Retrofitting the old HQ would have been ‘more sustainable’ and ‘better for the environment’.
.
The District Council has just produced a glowing report: read it as you will:
East Devon’s new modern HQ is cheaper to run and better for the environment | eastdevon.gov.uk
.
But the discussion on Sidmouth Community Facebook is a lot more sanguine:
“Financially, environmentally and operationally the council has made the right move.” Do you agree?
.
This report from 2018 questioned the whole approach of the District Council:
EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL’S “RELOCATION PROJECT” – STATEMENT OF OBJECTION – 16 July 2018
.
Here the issues are considered one by one:
.
PART ONE: WHICH IS GREENER: OLD OR NEW?
Of course, if you buy a brand new low-emission car… it’s going to be low-emission. But what about the huge amount of emissions and resources needed to produce the nice new shiny product? Let alone the cost of disposing the old product?
How much CO2 is embedded in a product? | rmi.org
What’s the carbon footprint of … a new car? | theguardian.com
It is time to get serious about the hidden carbon cost in everyday products | treehugger.com
.
Similarly, if you build a brand-new building… it’s going to be ‘greener’ or ‘more efficient’ or whatever. But what about all that embodied carbon? Where has all that old concrete gone to and where has all that new concrete come from?
Should I Stay or Should I Go: The Embodied Carbon of Buildings | imt.org
How Much Embodied Carbon Is In Your Building? | buildings.com
.
The VGS news pages have already looked into these issues:
Circular construction: a solution to embodied carbon in buildings
What is a ‘net-zero carbon’ building?
.
PART TWO: REPAIRING AND RETROFITTING
Then there is the movement towards improving and fixing already existing stuff…
Whether it’s repairing:
Or retrofitting:
.
Again, the VGS news pages have looked at the possibilities:
Campaign for zero tax on green refurbishment of buildings: petition
.
And that includes the struggle over Knowle:
Knowle relocation project: prioritise retrofitting existing buildings over demolition and rebuild
.
It is manifestly clear that improving the performance of a building – rather than pulling it down and building a completely new one – makes much more sense from every angle.
.
Here’s an info-graphic produced in 2013 to challenge the greenwashing PR campaign:
.
.
And here’s’ a consideration of those issues:
.
ENERGY:
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: “How efficiently is this building being used?”
GREEN BUILDING:
Futures Forum: “A truly green alternative to EDDC’s proposal”
REFURBISHMENT:
Futures Forum: Knowle: refurbishment vs redevelopment
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: demolish or renovate?
RETROFITTING:
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: “How efficiently is this building being used?”
COST:
Futures Forum: Costs of relocating District Council offices vs costs of refurbishing Knowle
EMBODDIED CARBON:
Futures Forum: Knowle: old bricks vs new build: embodied carbon: pt 3
Futures Forum: Knowle: old bricks vs new build: embodied carbon
NEGLECTING OR LOOKING AFTER ASSETS:
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: and ‘managed deterioration’
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: and the ‘managed neglect’ of valuable assets
FINALLY:
The construction industry is actually saying that it is more ‘efficient’ to stay put with the building you’ve already got:
Futures Forum: “The greenest building is the one standing” >>> Why do developers prefer to demolish buildings than renovate them?
… including the District Council’s own consultants:
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: ‘Developers looking to get the most out of their stock in difficult economic conditions are increasingly turning to refurbishment rather than redevelopment. Davis Langdon look at the cost implications’