being without acquisition and with the smaller total built percentage, different average construction cost depending on the use is then being added on top.

For easier communication, the alternative case will be presented as the first calculation case in Chapter 4.3.3 ECONOMIC LCC, for the discussion of economic impact according to building typologies.

3.11

BUILDING EMBEDDED VALUES

Every year the world consumes millions of tons of recourses yearly and also produces millions of tons of wastes in different types. Waste is a huge source of pollution which of course cannot be denied, but on the other hand it could be seen as a highly potential resource for reuse in various ways.

Analysis for embedded values played an important role in resource based think design proposals. Looking at the number of materials, their price and amount of CO2 that has been already emitted, it only underlines the importance of circular construction. This approach will help to reduce the GWP impacts, minimise construction waste, bring the uniqueness to the materials as they can be used in a new, innovative way, as well as keeping the “embedded culture” and story of the building.

The charts on the right present materials and elements that are the most impactful in regard with embodied CO2, cost or mass of material that can be seen as waste in scenario when building would be demolished or as a potential resource for reuse.

Steel and concrete take the first two places in the ranking. It was estimated that the steel elements weight around 184 tonnes and that could be translate into 514 tonnes of CO2. Based on the Molio Prisdata the price for concrete was calculated with steel reinforcement and it make 58% of the cost of the existing building being 12.382.964 DKK

Another environmentally harmful element is aluminium. Total weight of aluminium used for façade panels is calculated to be 3 tonnes and 207 tonnes of CO2 respectively. From the economic point of view, it makes only 3 % of total building cost being 566.515 DKK.

Following the same principle that information could be seen for more materials.

Table25 Overviewofembeddedvalues

Building components Tonnes Tonnes of CO2 Price (DKK)

Aluminium 3 207 702.126

Concrete 273 293 12.382.964

Gypsum 22 85 / Glass 16 27 1.134.799 (windows)

Insulation 17 16 289.650

Internal wall 100 29 1.539.687

Linoleum 10 15 44.100

Roofing felt 16 72 521.451

Skylights 6 17 480.144

184 514 included in concrete price Wood 11 50 566.515 (doors) 658 1325 17.661.436

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

The characteristics of different materials can be seen in the Table 26 below. Ideally, the building elements that impose the most economic impact or environmental impact is on the highest priority to being reused. This thesis addresses this concept and take into consideration in designing future scenarios. Therefore, concrete element, aluminium plate façade, interior gypsum walls are being kept as much as possible in the design proposals

Table26 ComparisonbetweencontributionofbuildingelementstocostandGlobalWarmingPotential

Building components

Total cost (DKK) Percentage

Concrete elements 12.382.964 kr. 58 %

Window 1.614.944 kr. 8 %

Interior partition wall 1.539.687 kr. 7 %

Main roof 1.318.631 kr. 6 %

Flooring 1.057.560 kr. 5 %

Façade layer 1.024.297 kr. 5 %

Curtain wall 718.868 kr. 3 %

Aluminium panel 702.126 kr. 3 %

Door 566.515 kr. 3 %

Suspended ceiling 313.100 kr. 2 % 21.238.691 kr.

Figure144 Distributionofcostperbuildingelement

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, social, and economic impact

3.12 IMPACT SCORE

After the three sustainability aspects have been addressed and evaluated, a robust grading system is needed in order to compare them. The goal was to have a simple grading scale, avoiding the confusion of the practitioners using it and making the results easily understandable

Rather than using grading scales where “higher is better”, the opposite made more sense since the aim of the project, and the green transition in general, is to lower the impact. Hence, possible score ranged from 1 to 5, with 1 marking smallest impact when compared between alternatives, and 5 marking biggest impact, working in the fashion of a thermometer. To demonstrate the logic in the environmental analysis, grading is straightforward, alternative with the smallest impacts is getting one impact point; smallest social impact has the alternative that is marked the best according to selected set of criteria; and finally, the smallest economic impact makes an alternative having the highest net present value.

Figure 145 Impact points scale

However, it is important to remember the concentric circles scheme from the first chapter of the thesis (Figure 5). Sustainable development in economic terms is constrained by society, whose development again is depending on the environment. This means that lowering environmental impacts should be the overarching priority, while still taking care of social and financial aspects, which are also crucial enablers of sustainable development, but not the most important ones. Unfortunately, the truth is often completely opposite.

In order to avoid that, weighting is applied to the impact points before summarising a total score. General principle is to emphasize savings on the environmental agenda, while slightly overestimating impacts on the economic agenda. As any other weight factors, they are subjective to the practitioner that might be using the same approach in the future, but it is expected to follow the mentioned principles. For the study case in this thesis, the following weight factors were chosen:

• Environment – 0,8

• Society 1,0

• Economy 1,2

After the weighting factor are applied, summarised impact score ranges from 3 to 15. And the alternatives can be compared to each other.

Figure 146 Weighted impactscorescale

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impactenvironmental, social, and economic impact

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impactenvironmental, social, and economic impact

4.1 URBAN CONCEPT

The design journey of future scenarios development started with gathering information of all kinds. Firstly, capturing and organising all the requirements. That included some of the available tools and literature for future studies, as well as building drawings.

Starting from the wider perspective, the architectural site analyses were made. It could be split into 2 categories: soft data that looks at site conditions that can be changed, and hard data that looks at more concrete elements such as site boundary, utility locations, dimensions etc. That helped us to create a more systematic approach to understand data and develop the design. It was important to include legal requirements and wishes from future urban development plan as well as be in line with zoning and size requirements such as boundaries, height restrictions or site area. During the site visit we tried to observe the neighbourhood existing building types and their materials with architectural features, their condition, exterior spaces between the buildings and landscaping or vehicle/pedestrian traffic.

Next step was to understand the closer neighbourhood of the building, its site area, and the building itself. How is it connected with adjacent streets and buildings, what is the pedestrian traffic and what are the main viewing angles. One of the important observations is that the current occupancy rate of the Triangle area is 96 %. Building in such a close distance would not be possible today due to regulations such as daylight factor, fire protection, parking standards, etc. Therefore, it wouldn’t be possible to replace the existing buildings one to one. The volume study is not covered by the thesis scope, but several strategic proposals were developed by collaboration of architectural companies Vandkunsten and Arkitema.

While designing completely new building on the empty plot not many restrictions are set in stone. Selection of the building structure, materials, orientation all that can be analysed and chosen in the best way possible

Figure147

Neighbourhoodphotos

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING

PROPOSED SOLUTION(S) AND

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic and social impact

There are several design approaches focusing on different areas of interest. For example, functionalapproach prioritises the functional elements rather than the aesthetic appearance of the building. Materialapproach is building upon the selection of material first, and then developing the design, naturally led towards special forms of construction, and creating organic appearance. Selection is often based on site context that suggest a historical use of material, which can be used in more innovative way.

In our scenario it was rather contextual and based on embodied values of the area Looking at the context of the site and surrounding, the historical features, the people that live in the neighbourhood while keeping in mind environmental, economic and social values of sustainability. Every embodied value will be described further in the thesis.

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impactenvironmental, social, and economic impact

In order to fit the work done into a larger scope of transformations that are planned in the area, urbanconceptwas developed. The main idea is to open the central part of the plot and clear the secondary buildings with low preservation value and in bad state. That will give the possibility to create a so called “green oasis” with playgrounds for the community inhabitants. Enabling access through new gates from streets Titangade, Vermundsgade and Sigursgade – will provide better pedestrian circulation and courtyard access. That would also be in hand with one of the wishes of the community that is being described in the local plan (Københavns Kommune, 2021).

At the material level, the concept will include recycling in varying degrees from preservation, renovation, and transformation of selected buildings to materials recycling on the site whenever the building is demolished. Materials should be seen as potential building materials and elements of future design, rather than waste. Those materials could be used for new facades, secondary buildings, surfaces, or furniture in urban spaces.

Figure151 Proposedurbandesign

Figure 150 Urban concept, step 1 removal of secondarybuildings

Figure150 Urbanconcept,step2 creatingagreenoasis andconnectionwithmainstreets

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

PROPOSED SOLUTION(S) AND ARGUMENTS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic and social impact

As an example, we suggest small green houses that could be placed across the new proposed courtyard as a place for people to chat, have picknick or hide from rain. They would be primarily made from old windows from transformed or demolished buildings with addition of structural elements, that would be reused wood from roof structures, such as trusses.

Following 12 rules of quality (Twelve quality criteria, n.d.), (Gemzøe, 2006) we propose a good quality public space that will encourage pedestrians to spend time in the space, movie around and experience it. The courtyard will bring people of different ages and interests together, creating a pleasant space to spend free time with friends and family together. The new design will consist of basketball court, two pentaquin fields, playground for younger kids and a skate park. The variety of activities will encourage social engagement between the people. Great number of benches will be placed along with newly planted trees, creating shadows during hot sunny days. A relaxed meeting place will ensure enjoyment and positive sense experience. Several brick walls from the old buildings will be conserved and used as partial separation keeping an authentic touch and identity of local character.

Figure152 Greenhousefromreusedwindows

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impactenvironmental, social, and economic impact

Figure 153 Renders of the courtyard design; two bottom pictures show state before and after possible transformation

design, environmental, urbanistic and social impact

4.2 BUILDING CONCEPT

As we were exploring different ideas and values, including all factors required in future design, the concept and solutions began to emerge. Firstly, building was investigated through site visit and detailed study of existing plans. Over years the building was developing and changing its appearance to the one we see today since the ground was broken in 1934. The changes were documented through drawings and sketches from archives and are attached APPENDIX II Existing drawings of the building from the archive

Design phase started with the site analysis and investigation of the existing state Photos below show that the building is well maintained and from several interviews it was confirmed that the interior was renovated between 2019 2020.

The existing state analysis has provided us with valuable information on what is available in the building, along with embedded carbon and economic value. In order to lower the impacts, the design had to incorporate those elements. Following the idea of a resource-driven design, we listed the most impactful materials and elements, as well as some that proved flexible from a construction point of view. Different options for reuse were discussed and already mentioned in 3 5 MATERIALS ANALYSIS

Figure154 Interiordesignoftheexistingbuilding

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impactenvironmental, social, and economic impact

Along with reuse opportunities, transformation potential was explored to determine the new use According to the SAVE registration the building has low preservation status and very likely would be demolished in upcoming years when the surrounded area would be transformed. Although, according to the carried out analysis from different perspectives, it has very high transformation potential. Particularly, transformation potential analysis demonstrated that the most suitable option would be transformation into residential use. This goes in line with current urbanisation of the population and increased demand for residential buildings, which is also stated in the urban plan To provide better interaction with the neighbourhood, the decision was to include commercial spaces on the ground floor.

SAVE

Highpreservationstatus

Middlepreservationstatus

Lowpreservationstatus

The built percentage of the plot is 147 %. According to the new local plan a maximum of 110 % could be applied to the new building. That would lead into reduction of 25% of gross floor area. Even though this meant that the new design cannot include additional floors, it also gave the transformed building an edge over the new construction.

Withoutpreservationstatus

Figure155 SAVEpreservationanalysis

Due to bad energy performance of the existing building, it was decided that the upgrade of thermal insulation is needed, along with changes to heating system to avoid using electricity for heating.

After the mentioned aspects were agreed upon, the team continued to develop actual design variations, as well as relevant control scenarios to compare to.

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

PROPOSED SOLUTION(S) AND ARGUMENTS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic and social impact

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impactenvironmental, social, and economic impact

4.2.1 TRANSFORMATION TO RESIDENTIAL USE

Following chapter describe difference between developed scenarios and in the end evaluate them according to environmental, economic and social aspects.

Comparing to the existing building the main change is, the change to the different use – office to residential building. Based on that, two types of housing were furthered developed:

• Dormitory where the main users are expected to be younger generation including students looking for smaller, affordable housing

• Apartments along with young families and elderly people, the layout provides bigger apartments for family with kids.

PLINTH

With the change of use, the necessity for some new facilities was considered. That result into using the ground floor area as a commercial space with several proposed businesses such as cafeteria, bakery and grocery store. That can help with financial feasibility and attract non residents to the building. Additionally, it positively effect plinth, that is inviting pedestrians to experience the building, enjoy morning coffee with freshly baked pastries and bring the community together.

The Annex building is utilised differently based on the targeted residents of scenarios. For Apartments, transformation aims to provide content for the younger inhabitants with a day care option or even kindergarten. To fulfil requirements for daylight, additional windows will be added towards west courtyard and 4 new skylights along the corridor next to main building. For Dormitory, it is proposed to create a workshop space that would be, partly moved from the existing building and continue working as before, partly adapted for a bike and DIY workshop. Space would be open not only to resident but also to the community neighbours.

DAYCARE

APARTMENTS PLAN

design, environmental, urbanistic and social

FAÇADE

During the transformation process the driving force was to do reuse as much as possible. New, updated façade is reusing the existing panels. To bring it a fresh touch, panels are being cleaned and rearranged in a new way. The position of the existing windows is kept the same with the new ones following the existing grid. The Annex building has wooden cladding that reflects the outdoor spaces and creates a pleasant, welcoming feeling. Additional windows are added to bring light into interior.

Both scenarios include balconies that break the façade into dynamic way providing the visual change and connecting inhabitants with outdoor spaces.

The external staircase is renewed and fully glazed allowing more sunlight to get into the building as well as accent the entrance from the courtyard. Three other entrances are located on the north façade along the Vermundsgade street.

COURTYARD & ADDITIONAL FEATURES

Inner courtyard of the building had a mixture of old outdoor furniture and non organised waste management that created unwelcoming touch. New outdoor furniture is placed along the facades with new plant boxes with trees. A lot of them are for example made from the reused wood that was extracted from the building.

New outside staircase is added to access the flat roof of the Annex building where additional common space is located. A greenhouse from reused windows on the flat roof. It serves as a place for residents or workers to relax, play some board games or organise common events.

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impactenvironmental, social, and economic impact

Figure156 Visualisationoffacadedesign

Figure157 Internalcourtyardofthebuidling

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impactenvironmental, social, and economic impact

INTERIOR

Interior layout is when the bigger difference in the design appears. Specifically, it is first and second floor that is utilised for residential function. Layout is laid out around three vertical communication cores, each with an elevator, where two corner ones, were newly added to provide accessibility to everyone. Based on expected users differently sized apartments were developed.

DORMITORY

In dormitory scenario spaces are divided into private studio apartments and common spaces that are shared between the residents. In total the proposal offers 29 apartments for new young families or students. Twenty five one person studios have on average 21 m², access to the private balcony, own bathroom and a room with kitchen corner. Renders on the right show one of the possible layouts of the studios with light colours and wooden floor that creates a cosy feeling of home. Four 40 m² apartments can be rented for couples and in addition include a separate bedroom.

All apartments have access to the common area. A fully equipped kitchen is located on the first floor (Figure 158) and can provide seating for 20 25 people. The central part of the floor is than allocated for table football, board games or just relaxing or reading a book. From the first floor, close to the central elevator it is possible to access the flat roof of the Annex building where additional seating is located as part of the green house. Second floor (Figure 159) is mainly allocated for studios with smaller common space situated opposite to the central elevator. For this scenario it was proposed to open part of the roof with big glass windows placed between rafters as can be seen on the render in right corner (Figure 161). It allows more sunlight to penetrate the common space creating a feeling of much spacious room.

The rent of a 21 m² one person studio is calculated to be rented out for 3600 DKK and the 40 m² can be expected to cost around 6900 DKK

Figure158 Dormitory proposeddesignforthefirstfloor

Figure161

Figure160

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impactenvironmental, social, and economic impact

Figure162 Explodedviewofthemodel,grey existingstate,red elementsthataredemolished

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impactenvironmental, social, and economic impact

APARTMENTS

Apartment scenario is focusing on accommodating family of different sizes. It could be young or elderly couple or family with one or more children. The proposed design accommodates 20 apartments varying in size from 40 to 90 m² over two floors. Apartments are almost the same on both floors with smaller changes of balcony placement to create a more dynamic façade.

Apartments are in three groups around the communication cores. Corner building entrances lead to the three apartments on each side of the buildings. Middle cores provide access to 4 more apartments on first and second floors. All apartments on the second floor and most of them on the first floor has their own balcony. Apartments overlooking the flat roof of Annex building do not have balconies. The accessible part of the terrace through the outside staircase is slightly smaller to provide privacy to the apartments facing towards them.

It could be seen from Figure 165 and Figure 166 that new additional skylights were added to the Annexed building. As this scenario accommodate day care on the ground floor more daylight was needed.

Figure below shows an example of possible layout of the apartments that are located around central core. Those apartments vary in size from 54 m² to 84 m² with one and two bedrooms respectively. (Different colours identify different apartment)

The rent for the apartments varies depending on the size and is calculated to be between 6000 kr and 12500 kr. The price is calculated based on average data across Denmark and do not include utilities. (Figure 142)

PROPOSED SOLUTION(S)

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic and social impact

Figure165 Existingstateofthebuilding(grey)with parts that need to be demolished (red) for proposed design

Figure166 ProposedlayoutforApartment’sscenario

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impactenvironmental, social, and economic impact

4.2.2 NEW CONSTRUCTION

One of the control scenarios is a newly constructed building. It is theoretical one, meaning the values used for evaluation are based upon reference data from literature and/or educated guesses. For example, environmental impact for this scenario are values from the new Danish National Strategy for sustainable construction (The Danish Housing and Planning Authority, 2021) and LCA database which was a basis for those values (Zimmermann, Andersen, Kanafani, & Birgisdóttir, 2020) Social assessment score in this case is assumed to be like the transformation scenarios presented in the thesis, since it would be expected to address these aspects if the building was designed from scratch. Lastly, expenses are calculated following the do nothing scenario, to reflect the difference between remaining unchanged and building new.

4.2.3 DO NOTHING

Second control scenario is considering the building as it is, for another 50 years, with expected maintenance and operation

Figure169 Firstfloor,DoNothing

Figure168 Secondfloor,DoNothing

SOLUTION(S)

OF

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic and social impact

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impactenvironmental, social, and economic impact

4.3 EVALUATION

In this chapter the developed scenarios are being evaluated according to the environmental, social and economic aspect. The newly designed scenarios are put comparison with the control scenarios, which are “Do nothing” and “New construction”.

4.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL - LCA

REPORTING AND COMMUNICATION OF RESULTS

The following results are separated in two sections. First one is showing overall impacts from the two developed design variations, including the modules as reported in the Figure 133 Second section is showing the comparison between the design variations and limits on environmental impact as introduced by Danish National Strategy for sustainable construction (2021) as well as a reported LCA database from BUILD department from Aalborg (Zimmermann, Andersen, Kanafani, & Birgisdóttir, 2020) using the impact categories included in the mentioned documents. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis was performed regarding EPD choice for the most contributing materials in the A1 A3 phase, as well as tool robustness check, comparing the results from the tool that was used in the BUILD LCAByg with the tool we used for the study case – One Click LCA (2015)

THE ASSESSMENT RESULT ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF THE DESIGN VARIATIONS

The aim of this analysis is to report the environmental impact to an extent that a tool provides. This means including stages that are not present in some of the studies that are used for a comparison analysis following this one. Full results report is available in the Appendices.

Global warming [kg CO₂ e / m² / yr] over life cycle stages

Transformation to apartments

1,07E+00 1,51E 01 4,59E 01

Figure171

SOLUTION(S)

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic and social impact

7,84E+00 1,11E+00 1,18E 01 4,13E 02 1,35E 03

A1-A3 A4 B1-B5 B6 B7 C2 C3 C4

Globalwarmingimpactvaluesoverlifecyclephases Transformationtoapartments

Global warming [kg CO₂ e / m² / yr] over life cycle stages

Transformation to dormitory

1,04E+00 1,57E 01 6,18E 01

Figure172

Figure173

7,84E+00 9,85E 01 1,12E 01 3,67E 02 1,47E 03

A1-A3 A4 B1-B5 B6 B7 C2 C3 C4

GlobalwarmingimpactvaluesoverlifecyclephasesTransformationtodormitory

0,00E+00 0,00E+00 3,49E 01

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS 1,60E+01 2,69E 01 1,06E 01 1,14E 02 5,99E 04

AND ARGUMENTS 191 Global warming [kg CO₂ e / m² / yr] over life cycle stages Do nothing

191 PROPOSED A1-A3 A4 B1-B5 B6 B7 C2 C3 C4

GlobalwarmingimpactvaluesoverlifecyclestagesDonothing

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impactenvironmental, social, and economic impact

THE ASSESSMENT RESULT COMPARISON WITH RELEVANT LIMITS AND DATABASES

In the following charts, comparison results can be seen with life cycle stages included as previously seen on Figure 134

Figure174 Globalwarmingimpactvaluescomparisonwithrelevantlimits

Figure175 GlobalwarmingimpactvaluescomparisonwithenergyclassA2020

SOLUTION(S)

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic and social impact

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

The sensitivity analysis was done in order to evaluate the impact that different EPD choices have on the top two most contributing materials in the GWP impact category. They are as follows:

1. Wooden floor finishing

The design choice for the transformation was to install new flooring which is more appropriate for the new use. The EPD used in the original study was Norwegian average for Wood flooring (EPD number: NEPD 308 179 EN). For the purpose of sensitivity analysis, EPD used for the same purpose was German average for Massive Wooden Flooring (EPD number: EPD VDP 20150262 IBG1 DE) The changes in the relevant life cycle stages and totals can be seen in the Table below.

Table27

SensitivityanalysisresultsforflooringEPDchoice

Norwegian wood flooring average

A1 A3

German massive wooden flooring average Difference [%]

1,62E+05 1,78E+05 9,88

B1 B5 8,25E+04 8,25E+04 0,00

C2 C4 2,87E+04 2,89E+04 0,70

Total 1,91E+06 1,93E+06 1,05

2. Triple insulated windows

Energy class calculations suggest installing triple glazed windows on the first big renovation of the building. The original study is using German average for triple glazed PVC windows (EPD number: EPD QKE 20170001 IBG1 DE). The EPD used for the sensitivity analysis is French triple glazed wooden windows average (EPD number: INIES_CFEN20200421_100619, 16413). The resulting changes in the relevant life cycle stages and totals can be seen in the Table below.

Table28 SensitivityanalysisresultsforwindowsEPDchoice

German triple glazed PVC windows average

French triple glazed wooden windows average Difference [%]

A1-A3 1,62E+05 1,65E+05 1,85

B1 B5 8,25E+04 8,51E+04 3,15

C2 C4 2,87E+04 2,87E+04 0,00

Total 1,91E+06 1,92E+06 0,52

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impactenvironmental, social, and economic impact

TOOL ROBUSTNESS

Since the BUILD report includes LCA studies made with LCAByg, and the study case LCA in this thesis was made with One Click LCA, tool robustness study was made. Below, the results of that study can be seen. As it can be seen above, the results in the second part of are mainly focusing on the GWP impact category, even though analysis was done for all impact categories mentioned in Error! Reference source not found.. This was done because of insufficient reliability of results for the rest of the impact categories. As seen in the Table 29 below, the impact values seem larger for transformation scenarios, even though they use far less materials to achieve the same result, meaning a functional equivalent of a building previously described.

Table29 Comparisonofresultsacrossallimpactcategories

BUILD reportreference for 50 years reference period

Transformation to apartments

Transformation to dormitory Do nothing

GWP 100% 99% 100% 172%

AP 100% 244% 246% 449%

EP 100% 353% 355% 663%

ODP 100% 1848% 1887% 2854%

POCP 100% 74% 76% 119%

PEtot 100% 270% 277% 575%

Table30 ComparisonofresultsforA1A3,B4,C3C4stagesacrossallimpactcategories

BUILD reportreference for 50 years reference period

Transformation to apartments Transformation to dormitory Do nothing

GWP 100% 22% 24% 5%

AP 100% 46% 49% 9%

EP 100% 71% 75% 14%

ODP 100% 505% 543% 128%

POCP 100% 19% 22% 6%

PEtot 100% 100% 112% 35%

Upon comparing, the differences in included life cycle stages were accounted for so they both include identical stages. Furthermore, LCAByg uses projected impact profile for energy which includes increased rates of renewables in the upcoming years and thus reducing total impact, while One Click LCA uses impact profile for Denmark from International Energy Agency. This seems to be a main driver for presented differences. Looking at Table 30, where the energy phase is excluded, the comparison looks more as expected, but still with ODP and PEtot impact categories showing values that are not that easily explained. Unless being introduced to the beforementioned, simply looking at the results could lead to a completely wrong conclusions regarding different impact categories.

Another problem with both tools is that after making an LCI, they become a “black box”, providing with result values and charts, without an opportunity to dig deeper into the calculation procedure.

SOLUTION(S) AND

CONCLUSION

From the provided results, several conclusions can be made:

• Contrary to a usual opinion that doing “nothing” is going to make the smallest impact, we can say that here it is not the case. Bad thermal envelope in the older buildings seems the main reason for great impacts made during the use stage of the building. This also leads to a conclusion that with “spending” more in material stage with the improvements to the thermal envelope, great savings can be made in the use stage, which is confirmed by literature on this topic.

• Even with plenty of room for improvement of the thermal envelope (seen on Figure 175), transformation design variations seem to be a better choice, especially when analysing material (A1 A3) and maintenance and replacement (B1 B5) stages where we can observe the difference of over 75% when compared to a Danish National Strategy limit that new construction is going to follow from January 2023. Stressing this is of great importance, because the impacts from those stages are initial ones, meaning that they are present from the start of the building’s life cycle, while the use stage impacts are accumulated over several decades.

• The analysis proved not sensitive to different EPD choices for most contributing materials. This is probably due to a fact that materials and components that usually the most impactful (e.g., façade, loadbearing structure) are reused, hence the total impacts are more dependent on the use phase, as already concluded in points above.

• Use of different tools could lead to wrong conclusions. GWP impact category is the only one showing consistent and expected results. Some of the differences in the values can be tracked to differences in the ways tools work (energy impacts profile), but some of the remain hardly explainable.

ASSUMPTIONS AND DISCLAIMERS

• The study does not consider possible impacts of making reclaimed materials and elements suitable for reuse, which might include washing, painting, fixing, etc.

• Due to BIM modelling choices, the amounts used in the study may vary up to 10%.

• B1 B5 stage in One Click LCA and B4 stage in LCAByg is the same even though they use different naming.

o One Click LCA description of this stage can be seen in Chapter 3.8 LCA

o Description of the phase as in LCAByg can be seen in the BUILD report They state that the replacement of the products and materials after their service life is included.

• In the “Do nothing” scenario, leftover service life of the products and materials currently in the building is not considered. They are accounted as new, since it was found out that the latest renovation was done recently.

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic and social

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impactenvironmental, social, and economic impact

SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY TOOL

The results are presented in a form of radar diagram with short description for every scenario. Table below represent final score for every scenario from the social evaluation tool.

Table31 Finalresultfromsocialsustainabilityanalysis

CRITERIA

Affordability

Freedom of choice

do nothing dormitory apartments weighted score total score * weighted score total score* weighted score* total score

0.0 0.0 1.1 7.7 1.2 8.1

0.4 2.7 1.1 7.9 1.4 9.6

Safety/Security 0.7 6.7 0.8 8.2 0.8 8.2

Urban connection 0.8 6.0 1.2 9.0 1.0 8.1

Services/job 0.8 7.0 1.0 8.5 0.7 6.0

Public image 0.4 4.6 0.7 7.8 0.6 6.6

Social diversity

1.1 7.4 1.0 7.0 1.2 8.1

Social networks 1.3 9.0 1.1 8.0 0.9 6.0

Final score 5.4 8.00 7.6

*Summarizedweightedindicatorscoresforeachcriterion,canbeseeninTable23 Selectedcriteriaandindicators withgivenscoreandweight

DO NOTHING SCENARIO

In this scenario two out of eight indicators, namely Affordability and Freedom of choice, received a score lower than 4 and according to the pre-set weight they are not included in the final score. It is important to mentioned that criterion Affordability was not assessed, as it is related to the apartment characteristics and do not relate to office use. This scenario performed the worst with a score 5.4 (with 10 being maximum).

Figure176 ScoresforDoNothingscenario

APARTMENTS SCENARIO

Both scenarios in residential use scored relatively high and showed improvement across 6 out of 8 categories. Apartment scenario scored 7,6 points. As can be seen Category Freedom of choice has the highest score as it offers various options of the apartment size and type (including apartments for residents with special needs). Overall, it can be seen that points are distributed similarly with Services and job scoring the least

design, environmental, urbanistic and social

DORMITORY SCENARIO

According to social sustainability tool, transformation into dormitory is the best option with final score being 8. Comparing to the previous scenario it performs better across three criteria Urban connection, Social Diversity and Services/jobs. One of the reasons for that is that Annex building has a workshop that creates new job possibilities Another reason is the presence of common spaces, such as common kitchen and entertainment room, where people can socialise or play some games. Overall, both scenarios scored very similar, with Dormitory scoring slightly better and have even more balanced distribution of points, with all of them scoring more than 7 points.

NEW CONSTRUCTION

New construction scenario was not evaluated with social sustainability tool separately, as it is more of a theoretical control scenario that was based on reference data (mostly needed for environmental and economic assessment), To properly assess it the detailed design need to be made wit proposal for the layout and building specifications It is assumed that the new construction would score similarly to the best transformation option with some improvements or setbacks depending to the specifics of the case.

Figure177 ScoresforApartmentscenario

Figure178 Scores forDormitoryscenario

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impactenvironmental, social, and economic impact

Final diagram presents all three scenarios together and enables better visual comparison. As already stated, Dormitory has scored with the highest points.

CONCLUSION

It can be said that more development can be done in the area of social sustainability. The tool was developed to assess primarily housing projects, therefore evaluating office across some of the criteria was not fully straightforward. The tool gives an overview of characteristics that contribute to socially sustainable design and allow to compare several options Although, for more balanced and precise comparison the same use options should be evaluated between each other. The tool could be further developed to create a more robust tool that could assess different scenarios across different types of the building.

With the tool as it is, the evaluation could be done in several steps – firstly analyse and compare criteria on a wider perspective, rather location and stakeholders related and in the second step continue with evaluation of Building characteristics and how it improves human wellbeing and social aspect of sustainability in general.

In the end, change into residential use scored better across 6 out of 8 criteria that were chosen to be possible assessed in both, office and housing projects.

Figure180 Finalscoreacross3scenarios

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic and social impact

ECONOMIC - LCC

LCCbyg RESULT

The calculation of LCC could be divided into two sets. While there are 3 scenarios in the design proposal in this thesis, which is 1) transformation to dormitory use; 2) transformation to residential use; 3) do nothing, each set of calculation analyses the scenarios’ economic sustainability in a different way. This chapter presents the results of each set of calculations individually.

1. COMPARISON OF BUILDING TYPOLOGIES

The first set of calculation was made with average cost data for construction cost according to the specific building use from Molio Prisdata. The area of each use and their corresponding construction cost can be seen in below table:

Table32 Builtareaofeachuseandtheircorrespondingconstructioncost

Main building

Apartment Common place Office Education Commercial Workshop

Existing 617 m2 617 m2 617 m2

Dormitory 688 m2 552 m2 614 m2

Residential 1184 m2 642 m2

Construction cost 7630 kr 7818 kr 9767 kr 8802 kr 9041 kr 6541 kr

Table33 Builtareaofeachuseandtheircorrespondingconstructioncost(cont’d)

Annex building

Workshop Daycare Canteen Office

Existing 194 m2 357 m2

Dormitory 548 m2

Residential 573 m2

Construction cost 6541 kr 8698 kr 7241 kr 9767 kr

The total construction cost is calculated by multiplying all the areas of all uses and their corresponding cost, the detail calculation can be found in APPENDIX IX Sigma report

Average construction cost. The construction cost together with the cost for building services are put into LCCbyg as the acquisition, the amount for each scenario can be seen in the chart below:

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impactenvironmental, social, and economic impact

Figure181 Totalconstructioncostwithbuildingservicesfromaveragecostdata

Apart from the acquisition cost, operation costs such as utilities and cleaning are also put into LCCbyg, and an extra amount of 150,000 kr is put for demolition (Jensen J. O., 2017), considering that it is a rebuilding scenario.

On the other hand, the cash inflow (income) is an important factor in the study of the total costing of different uses since the anticipated monthly (thus yearly) earnings could differ a lot to each other. The rentable area of each use and their respective yearly rents are listed below.

Table34 Rentableareaofeachuseandtheircorrespondingyearlyrent

Main building

Apartment Common place Office Education Commercial Workshop

Existing 488 m2 488 m2 488 m2

Dormitory 547 m2 439 m2 488 m2

488 m2

Potential rent

2052

1928

1975

1211

Table35 Rentableareaofeachuseandtheircorrespondingrent(cont’d)

Annex building

Workshop Daycare Canteen Office

Existing 154 m2 282 m2

Dormitory 436 m2

Residential 436 m2

Potential rent 1211 kr 1928 kr 1778

2052

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

PROPOSED SOLUTION(S) AND

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic and social impact

The anticipated yearly earnings are obtained also by multiplying the respective area and cost. Together with the initial investment, they are put into LCCbyg to calculate the total costing throughout the lifetime of the building, and the performance could be deducted from the following charts, 1) Net Present Value against lifetime and 2) Residual Value against lifetime.

Figure182 NetPresentValue(Averageconstructioncostdata)

Figure183 NetPresentValue(NPV)andResidualValue(RV)(Averageconstructioncostdata)

In the above charts, the NPV of Existing mixed use, Dormitory and Residential are represented with orange, yellow and green respectively. The RV of Existing mixed use, Dormitory and Residential are represented by blue, grey and light blue respectively.

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impactenvironmental, social, and economic impact

In terms of NPV, a negative sign represents a cash outflow, and a positive sign represents a cash inflow. It can be seen that the initial investment of the existing mixed use is higher, then follows the residential use and dormitory use. However, the balanced cashflow of existing mixed use would already go over the other two uses at year 8 and year 6. This indicates a higher net cash inflow of existing mixed use compared to the other two.

It results in a much earlier breakeven than the other two, where the values change from negative to positive. It is estimated to have a breakeven for the existing mixed use at year-17, and 4 more years is needed for the other two uses. At this point, the cash inflow is higher than the cash outflow, which indicates that it is profitable from this year onward.

In terms of Residual Value (RV), a constant drop can be observed since the beginning of the lifetime instead of rising. This is representing the value of the building declines through its lifetime due to the depreciation of money and discounted interested rate. The initial value is the reflection to that of NPV since it is the sum of all acquisition, but in contrast, it represents the embedded monetary value from the investment.

Occasionally, rises can be observed on the RV chart because of the investment on replacement and also the lowering of discount rate at different period of time, i.e., year 36 in this case. Since RV is only depending on the economic calculation assumption, all 3 scenarios share the same pattern

Table36 Totalrentablespaceandthecalculatedyearlyearning

Rentable space [m2] Yearly earning [dkk]

Existing mixed use 1899 3.384.096,95 kr. Dormitory 1908,9 3.081.526,39 kr. Residential 1823,4 3.220.001,14 kr.

As a result, despite a higher initial investment cost, one can expect a faster breakeven and after all a higher net cashflow after the whole lifetime from the existing mixed use. This could be explained by the high recurring income in the combination of high unit price for rent and more rentable space. Total rentable space and the calculated yearly earning can be seen on Table 36 Total rentable space and the calculated yearly earning.

In fact, even though dormitory use has the most rentable space, but over 10% belongs to common place and over 20% belongs to workshop which both have a low rent, thus, it results in the lowest yearly earning among 3 scenarios. On the contrary, since the existing mixed use consists of office, and has a relatively high rentable area, which brings it the highest yearly earning.

Cost breakdown

If we look at the breakdown of the Net Present Value, some major cost items can be seen to be more influential than the others, for example, supplyandrecurringincome. While the high recurring income can already be told by the above table, the proportion taken up by supply, which is the utilities cost, is also significant. Since the price for utilities is estimated depending on the use, the typology of the scenarios has a high impact on the result as the same as in rent.

Name

Acquisition 23.988.340 20.953.359 22.501.196

Maintenance 5.616.556 5.032.056 5.276.269

Replacement 4.450.081 4.023.518 4.263.059

Supply 21.197.966 25.389.547 26.355.050

Cleaning 16.680.393 17.924.629 18.059.202

Recurring income 85.335.438 77.705.977 81.197.376

Net present value 13.402.103 4.382.868 4.742.600

high acquisition, low supply, low cleaning, high income

low acquisition, medium supply, medium cleaning, low income

medium acquisition, high supply, high cleaning, medium income

In this case, daycare (børneinstitution) has a high price for district heating, domestic water and wastewater, also apartment (etagehuse) has a high price on domestic water and wastewater, which makes the residential use costing the most in utilities. On the contrary, the majority use of existing mixed use, which is office and workshop, have a low price in heating, thus an overall low utilities price.

Cost contribution

Pie chart is used to see the contributions of different cost items. 184 on the left plotted with all 5 cash outflow items illustrates how much does each of them cost through the whole lifetime of the building. It can be seen that all three charts share a similar pattern, and that cleaning is taking up around ¼ of the total expenditure in each case. Besides, utilities are taking 30% on existing mixed use and 35% on both transformation scenarios.

In another way, overall operation cost (total cost minus acquisition) takes up almost 70% of the whole lifecycle cost, in which half of it comes from utilities. This fairly matches with findings from literature review and confirms the idea that the operation cost has high influence on the whole lifecycle cost and a reduction of it could benefit the economic performance a lot.

Conclusion

Overall, in terms of usage, even though the other two uses could also remain financially profitable over the whole 50 year lifetime, the existing mixed use which consist of 1) office, 2) education and 3) workshop is the most economically sustainable. It also leads to a longer profitable period, which is the number of years before the Net Present Value of the project drop below zero. It is projected to happen for the existing mixed use at year 81, 16 years longer than the other two uses which the drop is expected to happen at year 65, while the peak Net Present Value would happen at year 57 and year 49 for the existing use and the 2 housing uses respectively.

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impactenvironmental, social, and economic impact

On top of that, the result also tells the influence of detail uses, and that an office use is the most profitable use compared to others due to its high rent, large rentable space, and low utilities. Since all scenarios now are mixed use, different combination could bring out even better economic result. For instance, a combination of office and dormitory with commercial space could be the most profitable considering the unit renting price and utilities cost.

While one can design the building solely based on economic consideration and make the best business case, which is how in the reality most of the decisions are made, the different building typologies still would influence the other aspects, such as the performance on the two other sustainability pillars, Environmental and Social, and also the whole picture of the urban planning for the area.

In our case, the interaction with the surrounding building and areas, and the connection to the residents in the area are vitally important. City of Copenhagen therefore has made local plan for the area that gives priorities to improving social coherence. An appropriate weighting should be applied to each decision making actors in order to make a fair decision on the findings.

The Impact Score measuring scale is therefore proposed by this study, to weight the findings in a manner that fits the purpose of the study.

2. COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT SCENARIOS WITH DETAIL PRICES

The second set of calculation was made with detail cost of building components with Molio Prisdata. Modelling is done in the manner of balancing between accuracy and complexity, so only major building components are included.

As mentioned in Chapter 3.10 LCC SETUP OF DIFFERENT SCENARIOS, the existing mixed use model is setup in LCCbyg as a baseline model, and the models for the two transformation scenarios are built upon it, by removing acquisition cost and adding the cost for the alteration actions. The area for cleaning is changed according to the areas of windows, doors, interior walls etc. that each scenario has. The potential rent for this calculation case is based on the full area, compared to the previous case that all three scenarios are under the assumption of rebuilding new, thus with a reduction of floor area of 25%. The resultant Net Present Value and the corresponding cost per group is presented in the table below,

Table38 Contributionofeachcostgroup,(Detailconstructioncostdata)

Name Existing mixed use Dormitory Residential New build

Acquisition 0 9.376.261 9.549.689 19.232.862

Non recurring cost / 735.000 735.000 150.000

Maintenance 6.513.132 6.682.055 7.007.647 5.616.556

Replacement 5.071.976 5.298.733 5.624.442 4.450.081

Supply 28.263.955 21.781.381 24.297.799 17.793.877

Cleaning 22.240.526 23.899.512 24.078.944 16.680.393

Net present value 51.690.995 35.835.027 36.969.647 21.411.670

no acquisition, low maintenance, high supply very high income

low acquisition, medium maintenance low supply, medium income

low acquisition, high maintenance, medium supply, high income

high acquisition, very low maintenance, very low supply, very low income

204 Recurring income 113.780.584 103.607.970 108.263.168 85.335.438

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING

PROPOSED SOLUTION(S) AND

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic and social impact

In this calculation case, the existing mixed use represents the do nothing scenario, thus there is no acquisition, while the acquisition of the two transformation scenarios contains the cost for alteration and an extra non recurring cost of 735.000 DKK representing the consultation cost for the study of possibility of transformation. For the new build scenario, an acquisition cost that is double the one for the transformation scenarios can be seen. With the built percentage specific to this study, it will result in a higher investment for a lower income and smaller building.

Figure185 Percentagecostbreakdown(Detailconstructioncostdata)

Another observation from the result is the high utilities (supply) cost for the existing mixed use scenario. This is because of the bad performance of the thermal envelope before implementing the energy saving actions recommended by the Energy Label Report. This brings the existing mixed use scenario a 45% contribution of total lifecycle expenditure from the utilities consumption, while the two transformation scenarios share 32% and 34% respective which follows the result from the previous calculation case. It should also be noted that even though the low NPV of the new build scenario, the utilities consumption for the same lifetime only contributes to 28% of the total expenditure.

Figure186 NetPresentValue(NPV)(Detailconstructioncostdata)

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impactenvironmental, social, and economic impact

When looking at the NPV graph, the colour for Existing mixed use, Dormitory and Residential remain the same, while that for New Building is in dark blue colour. The main difference is that the existing mixed use does not start from a negative NPV like the other curves, because no new acquisition cost is added in the beginning of the project, where the transformation scenarios start from the amount of investment td spent on alterations made and the consultation cost. This is still a lot lower than the investment in the new build scenario due to the large amount of capital needed for building the structural framing.

While all curves share the similar profile, the orange one is steeper and the distinction between that and the other curves gets larger from time.

Figure187 NetPresentValue(NPV)andResidualValue(RV)(Detailconstructioncostdata)

The RV graph is with a similar pattern to that in the previous calculation case. However, the two transformation scenarios, while share almost the same curve therefore the one for dormitory is not visible, has a much higher Residual Value because of the existing structure plus the additional investment.

Total Cost Efficiency

Other than the linear difference between the worth of the building after its lifetime, it is also useful to compare the cost efficiency between scenarios. The cost efficiency as seen in the below equation, express the percentage income being potentially able to obtain with 1 unit of expenditure. In this case, the total earnings over the whole lifetime is divided by the total life cycle expenditure of the building.

This shows that the existing mixed use could obtain 183% cost efficiency, while the two transformations being around 153% and the new build being 133%. Despite the high utilities cost, the existing mixed use is still not only earning more in total but also each unit of expenditure is getting more revenue than the other scenarios.

VARIATIONS

Since there is always uncertainty in the economy, especially for a long lifetime, some external factors should be considered in estimating the economic performance in the long run.

As mentioned in Chapter 2 2 5 LIFE CYCLE COSTING EXTENDED SCOPE, some assumption proposals are made to reflect the fluctuations of the world’s economy. The most discussed one in recent years is the effect of COVID 19 on the demand of office space. While a lot of employees are being asked to work from home, the office spaces are being left empty and company are starting to reconsider the capital spending on renting office space. Therefore, the potential rent might not be as optimistic.

However, the market behaviour is also a very unpredictable variable. With the same design, a new building could result in a higher rent and preference from the tenants just because it is newly built, while the same building but renovated from old might not be as competitive.

Overall, in order to illustrate the issue of unpredictability, a 10% deviation of rent is applied to all the scenarios.

Original NPV

+10%

Existing mixed use 51.690.997 40.331.840 22% 63.061.384 22%

Dormitory 35.835.031 25.499.353 29% 46.212.864 29%

Residential 36.969.648 26.175.351 29% 47.794.986 29%

New build 21.411.672 12.892.306 40% 29.939.468 40%

Figure188 TotalCostEfficiency(Detailconstructioncostdata)

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impactenvironmental, social, and economic impact

It can be observed that the change of rent could result in much larger changes in the Total NPV, which the scenarios could have overlapping result. The result is shown below.

Figure189 NPVwith10%deviation

The area in red colour represents the existing mixed us, the yellow and green represent dormitory and residential respectively, and the blue colour represents new build. Overlapping between existing mixed use and the two transformation scenarios can be seen at around year 20, and the overlapping between the new build and the two transformation scenarios can be seen at around year 30.

The same technique can also be used to carry out a sensitivity check. It is done with the utilities since it is the most contributing cost item. A 10% additional consumption is added to each scenario and the % change in the Total expenditure is calculated.

Table40 Sensitivitycheckofutilitiesconsumption

Original Total Expenditure +10% utilities % Change

Existing mixed use 61.089.590 64.915.986 5%

Dormitory 67.772.939 70.0380170 3%

Residential 71.293.523 73.801.882 4%

New build 63.923.766 65.730.777 3%

Another uncertainty is the tenancy of office space. A periodic change of tenant happening every 10 years is applied to the calculation due to the assumption of change of tenant. Several reasons such as an expansion of the company, upgrade of working space etc. could be the possible factors to that, and the alterations are often in large scale. Therefore, an extra renovation cost should be incorporated to reflect this and as a result, all interior components are set to have a 10-year lifetime in this setup.

Figure190 NetPresentValue(NPV)with10yearintervalrenovation

A 9% drop of NPV can be seen in a 10 year interval for the curve of existing mixed use, and results in a total of 14% drop of the total NPV after 50 years. The same happens to the new build scenario with a 27% drop at both observation points of time. Yet, the total NPV of the existing mixed use is higher than the two transformation scenarios.

CONCLUSION

From the economic perspective, it is definitely more beneficial to remain the building as its current state despite the high utilities cost equivalent to high energy demand thus environmental impact, since the high income could cover the extra spending on the utilities. Even when a 10 year interval periodic renovation is assumed, indicated by a 10 year replacement rate of interior components, the Total NPV is still much higher than the other scenarios. Yet, there is a possibility that the Total NPV of existing mixed use reaches the one of the transformation scenarios, as shown in the overlapping NPV.

Following the LCA approach, a hotspot analysis is carried out to find the most contributing material. It is concluded that in a perspective of LCC, utilities cost is contributing the most to the total lifecycle expenditure. A reduction of such could save the investor a big amount of capital, even though the building typology could alter the results a lot by rising the potential earnings.

Apart from the total earnings, a cost efficiency check also shows the high potential of earning per expenditure of the existing mixed use.

Limitations of this study is noted, such as the limited number of calculation case. Elaborated cases such as converting the structural material of the new build scenario from concrete to wood, could be implemented. It could not only check the economic impact but also the interaction between that and environmental impact.

Also, the comparison to new build scenario is limited to using generic data. While the cap limit of 12 kgCO2 eq is used for environmental impact analysis, there is no such value for economic analysis, thus the model is much simplified because of the time limit Some of the characteristics of the scenario such as a higher flexibility for new build that could bring up economic incentive was acknowledged by only assumptions.

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impactenvironmental, social, and economic impact

4.4 IMPACT SCORE

To avoid using “sustainability” just as a buzzword, and focusing on a single aspect of it, the results are evaluated in a more holistic way. All three aspects of sustainability need to be addressed in order to say a made decision is sustainable. Following the methods explained in the Chapter 3.12, the findings are as follows:

• Environmental impact

o Alternatives considering the transformation of the existing buildings were found to make smallest impacts according to the LCA, with little to no difference depending on the scope chosen, both getting 1 impact point. “Do nothing” alternative makes the largest impact due to insufficient thermal performance which drives the increased energy use in the use stage, thus getting 5 impact points. Lastly, new construction improves on that point, but has additional impacts from the material stage, which is avoided in the transformation alternatives, and gets 3 impact points.

• Social impact

o Different criteria were evaluated to understand and “put a number” on social aspect of sustainability. Comparing to other two pillars of sustainability the assessment is not that straightforward as many aspects of wellbeing seems to be rather subjective and even wellbeing doesn’t have one agreed definition. The difference between scenarios were very little but firstly, looking strictly at social impact the Dormitory scenario performed the best and received 1 impact point, the Apartments received 2 points, and Do Nothing is considered as the least favourable option with 5 impact points. As previously mentioned, new construction is expected to address social aspects to a respectable degree, so that scenario also got 2 impact points.

• Economic impact

o The two calculation sets show that the existing mixed use, i.e. do nothing, has the highest profitability, thus 1 impact point is given. That follows by the two transformation scenarios which are very similar to each other, but the residential case is still slightly better, 3 and 2 impact points are thus given to dormitory and residential respectively. The new construction scenario is way lower than the others, due to the low rentable area constrained by the local plan, an impact point of 5 is given to reflect the result.

design,

Impact points

Environment Society Economy

Figure191 Impactpointsscoreforanalyseddesignalternatives(lowerisbetter)

With everything available at one place, we can make some conclusions based on it:

• Transformation alternatives seem to be the most sustainable option, with transformation to apartments being slightly more favourable.

• The distribution of economic impacts is rather interesting, showing that the weighing achieved the goal to avoid favouriting the alternatives with the biggest financial benefit, but still account for slight differences such as ones seen between transformation scenarios (regular apartments are more likely to be rented/sold for more money than studios and small apartments for students). Furthermore, due to a fact that with doing new construction, it would be illegal to build up as much area as there currently is, resulting in lower incomes but still coming with additional cost of a new building, new construction in this case doesn’t seem like a sensible option even from the financial point of view.

• From the social point of view the transformation into residential use has a lot to bring and positively influence the neighbourhood. Preserving the building that has been in the area for more than 80 years keeps the history alive and with new renovation it gives the building an upgraded, contemporary touch

Transformation to apartments Transformation to dormitory

Do nothing New construction

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impactsocial and economic impact

DISCUSION AND CONCLUSION

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

5.1 DISCUSSION

5.1.1 REFLECTION ON THE WORK DONE AND LIMITATIONS

The thesis includes research and case work in the field of sustainability in the construction industry, with a focus on transformations of existing buildings. Research was particularly extensive to achieve a proper understanding of topics before demonstrating the principles and developing approaches on the actual transformation design. As mentioned in the title, the framework for the thesis in general was the idea of sustainability through three pillars –environment, society, and economy. All three of them should be included in order to achieve proper sustainability, and that is exactly what was the intention.

This being a very relevant topic for the times we live in, the research was widely available for majority of the topics. There were topics that had, for example, a lower number of articles and/or books mentioning it, but far from being limiting for drawing conclusions and contributing to the research done for this thesis. However, the same was not the case once work on the case began.

Some of the limitations that were experienced in this case are similar to the ones described in literature concerning transformation of the existing buildings, while some where specific for this thesis. They are as follows:

LACK OF DATA ABOUT THE EXISTING BUILDING

Even though there was plenty of archived drawings and documentation in general, to push the efforts to reuse as much as possible, more data is needed. Particularly, information about the quality of the materials installed in the building. When the building is being built or is undergoing major works on it, it is usually a requirement from several stakeholders to have guarantees for the materials and products installed. However, once the building is in use, the quality of those materials is almost never monitored and documented (considering there is no special circumstances which require that natural disasters, for example).

Additional to available documentation from the archives, a site visit and a building tour was arranged. This proved to be crucial, since we found out about recent changes that were not visible in the archive drawings and documentation. Additional visits in order to do a more detailed audit on the existing building were not possible due to the nature of the work Hans Knudsens Institute is doing.

Being able to access data that has this information would immensely increase the reliability of all the work done. While certain ideas such as material passports are far from wide application, at this point of time, it could be possible to derive the quality of materials from maintenance records, incorporate simplified quality check as a part of the annual inventory management procedure, just to name a few.

COMPLEXITY OF THE PROJECT AND THE TIME LIMIT

As more work was done, the more questions have risen. Construction projects require interdisciplinary teams, covering wide range of topics, to provide high quality, safe and healthy result in a form of a building. Doing transformation projects with sustainability in mind, emphasizes on this even more. The main thesis goal was reached, and the conclusion was presented, but there is much more to come and develop in further detail firstly on theoretical

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impactsocial and economic impact

level and then bringing it to practice. One could even say that research work regarding these topics at this level is almost open ended.

On top of that, the project is complex in a way that all three sustainability pillars interact with each other. This thesis aims to integrate the influential factors and draw a conclusion from it, however, it should be stated that there are realistic limitations that are not possible to solve within the time and scope of the project.

Also, the integration of LCC and LCA is not to a full extent. Several complex external factors were also addressed, for example, demand for office space might change drastically, and since according to the study of the periodic change of office space, the cost of renovation of interior components could impose a big economic impact, it would be critical to reveal the most probable needs of space by carrying out extensive and accurate socio economical aspect study incorporating with the economic aspect study.

This is still both a limitation of the tools selected, and the level of development of the industry, further research or development direction is discussed in 5.1.2 FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS.

TOOLS SELECTION

Several different tools were selected to evaluate aspects of sustainability. For environmental and economic analyses there are standards developed that are well structured and straightforward in use. Although for social sustainability it was up to the team to select the best fitting tool. That applies also to the selection of the transformation potential tool. Reasons for choosing the tool were stated and described but a level of subjectivity might be present.

Using different LCA software also presented a challenge. Reference values from previous reports, as well as ones in the Danish National Strategy, were based upon results calculated in a different tool from the one used in the thesis. Upon analysing the results, it was concluded that there are significant differences on how impacts are calculated in the two tools. Even though the work done provided us with valuable insight on these differences and will be of great help for the future development of the tools and regulations, it made the comparison across more impact categories impossible, at least on a level that would provide satisfactory reliability.

The limitation of LCC was discussed in Chapter 2.2.5 LIFE CYCLE COSTING, mainly about the connection between LCC and LCA studies. However, the selected tool, LCCbyg and One Click LCA do not have any collaboration interface which could also be very useful in any sustainability study. As mentioned, LCC and LCA share a big part of common ground such as Goal & Scope and Life Cycle Inventory, a software connecting the two analyses could save a lot of work. In a practical sense, the cashflow that LCC analyses, could be considered another impact category and the analyses could be run parallel with LCA. The same consideration should be given to the connection with energy demand simulation tools. Energy demand is highly sensitive to the material selection, which also have an impact on the economic and environmental performance. For example, the choice of exterior wall construction. An instant check of the two indicators simultaneously with the change of material properties when optimising energy demand could achieve the optimisation of all three aspects at once and push the likelihood of early stage design optimisation.

Another limitation of LCCbyg compared to the selected LCA tool One Click LCA, is the possibility of isolating acquisition stage (LCA stage A1 A3) to indicate reusing of the selected materials. Instead, LCCbyg now combines all the cost items in each type of cost, and that makes it unable to separate the individual contribution of each cost item. The unavailability to isolate such hinders the analysis of impact per stage per material. LCA tools

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impactsocial and economic impact

like One Click LCA has already provided such option, and LCCbyg, as a nationally supported software, should catch up and fulfil the needs of the developing LCC practitioners.

BIM collaboration for LCCbyg is also needed to facilitate an efficient calculation. In this thesis, even though the building elements are assigned with type codes in common classification system, the mapping LCCbyg could not be done automatically because LCCbyg can only read a specifically formatted .xml file. That would require even more manual work than typing the data manually into LCCbyg. The basic solution could be a plugin in Revit to generate the required .xml file. However, judging from the recent emerging of open sourced BIM tools, a connection based on IFC (Industry Foundation Classes) system, which is the open standard for BIM, instead of Revit which is a closed BIM environment would have a huge potential.

As a conclusion, future tools for the study of sustainability in the construction industry should be able to cover wide range of parameters and aspects in order to reflect the multi criteria nature of the decision making, at the same time be versatile enough to accommodate different interfaces and user needs.

LIMITED AVERAGE EPDs

To determine embedded values in the existing buildings, at this point of time it is necessary to resort to EPDs that are covering average data on different productions. Since this is not a usual workflow and LCAs are made in later phases of the design, when specific products and materials are known, the mentioned average data is often lacking. Leaving out these materials and products would mean tightening the scope of the study and with it, less reliable results. To avoid that, product and material specific EPDs were used if needed.

ENERGY SIMULATIONS

Energy performance of the existing building, as well as the improvements that were implemented in the transformation designs, all come from energy reports done according to BR18 This was done to ensure reliability of the results, since they came from a report done by a third party company certified for that kind of work. As demonstrated, the environmental performance of the buildings that are to be transformed depends a lot on the energy use in the use phase, hence improving their thermal envelope even more than proposed in the designs would be certainly beneficial. Additional energy simulations would have to be done in that case, which was out of the scope in this thesis.

5.1.2 FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

Based on the research done in the thesis, as well as work on the case, we can pinpoint several areas where more rapid development would greatly accelerate the initiative to reuse materials and buildings in the construction industry.

STANDARDISED TESTING OF RECLAIMED MATERIALS AND MATERIAL PASSPORTS

Quality control procedures for the new materials are widely available and are being used. The opposite is the case with reclaimed materials. There are well structured and described

methods on how to approach this, the next step is international standardisation which would most likely speed up the implementation of reuse of materials in the construction industry.

Furthermore, the efforts to track materials performance throughout the whole life cycle needs to be better. This can potentially exclude the need for rigorous testing because we would have data on materials in material passports. This touches upon virgin materials that could be reused, and the materials that are in the existing buildings already.

BUSINESS MODELS FOCUSED AROUND REUSED MATERIALS

The economy exists as a result of society, and both are placed in the environment. The hierarchy is obvious but excluding one of them is making sustainability impossible. Economy provides people with means for living satisfying their basic needs, as well as accomplishing their goals and providing opportunities. Hence, we can say it is the enabler of development, be it sustainable or unsustainable. For the field to enter the common practice, making a framework for businesses is something that is going to attract investors and fuel that development.

The thesis mentions uncertainties with reused materials in buildings, and existing buildings in general, several times. Stakeholders are aware of this, and because of it they are sometimes reluctant to choose transforming existing buildings and reusing materials. According to the proposed new business model diagram in Chapter 1.5.3 CHANGE OF BUSINESS MODEL IN ADAPTIVE REUSE CASES, mitigating such risks would require companies providing guarantees for quality of the reclaimed materials and existing buildings, profiting from additional work needed such as deconstruction, categorisation, testing etc. This study shows that the inclusion of professionals for carrying out preliminary possibility check costs 7% of the total acquisition in the transformation scenarios, which although seems large, it translates to only 1% of the total life cycle expenditure.

The research shows it is possible, and investors should not be hindered, when looking at the LCC result. More serious standards, legislations or regulations would be a big motive for companies to move from smaller scale to a scale that would make more significant difference.

On the other hand, the government is constantly proposing economic incentives and also penalties, a continuous update of the cost/income database is necessary to make a fair estimate. One example is the CO2 tax proposed by the Danish government in the Green Tax Reform scheme (Grøn skattereform) in April. Impact from the economic changes should be included in the calculation.

SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY

As many environmentally sustainable and profitable buildings are being built, it must be mentioned that the end users are people and therefore the social aspect is crucial for sustainability agenda. Environmental aspects are often seen as development with the long term goal, but social sustainability could have more immediate focus providing equal, democratic societies with good quality of life. Changes could start from the small scale projects developing into large, long term perspectives. A lot of analysis needs to be further made to quantify better social sustainability and provide tool that can be universally used. In case of existing tools, they should be tested on real projects, collecting the data and develop based on real project and not only theoretical approaches.

Furthermore, unlike the environmental end economic aspects, social sustainability seems to be left out from BIM workflows. Qualitative nature of it may be one of the reasons, but there is still plenty of indicators that can be quantified and found in available sources (GIS analysis,

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impactsocial and economic impact

Space Syntax, spatial positioning, etc.). As with other workflows, data like that could be brought to BIM models and managed together, or it could be combined with dedicated tools using BIM model as an input. The tool used in this thesis divides indicators to three different groups: veto criteria, building related, and location related. This workflow could be used as a three step social evaluation that incorporates information from BIM models, especially building related characteristics that are mainly quantitative.

LCA IMPROVEMENTS

As already mentioned, due to using a different LCA tool, and with that different energy profiles, full comparison across more impact indicators was not possible in the thesis. This could present a problem in the future if developers and companies are forced to use a single tool simply because threshold values are based upon results from it. Agreed convention is needed on this, most probably based on a geographical context of the project, if the industry is to continue with the approach of comparing impacts to a pre set value.

Secondly, more extensive EPD databases are needed for the existing materials and products. They can be based on average data on production, but still covering commonly found assemblies (i.e., different types of windows, façade claddings, insulations, etc.) This would ensure that all the existing buildings are evaluated on the same terms, so properly argued decisions can be made.

BIM INTEGRATION OF TOOLS AND EARLY-STAGE DECISION MAKING

As previously discussed, BIM allows for a central database that gathers different types of data in construction projects. Rather than exporting this data to dedicated tools to do necessary analysis, the integration of those tools would enable for quicker workflows and making decisions earlier in the design.

This is already a worked on area, and even with some tools that were used in this thesis (One Click LCA), integration is possible with the BIM models inside of Revit, but due to license policy we were not able to use it. Open source BIM software might be an answer to this. They allow for customization from the user and are in some cases completely free to use.

5.2 CONCLUSION(S)

Transformation of the building brings many challenges, especially while including the change of use. According to the study made, it can be certainly concluded that for the Vermundsgade 5 it is more sustainable to do the transformation rather than option of demolishing and building new construction.

Architectural design of the transformation projects must be approached from a different perspective mainly focusing on what is available as a resource in the building itself and reusing it in a new creative way. The transformations presented in the thesis were aiming to reuse the building with as less work as possible in order to cut on the impacts as much as possible. The resource driven design might be seen as more challenging than the design for new construction but not only it is more environmentally friendly, it also brings the possibility to build on the existing urban fabric and provide a new life for a building that is embedded in it. One of the design principles was “do as less as possible” to lower the impacts as much as possible. After evaluating the designs for environmental impacts, we concluded that there is a lot more room to “play” when it comes to architecture than it was initially assumed meaning the cuts in the emissions from reusing, for example, structure and façade, were so large that doing even bigger changes would not cancel them. Contrary to often heard opinions, properly done transformations are not compromising architectural quality of the spaces.

From the environmental perspective, it was concluded that to ensure competitive level with the new construction, it is necessary to include thermal envelope improvements as a part of transformation projects. The reductions in environmental impacts from material phase are large, over 75% in this case, but they get cancelled in the use phase due to increased energy use because of the poor insulation and/or low preforming heating systems. Furthermore, since LCA studies in construction are especially case specific, comparing the results has to be done with great attention to detail (tools used, normalisation and characterisation of results, inventories, etc.).

According to the selected tool it was proved that the transformation into residential use would have a positive impact on the area development making the proposal a successful project. The difference between Dormitory and Apartments is rather insignificant and therefore final decision for the best scenario is considering social and environmental aspect. The importance of social sustainability is being often understated and, in many projects, it is not being evaluated on the same terms with environmental and economic impacts. It is field that needs more development as it is not easy to quantify aspects that are often not tangible. The fact that it is challenging should not be seen as a reason to stop further exploration, but rather as a driving force for the future improvement of human wellbeing.

From the economic perspective, it is important to maintain the built percentage in order to obtain a high income and fast break even, budget should be allocated accordingly to ensure the project could sustain the period before that. Since the recurring income is the most influential factor when considering the whole lifetime, lowering the rentable area would result in a huge reduction of cash inflow and thus the resultant NPV.

However, it should be kept in mind that a lower positive cashflow does not mean it is economically unsustainable. After all, same as the other sustainability pillars, economic sustainability is the consideration of not compromising future needs when fulfilling the current needs. In order to achieve that, besides maintaining a profitable project, the efficient use of capital is essential.

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impactsocial and economic impact

One more thing to add, since the business model requires involving more parties, a distinction of economic sustainability of such a model is the integration of the demand and supply chain. More capital might need to include more stakeholders, but the integration of such is essential to maintain the new business model.

Thus, it is important to balance between other sustainability aspects and choose the best integrated option. This is reflected by the Impact Score that the thesis proposes, and it provides an insight of the trade-off among the aspects.

THESIS POTENTIAL

The thesis provides a condense overview of sustainability aspects in construction industry, and an approach to design of the transformation of the existing building that is addressing those aspects. Underlining the key advancements and showing possible solutions with selected tools it gives reader an insight of what has been already developed and what a great number of questions are unanswered data management issues, reliability of analyses, integration of all three pillars of sustainability, etc.

The workflow of the thesis could serve as a guideline for designing transformations, and the Circular Economy approaches. Current workflows often focus on just one of the sustainability pillars, while it is about combining and balancing all three of them. In that fashion, it could be even used for new construction projects. In particular, the utilization of material stock and resource based design would add value because it enables the use of reclaimed materials and products in that kind of projects as well.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(n.d.). Retrieved from UN Global Compact: https://www.unglobalcompact.org/ (n.d.). Retrieved from archdaily: https://www.archdaily.com (n.d.). Retrieved from ONV arkitekter : https://onv.dk/projekt/nordrefaelled-kvarteroerestaden/ (n.d.). Retrieved from Lendager Group: https://lendager.com/ Aktiv hus Danmark. (2015). DanmarkAktivhus-Enbæredygtigdesignstrategi.Retrieved from http://aktivhusdanmark.

3XN/GXN. (2016). BuildingACircularFuture.

3XN/GXN. (2018). CircleHouse Denmark'sfirstcircularhousingproject.

Abdallah, T. (2017). Sustainablemasstransit:ChallengesandopportunitiesinUrbanpublic transportation.Elsevier.

Abraham, D. M., & Dickinson, R. J. (1998, March 1). Disposal Costs for Environmentally Regulated Facilities: LCC Approach. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,124(2). doi:https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733 9364(1998)124:2(146)

Ackerman, C. (2018, Decemeber 19). WhatisEnvironmentalPsychology? Retrieved from https://positivepsychology.com/environmental-psychology/#definitionenvironmental psychology

Akanbi, L. A., Oyedele, L. O., Akinade, O. O., Ajayi, A. O., Delgado, M. D., Bilal, M., & Bello, S. A. (2018). Salvaging building materials in a circular economy: A BIM based whole life performance estimator. Resources,Conservation&Recycling, 175 186.

Akanbi, L. A., Oyedele, L. O., Omoteso, K., Bilal, M., Akinade, O. O., Ajayi, A. O., . . . Owolabi, H. A. (2019). Disassembly and deconstruction analytics system (D DAS) for construction in a circular economy. JournalofCleanerProduction, 386 396.

Akanbi, L., Oyedele, L., Delgado, J. D., Bilal, M., Akinade, O., Ajayi, A., & Mohammed Yakub, N. (2018). Reusability analytics tool for end of life assessment of building materials in a circular economy. World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, 40 55.

Aksözen, M., Hassler, U., & Kohler, N. (2017). Reconstitution of the dynamics of an urban building stock. Buildingresearchandinformation, 239 258.

Ali, A. K. (2019). Mapping a Resource Based Design Workflow to Activate a Circular Economy in Building Design and Construction. IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science,225(1), 012010. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/225/1/012010

Aliakbar Kamari, R. C. (2017). Sustainability focused decision making in building renovation. InternationalJournalofSustainableBuiltEnvironment.

Alma-nac. (n.d.). House-within-a-house: Alma-nac architects website. Retrieved June 10, 2022, from Alma nac architects website: http://www.alma nac.com/house within a house

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impact

Alyami, S., & Rezgui, Y. (2012). Sustainable buidling assesment tool development approach. SustainableCitiesandSociety

Arbejdstilsynet. (2019). Beskytjermodasbest.AT vejledninger. Arbejdstilsynet. Retrieved June 2022, from https://at.dk/media/5959/beskyt-jer-asbest.pdf

Arbejdstilsynet. (2019, June). WEAguidelinesinthefieldofoccupationalsafetyandhealth Asbestos, At vejledning C.2.2 2. Retrieved June 2022, from Arbejdstilsynet: https://at.dk/regler/at vejledninger/asbest c 2 2/

ArchDaily. (n.d.). SykepleierskolenTheNursingSchool/JVA:ArchDaily. Retrieved June 13, 2022, from ArchDaily: https://www.archdaily.com/890380/sykepleierskolen the nursing-school-jva?ad_source=search&ad_medium=projects_tab

ArchDaily. (n.d.). WertheimFactoryConversion/KerstinThompsonArchitects:ArchDaily Retrieved June 13, 2022, from ArchDaily: https://www.archdaily.com/517640/wertheim factory conversion kerstin thompson architects?ad_source=search&ad_medium=projects_tab

Architectureandpsychology. (n.d.). Retrieved from Kopvol.com: https://kopvol.com/about us/our theories/

Ardente, F., Beccali, M., Cellura, M., & Mistretta, M. (2011). Energy and environmental benefits in public buildings as a result of retrofit actions. RenewableandSustainableEnergy Reviews,15(1), 460 470.

Average renting costs. (2022). Retrieved June 2022, from Copenhagen Municipality: https://international.kk.dk/live/housing/finding a place to live/average renting costs

Aye, L., Bamford, N., Charters, B., & Robinson, J. (2000). Environmentally sustainable development: A life-cycle costing approach for a commercial office building in Melbourne, Australia. Construction Management and Economics, 18(8), 927 934. doi:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/014461900446885

Balasbaneh, A. T., Marsono, A. K., & Jalal, K. S. (2018, November). Sustainability choice of different hybrid timber structure for low medium cost single story residential building: Environmental, economic and social assessment. JournalofBuildingEngineering,20, 235 247. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.07.006

Barron, L., & Gauntlett, E. (2002). WACOSS Housing and Sustainable Communities Indicators Project. Retrieved from www.wacoss.org.au

BB fiberbeton A/S. (2021). EPD Database: epddanmark. Retrieved May 9, 2021, from epddanmark: https://www.epddanmark.dk/uk/epddatabase/?free=&category=Beton&lang=en US&type=0&validDate=0

Benachio, G. F., Freitas, M. D., & Tavares, S. F. (2020). Circular economy in the construction industry: A systematic literature. JournalofCleanerProduction.

Benoit, G., & Mazijn, B. (2009). Guidelines for social cycle assessment of products. UNEP/SETAGLifecycleInitiative.

Berg. (2016, November 16). Can your city change you mind? Retrieved from https://archive.curbed.com/: https://archive.curbed.com/2016/11/16/13637148/design brain architecture psychology

Bertlin, J. (2014, September). Social Sustainability from the perspective of three concepts: human scale, the city at eye level, and public life.

Bjørn , N., & Holek, A. (2014). Evidens for sociale effekter af fysiske indsatser i udsatte områder. Copenhagen Municipality and Danish Association of Architects.

Boeri, A., Antonini, E., Gaspari, J., & Longo, D. (2015). Energy Design Strategies for Retrofitting.WIT Press.

BOL106:Dwellingswithregisteredpopulation(average)byarea,unitanduse . (2022). Retrieved June 2022, from Statistics Denmark: https://www.statbank.dk/statbank5a/selectvarval/define.asp?PLanguage=1&subword =tabsel&MainTable=BOL106&PXSId=206367&tablestyle=&ST=SD&buttons=0

Bolig og Planstyrelsen. (2022). BR18. Retrieved June 2022, from https://bygningsreglementet.dk/Historisk/BR18_Version5/Tekniskebestemmelser/18/Krav

Brand, S. (1995). How BUildings Learn, What Happens After they're Built. Tennessee: Quebecor Printing.

Brütting, j., Desruelle, J., Senatore, G., & Fivet, C. (2019). Design of Truss Structures Through Reuse. Structures,18, 128 137.

Buildings as material banks. (n.d.). Materialpassports:BAMB. Retrieved June 2, 2022, from BAMB website: https://www.bamb2020.eu/topics/materials passports/

Bullen, P. A. (2007). Adaptive reuse and sustainability of commercial buildings. Facilities,25, 20 31. doi:10.1108/02632770710716911

Bullen, P., & Love, P. (2011). Factors influencing the adaptive reuse of buidling. Journalof Engineering,Designandtechnology.

Business Insights. (n.d.). Retrieved from Harvard Business School Online: https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/what is the triple bottom line

Cai, G., Xiong, F., Xu, Y., Larbi, A. S., Lu, Y., & Yoshizawa, M. (2019). A Demountable Connection for Low Rise Precast Concrete Structures with DfD for Construction Sustainability A Preliminary Test under Cyclic Loads. Sustainability, 11(3696). doi:10.3390/su11133696

CEN. (2022, May 11). CEN/TC350TechnicalComiteepage. Retrieved from CEN web site: https://standards.cencenelec.eu/dyn/www/f?p=205:7:0::::FSP_ORG_ID:481830&cs=1F3 4565A9E5B582575682802C33AE3275

CEN/TC 350 Sustainability of construction works. (2021). EN 15643. Sustainability of constructionworks Frameworkforassessmentofbuildingsandcivilengineering works.

CEN/TC 350/WG 1 Environmental performance of buildings. (2011). EN 15978:2011. EN 15978:2011 Sustainability of construction works Assessment of environmental performanceofbuildings– Calculationmethod

Center for Byudvikling, T. P. (2019). Københavns Kommuneplan 2019. Verdensbymedansvar

Chan, A., Cheung, E., & Wong, I. (2015). Impacts of the Revitalizing Industrial Buildings (RIB) Scheme in Hong Kong. Sustainable Cities and Society, 19, 184-190. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2015.08.005

Cipan, V., & Anic, I. (2019, August13). Participatorydesign:Whatisandwhatmakesitso great? Retrieved from Point Jupiter: https://pointjupiter.com/what is participatory design what makes it great/

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impact

Ciroth, A., Hunkeler, D., Klöpffer, W., Swarr, T., & Pesonen, H. (2011). LifeCycleCosting a CodeofPractice.Keymessagesandcriticalevaluation. Conference presentation, GreenDetla TC. Retrieved June 2022, from https://www.greendelta.com/wp content/uploads/2017/03/LCAXI_LCC.pdf

Civil Engineering Academy. (n.d.). Retrieved May 30, 2022, from https://civilengineeringacademy.com/ability of an engineering to influence costs/ Clements Croome, D. (2004). Building environment, architecture and people.

Cost of Living in Copenhagen. (2022). Retrieved June 2022, from Numbeo: https://www.numbeo.com/cost of living/in/Copenhagen

CPH Village. (n.d.). CPHVillagewebsite. Retrieved June 1, 2022, from https://cphvillage.com/ Crippa, M., Guizzardi, D., Muntean, M., Schaaf, E., Solazzo, E., Monforti Ferrario, F., . . . Vignati, E. (2020). Fossil CO2 emissions of all world countries 2020 Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

Cruz Rios, F., Chong, W. K., & Grau, D. (2015). Design for Disassembly and Deconstruction Challenges and Opportunities. ProcediaEngineering(118), 1296 1304.

Danish Standards, Danish Enterprise and Construction Authority. (2013, October 25). DS/EN 1991 1 1 DK NA:2013. Eurocode1:Actionsonstructure Part11:Generalactions Densities,selfweight,imposedloadsforbuildings. Danish Standards Foundation.

Danish Standards, Danish Enterprise and Construction Authority. (n.d.). DS/EN 1992. Eurocode2:Designofconcretestructures. Danish Standards Foundation.

Davis, M., Coony, R., Gould, S., & Daly, A. (2005). GuidelinesforLifeCycleCostAnalysis. Guidelines, Stanford University, Land and Buildings. Retrieved from https://sustainable.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Guidelines_for_Life_Cycle_Cost_ Analysis.pdf

de Araujo, A. (2019). Howtolayapatiofromreclaimedbricks:Simplythenestwebsite. Retrieved June 7, 2022, from Simply the nest website: https://www.simplythenest.com/simplythenestjournal/2019/7/16/how to lay a patio from reclaimed bricks

Det viser energimærket. (2022, June). Retrieved from Energistyrelsen: https://ens.dk/ansvarsomraader/energimaerkning af bygninger/det viser energimaerket

Dezeen.com. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.dezeen.com

DiKon, & BIM7AA. (2018). Specification of Building Parts for selected building parts in buildingandlandscapemodels.

Dingeo.dk ApS. (2022, May 16). DinGeodata:Vermundsgade5documents. Retrieved from DinGeo web site: https://www.dingeo.dk/adresse/2100 k%C3%B8benhavn %C3%B8/vermundsgade 5/dokument/

Duffy, F. (1990). Measuring building performance. Facilities, 8(5), 17 20. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000002112

Duffy, F., & Myerson, J. (1998). Designforchange:thearchitectureofDEGW.Birkhauser.

Durmisevic, E. (2006). Design for Disassembly as a way to introduces sustainable engineering into construction. In TransformableBuildingStructures.

Durmisevic, E. (2006).Transformablebuildingstructures:Designfordissassemblyasawayto introduce sustainable engineering to building design & construction. TU Delft, Architecture. Cedris M&CC. Retrieved June 2022, from http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:9d2406e5 0cce 4788 8ee0 c19cbf38ea9a

Durmisevic, E. (2009). Green Design and Assembly of Buildings and Systems. In E. Durmisevic. Germany: VDM publisher.

Durmisevic, E. (2009). Greendesignandassemblyofbuildingsandsystems:Designfor DisassemblyakeytoLifeCycleDesignofbuildingsandbuildingproducts. VDM Verlag Dr. Müller, 2010. Retrieved from https://www.bamb2020.eu/wp content/uploads/2016/11/Elma sustainable innovation paper.pdf

Durmisevic, E. (2015). Dynamic Architecture. In E. Durmisevic, Dynamic Architecture. University of Twente.

Durmisevic, E. (2016). DynamicandCircularBuildingsbyHighTransformationandReuse Capacity.Forum presentation, University of Twente, Reversible Buildings. Retrieved June 2022, from https://www.bamb2020.eu/wp content/uploads/2016/11/Elma sustainable innovation paper.pdf

EEW, E. E. (n.d.). https://www.energyefficiencywatch.org/index.html.

Ekins, P., Domenech, T., Drummond, P., Bleischwitz, R., Hughes, N., & Lotti, L. (2019). Regional Development. Retrieved from OECD: https://www.oecd.org/cfe/regionaldevelopment/Ekins 2019 Circular Economy What Why How Where.pdf

El Asmar, J. P., & Taki, A. (2014). Sustainable rehabilitation of the built environment in Lebanon. SustainableCitiesandSociety,10, 22 38. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2013.04.004

Ellard, C., & Montgomery, C. (n.d.). A psychological study on city spaces and how they affect our bodies and minds. BMW Guggenheim Lab. Retrieved from bmwguggenheimlab.org

Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2019, February). Circular economy systems diagram. Retrieved February 3, 2022, from https://emf.thirdlight.com/link/bxqwo5kx53lq 2syjxg/@/preview/1?o

Environmental noise regualtion in Denmark. (2012, Januar 12). Miljøstyrelsens Referencelaboratorium for Støjmålinger. Retrieved from https://referencelaboratoriet.dk/

European Buildings under the microscope. (2011). Acountry-by-countryreviewoftheenergy, 132. Retrieved from https://www.bpihomeowner.org/

European Commission (DG ENV). (2009). Studyonwaterperformanceofbuildings.

European Commission. (2004, April 20). Standardisation- Mandates.Retrieved May 10, 2022, from European Commission web site: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools databases/mandates/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.detail&id=228#

European Parliament. (2021, June 24). Whatiscarbonneutralityandhowcanitbeachievedby 2050? Retrieved January 25, 2022, from European Parliament: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20190926STO62270/what is carbon neutrality and how can it be achieved by 2050

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impact

Eurostat. (2022, January 4th). Eurostat. Retrieved from Recovery rate of construction and demolition waste: https://data.europa.eu/data/datasets/uczdo4z1o5qcllbdtbkhq?locale=en

Evidence based design. (n.d.). Retrieved from ww.wikipedia.org: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence based_design

Evidencebased health architecture. (n.d.). Retrieved from oatext.com: https://oatext.com/Evidence based health architecture.php

Expression of technique. (n.d.). Retrieved from Britanica.com: https://www.britannica.com/topic/architecture/Space and mass

Femenías, P., Mjörnell, K., & Thuvander, L. (2018). Rethinking deep renovation: The perspective of rental housing in Sweden.JournalofCleanerProduction,195, 1457 1567. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.282

Femis, A. F. (1936). The Evolving House: Volume III: Rational Design. Cambridge: MIT Press. Fernando, J. (2021, September 03). TimeValueofMoney(TVM). Retrieved June 2022, from Investopedia: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/timevalueofmoney.asp

Flourentzou, F., & Roulet, C. (2002). Elaboration of retrofit scenarios. EnergyandBuildings, 185 192.

Gan, V. J. (2022). BIM based graph data model for automatic generative design of modular buildings. AutomationofConstruction,134, 104062.

Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for people. Island Press.

Gehl, J., & Gemzøe, L. (2000). NewCitySpaces.

Gehl, J., & Svarre, B. (2013). Howtostudypubliclife?

Geldermans, R. (2016). Design for change and circularity – accommodating circular material. EnergyProcedia, 301 311.

Gemzøe, L. (2006). Quality for people a set of criteria for the design of pedestrian places and networks with people in mind. International Conference.

Geraedts, R., & Theo van der Voort. (2007). Atooltomeasureopportunitiesandrisksof convertingemptyofficesintodwellings.

Geraedts, R., & van der Voort, T. (2007). A tool to measure opportunities and risks of convertingemptyofficesintodwellings.

GKV Architects. (2021). AbriefHistoryonModularArchitecture. Retrieved May 26, 2022, from GKV Architects web site: https://www.gkvarchitects.com/news/a brief history on modular architecture

Gluch, P., & Baumann, H. (2004, May). The life cycle costing (LCC) approach: a conceptual discussion of its usefulness for environmental decision making. Building and Environment - TheInternationalJournalofBuildingScienceanditsApplications, 39(5), 571 580. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2003.10.008

Grace, J. (2004). Understanding and managing the global carbon cycle.JournalofEcology, 189 202.

Graedel, T., & Allenby, B. (1996). In DesignforEnvironment.Prentice Hall.

Green Building Council Denmark. (2020). DGNB Nye bygninger og omfattende renoveringer. In DGNBManual(p. 17).

Green Building Council Denmark. (n.d.). KortomDGNB. Retrieved June 2022, from Green Building Council Denmark: https://dk-gbc.dk/dgnb

Guerra, B. C., & Leite, F. (2021). Circular economy in the construction industry: An overview of United States stakeholders' awareness, major challenges, and enablers. Resources, Conservation&Recycling, 105617.

Gupta, Y. P. (1983). Life Cycle Cost Models and Associated Uncertainties. In J. K. Skwirzynski, ElectronicSystemsEffectivenessandLifeCycleCosting,NATOASISubseriesF(Vol. 3, pp. 535–549). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-64282014 4_29

Habraken, N. (1998). TheStructureoftheOrdinary.First MIT Press(2000).

Hamedani, A. Z., & Huber, F. (2012). A comparative study of DGNB, LEED and BREEAM certificate systems in urban sustainability. TheSustainableCityVII,Vol.1,155, 121 132. doi:10.2495/SC120111

Hamilton, D. K., & Watkins, D. H. (2009). Evidence baseddesignformultiplebuidlingtypes. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Hauschild, M. Z., Rosenbaum, R. K., & Olsen, S. I. (2018). LifeCycleAssesment Theoryand Practice.Springer International Publishing AG.

Hermans, M. H. (1999). Buildingperformacestartsathand-over:theimportanceoflifespan information.Rotterdam: Damen Consultants.

Hodgson, N. (n.d.). Social Sustainability Assessment Framework. (M. University, Ed.)

Holdren, J. P., & Ehrlich, P. R. (1974). Human Population and the Global Environment: Population growth, rising per capita material consumption, and disruptive technologies have made civilization a global ecological force. AmericanScientist,62, 282 292.

Hoogmartens, R., Passel, S. V., Acker, K. V., & Dubois, M. (2014, September ). Bridging the gap between LCA, LCC and CBA as sustainability assessment tools. Environmental ImpactAssessmentReview,48, 27 33. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.05.001

HTA Design LLP. (n.d.). ApexHouse:HTAwebsite. Retrieved May 30, 2022, from HTA website: https://www.hta.co.uk/project/apex house

Huuhka, S., & Kolkwitz, M. (2021). Stocks and flows of buidlings:Analysis of existing, demolished, and constructed buildings in Tampere, Finland,. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 948 960.

IFHP. (n.d.). SocialCitiesIndex. Retrieved from International Federation for Housing and Planning.

Internation Electrotechnical Commission [IEC]. (2017). IEC 6030033 Dependability management Part33:Applicationguide Lifecyclecosting(3 ed.). Retrieved June 2022

International Organization for Standardization [ISO]. (2006). ISO 14040:2006 . ISO14040:2006 Environmentalmanagement Lifecycleassessment Principlesandframework,2. Geneva. Retrieved June 2022

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impact

International Organization for Standardization [ISO]. (2006). ISO14044:2006Environmental management Life cycle assessment Requirements and guidelines (1 ed.). Retrieved June 2022

International Organization for Standardization [ISO]. (2017). ISO15686-5:2017Buildingsand constructed assets Service life planning Part 5: Lifecycle costing (2 ed.). Retrieved June 2022

Itard, L., & Meijer, F. (2008). TowardsasustainableNorthernEuropeanhousingstock.TU Delft.

Jensen, J. O. (2017). Vacant houses in Denmark: Problems, localization and initiatives. ENHR 2017. Tirana. Retrieved June 2022, from https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/262321430/Vacant_Housing_Denmark_ENHR_ paper_Jensen_2017_31082017.pdf

Jensen, P., & Maslesa, E. (2015). Value based building renovation a tool for decision making and evaluation. BuildlingandEnvironement

Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). Theexperienceofnature.Cambridge University Press.

Karssenberg, H., Laven, J., & van't Hoff, M. (2016). 80lessonstoagoodcityateyelevel.

Karssenberg, H., Laven, J., Glaser, M., & van't Hoff, M. (2016). TheCityateyelevel.Second extendedversion.Delft, Netherlands: Eburon Academic Publishers.

Keenan, T., & Williams, C. (2018). The Terrestrial Carbon Sink. AnnualReviewofEnvironment andResources, 219-243.

Kelly, J. F., Weidmann, B., Mullerworth, D., Mares, P., Hunter, A., Davis, C., & Breadon, P. (2012, March). Social Cities. Melbourne: Grattan institute.

Khoury, B., Kaloustian, P., & Ghotmeh, L. (2021, January 20). The Contemporary Approach to Rebuilding Cities Post Disaster: The Case of Beirut. (C. Harrouk, Interviewer) ArchDaily. Retrieved from https://www.archdaily.com/955374/the contemporary approach to rebuilding cities post disaster the case of beirut

Kloepffer, W. (2008). Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. The International JournalofLifeCycleAssessment,13, 89. doi:https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2008.02.376

Klaassen, L. (2017, June 29). Planning for the psyche. (T. Vollmer, Interviewer) Retrieved from https://www.sueddeutsche.de/geld/architektur und psychologie planen fuer die psyche 1.3564939

Kulturministeriet, Kulturarvsstyrelsen. (2011). SAVE Kortlægning og registrering af bymiljøers og bygningers bevaringsværdi. Manual, Kulturarvsstyrelsen, Kulturministeriet. Retrieved June 2022, from https://slks.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/kulturarv/fysisk_planlaegning/dokumenter/SAV E_vejledning.pdf

KøbenhavnsKommune. (2021, 11 19). Retrieved from Neighbourhood plan sets the framework for the development of the Haraldsgade district: https://www.kk.dk/nyheder/kvarterplan saetter rammerne for udvikling af haraldsgadekvarteret

Lacy, M. (1996). The Power of Colour to Heal the Environment. London: Rainbow Bridge. Lang, J. (1987). Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design. USA: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.

LLatas, C., Soust Verdaguer, B., Hollberg, A., Palumbo, E., & Quiñones, R. (2022). BIM based LCSA application in early design stages using IFC. Automation in Construction, 104259. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104259

Ma, Z., Cooper, P., Daly, D., & Ledo, L. (2012). Existing building retrofits: Methodology and state of the art. EnergyandBuilding.

Manzi, T., al, e., & eds. (2010). Socialsustainabilityinurbanareas:communities,connectivity andtheurbanfabric.London: Routledge.

Margarete. (2018, june 1.). ArchitecturalPsychology:TheInfluenceofArchitectureonour Psyche. Retrieved from https://medium.com/archilyse/1 the influence of architecture on-our-psyche-f183a6732708

Maslow, A. (1943). Atheoryofhumanmotivation. Meyer Lindenberg, A. (n.d.). University of Heidelbergs Central Institute of Mental Health. Mannheim, Germany.

Miah, J. H., Koh, L. S., & Stone, D. A. (2017, December 1). A hybridised framework combining integrated methods for environmental Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing.

Journal of Cleaner Production, 168, 846 866. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.187

MonthlyprimeofficerentinCopenhagenfrom1sthalf2019to1stquarter2021(ineurosper square meter) . (2021). Retrieved June 2022, from Statista: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1181631/monthly prime office rent in copenhagen/

Moore, R. (n.d.).Thebusinesscaseforlifecyclecost.Retrieved June 2022, from Reliable Plant: https://www.reliableplant.com/Read/11309/life-cycle-cost

Natuur, M. e. (2019). https://mensnatuur.wordpress.com/2019/04/17/alnarptherapygardens monday26thjune2017/. Retrieved from https://mensnatuur.wordpress.com/.

Neier, H., Neyer, J., & Radunsky, K. (2018).InternationalClimateNegotiations– Issuesatstake in view of the COP 24 UN Climate Change Conference in Katowice and beyond. Luxembourg: European Parliament.

Nikos, A. S., & Débora, M. T. (2001). Modularity and the Number of Design Choices. Nexus NetworkJournal, 99 109.

Nordby, A. S. (2019). Barriers and opportunities to reuse of building. IOPConferenceSeries: EarthandEnvironmentalScience, 225 012061.

Norris, B., Traverso, M., Neugebauer, S., Ekener, E., Schaubroeck, T., Russo Garrido, S., . . . Arcese, G. (2020). UNEP2020 GuidelnesforSocialCycleAssessmentofProducts andOrganizations2020.United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

Næss Schmidt, S., Heebøll, C., & Fredslund, N. C. (2015, November). Dohomeswithbetter energy efficiency ratings have higher house prices? Econometric approach. Copenhagen Economics. Retrieved from The Danish Energy Agency: https://ens.dk/sites/ens.dk/files/Energibesparelser/bilag_ _do_homes_with_better_energy_efficiency_ratings_have_higher_house_prices_oekon ometrisk_tilgang.pdf

Oezdemir, O., Krause, K., & Hafner, A. (2017). Creating a Resource Cadaster—A Case Study of a District in the Rhine Ruhr Metropolitan Area. Buildings.

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impact

One Click LCA. (2015). Helsinki: One Click LCA Ltd. Ornelas, C., Guedes, J. M., & Breda Vázquez, I. (2016). Cultural built heritage and intervention criteria: A systematic analysis of building codes and legislation of Southern European countries. JournalofCulturalHeritage,20, 725-732.

Ortiz, O., Castells, F., & Sonnnemann, G. (2009). Sustainability in the construction industry: A review of recent developments based on LCA.ConstructionandBuildingMaterials, 28 39.

Otovic, A. P. (2016, July 16). Towards an operationalization of social sustainability concepts in an integrated design process. Designingsocialsustainability. Denmark.

Passer, A., Ouellet Plamondon, C., Kenneally, P., John, V., & Habert, G. (2016). The impact of future scenarios on building refurbishment strategies towards plus energy buildings. EnergyandBuildings,124, 153 163. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.04.008

Peters, T. (2016). Social sustainability in context: rediscovering Ingrid Gehl’s Bomiljø. Cambridge University Press 2017.

Petković-Grozdanovića, N., Stoiljković, B., Keković, A., & Murgul, V. (2016). The Possibilities for Conversion and Adaptive Reuse of Industrial Facilities into Residential Dwellings. ProcediaEngineering,165, 1836 1844. pinterest.com. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.pinterest.at/pin/207306389088146937/ Plag, R. (2009). ubakus.com:Uvaluecalculator. Retrieved from https://www.ubakus.com/ Planlux. (n.d.). Sidelighting and openings. Retrieved from Planlux, Lighting Design: https://planlux.net/sidelighting openings/

Poelman, W. A. (2009). Supply Driven Architecture. (E. Durmisevic, Ed.) Conference Proceedings, 110 117.

Pomponi, F., & Moncaster, A. (2017). Circular economy for the built environment: A research framework. JournalofCleanerProduction, 710 718.

Poncelet, F., & Nasseredine, M. (2021). Evaluatingthetechnicalperformanceofreclaimed buildingmaterials. Belgian Building Research Institute and Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment for Interreg North West Europe.

Products, C. 3. (2012). EN 15804:2012 Sustainabilityofconstructionworks – Environmental productdeclarations Corerulesfortheproductcategoryofconstructionproducts.

Remøy , H., & Van der Voordt. (n.d.). Adaptive reuse of office buidlings into housing.

Restaurant for lease (2022). Retrieved June 2022, from Lokaleportalen: https://www.lokaleportalen.dk/en/erhvervslokaler/restaurant?zip_codes=2100;2400;220 0

Rethinkingthefuture.com. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.re thinkingthefuture.com/materials construction/a4311 10 examples of recycled concrete/

Rizk, R. (n.d.). Retrieved June 13, 2022, from https://www.archdaily.com/961336/christele harrouk and salim rouhana on rebuilding beirut in design and the city podcast

Roessler, K. (2012). Healthy Architecture Can environments evoke emotional responses? GlobalJournalofHealthScience. Canadien Center of Science and Education.

Rose, C. M., & Stegemann, J. A. (2019). Characterising existing buildings as material banks (E BAMB) to enable component reuse. ProceedingsoftheInstitutionofCivilEngineers EngineeringSustainability,172(3), 129 140. doi:https://doi.org/10.1680/jensu.17.00074

Roselli, M. (2020, November). The asbestos lie. The past and present of an industrial catastrophe.Brussels: ETUI, The European Trade Union Institute. Retrieved June 06, 2022, from https://www.etui.org/publications/books/the asbestos lie the past and present-of-an-industrial-catastrophe

Rønning, A. (2017). Travels with LCA: the evolution of LCA in the construction sector. Aalborg Universitetsforlag. doi:10.5278/VBN.PHD.TECH.00016

Sachs, J., Kroll, C., Guillaume, L., Fuller, G., & Woelm, F. (2021). SustainableDevelopment Report2021.Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781009106559

Sachs, J., Kroll, C., Lafortune, G., Fuller, G., & Woelm, F. (2021, October). Interactivemap. Retrieved January 30, 2022, from Sustainable Development Report: https://dashboards.sdgindex.org/map

Salama, W. R. (2019). Designfordisassemblyasanalternativesustainableconstruction approachtolifecycledesignofconcretebuildings.Leibniz University Hannover.

Sanchez, B., & Hass, C. (2018). A novel selective disassembly sequence planning method for adaptive reuse of buildings. JournalofCleanerProduction, 998 1010.

Schmidt, M., & Crawford, R. H. (2017, June). Developing an Integrated Framework for Assessing the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Life Cycle Cost of Buildings. ProcediaEngineering,196, 988 995. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.08.040

Schwartz, H. (2021, December 28). Examining the 2021 construction materials shortage. Retrieved April 25, 2022, from Designing Buildings UK: https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Examining_the_2021_construction_materi als_shortage#Material_Passport

Scuri, P. (1995). design of Encloused Spaces. New York: Chapman and Hall.

Sesana, M. M., & Salvalai, G. (2013, September). Overview on life cycle methodologies and economic feasibility for nZEBs. BuildingandEnvironment TheInternationalJounral of Building Science and its Applications, 67, 211 216. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.05.022

Sesana, M. M., & Salvalai, G. (2013, September). Overview on life cycle methodologies and economic feasibility for nZEBs. BuildingandEnvironment TheInternationalJounral of Building Science and its Applications, 67, 211-216. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.05.022

Shahi, S., Esfahani, M. E., Bachmann, C., & Haas, C. (2020). A definition framework for building adaptation projects. SustainableCitiesandSociety, 102345.

Sherif, Y. S., & Kolarik, W. J. (1981). Life cycle costing: Concept and practice. Omega The International Jounral of Management Science, 9(3), 287 296. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(81)90035-9

Shirazi, M., & Keivani, R. (2017). Critical reflections on the theory and practice of social sustainability in the built environemnt a meta analysis. LocalEnvironemnt.

Shirazi, M., & Keivani, R. (2017). Criticalreflectionson thetheoryandpracticeofsocial sustainability in the built environment a meta analysis. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2017.1379476

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impact

Spence, R., & Mulligan, H. (1995). Sustainable development and the construction industry. HabitatInternational, 279 292.

Sterner, E. (2002). Green Procurement of Buildings: Estimation of lifecycle cost and environmentalimpact.Doctoral thesis, Luleå Tekniska Universitet, Division of Steel Structures, Department of Civil and Mining Engineering, Luleå. Retrieved June 2022, from https://vpp.sbuf.se/Public/Documents/ProjectDocuments/5BD92AA1 FAB0 4912-AB28B84982448DAC/FinalReport/SBUF%2010081%20Slutrapport%20Doktorsavhandling%2 0LTU DT 0209 SE.pdf

Stigsdotter, U., & Grahn, P. (2002). What makes a garden a healing garden? Journal of TherapeuticHorticulture

Stone. (2022, June). Retrieved from britannica.com: https://www.britannica.com/topic/stone material

Swarr, T. E., Hunkeler, D., Klöpffer, W., Pesonen, H. L., Ciroth, A., Brent, A. C., & Pagan, R. (2011).EnvironmentalLifeCycleCosting:ACodeofPractice.SETAC Press. Retrieved June 2022, from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367 011 0287 5 Sygictravel. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://travel.sygic.com/en

The American Institute of Architect & National Institute of Building Sciences. (2019). Design forModularConstruction:AnIntroductionforArchitects.

The Danish Housing and Planning Authority. (2021). TheNationalStrategyforSustainable Construction.Copenhagen: Ministry of the Interior and Housing.

The Danish Working Environment Authority. (2020). Beskytjermodasbest.Retrieved from The Danish Working Environment Authority: https://at.dk/media/5959/beskyt-jerasbest.pdf

The European Commission. (1999, July 27).TheEuropeanCommissionbansWhiteAsbestos. Retrieved June 2022, from The European Commission Press Corner: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_99_572

TheEvolutionofGIS. (2021, July 1). Retrieved March 15, 2022, from University of Southern California: https://gis.usc.edu/blog/the evolution of gis/

Toniolo, S., Tosato, R. C., Gambaro, F., & Ren, J. (2020). Life cycle thinking tools: Life cycle assessment, life cycle costing and social life cycle assessment. In S. Toniolo, & J. Ren, LifeCycleSustainabilityAssessmentforDecisionMaking:MethodologiesandCase Studies(pp. 39-56). Elsevier. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/C2018-0-02095-2

Torrice, A. F. (1988). Colour for healing. HealthcareDesign

Tram, M. W. (2020). Designofamethodforassessingandvisualizetransformationpotential ofexistingbuildingsinthecirculareconomy - Case:ThePFADorminAalborgby ArkitemaArchitects.Technical University of Denmark, DTUbyg. Retrieved June 2022

Twelve quality criteria. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://gehlpeople.com/tools/twelve quality criteria/

Twelve quality criteria. (n.d.). Retrieved from gehlpeople.com: https://gehlpeople.com/tools/twelve quality criteria/

United Nations. (1987, October 19). Retrieved from United Nations Photo: https://www.unmultimedia.org/s/photo/detail/149/0149071.html

United Nations. (2015). Sustainable Development Challenges. New York: Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA). Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/2843WESS2013.pdf

United Nations Environment Programme. (2021). 2021GlobalStatusReportforBuildingsand Construction: Towards a Zeroemission, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and ConstructionSector.Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme.

United Nations, General Assembly. (2015). Transformingourworld:the2030Agendafor SustainableDevelopment.New York: United Nations. Retrieved January 30, 2022, from https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda

Valentová, M., Karásek, J., & Knápek, J. (2018). Ex post evaluation of energy efficiency programs: Case study of Czech Green Investment Scheme. WIREsEnergyEnviron,8. doi:10.1002/wene.323

Vangelatos, G. (2019, October 18). HowDoesArchitectureImpactSociety?AHighLevel Look. Retrieved from HMC Architects: https://hmcarchitects.com/news/how does architecture impact society a high level look 2019 10 18/#:~:text=Everything%20from%20the%20layout%20of,contribute%20more%20to%20t heir%20company

VELUX. (2022). 1.7 Daylight calculations and measurements. Retrieved from VELUX homepage: https://www.velux.com/what we do/research and knowledge/deic basic book/daylight/daylight calculations and measurements

Vihelm Lauritzen Architects, C. a. (2016). Architecture policy for Copenhagen 2017 2025. Vogel, S. (2021, March 31). TheTransformativeBenefitsofParticipatoryDesign. Retrieved from d lab.mit.edu: https://d lab.mit.edu/news blog/blog/co creating more equitable world transformative benefits participatory design

Vollmer, T. (n.d.). Architecture & psychology. Kopvol. Retrieved from https://kopvol.com/about us/our theories/

What is codesign? A brief overview . (n.d.). Retrieved from Beyond sticky notes: https://www.beyondstickynotes.com/what is codesign

What is evidencebased design? (n.d.). Retrieved from www.gilmoreid.com: https://www.gilmoreid.com.au/what is evidence based design and why it matters/

WhatisSocialSustainability? (n.d.). Retrieved from ADEC Innovations, ESG Solutions: https://www.adecesg.com/resources/faq/what is social sustainability/#:~:text=Social%20sustainability%20occurs%20when%20the,create%20 healthy%20and%20livable%20communities.

Whyte, W. (1980). Thesociallifeofsmallurbanspaces.

Wilkinson, S., & Remøy, H. (2018). BuildingUrbanResilencethroughChangeofUse.Wiley Blackwell.

Woodconstructionreducesstressandoffersahealthylivingenvironment. (n.d.). Retrieved from Wood for Good: https://woodforgood.com/news and views/2014/05/15/wood construction reduces stress and offers a healthy living environment/ World Comission on Environment and Development. (1987). OurCommonFuture. Oxford University Press.

TRANSFORMATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impact

Yu, S. M., Tu, Y., & Luo, C. (2011). GreenRetrofittingCostsandBenefits:ANewResearch Agenda.

Zaidi, S. N. (2021). How do materials affect human psychology. ReThinking the Future. Retrieved from https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/rtf-fresh-perspectives/a1275how do materials affect human psychology/

Zimmermann, R. K., Andersen, C. E., Kanafani, K., & Birgisdóttir, H. (2020). Klimapåvirkning fra60bygninger MulighederforudformningafreferenceværdiertilLCAforbygninger. Polyteknisk Boghandel og Forlag ApS. Retrieved June 2022, from https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/329648206/SBi_2020_04.pdf

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I – Key factors for building renovation context

A brief description about the existing key factors in building renovation context:

- Value: Does the property have historical or cultural value?

- Climate: What is the dominant climate or related climatic zone of the area? (e.g. cold and dry)

- Location: Does the building located in rural area or urban sector?

- Site: What are the specific characteristic of the site the property situated? (e.g. proximity to crowded spaces)

- Neighborhood: What is the neighborhood status of the building? Does the building working or connected with other buildings?

- Building function: What is the function of the property? (e.g. residential, commercial, hospital etc.)

- Ownership: What is the status of the building’s ownership and occupants? (e.g. the owner is government and the flat has been rented as a 100 years inhabitancy schema)

- Orientation: What is the orientation status of the building?

- Age: What is the age of the property?

- Lifespan: Has the building been planned (from construction to demolition) for a certain period? (e.g. municipalities outreach plans)

- Building type: What is the type of the building? (e.g. multi story building, single flat building etc.)

Building story: What is the scale of the building? (e.g. the number of the floors and units in a multi story and unit apartment)

Unit area: What is the area of the units? (e.g. the size of the units in a multi unit apartment)

- Structure: What is the structure and envelope type of the property? (e.g. metal and brick)

- Shape: What are special things about the shape of the building? (e.g. a curvy shape)

- Ventilation: What is the ventilation system of the building?

- Material: What are the types and specialty of the existing material?

- Installations: What is the installation (heating, cooling and electrical systems) type of the building? Have they divided privately between the units or they are common between the units? (e.g. central heating system in a multi story building)

Retrofitted yet: Has the property been renovated so far? When?

- Balcony and Chimney: Is there balcony or chimney in the building?

- Tenancy: How late is the property under rent? (e.g. the property has been rented for 2 years till January/2017)

- Buy and Sell: Is the owner going to sell the property? When? (e.g. owner is going to renovate the building in order to immediate sell)

-Occupant’s daily stay: How many hours are the occupants staying at unit/flat? (e.g. day and night except 7 am to 2 pm)

- Occupant’s monthly stay: How many hours are the occupants staying at unit/flat? (e.g. day and night except 7 am to 2 pm)

Occupant’s yearly stay: How many month are the occupants staying at unit/flat? (e.g. all of a year except July)

Occupant’s consumption habits: What is the occupant’s energy consumption habits? (e.g. opening the windows from 5 pm to 7 pm during the day)

- Occupant’s demands: What is the occupant’s demands of retrofitting? (e.g. no changes in the building but insulation)

- Occupant’s income: How much is the occupant’s income level?

- Occupant’s job: What jobs type are the occupants doing?

- Additional consideration: In some special cases there is possibility of adding question to this list (e.g., is the building suffering from special fungus, insects etc.?)

TRANSFORMATION

APPENDIX II –

Existing drawings of the building from the archive

design drawings

APPENDIX IV – Quantity take-offs

APPENDIX V – Energy Label Report

APPENDIX VI – Transformation Potential Tool

APPENDIX VII

Conversion meter

design,

and social impact

20 100 100

TRANSFORMATION

design,

impact

Risk assessment examples

TRANSFORMATION

Architectural design, environmental, urbanistic, and social impact

APPENDIX IX – Sigma report – Average construction cost

APPENDIX X –

Sustainable strategies by Durmisevic

Sustainable strategies by Elma Durmisevic (Durmisevic, Transformable building structures: Design for dissassembly as a way to introduce sustainable engineering to building design & construction, 2006)

list for

XIII – EPDs list for the “Transformation to apartments”inventory

LCA results report

APPENDIX XV – Rent estimation

report

1: average construction data

Calculation

data

Sigma report - Existing mixed use

APPENDIX XIX – Sigma report - Dormitory

LCCbyg report

Case 2.2: 10% deviation of rent