M. Prins
Please Note
10 records found
1
Circular economy and real estate
The legal (im)possibilities of operational lease
Purpose: A paradigm in circular economy (CE) is that suppliers retain ownership of their products and materials, and that the users “only” pay for services. In many legal systems, however, elements incorporated in a building are considered to be fixtures, and therefore legally part of the building. This means that ensuring multi-cyclic behaviour of individual building elements (e.g. the facade or a window) is not so evident. This paper explores, from the perspective of Dutch law, how to secure the ownership of the supplier or to find alternatives within the existing system of property law. Design/methodology/approach: The authors performed a literature review of both CE and (Dutch) property law. The results of these reviews are discussed and illustrated by legal case studies. Findings: The options principally advocated within CE to retain ownership of building parts leave legal uncertainties and do not offer a solid basis for the development of circular business models, especially considering immovables and fixtures. For these categories, buy-back and take-back contracts, and models for reuse and recycling seem more promising. Research limitations/implications: The research is limited to a literature review. Although the legal principles discussed in this paper are valid for both civil and common law systems, and similar findings might, therefore, be expected internationally, this study focused on the specific Dutch legal context. Comparative legal research and research of best practices in the building industry is needed to test the applicability of the findings in an international context. Practical implications: Following the findings, CE initiatives within real estate and the construction industry should focus on alternative implementations of the operational lease concept, taking into account CE’s ambitions to reduce the extraction of raw materials. Originality/value: At the moment the challenges that property law poses CE, real estate and operational lease are hardly discussed within the literature. This paper explores this gap.
Feasibility and Affordability in Brazilian Social Housing according to the Open Building Approach
An Architectural Prospection
Façade Leasing
Drivers and barriers to the delivery of integrated Façades-as-a-Service
Façade Leasing explores an integral, cross-disciplinary model promoting accelerated strategic investment in energy-efficient building envelopes. A focus on performance delivery, rather than product sales, would in turn impulse ongoing innovation in products and management processes. It would also provide the foundations for Circular Economy strategies for the reuse and remanufacturing of building components, leading to a potential reduction in primary raw material consumption across the façade industry.
This study starts by describing the “Façade Leasing pilot project” developed and built at the TU Delft campus by a consortium of açademic and industry partners. It then outlines the main drivers and barriers to the commercial application of the Façade-as-a-Service concept in the Dutch public, nonresidential real estate sector, from the perspective of four key stakeholder groups: Demand drive, or the decision-making process of real estate developers, owners, and managers; Supplier readiness, or the necessary reorganization of products and processes along the supply-chain; Finance, or the distribution of financial resources bridging the gap between initial investment cost and longterm service fees; and governance, or the necessary regulatory innovation required to separate ownership of building and façade.
The research shows that, while further research and validation work is needed to test these principles in a controlled, case-study setting, the potential for façade-as-a-service delivery is within reach under the current legal and economic environment. ...
Façade Leasing explores an integral, cross-disciplinary model promoting accelerated strategic investment in energy-efficient building envelopes. A focus on performance delivery, rather than product sales, would in turn impulse ongoing innovation in products and management processes. It would also provide the foundations for Circular Economy strategies for the reuse and remanufacturing of building components, leading to a potential reduction in primary raw material consumption across the façade industry.
This study starts by describing the “Façade Leasing pilot project” developed and built at the TU Delft campus by a consortium of açademic and industry partners. It then outlines the main drivers and barriers to the commercial application of the Façade-as-a-Service concept in the Dutch public, nonresidential real estate sector, from the perspective of four key stakeholder groups: Demand drive, or the decision-making process of real estate developers, owners, and managers; Supplier readiness, or the necessary reorganization of products and processes along the supply-chain; Finance, or the distribution of financial resources bridging the gap between initial investment cost and longterm service fees; and governance, or the necessary regulatory innovation required to separate ownership of building and façade.
The research shows that, while further research and validation work is needed to test these principles in a controlled, case-study setting, the potential for façade-as-a-service delivery is within reach under the current legal and economic environment.
an industry level. This as previously unaddressed financial and regulatory aspects challenge the implementation of the circular economy in the construction industry. Considering these challenges, implementing the circular economy in the construction industry might be considered even more disruptive as in other sectors of our industrial economy. ...
an industry level. This as previously unaddressed financial and regulatory aspects challenge the implementation of the circular economy in the construction industry. Considering these challenges, implementing the circular economy in the construction industry might be considered even more disruptive as in other sectors of our industrial economy.
The development of the educational MSc. Programme
From BMVB and RE&H to MBE
FLEX 3.0
An instrument to formulate the demand for and assessing the supply of the adaptive capacity of buildings
Further research led in 2015 to a renewed assessment method with 83 indicators, clustered in five layers with different life cycles. This method was called FLEX 2.0 and a derived version was called FLEX 2.0 LIGHT with only 17 of the most important indicators. This was presented in 2015 at the CIB Conference - Going North for sustainability in London. At the same time this method was used in two separate research projects for an evaluation with experts in practice. One research project concerned the development of school buildings; the other project was related to the development of office buildings. The main conclusions and recommendations of both research projects to evaluate the FLEX 2.0 method in practice with two different types of real estate will be described in this paper. Questions will be answered about the differences and similarities between the two different categories of real estate when using this flexibility assessment method. This will lead to some important conclusions for the next version of the method: FLEX 3.0. Finally a renewed framework for this next version will be presented. ...
Further research led in 2015 to a renewed assessment method with 83 indicators, clustered in five layers with different life cycles. This method was called FLEX 2.0 and a derived version was called FLEX 2.0 LIGHT with only 17 of the most important indicators. This was presented in 2015 at the CIB Conference - Going North for sustainability in London. At the same time this method was used in two separate research projects for an evaluation with experts in practice. One research project concerned the development of school buildings; the other project was related to the development of office buildings. The main conclusions and recommendations of both research projects to evaluate the FLEX 2.0 method in practice with two different types of real estate will be described in this paper. Questions will be answered about the differences and similarities between the two different categories of real estate when using this flexibility assessment method. This will lead to some important conclusions for the next version of the method: FLEX 3.0. Finally a renewed framework for this next version will be presented.
Ontwerp van Dynamische Gebouwen
Ciculaire Economie Fundament voor Bouwmeester 2.0
Is it faster and is that Measurable
A Quantitative Research Into the Time Effects of Integrated Contract Forms in Development Processes
KOMPASwijzer
Handleiding voor organisatievormen voor ontwerp- en bouwprojecten