Why circularity must replace demolition in the façade industry

As pressure mounts to cut carbon in construction, Lead Concept Design Hans Jansen explains why the façade industry must prioritise circularity and rethink what end-of-service life really means.

The need to reduce the environmental impact of buildings throughout their lifecycle is growing, driven by stricter regulations, climate targets, and increasing awareness of embodied carbon.

One of the most effective ways to achieve carbon reduction is by refurbishing older properties instead of demolishing them. But when it comes to the façade, what is the most sustainable approach? Is it more environmentally responsible to replace an aging façade, or should we focus on preserving and adapting what is already there?

Hidden potential

Across the world, thousands of buildings feature aluminium unitised façades installed 20 to 40 years ago. When these were constructed, potential refurbishment and circularity were rarely considered. Although we can find estimates for how long materials and systems will last in some operation and maintenance manuals, these are often inconsistent or inaccurate.

This can lead to misconceptions around the viability of the façade, risking unnecessary demolition, waste and carbon emissions. For example, sometimes a façade is deemed obsolete simply because one component fails after 30 years, even though core elements such as aluminium extrusions could last another 30 years.

As a result, building owners can face difficult decisions around façade replacement or refurbishment. These decisions take into account not only embodied carbon, but also project vaiability in terms of planning consent, costs, programme, site logistics, transport, and health and safety.

Partnering for change

To help navigate the technical challenge when it comes to existing façades, we commissioned specialist research in partnership with the Dutch Technical University, TU Delft. The aim was to explore how the façade industry could embed circular principles and minimise carbon emissions in refurbishment projects.

Our research focused on a typical 25-year-old aluminium and double-glass unitised façade and identified seven ‘R-strategies’ designed to help move from a linear model to a more circular one. We see many good initiatives in our supply chain when it comes to recycling aluminium and glass, for example. As a façade contractor, we concentrated on the strategies that will enable us to create the most impact, specifically the reuse, refurbishment and remanufacture of entire façade panels, rather than individual components. We take ownership of what we produced in the past.

The study drew on successful examples from across the façade and other industries:

• In the Caterpillar manufacturing process, heavy equipment is stripped to its smallest parts, cleaned, repaired and rebuilt.
• In The Hague, Netherlands, a 60-year-old aluminium façade by the famous engineer Jean Prouvé was updated with laminated glass and new gaskets instead of being replaced, proving that aluminium façades have a life well beyond 60 years.
• At One Triton Square in London, façade panels were removed, cleaned and reinstalled with new gaskets, still ensuring performance.
• In Germany, façade panels at Commerzbank in Dusseldorf were dismantled, allowing fire hazardous materials to be removed and insulation added. The panels were then reinstalled, proving that remanufacturing not only works, but improves performance.

 

The value of avoided embodied carbon

Our research demonstrated that, in many cases, refurbishing or remanufacturing a façade results in significantly lower carbon emissions than producing a new one from scratch. This is known as avoided embodied carbon.

Each R-strategy requires varying levels of effort and comes with a different carbon cost. For example, dismantling a façade panel, recycling the materials and building a new one generates more carbon emissions than refurbishing what is already there.

The graph below illustrates this point. It shows the carbon emissions from disposing of an old façade on the left (C-stage), and the emissions from creating a new one on the right (A1–5 stages), highlighting the emissions saved by reuse. In many cases, it is possible to upgrade the performance in a remanufacturing strategy to current standards.

The message is clear. Removing façades after 25 years is a missed opportunity to reduce carbon emissions. Main components such as aluminium frames, steel sheets, laminated glass and insulation can last 60 years or more. That is why it is so important to assess and understand the true service life of materials in the design process. Within our FaçadeCare department, we have gained the knowledge and skills to assess the quality of façades on site.

Addressing market needs

Our research suggests that over 70% of the market would consider façade reuse. However, there is also a clear need to demonstrate proven, improved performances, sufficient service life, and warranty.

As the leading international façade specialist, we are able to provide this reassurance – in the form of declared performances and a new warranty – through our quality monitored production process. Similarly, for on-site refurbishments we provide a warranty for the new materials and work executed.

Reframing the conversation

When evaluating a potentially redundant façade, we need to rethink the questions we ask:

• Can it be upgraded in situ?
• Is partial or full replacement necessary?
• Could the existing façade be reused or remanufactured for another building?
• Is it possible to meet energy performance targets without starting from scratch?

To help guide building owners, architects and engineers, our circular approach begins with analysing both the existing and desired façade. This allows us to evaluate the potential R-strategies and find the most sustainable and cost-effective solution, considering a range of factors such as carbon savings, aesthetics, service life, warranty, cost, site logistics, transport, health and safety, and timelines.

This shift towards circularity is not only the responsible thing to do, but is the key to reshaping the façade industry and creating a more sustainable built environment.