What’s stopping us from reducing the cost of sustainable design?

When I started writing this column three years ago, the idea of reusing steelwork was still very much something that seemed possible theoretically, but no one had demonstrated that it could actually be done. Today we have largely figured out standard methodologies; we know how to get the steel out of the building, there is industry guidance for the testing required and we are starting to work out how to overcome the logistics issues. But there is one question which gets asked every time I talk about steel reuse: how much more does it cost?

With steel reuse, this is not the easiest question to answer. It depends whether you are reusing steelwork from your own site or whether you are trying to buy steel from a stockholder, and a large amount of cost is due to the additional programme implications of deconstructing rather than demolishing.

It also depends on the age of the steelwork – if it was produced before 1970, the testing requirements become more onerous. But even in the easiest examples of reuse, it is still likely to be more expensive than new steelwork.

>> Also read: Too good to waste: How Make recycled an old building to create a new one

It is a similar story when we talk about reusing existing buildings. Retrofit is expensive. Part of the problem is that we rather unfairly have to pay VAT on retrofit projects, even though we don’t pay it on new-builds, but we are also becoming more ambitious with our re-use projects.

Instead of a standard refurbishment, where we used to upgrade the air-conditioning, replace the carpets and gave the walls a lick of paint, we are now being much more innovative with our approach to retrofit. We are finding new ways to strengthen existing structures so that we can add additional storeys, we are jacking floorplates to different levels and we are experimenting with concrete reuse.

But doing something for the first time is not easy. Each time we try something new, we first need to demonstrate that it is possible. And, more importantly, that it is safe.

Most clients recognise that sustainability has a positive impact on their business but it is still unrealistic to expect that additional costs will be taken on ‘for the greater good’

We need to undertake testing to prove that it has the material properties that we are expecting and that the methodology we are using is consistent. Usually we are undertaking a process on a relatively small scale because of the risk involved, while at the same time competing with an established supply chain that can work as efficiently as possible. We cannot really expect the cost to be comparable.

And that additional cost associated with sustainability inevitably falls to clients and developers, meaning that industry-wide benefits are missed as a result. To drive a steel reuse market, clients need to be prepared to carefully deconstruct their building so that the steelwork can be reused, even if they are not able to reuse it themselves. This means additional cost and a longer programme so that someone else can benefit from the carbon saving.

Most clients recognise that sustainability has a positive impact on their business (research carried out by Buro Happold found that 79% of senior executives say that ESG positively impacts their financial performance) but it is still unrealistic to expect that additional costs will be taken on “for the greater good”.

If we are going to reduce our embodied carbon as an industry, some form of regulation is required to level the playing field. Mandatory reporting of embodied carbon, even if the methodology is not perfect, would be a great starting point and would provide a more realistic data set which a target-based system could then be based on.

This would, of course, make some projects much more challenging, especially in the short term, but retrofit and material reuse would become much more viable options. And,  in the long term, we could increase innovation and reduce embodied carbon in a way that is cost effective for the whole industry.