Sus and Sustainability: How can Retrofitting be the lucrative Option?

My thoughts on Buro Happold’s Redefining Obsolescence: Opportunity or Challenge:

The best way to ensure behaviour is sustained and habits are formed is by making this behaviour rewarding. You This applies to people but it also applies to industries like real estate development. Obsolescence in the built environment is first and foremost an economic prerogative in most cases, regardless of the smokescreen of suitability and adaptability and not being fit for purpose - these are all concocted to justify demolishing buildings to achieve a higher return on investment for the developer. The root of the problem is how the British economy is structured. Buildings are designed purposefully to have a shelf life because they are the foundation of the service-based economy predicated on real estate speculation and shifting sites like commodities.

So the real question should be: how can retrofitting or refurbishment be the lucrative option?

Some developers can be persuaded to go down the route of refurbishment if NIA can be added by new-build extensions. But what happens to a building that has maximised its NIA potential? How can you convince developers to spend money on refurbishment if they will still command the same lettable floor area?

The metrics need to change.

The City of London principal planning officer Kerstin Kane hit the nail on the head by pointing to the BCO as a principal culprit in condemning so many buildings to the wrecking ball. The BCO has been conceived to set benchmarks for quality, but it risks becoming a rigid litany of standards based on immutable and tautological parameters that are taken as gospel. If a building cannot achieve the holy grail of BCO-mandated floor-to-ceiling height as much as if a building cannot add NIA, then retaining it and retrofitting will never be an option.

But what if the parameters change? What if economic value and return on investment is not driven by box-ticking exercises but rather by the quality of spaces and experiences being offered and by making the market desire them? Developers would still make good returns on their investments, without adding an iota of NIA or conforming to all of the BCO standards.

Visionary developers like Derwent London or General Projects have cracked this - achieving rent premiums through the quality of space and aura of brand, rather than through spreadsheets only.

The onus is on architects and engineers to be creative to make this possible. Innovation is born out of imagination, not out of bureaucracy.