UK might ban demolition without planning permission

The "Embodied Carbon Lobby" is hard at work promoting renovation, and the demolition industry is worried.

The demolition industry in the UK is worried. They consider the “embodied carbon lobby” to be “demolition’s greatest threat.” I’m honoured to have one of my “ban demolition” Treehugger posts on the subject in their video trailer next to Ollie Wainwright. Demolition News writes:

“The UK demolition industry faces the prospect of being caught in a legislative pincer movement as the embodied carbon lobby continues to gather both pace and momentum. And those within the demolition fraternity that dismissed embodied carbon concerns as a flash in the pan may yet rue the day they failed to heed the warnings all around them.”

The demo guys are worrying about an amendment being proposed to a UK law that would prohibit the demolition of existing buildings without planning review. In the UK and much of the world, buildings that are not specifically listed or protected can be demolished as of right. In Ontario, Canada, where I live, the government is sweeping away many rules that provided even a little bit of review of buildings that were listed as significant. Many would say, so what? We need housing, and heritage activists are obstructionist NIMBYs!

But as Joe O’Donnell of the Victorian Society noted,

“In the middle of both climate and housing emergencies we must focus on re-using our existing buildings rather than allowing them to be demolished without local communities having any say on what buildings stay or go…When a building is demolished and a new one is put in its place, the emissions locked into the original building are wasted and the new building’s material manufacturing and construction processes create new emissions. Even energy-efficient buildings can take decades to save more operational energy emissions than were created in the construction process.”

It has taken some time to get to this point, where people recognize the value of retrofit and renovation over demolition. A dozen years ago, I was president of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, an organization that "encourages the conservation and reuse of structures, districts and landscapes of architectural, historic and cultural significance." I made the case that they should be saved because of their “embodied energy.” As Professor Robert Shipley wrote at the time,

“Every brick in building required the burning of fossil fuel in its manufacture, and every piece of lumber was cut and transported using energy. As long as the building stands, that energy is there, serving a useful purpose. Trash a building, and you trash its embodied energy too.”

Others thought this was silly. Mike Eliason tweeted, “Embodied energy and carbon are not good arguments for preservation.” Tristan Roberts of Green Building Advisor wrote: “when it comes to the energy expended in the 19th century to build that structure, that's not a good reason for saving a building from demolition — it's water under the bridge. Energy spent 2, 20, or 200 years ago to build a building simply isn't a resource to us today.”

But that was before we worried about embodied or upfront carbon. It was before we had a Paris Agreement and carbon budgets that we have to stay below to avoid catastrophic climate change. What matters today isn’t the energy spent 200 years ago constructing a building, but the carbon released by building its replacement. Jim Lindberg of the National Trust for Historic Preservation explains how this changes how we think of existing buildings:

“The urgency of reducing embodied carbon emissions inverts common perceptions about older buildings and climate change. Rather than outdated structures that we hope to replace, older buildings should be valued as climate assets that we cannot afford to waste. The best way to avoid embodied carbon emissions right now, when our carbon budget is shrinking fast, is to conserve and reuse as many existing buildings as possible.”

Yet in Toronto today, they knock down perfectly good 20-storey buildings like the one on the left in the photo to put up 40-storey buildings when surrounded by protected residential areas full of 2-storey buildings. It’s insane and fundamentally wrong, and it is encouraged.

Back in the UK, Joe O’Donnell demands that the government accept the amendment. “if it is serious about meeting its own legally binding net zero targets, we need to end the constant cycle of demolition and rebuild as soon as possible."

As a proud card-carrying member of the embodied carbon lobby, I will say it again: We should ban demolition without planning permission after a full carbon accounting, exploring alternatives, and making maximum use of existing assets. And if the demo guys are so worried, perhaps the message is getting through.