Time Out! Three Steps towards Future Construction
“What if we renovated what we already have and built something new while prioritising environmental interests – or do we even need to build anything new?”
This fine question was posed by the exhibition Time Out! Rethinking Construction, presented as part of Aalto University’s Designs for a Cooler Planet festival. Currently, more than a third of global carbon emissions derive from the construction industry. Furthermore, 90 percent of biodiversity loss is linked to the exploitation of raw materials – half of this in connection to construction.
“The starting point is severe,” says Matti Kuittinen, Professor of Sustainable Construction at Aalto University. He is researching resource-smart construction and architecture within planetary boundaries. In his previous engagement as Senior Ministerial Advisor at the Ministry of the Environment of Finland, he witnessed firsthand how slowly legislation develops: “We are in a hurry to implement more environmental and climate regulations. If we continue like this, there is no way we can meet our climate goals.”
And the situation won’t resolve itself of its own accord; quite the contrary. The global population is growing, which in turn increases the need for even more construction. The climate emergency brings unstable weather and requires even more repair construction, as changing weather damages existing infrastructure.
Kuittinen calls for bold decision-making. “We need to remain intellectually honest with ourselves and consider which is easier: changing the laws of nature or changing human-created rules,” he says. "In many European countries, excellent legislation is being developed, but it progresses too modestly.”
What changes should be expected from the construction sector? Based on his research, we asked Kuittinen to list three steps towards more sustainable construction.
1. Let’s not build, but utilise what we already have
“The efficiency measures related to construction that we have at hand are good but slow. The first proposal may be provocative, but it sparks conversation: let’s halt new constructions.
Approximately 16 percent of the building stock in Europe is vacant, and about a third is underused. We don’t need an endless number of new buildings. It would be fair to allocate a share of the emission budget to areas with worse living conditions than ours, such as those where people live in slums, for instance, or areas destined for people who have lost their homes due to wars or natural disasters.
In practice, implementing this proposal would be challenging because the global construction sector is a significant source of employment. However, the fact remains that the use of natural resources worldwide is growing at a pace exceeding population growth, even as we strive to radically reduce emissions in the next decades.
So, what would this change entail? I personally believe in a deep value shift reminiscent of the Enlightenment era. We need to understand that planetary wellbeing also means individual wellbeing. A shift in values would also accelerate legislation.
Furthermore, new values would emerge. Nobody wants an ivory statue in their living room anymore. Similarly, it won’t necessarily be the case that new buildings in the future will automatically be considered something remarkable.
For architects and designers, this topic is fascinating. What kind of portfolio could you create? What would the paycheck look like? The situation resembles the Suprematism movement of the late 1910s. Kazimir Malevich took his simplification of art to a point of making a route from landscapes to painting a white square on a white base. That was the end of the movement, it became extinct. Would the radical reduction of new construction mean the end of architecture?
It is clear that the role of architecture needs redefinition. Instead of endless construction, we must focus on repurposing the old and reducing the creation of the new."
2. Let’s give old buildings a second chance
“Demolishing old buildings is a poor solution. Nearly all buildings are adaptable for new purposes.
Even if repair construction requires resources, it is still a superior alternative to new construction. Repair construction doesn’t require new land area, which makes it a victory for biodiversity.
This is no minor issue. According to estimates, the proportion of cities in terms of overall land use will triple by 2050. Cities are competing for usable area with cultivated land, and at the same time, an area of land the size of Europe should be allocated for afforestation: signatories of the UN biodiversity agreement have committed to protecting 30 percent of the planet's land and water areas by 2030.
We have been handing out two cakes for every one we have. As such, we have no choice but to repair what we already have.
To ensure this, we need legislation based on research data. Universities enter the picture tasked with certain crucial functions. In order to produce knowledge, universities need to take part in societal discussion and actively suggest solutions to decision-makers.
It is also important to foster hope and inspiration. Student bodies include plenty of young talent that can see things differently and offer fresh proposals to modify the old.
It is also the university’s job to engage in criticism and questioning. Not all development means creating a new material or a new gadget, especially when the goal should be to moderate and reduce new construction. There is no other exit route from over-consumption.”
3. Let’s build new only within our planetary boundaries
“Sometimes we have to build. But even then, new construction needs to fit within planetary boundaries. The question is: How do we reduce the amount of new construction and radically decrease emissions?
It’s a tough question to tackle head on. A pause may be beneficial. If construction methods and practices are not progressing rapidly enough, we need to take a break and devise better construction methods for the future.
It’s already evident that the space required for new constructions should be critically examined. Less space means less energy. Constructions need to be designed to be long lasting, preferably using existing materials. Hence, the construction sector needs carbon limits. The longer we wait, the harder it will be to achieve a fair transition.
Currently, setting up a carbon capture system for a cement factory could be as expensive as the factory itself. Will end-users bear this cost? Will the public sector intervene? Will we seek investment from environmental business funders?
Metals pose a significant question. They are vital for the construction industry, and their demand continues to grow as we move away from fossil fuels. However, the supply of metals is limited. One promising direction is steel production, which accounts for about 7 percent of Finland's annual emissions. Currently, new ways to produce the necessary metals sustainably are being eagerly sought, and the first batches of carbon-neutral steel are about to enter the market."
.png)
