The UN's latest climate report leaves no doubt: climate change is becoming increasingly extreme and concrete action is urgently needed. For the property industry, one of the most important measures will be to stop demolishing buildings and instead use existing buildings for longer.
Every year more than 22,000 buildings are razed to the ground. Many of the buildings are of good quality but still don't even reach 40 years of age before they receive their death sentence. This is neither good economics nor sustainable. At Proptech Bergen we have therefore asked ourselves: why is this actually the case, and above all, how can we help change this picture?
The answer to the question is complex and varies from building to building. To get a complete answer, many disciplines therefore need to be involved.
Our approach is technical. We have looked at how new technology can help to ensure fewer buildings are demolished, so that the lifespan of existing buildings is extended. And to find the answer we went about it thoroughly. Three years ago we established the Proptech Bergen project at Kokstadflaten 4. At that address stood a worn-out office building that had received its death sentence and was to be demolished.
The building suited us perfectly. It was outdated but built with solid materials and was what one might call a quality building. Nevertheless, the owner wanted to demolish it. While they waited for approval from the municipality, we were therefore allowed to rent part of the building. Our ambition was to show that even a technically outdated building could, with relatively simple measures, be made smart – and thereby have a right to continued existence.
Once in the building we began looking for answers to what it was that made the building not function. We quickly found that one of the building's biggest challenges was that it was fumbling in the dark. There was no information about air flow rates, air quality, temperature or energy use. Without this data it is impossible to know what is wrong and what is causing the building not to function. For both the owner and operations personnel it is therefore easy to conclude that the entire building doesn't work and that it will be expensive to fix what is wrong. The reality is that new property technology means it doesn't need to cost so much. What is expensive is not knowing – because when you don't know, you tend to over-insure yourself.
In ventilation terms this often ends up in one of two ways: either an oversized, or an extremely oversized ventilation system. In this case the solution was even more drastic – namely to demolish the building.
To find answers to what was causing the building not to function, we therefore began equipping the premises with wireless sensors. These measured everything from air and temperature to energy consumption and occupancy, to name a few.
The sensors are wireless and run on batteries. They therefore require no costly cabling. All you need to do is fix them to the wall and they start collecting data. With a few very simple steps, we thus began collecting data about what was happening in the building. This meant we could also start untangling what was wrong. We found a number of technical faults, and many had probably been like that for a very long time. We had a good dialogue with the owner and addressed what was economically sensible to deal with. In this way the air quality was improved and energy use reduced. The building gradually developed into a living lab for testing new property technology.
In this way the building went from having no data at all to becoming one of the best-documented buildings in Bergen. From having no data whatsoever, there was now information that gave operations personnel full control over everything happening in the building. Occupancy, air quality and indoor climate were continuously measured, so the building could be automated and managed in the best possible way.
It all ended with the owner changing their mind and wanting to keep the building. Instead of demolishing it, they are now therefore undertaking a sustainable renovation.
The journey Proptech Bergen has had with the building at Kokstad means we have been invited into several similar buildings to see what can be done. Can the measures taken in the Kokstad building also be applied to other buildings?
All buildings are different, but the journey this building has been on can be replicated. All the data was collected via wireless sensors. This requires neither rebuilding nor new cabling, and is therefore a cost-effective way of getting to know the building. Because that is what it is all about – knowing the building and how it functions, or does not function.
After visiting and getting to know a range of buildings well, we believe there are three faults that often recur as the dominant reasons why many buildings are demolished.
1) The first is the experience that the technical systems in the building do not work. Often such a dramatic conclusion can be caused by just minor faults.
When we began going through the Kokstad building in detail, we found many strange things – for example, pumps that had been installed the wrong way round. The incorrect conclusion was therefore that the heating or cooling system wasn't working. Using data we figured this out, and the solution was actually just to turn the pump the right way. For many building owners such a misjudgement can still be the tipping point that leads to demolition.
Replacing technical systems has traditionally been expensive, and in many cases it has therefore not been cost-effective. New technology makes this far less expensive, and often we are talking only percentages of what this would previously have cost.
2) The second reason is that the building has poor indoor climate, something most landlords and tenants are familiar with. SINTEF has done a lot of good research on this and has produced a top 5 list of faults/symptoms: imbalance, incorrect positioning of CO2 sensors, abnormal noise, lack of access to VAV dampers, and incorrect positioning of VAV dampers.
In some buildings we have found that everything was wrong, so that the air coming into different zones was completely arbitrary. This can result in both too much (draught) and too little air.
3) The third reason concerns air quantity requirements. The requirements are very strict, and when a building is renovated it goes from having to satisfy the requirements from when it was built to meeting today's requirements. For a renovated building this is demanding, as the requirements for air volumes have changed considerably from the 1980s to today.
The question is therefore – does it actually have to be this way? Must older buildings meet the same air volume requirements as new builds?
The enormous air volume requirements stem from the need for cooling. After continuously measuring air volumes and cooling in the Kokstad building, we can see that the premises are within all applicable requirements in most situations, even though the building was not built to TEK17. The exceptions are the very hottest days – the days when most people are on holiday or sitting at a bar with a cold beer instead.
This is probably true of a very large number of buildings. We therefore believe the authorities should relax the air and temperature requirements, so that it is accepted that older buildings may not be fully within the strict requirements on absolutely every day. If this can help to save more buildings, it would be an extremely valuable contribution to reducing today's high demolition rate. The authorities should therefore take responsibility and relax the regulations so that more buildings are saved.
Fill in some info and we’ll get in touch by email or phone.
You can also call us on +47 516 10 170
Fyll ut litt info, så tar vi kontakt på epost
eller telefon.
Du kan også ringe oss på telefon
+47 516 10 170
