We still demolish too much and recycle too little. An urgent shift in mindset is required, writes Richard Steer
As a global consultancy, we are always on the lookout for new technology that can improve performance, increase reliability and reduce costs. But even I was a bit taken aback when I saw the latest advances in the Netherlands recently.
Amsterdam has set itself the goal of being fully circular by 2050 and halving its use of virgin materials by 2030. One major source of waste comes from construction materials, including the bricks that pave the city’s streets.
To help reuse some of the part-worn bricks, a robot has been designed to collect, sort and repave – a project that could be rolled out across other cities.
It may sound like a charming anecdote about tidy Dutch efficiency – will they start using AI to sort tulips I ask myself? – but perhaps this robot tells a deeper story? It signals a shift in how we build and how we think about the materials we use to do so.
In a world where environmental credentials are increasingly scrutinised, this policy is not fringe idealism. It is pragmatic, forward-thinking, and – crucially – it is working. It also reflects a big shift in the direction being taken in the United States and Europe over how we view the built environment.
We are still in the early chapters of our own circular economy journey. We demolish too much, recover too little, and specify materials as if the planet were a never-ending warehouse
While some parts of the US are moving in the right direction – especially progressive cities and private developers – the circular option for creation of the built environment is still a niche concept, and a Trump-led federal government would be unlikely to champion it. Compared to forward-thinking European nations, the US remains fragmented and behind the curve on circular construction.
In the UK, we are still in the early chapters of our own circular economy journey. We demolish too much, recover too little, and specify materials as if the planet were a never-ending warehouse.
According to DEFRA, construction and demolition generate more than 60 million tonnes of waste annually in the UK. Of that, far too much ends up downcycled or in landfill.
Meanwhile, countries like the Netherlands, Denmark, and Finland are getting further ahead in embedding circularity into their construction sectors. The Dutch government mandates material passports for new public buildings and requires that 30% of materials in infrastructure projects be circular by 2026.
The UK still treats demolition as disposal rather than an opportunity for recovery – a mindset that must change if we are to compete with Europe’s frontrunners
Denmark’s “resource strategy” bans recyclable materials from landfill and supports a thriving reuse market, while Finland has been integrating circular principles into its national roadmap to a circular economy since 2016.
Even France, not always known for red tape-free innovation, has passed a law requiring all public construction use at least 20% reused materials by 2030. These countries view construction not as a linear supply chain, but as a circular system of materials in constant motion.
The UK, by comparison, still treats demolition as disposal rather than an opportunity for recovery – a mindset that must change if we are to compete with Europe’s frontrunners.
Let’s set aside green halos and focus on the hard hat economics. There is growing evidence that circular construction can be cheaper in the long run.
Reusing steel sections, for example, can shave costs on materials, transport and embodied carbon calculations. Modular construction – which lends itself naturally to deconstruction and reuse – can cut build time and site waste. Although it has to be said that the record of success for modular as a building concept is hardly stellar (Element Europe Ltd was reported to have lost £80m in three years before it collapsed last month).
Local authorities should nevertheless be allowed and encouraged to set circularity requirements in their procurement and planning decisions. The Netherlands does this through its material passports system and we should be doing the same, particularly in the public sector where the pipeline of work is substantial.
Already, firms in the UK are experimenting. In east London, the “reuse flat” pilot project by Orms Architects and Grosvenor aims to build a residential block entirely from recycled materials. But scaling them requires systemic change. We need better logistics, clearer regulation and more joined-up thinking.
There are understandable obstacles – insurance and liability concerns still plague reuse markets and building regs lag behind innovation. Many architects and QSs do not know where best to source reused materials or how to accurately cost them and, culturally, many clients still prefer “new” – a mindset that we must shift.
As consultants, we must lead by example: advising on reuse strategies, challenging unnecessary demolition and helping clients to quantify whole-life carbon and cost
The winds are changing, however. ESG reporting now matters to funders. Embodied carbon is rising up the agenda and cities are realising that urban mining – recovering value from what is already built – may be more viable than expanding into a dwindling green belt.
The next generation of construction professionals will be circular by default. Universities are incorporating lifecycle thinking into their curriculums. As consultants, we must lead by example: advising on reuse strategies, challenging unnecessary demolition and helping clients to quantify whole-life carbon and cost.
Let me be clear: circular construction is not a passing phase. It is an inevitable evolution of how we must build – more efficient, more resilient and less extractive.
The Dutch robot is just the start. Imagine if every UK city had its own version, quietly repaving our future one reclaimed brick at a time.
Richard Steer is chair of Gleeds Worldwide and a Building The Future Think Tank commissioner
No comments yet