Type to search buildings, cities, countries, firms, glossary terms, news and future projects.
A wider retrofit case study shows how facade refurbishment and structural retention can support a larger building.
Published and source reviewed . Reported by Arup: 1 Triton Square ↗. Source date: Undated engineer page; checked 2026-10-03.
| Value | Measure | Scope and limits |
|---|---|---|
| 40,000 tonnes | Reported carbon saving | Arup comparison with a typical new build. The public page uses ‘carbon’ without a complete lifecycle-module breakdown. |
| 3,500 m² | Facade panels refurbished | Panel refurbishment at a nearby temporary factory; not the total building floor area. |
| >2,400 tonnes | Reported facade carbon saving | Facade reuse comparison with a new facade. A component of the project account, not a quantity to add to the whole-project saving. |
Arup describes removing facade components, inspecting and cleaning them, then reinstalling them. The retained superstructure was strengthened to accommodate three additional floors. This is a useful retrofit precedent outside the top-100 skyscraper ranking.
A whole-project estimate and a facade-only estimate answer different questions. Comparing either number with a new tower requires matching floor area, service life, lifecycle stages and the assumed replacement scheme. Retention also requires condition surveys and verification of existing connections; a reuse percentage alone cannot show whether a component is suitable for its new loads.
The interpretation above identifies questions for engineering review. It does not fill gaps in the source with assumed performance data. Read the primary account ↗