Spinifex is an opinion column. If you would like to contribute, contact us to ask for a detailed brief.
When I think of existing buildings – made up of materials that have been extracted, processed and assembled with enormous effort – being demolished and sent to landfill, it literally breaks my heart.
Our system seems to reward the shiny new while disregarding the old as something too difficult to tackle. It’s not dissimilar to the way society celebrates youth while our older generations don’t always receive the recognition, love and care they deserve. How did we get to a point where it is easier to demolish a perfectly good building than to retain it and sensitively repurpose it for future generations?
Having worked in sustainability for most of my 25 year career, I’ve seen an evolution in sustainable design thinking. So much energy has gone into making new buildings more energy efficient, nature-sensitive, socially inviting and comfortable, complete with net zero certifications and Green Star ratings. New buildings have become places for experimentation and innovation, attracting tenants and adding value. Yet they are not shifting the dial on what is not only a climate crisis, but also a housing and social emergency.
As our economic system struggles with global supply chains and political uncertainty, we are faced with the truth that building more new buildings cannot be the only answer. In the current market, new developments are often financially unviable, let alone affordable from a carbon perspective if we are serious about remaining within the Paris Agreement. If we respond to our housing crisis with only new-build solutions, we will simply blow our carbon budgets. Existing buildings must be part of the solution.
It feels as though we are on the cusp of a huge opportunity to rethink how our built environment works, what it values and where investment flows. There is enormous social, environmental and economic value sitting dormant in the buildings that already exist.
When I saw that The Fifth Estate‘s Carbon Triggers debate was coming up, it felt like the right time to share a few reflections on building reuse. I have had the pleasure of leading the Australian chapter of Don’t Waste Buildings for the past 12 months, and during that time the appetite for change has grown month by month. What started as a small group of passionate advocates has become a growing network of professionals determined to accelerate building reuse across Australia.
My motivation for launching Don’t Waste Buildings here was simple: Australia is lagging when it comes to the policies needed to encourage building reuse at scale.
The UK chapter recently released The Reuse Dividend, which makes the compelling case that retaining, repurposing and adapting existing buildings is not only a win for climate, but also an opportunity for economic regeneration. What is missing in Australia are the policy settings that unlock this potential. When supported by the right policy framework, reuse becomes a catalyst for both climate action and economic productivity.
London provides an excellent example of what policy can achieve. Through the London Plan, major developments are required to prepare whole life-cycle carbon assessments and circular economy statements as part of the planning process. Requiring developers to quantify the carbon cost of demolition has led not only to greater retention of existing structures, but also to an entirely new market for pre-demolition audits and material tracking. What began as a process for existing buildings is now becoming common practice on new developments as well, with developers recognising the long-term value of the materials they are creating.
I recently met with the London-based company Material Index, which carries out pre-demolition material audits and operates a marketplace that redistributes recovered materials back into new projects. This is exactly where Australia needs to get to.
But this is about more than policy. It requires a shift in mindset – from asking what new thing we can create to asking what already exists and where we can add value.
There are already inspiring examples demonstrating what is possible. In London, social enterprise 3Space has transformed vacant buildings awaiting redevelopment into affordable workspaces and community hubs, creating social and economic value long before permanent redevelopment begins. Closer to home, the City of Melbourne’s Make Room project repurposed an existing office building into supported housing for people experiencing chronic homelessness, while Morris Moor saw Up Property transform the former Phillip Morris manufacturing site into a thriving mixed-use precinct by retaining much of its industrial fabric. These projects demonstrate the social, environmental and economic value that adaptive reuse can deliver.
While embodied carbon is beginning to receive greater attention through Green Star and NABERS, building retention still relies largely on ambitious clients and developers. We are yet to embed a consistent retrofit-first approach into planning policy and development approvals. What if every significant redevelopment proposal had to undertake a pre-demolition audit and demonstrate why demolition represented the best outcome before approval was granted?
This is not only a carbon issue; it is a social issue and an economic opportunity. These kinds of systemic challenges are rarely solved by a single profession. Architects cannot do it alone, nor can policymakers or developers. It will require collaboration across disciplines, sectors and communities to rethink what we value, how we assess risk and how we make building reuse the preferred option rather than the exception.
I believe unlocking the potential of existing buildings will be one of the defining opportunities of the next decade, and it is where I intend to invest my energy moving forward.
