
www.buildingsandcities.org/journal-content/special-issues/understanding-demolition2.html
This special issue examines why demolition occurs, its consequences and how a more sustainable approach can be created.
In the sustainability discourse, the long-lasting nature of buildings and building stocks is rarely investigated. This special issue explores when, why and how demolition occurs with the aim to understand its environmental, socio-economic and cultural drivers, and consequences for policy and practice. The potential for avoiding building replacement (demolition and subsequent new build) and favouring retention is probed. Older buildings tend to be seen either as a problem and a threat, e.g. a contributor to climate change due to their allegedly excessive use of energy or, if they are heritage buildings, as being themselves threatened by the changing climate. New knowledge has emerged that challenges this perception, suggesting that older can potentially outperform new build. Profound questions arise about the nature of 'development' in the Global North. In particular, about public policies and whether the role and business models of the construction industry need to be reconfigured to a larger emphasis on stewardship of the existing building stock.
Guest editor: Satu Huuhka
This special issue frames demolition as a phenomenon. It is usually taken for granted or at most seen as a necessary evil; an inconvenient but inevitable part of the never-ending development of modern cities and societies. As a result, demolition has so far mainly been approached as a technical undertaking, a practical problem that mechanical engineering can help to solve effectively. There has been fairly little problematisation in- or outside of academia whether and how demolition helps to build environmentally, economically and socially sustainable cities, and when it is in fact helpful toward these goals.
The papers in the issue contribute insights from different scales, from the level of a building to that of a city. Eight case studies from various contexts, mainly Europe, but also the US and Australia, contribute novel methods, findings and policy insights.
The papers are categorised as: (1)
drivers and policies on demolition versus retention; (2) environmental and
social impact assessment on building level; and (3) practical demolition
decision-making. The contributions suggest, among other findings, positive
environmental impacts from building retention as opposed to demolition, and
discuss how policy designs from the city to the building level can either
encourage or discourage retention. Due to its implications, demolition and its alternatives should gain importance on
research, design, planning, construction and real estate agendas in the years
to come.
Understanding demolition [Editorial]
S. Huuhka
Policy tensions in demolition: Dutch social housing and circularity
P. Jonker-Hoffrén
Demolition or retention of existing buildings: drivers at the masterplan scale
H. Baker, A.
Moncaster, S. Wilkinson & H. Remøy
Demolition or adaptation?: post-industrial buildings in Ukraine
I. Serhiiuk
& I. Kalakoski
Renovate
or replace?: Consequential replacement LCA framework for buildings
S. Huuhka,
M. Moisio, E. Salmio, A. Köliö & J. Lahdensivu
GHG
emissions from building renovation versus new-build: incentives from assessment
methods
R.K. Zimmermann,
Z. Barjot, F.N. Rasmussen, T. Malmqvist, M. Kuittinen & H. Birgisdorttir
Social
life cycle assessment of adaptive reuse
R. Lundgren
Decision-making
analysis for Pittsburgh's deconstruction pilot using AHP and GIS
Z. Zhang
& J.D. Lee
Decision-support
for selecting demolition waste management strategies
M. van den
Berg, L. Hulsbeek & H. Voordijk
When is Demolition Justified?
Colin Rose
Time to Question Demolition!
André Thomsen
Critical Reconstruction Theory and the invention of post-disaster response
G Lizarralde, D Wachsmuth, F Özdoğan & M Cossu
Post-war reconstruction-as-knowledge practice: Fukui’s dual disaster recovery
A Y F Urushima & K Yamaguchi
Critical reflections on the process of interdisciplinary building science research
G T Morgan, M F Touchie, J Robinson, A Jakubiec & J Tran
Comparing technical disassembly potential methods for concrete and timber buildings
N Westerholm, A Tuure, S Pajunen & M Kuittinen
One-stop shops as leverage points for renovation sufficiency
G Pardalis & M Sula
Creating resilient cities: advocacy and planning for equity-based recovery
A Paidakaki
Impact of glazed balcony design on daylight in Finnish apartments
L Jegard, R Castaño-Rosa & S Pelsmakers
Climate-related risks: implications for municipal governments in Brazil
C Nastari Fernandes, P Ciminelli Ramalho & F Lima-Silva
Changing land-use metrics in mass housing: Türkiye case study
M S Çepni, A K Kutluca, T Salihoğlu, A Atmaca & S Mintemur
Personal comfort systems for adults with intellectual disabilities
K Exss, M Trebilcock, P Wegertseder-Martínez, S Schiavon & H Zhang
How buildings shape occupant movement: a systematic review and framework
G Chinazzo & N Wang
Rethinking the second life of post-disaster and post-conflict temporary housing
N Akdede, B Ö Ay & İ Gürsel Dino
Embodied carbon impacts of residential development siteworks: new assessment framework
P Comerford, O Kinnane, R O’Hegarty & P Crowe
Horizontal building extensions: potential in Finnish blocks of flats
J Tarpio & P Lehtovuori
Post-disaster reconstruction and ethics: the power of social capital
B Ubesingha, G Ofori, G Agyekum-Mensah & D Frings
Towards net zero: sectoral ambitions and global trends in building decarbonisation
C E Caballero-Güereca, J Vogel, N Alaux, C M Ouellet-Plamondon, J Silva Santana, G Foliente, T Lützkendorf & A Passer
Climate literacy and labour agency in vocational education and training
J Calvert, V Price, C Winch, L Clarke, M Sahin-Dikmen, P-L Bilodeau & E Dionne
Towards a new neighbourhood-scale climate risk-adaptation approach
C Rigoni, S Oliveira, O Romice, A Moreno-Rangel & A Chatzimichali
Sharing energy renovations know-how through citizen–professional knowledge networks
C Foulds, S Royston, A Aggeli, A Crowther & R Robison
Environmental impacts of reclaimed bricks: comparing different deconstruction methods
E Salmio & S Huuhka
eCOMBINE: framework for energy, comfort, behaviour and a multi-domain environment
V M Barthelmes, C Karmann, V Gonzalez Serrano, K Lyu, J Wienold, M Andersen, D Licina & D Khovalyg
Living labs as ‘agents for change’ [editorial]
N Antaki, D Petrescu & V Marin
Post-disaster reconstruction: infill housing prototypes for Kathmandu
J Bolchover & K Mundle
Urban verticalisation: typologies of high-rise development in Santiago
D Moreno-Alba, C Marmolejo-Duarte, M Vicuña del Río & C Aguirre-Núñez
A public theatre as a living lab to create resilience
A Apostu & M Drăghici
Reconstruction in post-war Rome: transnational flows and national identity
J Jiang
Reframing disaster recovery through spatial justice: an integrated framework
M A Gasseloğlu & J E Gonçalves

The most important part of any journal is our people – readers, authors, reviewers, editorial board members and editors. You are cordially invited to join our community by joining our mailing list. We send out occasional emails about the journal – calls for papers, special issues, events and more.
We will not share your email with third parties. Read more
Latest Commentaries
Disaster Reconstruction: Rebuilding Trust in Fragile States
Tania N. Haddad and Tracy Sakr explain why effective disaster response in fragile institutional environments depends not only on resources but also on governance capacity, coordination mechanisms and institutional trust. The 2020 Beirut Port explosion shows that fragmented governance authority, non-binding coordination arrangements and low public trust resulted in duplicated efforts, uneven aid distribution and limited strategic recovery planning. Institutional reforms can strengthen state capacity, formalise coordination mechanisms between government and civil society, and rebuild trust through transparency and accountability.
Reimagining Climate Action, Community Engagement and Professional Responsibility
Climate change poses a plethora of challenges for decision- and policy-making on multiple scales. Adopting a risk perspective can identify multiple kinds of risk that must be addressed if climate action is to be successful. John Robinson and Emily Smit (University of Toronto), Pamela Robinson (Toronto Metropolitan University) and Anne Gloger (Catalysts’ Circle) consider the decision-making risks having to do with whether climate mitigation and adaptation policies and programs are likely to achieve their goals.