EURECA

Key results

Key lessons learned

1. At the outset, we drew up a complete overview of parameters that a facade renovation should meet. Some parameters are laid down by law, others we imposed on ourselves in order to obtain a supported and solid system. 
2. A life cycle analysis (LCA) and a self-developed circularity meter allowed us to assess and compare existing façade renovation systems and our EURECA system. 
3. With the nine standard panels from the EURECA façade system, we achieved a high degree of coverage in several façades. For example, in one of our case studies (building S4 of Campus Sterre), we achieved 89% façade coverage. 
4. We conducted a field test with a mock-up: we mounted our modular system around a window a first time, then broke it down and reinstalled it again on a facade. 

1. There is a big difference between the options and requirements for façade renovation in low-rise, medium-rise and high-rise buildings. The stricter the requirements, the more materials are needed and the worse the environmental impact. 
2. If we only consider the environmental impact, the existing facade insulation system ETICS achieves a good score. However, if we include a wider set of key indicators in a circularity meter, very different insights emerge. 
3. It is inevitable that a system aimed at reuse possesses more materials and therefore has a higher environmental impact. Unfortunately, this is not always eliminated by including reuse potential. 
4. Today, materials are cheap and labour hours expensive. Due to high disassembly costs, change-oriented circular systems are difficult to recover. As long as the polluter does not pay (e.g. via a CO2 tax), competition from cheap, linearly produced materials is too strong.