What goes up…must be reused?
I’m on Phase 3 with Arup’s infrastructure team looking at urban redevelopment design so this caught my eye and got me thinking…
An article popped up on the company internal blog asking for design and construction experience of pre-cast RC multi-storey car park (MSCP). It stated the project drivers being programme and durability. Nothing out the ordinary so far.
A response was received within minutes based on recent experience that clients are now more aware of their social policy/agendas (sustainability) and constrained investment potential in ‘fixed’ structures. They state clients are favouring semi-permanent and flexible structures over traditional builds with greatest possible design life. The example given (below) was a ‘shape-shifting’ and deconstructable MSCP as the client sees autonomous vehicles making a traditional MSCP obsolete within a decade. This suggests design for deconstruction (DfD) and adaptability has the potential to be as if not more valuable to clients than durability…
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/east-village-calgary-parkade-platform-mixed-use-1.4855681
Planet. The design for deconstruction concept is founded on waste reduction so sustainability unsurprisingly. Technological development and sustainability incentives (UN SDGs) are driving up delivery efficiencies. Time-down, Quality-up.
People. The designing-in of deconstructability needs to happen at the project concept stage. Are rapidly changing attitudes and wider socials drivers such as autonomous vehicles (excuse the pun) triggering strategies away from permanent structures? Cost down.
Profit. Are clients/developers seeing opportunities in the two paras above to turn a quicker and more efficient profit? T-down, Q-up, C-down = Profit-up
Has anyone experienced similar quasi-permanent structures or concepts in their attachments? Any key considerations?
I wonder whether there is even utility in the concept for Defence – quasi-permanent bases for a decade or two say e.g. to deal with re-basing issues? Knowing defence, I suspect for the near future we will see more erratic rather than slowly evolving cityscapes instead…
Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog 
Think I designed a quasi REME workshops once. Could’ve been built in Leicester, flat packed and re-assembled in Iraq…
James, an interesting concept. In my skeptical view , I would be surprised how ‘interested’ in sustainability a private client is? I would have thought that this is more about getting a project across the planning line with the ability to make money off the project in the future via a ‘pre-agreed’ change of use after a certain timeframe (adaptability/redevelopment potential). An MSCP is probably a good example; high demand now, but reduced demand in 10years when the building will change to commercial/residential – more likely to get approval as it meets a demand now (Section 106 stuff). Designing in adaptability from the start seems logical to me, but I would have thought it is tightly aligned to the developers cost-benefit analysis and where they see themselves making money from the project; is it from using the finished building as an asset (something to be sold after a number of years) or is it from selling/ leasing the residential and commercial units? Perhaps there is a certain classification of structure and client that this model is more aligned to (low-rise, low commercial profit, local government developments) – what is the experience at Arup?
I am slightly less cynical than Glynn and think that actually some of the bigger companies are more concerned about the long term sustainability of their assets, particularly because they want to have the right public image of thinking about the environment etc and in the end it is more economically viable to re-use the structure at the end of its initial design life. I think from a designer’s perspective also there is a moral and social responsibility to promote more sustainable structures. Some of my research for TMR 4 has got me reading about Embodied Carbon and Embodied Energy of a structure which looks at the Energy used and CO2 emitted in delivering the asset from “cradle to grave”. Though I haven’t witnessed it yet, I believe designers are using carbon calculators to aid in the design selection process and improve the sustainability of structures. I imagine if you can double the life of your structure through re-use (or whatever it actually works out as) then your embodied carbon and embodied energy per year will drop significantly.
I agree Auggy, yes I used a carbon calculator on a job recently. We use it to influence our design selection as you suggest. Glyn, I think you are right in that most private clients are not focused on sustainability issues, but this is something that can be and, certainly in my design office, is pushed on clients as something that we should be doing. The desire to be seen as an industry leader in sustainability has a strong influence on what we do, and those private clients that don’t have a vested interest in sustainability are certainly influenced by designers. Engineers have a responsibility to ensure that buildings etc are constructed in a sustainable manner. Also, councils are increasingly interested in sustainability metrics such as embodied carbon and tools such as BREEAM in their assessments when considering planning consent. In terms of adaptability of structures, I think that, much like garlic bread, it is the future! A reason for adapting buildings is often not due to structural issues but because a client want a fancy new building, perhaps with a different purpose. So, a building that it easily adapted and deconstructed at end of use is likely to significantly improve the embodied carbon of a project.