This report analyzes the deconstruction of the historically and culturally significant Rota Flora building in Hamburg, Germany. It identifies four deconstruction scenarios and evaluates them based on criteria of ecological, economic, socio-cultural, technical, and process quality. The analysis determines that the most sustainable scenario is one that incorporates citizen input, prioritizes the highest quality preservation and reuse of salvaged materials, and follows the waste hierarchy of the European Waste Directive by focusing on reuse before recycling. This scenario optimizes the sustainability of the deconstruction process for the Rota Flora building.

1. 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

2. 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. HCU
-­‐‑
REAP
–
TSMC
Sustainable
Deconstruction
–
Rota
Flora
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. HCU
-­‐‑
REAP
–
TSMC
Sustainable
Deconstruction
–
Rota
Flora
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. HCU
-­‐‑
REAP
–
TSMC
Sustainable
Deconstruction
–
Rota
Flora
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. HCU
-­‐‑
REAP
–
TSMC
Sustainable
Deconstruction
–
Rota
Flora
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. HCU
-­‐‑
REAP
–
TSMC
Sustainable
Deconstruction
–
Rota
Flora
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. HCU
-­‐‑
REAP
–
TSMC
Sustainable
Deconstruction
–
Rota
Flora
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. HCU
-­‐‑
REAP
–
TSMC
Sustainable
Deconstruction
–
Rota
Flora
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. HCU
-­‐‑
REAP
–
TSMC
Sustainable
Deconstruction
–
Rota
Flora
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. HCU
-­‐‑
REAP
–
TSMC
Sustainable
Deconstruction
–
Rota
Flora
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. HCU
-­‐‑
REAP
–
TSMC
Sustainable
Deconstruction
–
Rota
Flora
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. HCU
-­‐‑
REAP
–
TSMC
Sustainable
Deconstruction
–
Rota
Flora
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. HCU
-­‐‑
REAP
–
TSMC
Sustainable
Deconstruction
–
Rota
Flora
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. HCU
-­‐‑
REAP
–
TSMC
Sustainable
Deconstruction
–
Rota
Flora
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. HCU
-­‐‑
REAP
–
TSMC
Sustainable
Deconstruction
–
Rota
Flora
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. HCU
-­‐‑
REAP
–
TSMC
Sustainable
Deconstruction
–
Rota
Flora
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. HCU
-­‐‑
REAP
–
TSMC
Sustainable
Deconstruction
–
Rota
Flora
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. HCU
-­‐‑
REAP
–
TSMC
Sustainable
Deconstruction
–
Rota
Flora
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. HCU
-­‐‑
REAP
–
TSMC
Sustainable
Deconstruction
–
Rota
Flora
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. HCU
-­‐‑
REAP
–
TSMC
Sustainable
Deconstruction
–
Rota
Flora
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. HCU
-­‐‑
REAP
–
TSMC
Sustainable
Deconstruction
–
Rota
Flora
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. HCU
-­‐‑
REAP
–
TSMC
Sustainable
Deconstruction
–
Rota
Flora
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. HCU
-­‐‑
REAP
–
TSMC
Sustainable
Deconstruction
–
Rota
Flora
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. HCU
-­‐‑
REAP
–
TSMC
Sustainable
Deconstruction
–
Rota
Flora
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>