The problem of ageing (Not what you think)

Buildings, like people, have a habit of being great in their prime but can struggle to remain relevant – and healthy – when they get older. People have a limited timespan but buildings have the possibility of being reinvented, repurposed and revived by intelligent clients and architects. At Ashfold we have worked on refurbishment projects but, as it happens, currently all our projects are refurbishments and each has a contrasting question over their fitness for purpose in 2026.. In parallel, we have developed our B Corp credentials to demonstrate that we care about sustainability, reuse and the circular economy. We expect all four of our current commissions to be on site within the next few months. All are different in vintage, size and complexity. Each will come up against three significant barriers to success:

> Budget

> Legislation/Bureaucracy

> Sustainability

I want to describe the four projects and highlight the key issues in meeting society’s expectation to reduce/reuse/recycle.

Our elder statesman is a Victorian Church, built in 1875, which does not have an accessible toilet. Back in 1875 and every year since, the disabled in the congregation have had to climb a flight of stairs if they want to spend a penny. Designing a modern extension to a Victorian church has been interesting. We are incorporating electric heating and ensuring insulation meets current Building Regulations. This is now an endeavour that will cost £several hundred thousand that has to be mainly fundraised from the local community.

Lessons learnt: Futureproofing is hard to predict; planners and Church authorities need to better understand the economic constraints that are attached to their criteria.

Next upis a residential block of flats built in 1967. All the original features, including Crittal windows, are still in place. Unfortunately, the windows are shabby and single glazed. The original decorative mosaic tile cladding is in a poor state of appearance. The flats are beautiful and a joy to live in, but the external fabric warrants some overdue TLC. Replacing the windows and restoring parts of the fabric will stretch leaseholders’ budgets but will hopefully secure the value of their flats for at least another 25 years.

Lesson learnt: Look after existing buildings with regular cleaning and an effective maintenance programme.

Third case study: Built in 1998 by a utility company as an annexe to their HQ, this purpose-built office building is stepping up to the challenge of a change of use: it is being repurposed as an International College. Our client has chosen repurposing over demolition and new build. Whilst the development was constructed to high standards in 1998, today we are removing over 75% of the MEP equipment. The cladding and frame have fared much better and we’re able to use almost 100% of the existing structure with no need for any new build.

Lessons Learnt: MEP systems over 20 years old are likely to be obsolete. You cannot beat having a building with good bones.

My final case study involves a 20-storey futuristic-looking glass-clad speculative office building in the City of London. This building is “only” 25 years old or so, and today we are adding the building to the Citigen heating network. This project will enable the building to achieve an improved EPC Rating. There will be a resulting reduced reliance on fossil fuel and one boiler will be able to be decommissioned. Yes, retrofitting a building so it can be fed by a district heating network is complicated and expensive, but the carbon savings are there in the future. We were lucky that we are adjacent to the existing pipework and have space in our plantroom to add plate heat exchangers. It’s quite a complicated project with no visible upgrade. And yet I ask myself, is it worth all the effort?

Lesson learnt: It’s very difficult to commercially future-proof speculative office buildings that are constructed to tight budgets.

</Rant over!>

In conclusion, returning to my opening comparison of buildings and people, we now recognise the distinction between health span and lifespan for people. The question might be, is there a similar comparison that can be applied to buildings? How do environmental issues balance against financial constraints and expenditure on maintenance?