Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss the relation between building conservation and circular economy (CE), which are often erroneously seen as inherently contradictory to one another. Design/methodology/approach The work draws from a comparative approach. The paper reviews a body of literature on architectural conservation and CE to establish an understanding on the state-of-the-art for both disciplines separately. Then, the relation between thereof is developed through a theoretical discourse. Findings Both architectural conservation and CE aim at safeguarding value, although they define “value” differently. Fabric-focused conservation and CE favor minimal intervention to material, albeit they arrive at this conclusion from different bases. Consequently, both approaches struggle with the low cost of virgin resource extraction and waste production and the high cost of human labor in contemporary Western societies. CE could be harnessed for building conservation by adopting its vocabulary and methodology, such as lifecycle assessment and material flow analysis. Transitioning toward CE can help increase the preservation of built heritage while redefining what is meant by “heritage” and “waste.” Originality/value Prior to this paper, there have been no articles addressing the relationship of the concepts explicitly and to this extent. The paper provides a theoretical basis for further discourse and outlines some implications of CE for the construction and built heritage disciplines.
Adaptability is one key aspect in making housing more sustainable. One major approach to adaptability is internal transformability of buildings, i.e. the possibility to make modifications to the spaces and their equipment within the existing building envelope. This aspect is often taken into consideration in the design and implementation of office buildings. However, in housing the situation is different, and internal transformability is very seldom implemented in apartment buildings. There is a lack of studies for the reasons for this. In this article we take a look at the barriers to internal transformability of apartment buildings in two Nordic countries, Finland and Denmark. We compare the situations in both countries, and highlight their similarities and differences. The research is based on interviews of Finnish and Danish architects who have been involved in designing such buildings within the last 20 years. The interviews show that the disinterest of housing developers has been the main barrier to implementing internal transformability. Another important barrier is the developers’ cost-optimization. Secondary barriers were related to lack of solutions in building services that would support internal transformability. Additionally, secondary barriers were related to common construction techniques, regulations, and building conventions. Major barriers were similar in both countries. However, some differences in the secondary and other barriers between the two countries also exist.
This abstract addresses the role and value of welfare institutions as social structural elements of daily life, framing the informal -but important-meeting between residents in an urban fabric. The discussion is contextualized through the demolition of the primary school Nordgårdsskolen, a local school serving the area of Gellerup, a social housing area back then framing the life of app. 7.000 people counting more than 80 nationalities in the western part of Aarhus, Denmark. Demographics vary from the rest of the city of Aarhus as 35 %. of tenants are under 18 years of age, meaning that a very high percentage of the local population has direct or indirect relations to schoolchildren and their institution (being parents, siblings, grandparents or other relatives). Due to integration problems and political pressure, a close-down of two kindergartens and Nordgårdsskolen was decided on in 2007 and the demolition of the school itself took place in 2013 – 42 years after its initiation. This caused distribution of children to a large number of schools not only to the surrounding school districts but also to districts in other parts of the municipality. In a Danish context the area of Gellerup was considered a highly modern “new town” at its initiation in 1968 – the architect Knud Blach Petersen unfolding international inspirations in terms of local welfare-, cultural- and sports facilities supporting the housing structure and the quality of life of the tenants. New Towns have always been places characterized by migration: by definition, they have no ‘original’ inhabitants – every resident is a migrant. This situation makes it even more important to gather residents to promote integration. The aim of the paper is to investigate and discuss the role and value of local welfare institutions not only as centers of service, but also as creators of cohesion, trust and identity. In the specific case of Gellerup, the paper will unfold the social effects of demolishing Nordgårdsskolen as a physical place of informal meetings in a local multicultural community as Gellerup.
A growing tendency to remodel social housing areas can actually be recognized in the Nordic countries. The paper analyses a case where a vulnerable modernistic housing area is remodelled based on social arguments. Through findings it is discussed how more responsible circular strategies can save the inhabitants and the environment from ‘wasting’ already valuable welfare and already existing spatial structures and materials. The starting point is taken in the actual transformation of Gellerup, a New Town area built from 1968 to 1972 in Aarhus. A dramatic demolition has already taken place to avoid social disorder. This was done to provide room for rethinking, for changes in demography and for mixed ownership, and thereby solve several social problems. The process is under development, but already before this remodelling has finished and will perhaps fulfil its purpose, the government and the city council have predicted further demolishment. The tenants are increasingly reacting to this development, which erases their homes and the history of Gellerup. The loss of the areas memories and the fact that they feel they are not involved in decisions regarding their area worry them.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.