deconstruction management for optimized material recovery: rota flora

HafenCity University Hamburg M.Sc. Resource Efficiency in Architecture and Planning

Technologies for Sustainable Material Cycles Winter Semester 2015/16

Final Report

Deconstruction Management for Optimized Material Recovery:

Rota Flora

Submitted to: Dr. Wolfram Trinius Submitted on: March 14th, 2016

Contributing Authors:

Arrash-‐‑Jan Paivasteh Bueno – 000000 Heather Troutman – 6028601

Tobias Kelm – 000000

HCU -‐‑ REAP – TSMC Sustainable Deconstruction – Rota Flora

2

Abstract

“The goal is to move the fundamental thinking away from ‘waste disposal’ to ‘waste management’ and from ‘waste’ to ‘resources’ – hence the updated terminology ‘waste and resource management’ and ‘resource management’, as part of the Circular Economy” (UNEP, 2015). Waste management and, now, resource management have become regular topics on the global agenda, especially in the context of sustainable development and Circular Economy. Of the United Nations’ (2015) 17 Sustainable Development Goals: the 2030 agenda, 12 of the 17 goals are related to improved waste management, which is seen as an entry point for sustainable development and a most basic indicator for quality of life. According to the United Nations Environmental Programme’s (UNEP) (2015) “Global Waste Management Outlook” (GWMO), 36% of all waste produced globally in 2013 was construction and demolition wastes (C&D), representing the largest waste category. 30% of global C&D wastes, or 821 million tonnes, was produced in the European Union (EU). “Due to the high variety of materials, it is important that the C&D waste be segregated at source, with each stream managed as required” (UNEP, 2015). This report examines the original construction and long history of renovations of the culturally significant Rota Flora in Hamburg, Germany, developing a multi-‐‑criteria analysis tool based upon the German Sustainable Building Council’s (DGNB) Sustainable Construction Methodology adopted to the unique situation of the Rota Flora. The aim of this assessment is to identify the most sustainable deconstruction pathway from four scenarios, considering the:

• Ecological Quality, • Economic Quality, • Socio-‐‑Cultural and Functional Quality, • Technical Quality, and • Process Quality.

The analysis concludes that the most sustainable deconstruction scenario is one that incorporates the concerns and ideas of the citizens and preserves the highest quality and quantity of building materials for direct re-‐‑use as a main priority and recycling as a second priority, following the European Commission’s “Waste Hierarchy” as prescribed in the Waste Directive (2008/98/EC).


3

Table of Contents

1. Historical Context………………………………………………..…………………………………….……………….06 1.1 Cultural Significance……………………………………………………………………………………..06

1.2. Refurbishment Ambiguity……………………………………..……………………………………..06

2. Waste Directive….…………………………………………………………………………...………………………….07 3. Materials………….…………………………..……………………………………………………………………………..07

3.1 Brick………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………..09 3.2. Wood………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………11 3.3. Glass………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………11

3.4. Steel…………….……………….……………………………………………………………………………….12 3.5. Re-‐‑enforced Concrete……………………………………………………………………………………12

3.6. Screed…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..13

3.7. Plaster………………………….……………………………………………………………………………….13

3.8. Bitumen…………………………………………………….………………………………………………….14

3.9. Comparison of all materials ……………….…….………………………………………………….14 4. Main Objectives for Sustainability………………………………………………….………...…..…………….15 4.1. Ecological Quality ……….………………………………………………………………………………..15

4.2. Economic Quality …………………………………………………………………………………………15 4.3. Socio-‐‑Cultural and Functional Quality …………………………………………………………16

4.4. Technical Quality …………………………………………………………………………………………16

4.5. Process Quality …………………..…….………………………………………………………………….16 5. Deconstruction Scenarios…………………………………………………………….….………………………….17 5.1. Scenario One: The Quickest…………………………………………………………………………..17 5.2. Scenario Two: Recovery of the Highest Material Quantity and Quality…………17

5.3. Scenario Three: The Cheapest………………………………………………………………………19

5.4. Scenario Four: Most Socially Agreeable………….…………………………………………….19


4

6. Comparison of the Four Scenarios for Optimal Sustainability…………….………………………20

6.1. Ecological Quality…………………………………………………………………………………………20

6.2. Economic Quality…………………………………….……………………………………………………21

6.3. Socio-‐‑Cultural and Functional Quality…………………………………………………..………22

6.4. Technical Quality…………………….……………………………………………………………………22

6.5. Process Quality……………………………..………………………………………………………………22

6.6. Results…………………………….……………………………………………………………………………23 7. Conclusion: Planned Deconstruction for Enhanced Sustainability…………………...…………24

Diagrams, Figures and Tables Table 3. Estimated total amount of materials in the Rote Flora, by volume [m³]…………...07 Figure 3. Exploded drawing: Approximately location of main materials………………………..08 Chart 3. Estimated total amount of materials in the Rote Flora, by volume [m³]…………….08 Diagram 3.1. Structural use of brick…………………………………………………..…………………………..09 Section 3.1. Typical brick structure.....................................................................................................09 Figure 3.1. Berlin-‐‑Wall: Street-‐‑Art…………………………………………………………………………………10 Section 3.2. Typical wood floor construction....................................................................................11 Figure 3.4. Steel column on the ground floor………………………………………………………………….12 Table 3.9. Multi-‐‑Criteria Assessment of Main Building Materials……………………………………14 Figure 4. BMUBS’ Assessment System for Sustainable Building………………………………………15 Table 6. Multi-‐‑Criteria Analysis of Deconstruction Scenarios…………………………………………20 Table 6.1. Environmental Impact Categories………………………………………………………………….21 Figure 6.6. Summary of Multi-‐‑Criteria Assessment of Deconstruction Scenarios……………23


5

Definitions The definitions used in this report are taken form the European Commission’s Waste Directive (2008/98/EC), Article 3. Collection: means the gathering of waste, including the preliminary sorting and preliminary storage of waste for the purposes of transport to a waste treatment facility. Disposal: means any operation which is not recovery even where the operation has as a secondary consequence the reclamation of substance or energy. Annex I sets out a non-‐‑exhaustive list of disposal operations [of 2008/98/EC]. Hazardous Waste: means waste which displays one or more of the hazardous properties listed in Annex III [of 2008/98/EC]. Prevention: means measures taken before a substance, material or product has become waste, that reduce:

(a) the quantity of waste, including through the re-‐‑use of products or the extension of the life span of products;

(b) the adverse impacts of the generated waste on the environment and human health; or

(c) the contents of harmful substances in materials and products. Recovery: means any operation the principle result of which is waste serving a useful purpose by replacing other materials which would otherwise have been to fulfil a particular function, or waste being prepared to fulfil that function, in the plant or in the wider economy. Annex II [of 2008/98/EC] sets out a non-‐‑exhaustive list of recovery operations. Recycling: means any recovery operation by which waste materials or substances whether for the original or other purposes. It includes the reprocessing of organic material but does not include energy recovery and the reprocessing into materials that are to be used as fuels or for backfilling operations. Re-‐‑Use: means any operation by which products or components that are not waste are used again for the same purpose for which they were conceived. Separate Collection: means the collection where a waste stream is kept separately by type and nature so as to facilitate a specific treatment. Treatment: means recovery or disposal operations, including preparation prior to recovery or disposal. Waste: means any substance or object which the holder disregards or intends or is required to discard. Waste Management: means the collection, transport, recovery and disposal of waste, including the supervision of such operations and the after-‐‑care of disposal sites, and including actions taken as a dealer or broker.


6

1. Historical Context For our exemplary object analysis, we have chosen the controversial building Rote Flora. The Rote Flora was built in the year 1888 in Hamburg, in the district Sternschanze. In former days it was used as a concert hall. Some Parts of the building were added and taken away again, like the conservatory from Gustave Eiffel in 1890. The use of the building also changed a few times. Over the last 128 years, the Flora was a residential building, concert hall, Viennese café, room for public events, theatre, school, factory, cinema, shop and much more.

1.1. Cultural Significance Fortunately, the Rota Flora was one of few theatres in Hamburg not damaged during airstrikes of the 2nd world war. In the year 1974, the two upper stories were removed and replaced by a flat roof, drastically changing the appearance of the building. In 1989, the building had been planned to be sold and demolished. To prevent the Flora from demolishment, it was occupied by an autonomic group of people who violently rioted against militant groups attempting evection on numerous occasions over the past 37 years. Since that time, the building is an uncomfortable subject for the city and the “autonomic centre” in Hamburg.

1.2. Refurbishment Ambiguity

The Rote Flora was constructed in the Gründerzeit at the end of the 19th century. The typical materials used were rarely synthetically fabricated; but, rather, more natural compared to the materials that are commonly used today. However, due to the many changes in use and modernization projects that have been carried out on the Flora over the past 128 years, there exists a high level of uncertainty as to the actual material composition of the building. This analysis has reviewed refurbishment documents for the building and has made assumptions of the materials likely employed considering the most common materials used in construction in Germany at the time the renovation was made. The bearing walls and foundation of the building are made out of bricks. These are still the original ones. The ceiling between the ground and the first floor is also original. It consists of beams, made of wood, with a wooden floor and a rubble filling inside. The ceiling of the basement is an old Kappendecke, which was a typical way of constructing at that time. It is made of bricks and steel beams. After the two upper stories were removed in the late 1970s, a new roof was built. The new flat roof is a simple, wooden construction with a bitumen sealant on it. Just like the bitumen on the roof, other newer materials and components, such as new windows, electric-‐‑, sanitary-‐‑ and heating systems, et cetera have been added over the years. There might be a risk of having hazardous materials, such as various kinds of sealants, paints or even asbestos in the construction substance. In case of an unlikely deconstruction of the Flora, the building substance has to be carefully tested for hazardous materials.


7

2. Waste Directive Commission (2008/98/EC) In 2008, the European Commission adopted the Waste Directive(2008/98/EC), which prescribes a “Waste Hierarchy” as “a priority order in the waste prevention and management legislation and policy.” The “Waste Hierarchy” requires that waste management strategies prioritize prevention, followed by reuse, then recycling, then recovery (including energy recovery) and resulting to disposal only when no other alternatives exist. Circular Economy Package (2014) The existing Waste Directive is currently under review within the proposed Circular Economy Package (2014), scheduled to come into effect late 2017. The new proposal outlines that strategies for a Circular Economy, which maintain materials and products at their highest value for as long as possible, is not only the most sustainable option, but also an option that offers unprecedented financial gain to the European economy in the form of forgone losses. This assessment has been completed in attempt to uphold these initiatives and ideals. 3. Materials All masses of the materials are estimated according to our analysis of the building by on-‐‑site-‐‑visiting, literature, photos and our 3D-‐‑Modell. Due to the different users and refurbishing since its existent it is difficult to determine every material in the building. This is the reason why we have decided to concentrate on the main materials:

-‐ Brick -‐ Wood -‐ Glass -‐ Steel -‐ Re-‐‑enforced concrete -‐ Screed -‐ Plaster

Table 3. Estimated total amount of materials in the Rote Flora, by volume [m³]


8

Figure 3. Exploded drawing: Approximately location of main materials

Chart 3. Estimated total amount of materials in the Rote Flora, by volume [m³] g


9

3.1. Brick Quantity Despite its historical age and modernization, the main material is brick. The outer and the load bearing walls are still out of bricks.

Diagram 3.1. Structural use of brick.

Section 3.1. Typical brick structure. Source: Rudolf Ahnert and Karl Heinz Krause, 2009, page 47


10

Quality The quality of the bricks are mainly, despite its age, still in a good condition. The primary problem though, is to deconstruct the bricks without damaging them. After-‐‑Use Markets Recycling old bricks is not difficult, because of its natural fabrication. It is therefore not a big problem to transport the deconstructed bricks to a building material recycling facility. There are several located in Hamburg. One of them is the Acht GmbH -‐‑ Aufbereitungscentrum, Hafen und Transportlogistik located in HH-‐‑Veddel. They transport or recycle different types of demolition waste. Another option would also be to deconstruct the bricks for re-‐‑usage in a new building. This means when the bricks are “detaches” carefully, they can be sold. Example: 20.000 hand-‐‑made bricks from an old monastery were sold 0,5€ per brick. That means the bricks had a value of 10.000€. Re-‐‑Use Best Practice Instead of selling or recycling them, which is the most common case, it is also possible to keep several parts of the walls, by “detaching” a segment of the wall for graffiti or street art purpose, similar to the Berlin-‐‑Wall.

Main concerns The main concern, as already mentioned, would be the deconstruction method. It has to be carefully planned depending on what is going to happen with the bricks after the demolition. If the bricks are planned to be re-‐‑used it is important to keep the quality of the bricks. The damaged ones can be used for ground filling.

Figure 3.1. Berlin-‐‑Wall: Street-‐‑Art. Source: Uberding 7


11

3.2. Wood Quantity The first floor is made out of a wooden beam construction. Based on our research we assume the construction method is based back to late 19th century. The surfaces of the stair cases are also made out of wood.

Quality The wood is in a good condition. It is possible to strip the wood of carefully and re-‐‑use them. After-‐‑Use Markets Similar to the bricks, wood is a natural building material, which makes it easy to re-‐‑use or even to sell. There are several recycling facilities in Hamburg which can handle a big amount of construction wood. Re-‐‑Use Best Practice It is not only possible to re-‐‑use the wood for construction or flooring but also for energy-‐‑usage (pellets) or for the particleboard industry (Reiling, 2016). Another option is also using bits and pieces of old wood for furniture or industrial products. For example, the company HAFENHOLZ (2016), which is located in Hamburg, specializes in the re-‐‑using of wood. Main concerns Wood is a natural building material, which needs treatment depending on its usage. It is therefore important to determine how damaged or how much impregnation is in the wood for further usage. It is also important to detach the wood first when demolishing the building to prevent any damage. 3.3. Glass Quantity The amount of glass is located on the outer walls and is not much compared to bricks or wood. Quality

Section 3.2. Typical wood floor construction. Source: Rudolf Ahnert and Karl Heinz Krause, 2009, page 9


12

Due to the refurbishment of the Rote Flora all the glass/windows have been changed/renewed. This means there are probably different types of windows in different qualities. After-‐‑Use Markets The glass itself is usually detached from the frame and further processed for glass-‐‑recycling (Siventas GmbH, 2016). Re-‐‑Use Best Practice The glass is brought to a recycling waste management and processed back to glass. Main Concerns Nowadays, glass consist of different types of mixtures and gases, which needs to be sorted out to make it recyclable. 3.4. Steel Quantity There a four steel columns in the ground floor and steel beams integrated in the Kappendecke. Quality It is not possible to determine the quality of the steel beam in the ceiling of the basement, but we assume that it is still in a good condition. The steel column is also in a good condition. After-‐‑Use Markets Steel is one of the most recycled materials in world and doesn’t lose its quality. It is therefore no problem to detach the steel and recycle it (eBay, 2015). Re-‐‑Use Best Practice Despite its high recyclability and resistance, it is also a possible to deconstruct the steel beams or columns and reuse them in a different building. Main Concerns It is important to check the steel for any corrosion if it is going to be reused in a new building. 3.5. Re-‐‑Enforced Concrete Quantity The stair cases and the main stair case are made out of reinforced concrete. Quality They are in top condition and show no damaged areas

Figure 3.4. Steel column on the ground floor


13

After-‐‑Use Markets Reinforced concrete is often recycled by crushing it to be used as granular filling. There are several facilities which can recycle a big amount in Hamburg. Re-‐‑Use Best Practice Besides the concrete, the reinforcement out of steel is often melted and reused for other steel components (Buhck Gruppe, 2016). The environment and the increase usage of concrete has also led to a new type of concrete, Recycling concrete, also known as RC-‐‑Concrete. It decreases the costs of demolition projects, because it eliminates the costs of disposal (Concrete Network, 2016). Main Concerns It is important to separate the concrete from the steel. 3.7. Screed Quantity The surface/flooring of the basement and ground floor is made out of screed. Quality It is quit damaged and lots of different “patching” has been done. It means that the different users have most probably tried to fix or repair the surface with different materials. After-‐‑Use Markets Screed is crushed and sent to a waste disposal. Re-‐‑Use Best Practice It is usually not re-‐‑used, because of its thin layer on floorings. Main Concerns When screed is detached from the floor there are usually other materials stuck to it (e.g. tar paper, bitumen, etc.), which are important to separate (Ensortung, 2010). 3.7. Plaster Quantity The amount of plaster is mainly located on the inner surface of the Rote Flora. Quality The quality is overall in a good condition, but it is difficult to determine where and how many types of plaster has been used during the years. After-‐‑Use Markets The gypsum is sent to a recycling management facility where it is crushed and sieved until it is a fine powder. After the process, the powder is re-‐‑used as a gypsum substance.


14

Re-‐‑Use Best Practice It is possible to use the regained “gypsum”-‐‑powder for gypsum cardboard. Main Concerns The main concern is the separation of other materials to achieve a clean “powdered”-‐‑gypsum for further reuse (Deutschlandfunk, 2016). 3.8. Bitumen Quantity The only area where bitumen is located is on the roof. Quality We were not able to go on the roof, but we assume that is it damage, because the roof is not fully waterproof. After-‐‑Use Markets Bituminous tarred paper must be disposed separately from other buildings materials, because of it hazardous substance and is therefore sent to a disposal management facility (Otto Dörner, 2016). Re-‐‑Use Best Practice As already mentioned, due to its hazardous substance it cannot be re-‐‑used. But, it is possible to convert it in to a bituminous granulate for asphalt industry (VLIE, 2016). Main Concerns The main concern is the right disposal, because it has to be disposed separately from other materials. 3.9. Comparison of all Materials The table gives an overview of all the analyzed materials. Our scoring is based on the different categories for each material.

Table 3.9. Multi-‐‑Criteria Assessment of Main Building Materials


15

4. Main Objectives for Sustainability The aim of this project is to determine the most sustainable way to deconstruct the Rota Flora, in the hypothetical event that the such a plan would be necessary. We have adopted the sustainability assessment criteria outlined by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety’s (BMUB) Guideline for Sustainable Building (2014), as shown in Figure 4, and modified it to fit the context of our project, and to only focus on the deconstruction life cycle phase.

4.1. Ecological Quality The Ecological Quality indicator aims to assess the environmental impact (sometimes called the Environmental Footprint) of the deconstruction plan. This evaluation considers the required energy and water expenditures of the actual deconstruction process, such as physical labor and machine use, as well as the resource expenditures associated with various post-‐‑deconstruction material treatment processes. For example, associated energy recovered from incineration minus the impacts of managing hazardous incineration ash from, for example, extruded polystyrene (XPS) insulation panels. 4.2. Economic Quality Of course, economic feasibility must be considered in every project. Genuine achievement of sustainability must incorporate external costs traditionally not included in project cost evaluations, such as avoided energy and operational costs especially for the production of new materials and products displaced by the reuse of existing materials and products. Life-‐‑Cycle Costing is a technique prescribed to incorporate non-‐‑traditional external costs by the German Sustainable Building Council (DGNB) (2014), the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology (BREEAM) (2014) and the International Standard Organization’s “Buildings and Construction Assets – Service Life Planning” (ISO 15686-‐‑5) (2008).

Figure 4. BMUBS’ Assessment System for Sustainable Building


16

The four proposed deconstruction scenarios for the Rota Flora are evaluated on both tradition costs for deconstruction: labor, equipment, permits, and modified to reflect reduced costs and economic benefits (both calculated as negative costs) from the reusing and recycling of materials. This value should be quantified on the profits resulting from sells and the saved costs for water, energy, transportation and raw materials of creating new, virgin products that is prevented in recycling and reuse scenarios. 4.3. Socio-‐‑Cultural and Functional Quality In every project, the social sustainability must be a crucial element, as it is one of the three main pillars of sustainability: people, profit, planet. Social sustainability can be measure through inclusion in the planning, construction and deconstruction process; through acceptance of the project; the expected level of public health compared to the background condition; among other measures, according to the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (UNEP, 2015). This indicator is of heightened importance in our project considering the cultural significance of the building, and the relevance of historical violence associated with attempts to remove the building. The aim of this project is to identify a best case scenario for deconstruction of this Hamburg monument in the hypothetical situation that such activity would be necessary. In this situation, the project can only be sustainable if there is acceptance by from society. 4.4. Technical Quality Technical Quality, in this project, reflects the overall material quality and quantity distributions. This assessment assumes that maintaining each material at its highest value for as long as possible is the most sustainable option. This assumption is in accord with the European Commission’s proposed Circular Economy Package (2014) and the “Waste Hierarchy” adopted by the Commission (2008/98/EC) as “a priority order in the waste prevention and management legislation and policy.” The “Waste Hierarchy” requires that waste management strategies prioritize prevention, followed by reuse, then recycling, then recovery (including energy recovery) and resulting to disposal only when no other alternatives exist. 4.5. Process Quality For this project, Process Quality is interpreted to reflect time efficiency. This indicator is generally applicable to all projects as time directly translates into costs for labor, equipment and permits. In our project, there is an additional implication for reducing risks associated with violent protests. It is assumed that the faster the project is completed the more sustainable the project, considering all of the other indicators. The reader should not that the first four indicators are measured evenly at 22.5% per indicator. Process Quality, or Time Efficiency, is considered less than half as influential (only 10%) in overall project sustainability as each of the other indicators. The authors think that this distribution is logical because the direct benefit resulting from this indicator is its capacity to positively influence other indicators, such as Economic Quality and Socio-‐‑Cultural and Functional Quality, and there forth is an indirect indicator.


17

5. Possible Routes for Deconstruction The Rote Flora is an important symbol for activists and other people in Germany. The decision for a deconstruction of this building would cause demonstrations, which would escalade to violence undoubtedly. It would not be possible to get the activists out of the occupied building without using violence. Considering this, deconstruction of the Rota Flora would be unfavourable for most of the citizens in Hamburg and it is highly unlikely that the city will adopt a strategy to accomplish this.

5.1. Scenario One: The Quickest If the deconstruction of the Flora truly happened, it would have to happen fast. In scenario one, the quickest way will be described. For a quick deconstruction, a lot of vehicles and machines are needed, and it has to be well planned. The deconstruction companies need to be ready as soon as the police have removed the activists and have had cleared the area. A lot of security staff is needed during the whole deconstructing process to ensure the safety of the site workers, the security staff itself and the violent protesters, which will likely put themselves and other members of the community in risk of danger. The construction site needs to be covered from being seen by the citizens because it could create even more anger, if people saw how “violently” the Flora was being demolished. All these arrangements cost a lot of money, but higher investments at the beginning lead to a quicker demolishment of the object and it saves time, which means saving money.

Phase One: The buildings next to the Rote Flora need to be protected, and the entire construction site closed off from public view.

Phase Two: The building should be demolished with a wrecking ball.

Phase Three: The construction waste needs to be loaded onto trucks and carried away. The waste can be separated later for further recycling. The deconstruction could be performed in a few days depending on the amount of inserted machines and the weight of political affairs.

Scenario one will result in the lowest quality of recovered material. This will result in the majority of the recovered masses being suitable for recycling into an aggregate for construction of roads, or as backfill on construction sites, or to be “recovered” in the form of energy production from incineration.

5.2. Scenario Two: Recovery of the Highest Material Quantity and Quality In this Scenario, we will try to deconstruct the building in a way that facilitates the greatest possibility for recycling or reusing of the materials and components in the building as possible, with the focus on the materials with the highest volume, value or risk. We assume that most of the wooden materials, especially the old floor and the beams, are made of solid wood, representing a great value and potential to be sold and reused.


18

Similarly, the bricks in the walls and the foundation, which is representing the biggest material volume in the Flora, will have to be specially treated if they are to be removed from the building and their quality preserved so that they can be reused and recycled too.

Phase One: At first, it is necessary to check if there are any hazardous materials left in the structure. The materials have to be taken out and be specially treated before the deconstruction begins. The deconstruction starts on the first floor. To protect the value of the wooden floor, it is necessary to take it out first. It is, however, necessary to keep a floor to walk on, so additional of a temporary floor construction would be needed before the deconstruction could continue.

Phase Two: In the second phase, valuable materials that may be directly reusable and are certainly recyclable should be carefully removed in a manner that preserves the highest quality. Metals, like heating systems, piping, copper wires, and sanitary fixtures; window material, like glass and frames; and other elemental fixtures in the building would be of most value and there forth importance. These material should be separated from other bulk construction wastes and picked up by certain recycling companies.

Phase Three: After all high-‐‑value material has been taken out of all three stories, the non-‐‑load-‐‑bearing walls can be demolished in the whole building.

Phase Four: In the next phase, a stage has to be built on top of the new floor, which was made of construction boards, to make the deconstruction of the roof and its valuable wooden beam construction possible. The next thing to do is to remove the previously constructed stage, and all parts of the first floor. This construction element also consists of reusable wooden beams, which could be sold for reuse.

Phase Five: The load-‐‑bearing walls can be now deconstructed. The old bricks of the walls need to be kept undamaged for continuing reuse. To make that possible, the wall needs to be taken down carefully in bits and pieces. This phase is expected to be the slowest part of the entire deconstruction. The ground floor and the walls of the basement have to be deconstructed by using the same procedure. But, it is questionable whether the effort of this difficult deconstruction is worth while for the basement because the moisture of the surrounding soil could have made the bricks unusable. However, the bricks would still be recyclable as an aggregate. In that case, it is enough to use a more rapid and forceful demolish technique causing structural damage to the bricks of the walls and the foundation and then lift the rubble materials out of the pit.


19

This deconstruction method, which places high importance in the oldest and most historical building materials, takes time, money and a lot of effort; but, potentially saves energy and water expenditures associated with manufacturing new materials, which the preserved materials will replace via reuse. It is assumed that the financial benefits of reuse of Scenario Two will not cover the increased costs for the time-‐‑consuming and delegate deconstruction. Still, it shows that high volumes of materials can be removed from the building at a reusable quality if deconstruction plans are designed with this aim.

5.3. Scenario Three: The Cheapest The cheapest way of deconstructing the Flora constitutes of a mix between keeping some construction parts for selling and a direct demolishment.

Phase One: Just like in scenario two, the described materials of high value like wood, metals et cetera should be taken out safely for profitable reasons.

Phase Two: But, instead of deconstructing the structural parts, which are made of bricks, it would be much cheaper just to demolish them in a quick and rough way. Later, the damaged bricks could be separated and recycled. The undamaged bricks could be cleaned and sold for reuse. The idea is to demolish construction parts, which would create more costs if conserved, than profit they will bring if they would be been sold.

5.4. Scenario Four: Most Socially Agreeable

This scenario tries to find a compromise for a deconstruction that could be accepted by the society. Providing that keeping parts of the Flora at the actual site would not be an option, the compromise could be keeping some special building parts of the Flora and bring it to another place, which exhibits the parts and deals with it as a symbol in a respectful way, assuming that procedure would work and be possible. Parts of the East Side Gallery of the Berlin Wall are a best practice showing that this is a viable solution. Museums and establishments across Berlin, Germany, Europe and beyond showcase small sections of this historic monument. It is plausible that there would be an eager market in Hamburg to recover intact, structural pieces of the Rota Flora exhibiting her characteristic graffiti to be showcased in businesses, cultural institutions and possibly people’s homes.

Phase One: In this scenario, the first phase would also be to remove valuable materials for reuse, such as metals, fixtures and valuable wood.

Phase Two: Once the building has been gutted of easily recoverable and high value materials, then parts of the walls need to be cut out and lifted by a crane. These processes and the necessary machines would cost a lot of time and money, but it could be worth while in order to avoid bad publicity and keep peace while reaching the goal.


20

6. Comparison of the Four Scenarios for Optimal Sustainability The four scenarios have been compared on the five sustainability indicators prescribed by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety’s (BMUB) Guideline for Sustainable Building (2014). The five indicators are considered in a weighted fashion of relevance to the overall sustainability of the project – Ecological Quality (22.5%), Economic Quality (22.5%), Socio-‐‑Cultural and Functional Quality (22.5%) Process Quality (22.5%), and Process Quality (10%). The author’s support this division of relevance as it holds equal weighting of the three pillars of sustainability: the environment, the economy and society, and also considers the Technical Quality as an equal measure. This arrangement supports the goals of the EC Waste Directive and the principles of a Circular Economy, which set maintaining material value and longevity as the greatest priority, and also compliments the concept of an integrated assessment method for sustainable deconstruction. It is clear that achievement of sustainability in deconstruction requires intentional and well thought out, place-‐‑specific planning. As such, it is appropriate that Technical Quality is rating evenly with the three pillars of sustainability. Process Quality is a modifier indicator, which supports the project by enabling enhanced performance of other indicators. For example, reduced deconstruction time directly relates to saved costs in labour, equipment and permits, and also decreased risks of violent protests. As such, this indicator should not be as influential as the other four.

Criteria Weighting

S1: The Quickest

S2: Most Ecological

S3: The Cheapest

S4: Socially Agreeable

Ecological Quality 22.5% 1 10 5 8 Economic Quality 22.5% 5 1 10 1 Socio-‐‑Cultural and Functional Quality

22.5% 1 6 2 10

Technical Quality 22.5% 1 8 6 10 Process Quality 10% 10 1 8 1 Summation 1 2.8 5.725 5.975 6.625 6.1. Ecological Quality Ecological Quality is the measurement of the amount of used energy and produced CO2 and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the deconstruction process and in the recycling chains. This indicator also measures other Environmental Impact Factors commonly used as indicators in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), such as those incorporated in the DGNB’s sustainability rating system, shown in Table 6.1.

Table 6. Multi-‐‑Criteria Analysis of Deconstruction Scenarios


21

Scenario Two: Most Ecological was rated with the highest possible, 10 points because this scenario makes it possible to recycle and reuse most of the materials. Scenario One: The Quickest just gets one point out of ten, because of the great effort and energy that is needed to treat the non-‐‑separated-‐‑construction-‐‑waste after deconstruction.

6.2. Economic Quality Economic Quality assesses the total cost of the deconstruction project compared to average cost for deconstruction in Hamburg (€/m3). These costs include expenses for renting the machines and vehicles, labour, permits, and either waste management expenses or material recovery economic benefits. The longer the deconstruction takes the higher the costs will grow. Scenario Three: The Cheapest is awarded 10 points because of the combination of a quick demolition and a carefully deconstruction of just a few components with the highest value; resulting in both monies saved and simultaneously earned for selling the components.

Table 6.1. Environmental Impact Categories. Source: Authors’ reconstruction of DGNB (2014)


22

Scenario Two: Most Ecological and Scenario Four: Socially Agreeable are both awarded the minimum, only 1 point, because it costs a lot of money and time to deconstruct and separate the components for a proper reuse or recycling. 6.3. Socio-‐‑Cultural and Functional Quality Socio-‐‑Cultural and Functional Quality is an especially important indicator for our chosen project. As already mentioned, the Rota Flora is more than just a building for the people of Hamburg. In the fictional scenario of a deconstruction, a rating of ten points means that a compromise has been found that satisfies the local community and causes no violent protests, like in Scenario Four: Socially Agreeable. A quick and cheap demolishing would not be accepted, like in Scenario One: The Quickest and Scenario Three: The Cheapest. Scenario Two: Most Ecological is awarded at least five points because the sustainable way of deconstruction fits to a non-‐‑capitalism way of thinking, which fits to the basic adjustment of the activists. 6.4. Technical Quality This indicator assesses the quality and quantity of materials preserved for re-‐‑use and, as a second and less preferable option, recycled. Scenario Four: Socially Agreeable is awarded a ten because of the concept to bring most of the building parts to another place. This scenario provides for the possibility of reconstruction or the exhibition of some parts of the structure. Scenario One: The Quickest gets only one point because of the quick deconstruction, which would destroy most of the components depleting them of value and greatly limiting their potential for reuse. 6.5. Process Quality Process Quality measures the duration of the complete deconstruction. This indicator assumes that a long phase of deconstruction will lead to higher costs and disturbance of the community, which are living and walking close to the construction site. A quick demolition, like in Scenario One: The Quickest, is awarded 10 points and a slow deconstruction, like in Scenario Two: Most Ecological and Scenario Four: Socially Agreeable, are awarded only one point.


23

6.6. Results Scenario Four: Socially Agreeable is rated as the most sustainable option, with a strong lead on the other scenarios. This scenario scores well above average in the categories of Ecological Quality, Socio-‐‑Cultural and Functional Quality, and Technical Quality because it upholds two fundamental principles of sustainability: preservation and inclusion. In comparison, Scenario One: The Quickest rates as being less than half as sustainable as Scenario Four: Socially Agreeable because it does not prioritize material value or the social importance of the building.

Figure 6.6. Summary of Multi-‐‑Criteria Assessment of Deconstruction

Scenarios


24

7. Conclusion: Planned Deconstruction for Enhanced Sustainability The best solution, according to our rating system, is a mixture of all four scenarios reflecting compromises. Considering the high cultural significance as well as the history of violent protests tied to the Rota Flora, this analysis assumes that the acceptance by the society is possibly more important for the city than money, time or ecology. Even though Scenario Four: Socially Agreeable clearly out-‐‑performs the other scenarios in regards to overall project sustainability, the scenario is rated the worst possible score in Economical Quality, which is one of three basic pillars of sustainability. The authors reflect upon this as an opportunity to further improve the project. In this case, the deconstruction Scenario Five: Public Participation should be the same as Scenario Four: Socially Agreeable, but enhanced with a new model to balance the economic costs of preserving parts of the building. Potential funding schemes include donations, Crowd Funding, crown funding via festivals or other cultural events, or a direct subsidy from the city. Therefore, Hamburg and some charity organisations could handle the higher costs and the duration of the deconstruction. Under this proposal, Scenario Five: Public Participation would reach 93% of the possible points, showing high levels of sensitivity to all sustainability parameters.


25

Resources Ahnert, Rudolf; Heinz, Karl. (2009) Typische Baukonstruktionen von 1860 bis 1960. Pg.47 BMUB – German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and

Nuclear Safety (2014) Guideline for Sustainable Building BREEAM – Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology (2014)

Green Buildings Pay: Investors and Developers are Using Sustainability to Drive Value Buhck Gruppe (2016) Entsorgung von Bauschutt in Hamburg und Norddeutschland.

< http://www.buhck.de/buhck/entsorgung/abfallarten/bauschutt/bauschutt.php > Concrete Network (2016) Recycling Concrete

< http://www.concretenetwork.com/concrete/demolition/recycling_concrete.htm > Deutschlandfunk (2016) Recycling: Gips-‐‑Abfälle neu verwertet.

< http://www.deutschlandfunk.de/recycling-‐‑gips-‐‑abfaelle-‐‑neu-‐‑verwertet.676.de.html?dram:article_id=307646>

DGNB – German Sustainable Building Council (2014) Excellence Defined: Sustainable Building

with a System’s Approach eBay (2015) Das sollten Sie als Hausbauer über Stahl-‐‑Träger wissen

<http://www.ebay.de/gds/Das-‐‑sollten-‐‑Sie-‐‑als-‐‑Hausbauer-‐‑ueber-‐‑Stahl-‐‑Traeger-‐‑wissen-‐‑/10000000178524139/g.html >

EC -‐‑ European Commission (2014) “Towards a Circular Economy: A Zero Waste Programme for

Europe” Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.

EC -‐‑ European Commission (2008) Waste Directive. 2008/98/EC Entsorgung (2016) Estrich fachgerecht entsorgen.

< http://www.entsorgung-‐‑blog.de/2010/09/estrich-‐‑fachgerecht-‐‑entsorgen/> HAFENHOLZ (2016) < http://www.hafenholz.de/home.html > ISO – International Standard Organization (2008) “Part 5. Life-‐‑Cycle Costing” Buildings and

Constructed Assets: Service Life Planning. ISO 15686-‐‑5:2008 Otto Dörner (2016) “Sie möchten Dachpappe entsorgen?” <http://www.doerner

shop.de/container/entsorgung-‐‑ratgeber/abfallarten-‐‑glossar/dachpappe/> Reiling Unternehmensgruppe (2016) Wood Recycling. < http://reiling.de/holz-‐‑recycling/ > Siventas GmbH (2016) Altfenster.

<https://www.wer-‐‑entsorgt-‐‑was.de/entsorgungstipps/abfall/Altfenster.html> UNEP – United Nations Environmental Programme (2015) The United Nations Environmental

Programme and the 2030 Agenda: Global Action for People and the Planet VLEI – Verwertung Logistik Entsorgung Industrieberatung (2016) “Verwertung von

Dachbahnen” <http://www.vlei.de/leistungen/verwertung-‐‑von-‐‑dachbahnen>

deconstruction management for optimized material recovery: rota flora

Engineering