What makes adaptive reuse and renovation projects unique to work with?

"Transforming and renovating is about making the most of what we have already built. These projects are both meaningful and demanding – complex, but far from impossible. Although it is often cheaper, faster, and less risky to demolish and start from scratch, it makes sense to renew old buildings. By transforming, renovating, and reusing rather than building anew, we reduce resource consumption and, in turn, carbon emissions – while also helping to preserve our shared architectural and cultural heritage.

But these are also projects where rigid legislation and strict requirements often create challenges; you often find yourself hitting a dead end because the building regulations are primarily designed for new construction. This reveals one of the biggest hurdles in renovation and preservation: that today’s building codes rarely acknowledge the unique conditions of historic structures. The problem is most evident in listed buildings and those graded with the highest preservation value, where strict indoor climate requirements collide with the need to protect original facades and interiors. With facades and finishes that cannot be altered, and internal insulation avoided to prevent dewpoint problems, compliance with current standards often proves unfeasible."

Could you expand a bit on the kinds of barriers you encounter in practice?

"With the current building regulations, consultants like us quickly run into challenges that make adaptive reuse and renovation projects far more complex than they need to be. The rules are often written a hundred years after the property was constructed and from a perspective rooted in the standards we design and build to today.

In practice, this means documenting everything – from fire safety and structural stability to energy and acoustics – to a level the building was never intended to meet. Many of the requirements clash directly with one another and with the architecture itself, standing in the way of protecting and preserving historic buildings, which is a real shame."

"Take daylight requirements, for example. Older office or industrial buildings often have large building cores that fall short of modern standards for natural light. This makes it difficult to convert such buildings into housing, since large sections of them simply do not comply with today’s residential standards – even though, technically, they function perfectly well.

Fire safety regulations present similar obstacles. They make it difficult to retain original details and materials such as wooden panels, doors, or staircases, which rarely meet modern fire-resistance requirements. Historic features are often lost in the name of compliance – taking with them layers of architectural value and history that can never be replaced.

Energy requirements form yet another barrier. When the facades of heritage buildings cannot be altered, achieving the desired energy performance becomes almost impossible. In such cases, internal insulation becomes the only option, affecting proportions, reduces ceiling heights, and ultimately changes the building’s very character."

And what happens as a result? What are the consequences rising from these challenges?

"The consequence is that far too many buildings risk going to waste or never reaching their full potential. Buildings are meant to be used; that is when they thrive. Vacant buildings slowly dilapidate, which is a massive waste of materials, history, and potential.

Right now, building regulations restrict and slow down adaptive reuse and renovation projects – particularly when financial and resource considerations come into play. It is both costly and time-consuming to document compliance with every requirement, with the result that many projects become far more resource-intensive than they need to be. When the rules become too rigid, preserving a building simply becomes too expensive and too complex compared to tearing it down. Ultimately, that can lead developers to abandon the project altogether, and in many cases, buildings are demolished even though, technically and architecturally, they could have been saved.

That means buildings which could have been given new life and continued to create value instead end up as waste – and progress towards a more sustainable building industry is set back significantly. In this process, we lose both resources and cultural heritage, directly contrary to our shared ambition of reusing more and lowering carbon emissions across the construction sector."

Given these challenges, what could make it less complicated to transform and renovate buildings with worthy of preservation?

"In short, we need to move towards a system that collaborates rather than merely controls. It’s not about lowering standards but about creating some legroom for professional and holistic assessments.

We need a building code that to a greater extend take its starting point in what is already built – a dedicated set of renovation regulations. In the future, consultants should be able to propose solutions that can be reviewed and approved by the authorities, rather than simply ticking off a checklist designed for new build. This would make it possible to apply qualified knowledge and experience to find the best solutions for each project, without compromising safety and quality or time and budget.

At the same time, we must be far more pragmatic. A single requirement should not be able to derail an entire project; we must look at the bigger picture and assess what is strictly necessary. Perhaps we should accept that an older building cannot meet every modern standard yet still functions safely and responsibly. It may be a question of reducing the number of floors, using the building differently, and generally placing greater trust in the judgement of professionals.

Overall, what’s needed in the revised building regulations is a more flexible and holistic approach."

The revision of the Danish building regulations (BR28) is underway. What do you consider the most important to include?

"I think the 2028 building regulations should distinguish between new construction and adaptive reuse, renovation and conservation. It must be possible to think in a more flexible way – both technical and economical perspective – to promote reuse rather than demolition.

Therefore, we also need greater latitude for professional assessment within the regulations if we are to face fewer challenges and constraints in renovation, reuse, and transformation. Such flexibility would make room for individual assessments on a case-by-case basis. This applies to areas such as acoustics, indoor climate, and energy requirements, where we ought to look at the overall solution rather than at each element in isolation.

Ultimately, it’s about moving away from a regulatory system that functions as a checklist full of obstacles, and towards one that supports good judgement and sustainable practice."

If we succeed in creating this more flexible and holistic approach, what difference do you think it would make?

"A building code with a more flexible and holistic approach would be one that reflects the time we live in. It would make it possible to preserve far more buildings, both from a technical and an economic standpoint. If we truly are to accelerate the green transition within the built environment, it is essential with a set of rules that recognizes this ambition.

If we genuinely wish to take better care of, preserve, and not least continue to use our architectural heritage, the authorities must add nuances into their requirements rather than rely on building regulations that call for universal solutions. When regulations allow room for professionally qualified solutions instead of demanding standardisation, we can design and build in ways that are safe, functional, and respectful."