Type to search buildings, cities, countries, firms, glossary terms, news and future projects.
A tower retrofit retains much of the original structure, making the boundaries of a carbon claim central to the story.
Published and source reviewed . Reported by Arup and Eastern City BID: Tall Buildings, July 2023, printed page 62 ↗. Source date: 2023-07.
| Value | Measure | Scope and limits |
|---|---|---|
| 65% | Original floorplates and structure retained | Arup report narrative. This is a retention measure, not an energy-saving percentage. |
| 98% | Original structural walls and core retained | The report’s narrative specifies walls and core. It does not establish 98% retention of every building component. |
| ≈12,000 tonnes | Reported embodied carbon avoided | Arup estimate attributed to the retrofit. The short case study does not give a full lifecycle-module or replacement-baseline breakdown. |
Arup describes a retrofit of the former AMP Centre developed with architect 3XN. Retention makes the existing structure an input to the new design: geometry, condition and load paths constrain what can be added and what must be strengthened.
The report uses separate retention percentages for the floorplates and for the walls and core. Neither is interchangeable with the carbon estimate. To compare this project with another retrofit, an engineer would need the surveyed material quantities, strengthening works, replacement scenario and assessment boundary. No annual operating-energy result is established by these figures.
The interpretation above identifies questions for engineering review. It does not fill gaps in the source with assumed performance data. Read the primary account ↗