{"id":4334,"date":"2024-06-19T10:56:39","date_gmt":"2024-06-19T10:56:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/h-k.fi\/?post_type=uutiset&p=4334"},"modified":"2024-06-19T11:11:54","modified_gmt":"2024-06-19T11:11:54","slug":"preliminary-surveys-of-helsinki-school-buildings","status":"publish","type":"uutiset","link":"https:\/\/h-k.fi\/en\/news\/preliminary-surveys-of-helsinki-school-buildings\/","title":{"rendered":"Preliminary surveys of Helsinki school buildings"},"content":{"rendered":"

Demolish or repair? The City of Helsinki has this question to contemplate when deciding what to do with schools and day-care centres that have reached the age when renovation becomes a necessity. Most of these buildings were built from the 1950s to the 1980s, and they no longer serve the contemporary functional requirements, nor do they always sufficiently respond to the health and safety standards related to issues such as internal air quality and accessibility. On the other hand, the emissions resulting from demolition and newbuild are usually larger than those of renovation and demolition also almost always signifies a loss of both valuable cultural heritage as well as historical urban layers.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Harris-Kjisik have analysed these aspects in our assignment, finished in at the end of 2023, which included five schools or day-care centres built during the aforementioned period. For the first time a document was prepared that included all the basic information of the existing buildings, as well as a comprehensive historical, functional and technical summary. The present state of the detailed urban plan, as well as the needs related to possible temporary solutions during the building process were also analysed. Preliminary plans and time tables were prepared in each case basically for three alternative approaches: renovation only, renovation including a new extension, and demolition with newbuild.
\nJudging criteria were created in order to facilitate the pros and cons of the different approaches in each case:
\n– Functional needs
\n– The physical condition of the building
\n– Environmental factors
\n– Costs
\n– Building and cultural heritage
\n– Town planning considerations
\n– Risks
\n\"\"
\nThe analysis clearly showed that the choice maybe feel quite clear if you only look at one aspect, for instance the bad condition of the existing building. When additional criteria is involved, the choice is no longer so obvious. Repair and renovation becomes, in a clear majority of cases, the best alternative.
\nContemporary functional requirements should naturally be in the forefront but the solutions should aim at being adaptable and future proof. Today\u2019s functional requirements could be outdated as soon as in ten years and that is a very small part of a building\u00b4s lifespan.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","class_list":["post-4334","uutiset","type-uutiset","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/h-k.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/uutiset\/4334","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/h-k.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/uutiset"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/h-k.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/uutiset"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/h-k.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4334"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}