design for reassembly? we’ve got the technology

Last Thursday, the Werkspoorkathedraal in Utrecht hosted the National Circular Entrepreneurship Congress – which also marked the start of Circular Economy Week. Menno Rubbens and Paddy Sieuwerts joined the ‘Construction, Finance & Design for Reassembly’ roundtable organised by LCP Circulair. A report on the discussion, which made it clear that we shouldn't wait for new regulations.

supply chain integration
“To deliver circular construction projects, you need the whole supply chain,” says Arnoud Leerling (Circulair Centrum Nederland), as he kicks off the discussion. But everyone at the table seems to agree on the importance of supply chain integration. Although Menno Rubbens (cepezedprojects, LCP Circulair, dpcp), wiser for experience, does emphasise that genuine collaboration requires the courage to share knowledge. Owever, the discussion centres on financing and regulations, which, according to the representatives of the supply chain, are not yet equipped for a circular construction economy. 

“If circular projects using recycled materials are approached in the same way as new-build projects, the wrong people are at the table and the financial picture doesn’t add up,” says Paddy Sieuwerts (cepezed). Because in a circular project, the builder and the dismantling company are relevant from the very start. Maarten de Moel (BAM) describes it as ‘reading from right to left’: you start with what you have available. “Technically, it’s possible,” he says. “It’s just a matter of the will to make a difference together.”

Geert Dirkse (Rabobank) believes that it is not only businesses and banks that need to change their approach. “The government could require designers and construction companies to identify, for the purposes of the Omgevingsvergunning (planning permission application), which materials will become available in the immediate vicinity of the construction site as a result of demolition or dismantling.” He adds that the responsibility for monitoring ‘this sort of thing’ should not lie with the bank. 

The Building Circularity Index could serve as a practical assessment tool to promote circular construction practices. This is because it measures not only the ease of disassembly (in percentages) but also the associated reduction in CO2 emissions. “Generous dimensions also help,” says Martijn Veerman (Alkondor Icon). “Regulations on, for example, the fire safety of façades are changing rapidly. We always ask how you can design façades that are suitable for reuse.”

This last example illustrates the direct link between funding and regulations: as rules change, reusable components that have anticipated these changes become more valuable. Yet, despite the regulations, there are already several successful circular projects to mention, such as cepezed’s Temporary Court in Amsterdam and Techbank in Enschede, the Circular Centre Netherlands in Heerde and Theater De Lievekamp in Oss.

just do it 
“cepezed has been building with a kit of parts for fifty years,” Menno Rubbens retorts when it is pointed out at the table that these are isolated incidents. “We also opt for demountability even if the client doesn’t specifically ask for it. Demountable construction isn’t more expensive in new-build projects, provided you take it into account right from the earliest stage of the design.”

Sieuwerts: “For the extension of De Lievekamp, we used the dismantled Scheveningen Dance Theatre. The brief hadn’t been formulated in this way at all beforehand. An opportunity arose, which we seized - just do it. For the Temporary Court commission, we stood out because of our promise to produce absolutely no waste at all, rather than as little waste as possible, as requested. And although we didn’t know where the demountable elements would end up after their initial temporary function, we still assumed the entire building would be reassembled, which meant our client dpcp calculated a higher residual value than the competitors.”

risk
Geert Dirkse of Rabobank and Dirk Teijen of Triodos Bank disagree on the subject of taking risks regarding the value of circular buildings and the requirements of regulators. “Greater risk requires more capital,” says Dirkse, “and this only decreases once an innovation has proven itself over five years.”  Teijen believes that Triodos’s ideals encourage the search for opportunities. “You have to be open to it and then put the puzzle together.” When Martijn du Prie (du Prie/dpcp) concludes that banks are wary of financing a ‘building as a product’, Dirkse notes that financing is not the problem, but rather determining the risk in advance.

One might wonder whether risks in circular construction are financially different from ‘regular’ risks, or whether it is simply a matter of getting used to it. A special financing fund might perhaps speed up this process. Approaching a demountable building as a product rather than property actually makes new financing models possible. Rubbens is considering a Circular Revolving Fund, in which the residual value of buildings becomes part of the financing model. “That is a completely different financial picture from that of land-based property, where intrinsic value plays no role, only the expected rental income and the equally fictitious return.”