Purpose – Existing old building stock needs retrofit of structures and performance upgrading. Retrofit is often neglected, either lacking understanding of maintenance importance or to keep living costs low. Retrofit is inevitable. Depending on a buildings geographical location, condition or expected time of use; demolition of building or increment space is worth considering. This study looks at the economics about which is the best option: Renovation and energy efficient upgrading of existing building or replacement of existing building. Design – Research method is case study. The same case building – size, age, existing performance as well as renovation and new performance – studied at different regions. These are (1) growing city, (2) stable city and (3) shrinking city. Life cycle cost analysis bases on payback periods. The most important input data are the rent and occupancy rate on each area. Findings – In growing cities, both renovation and replacement of existing buildings are feasible options. In other two areas, payback periods of renovations are rather long and acceptable only if building is in own use. Often retrofit is necessary because of the poor condition of the building. Research Implications – This study looks at the subject only from building owners economical point of view and ties building to its location. Life cycle assessment (energy use and greenhouse gas emissions) has analysed earlier (Nippala and Heljo, 2010). Practical Implications – Analysis gives the most feasible option to different regions. Originality – This study raises the debate on how realistic it is to expect the building stock to meet the EU’s energy saving and greenhouse cut targets.
|Series||Emerald Reach Proceedings Series|
- New building