Cities are under growing pressure to cut emissions, respond to housing shortages, and rethink how we build and rebuild. More and more, the question is not what to construct next, but what we already have and how we choose to work with it. Brussels offers a concrete example of how adaptive reuse can move from ambition to practice when policy, design, and implementation begin to align. Written by [Nina Burke](https://www.linkedin.com/in/nina-b-b3768221/), an urbanist and independent consultant based in Brussels, and a graduate of All Things Urban’s [Career Compass](https://careercompass.allthingsurban.net/) course, this article explores how adaptive reuse is moving from ambition to practice.
## Why Adaptive Reuse and Circularity?
Every minute in Europe [a building is demolished](https://www.houseeurope.eu), and yet, the construction industry is responsible for around 38% of energy-related CO₂ emissions and 36% of all waste production in the EU. Along with the significant environmental costs of construction and demolition, destroying buildings takes away potential and necessary housing, community spaces, and layers of local history that cannot be rebuilt once lost.
The concept of adaptive reuse - renovating, reusing, and transforming existing buildings - has therefore become more than a design approach. It is increasingly a strategic response to overlapping urban challenges: climate mitigation and adaptation, and the urgent need for affordable housing units at scale. The EU has set [targets to reduce emissions by at least 55% by 2030](https://wearesolomon.com/mag/focus-area/environment/every-minute-a-building-in-europe-is-demolished/), and meeting them without fundamentally rethinking demolition and new construction will be difficult. The square meters already embedded in Europe’s built environment represent a significant, and still underused, opportunity. If the need for adaptive reuse is clear, what continues to hold cities back?
In this broader context, initiatives such as [HouseEurope!](https://www.houseeurope.eu/), recently recognised with the 2025 [OBEL Award] (https://obelaward.org/), have helped bring attention to renovation-first approaches across Europe.Their work aligns with a growing recognition, including at EU level, that transformation of existing buildings must take precedence over demolition-led development if climate and housing goals are to be met.
{{Pic1: Still from the documentary To Build Law, 2024 © CCA.}}
## Spotlight on Adaptive Reuse in Brussels
From the late 1950s-1980s, Brussels indiscriminately demolished areas of the city and constructed high-rise office and apartment buildings and car-centric boulevards to quickly become a city where people could live and work. This haphazard urban planning gave way to the concept of Bruxellization. The 1990s saw an effort to prevent future Bruxellization. Planning and zoning laws were put into place to make demolition more difficult across the city and for cultural and architectural heritage to be preserved. This led to a rise of façadism, i.e. keeping the historic building façade while demolishing everything behind it. Since 2016 with the adoption of the [Good Living](https://pascalsmet.brussels/en/first-version-good-living/) regional urban development regulations, the city has been a pioneer by pushing the boundaries beyond façadism and preservation through large-scale renovation and transformation that are, and will continue to, benefit people and the planet.
Brussels is a brutally complex city – culturally, politically, and historically, and administratively fragmented across 19 (!) municipalities. Yet it is precisely within this complexity that shifts in policy and practice have become visible.
{{Pic2: Brussels. Photo by Venti Views on Unsplash}}
## What Adaptive Reuse Looks Like in Practice
Several ongoing projects in Brussels illustrate how adaptive reuse is being implemented across different typologies.
Former office buildings have been transformed into residential housing, such as projects delivered by DEMOCO Group, where existing commercial structures were adapted to accommodate dozens of families, demonstrating how reuse can directly respond to housing needs. In parallel, the company is applying circular construction principles in projects like Stadsatelier de Ville, a 5,500 square metre hub for organisations working on the circular economy, where buildings are designed for disassembly and materials are reused, leased, or supported by take-back systems.
At neighbourhood scale, projects such as the COOP in Anderlecht, led by Oana Bogdan and *&bogdan*, show how former industrial buildings can be transformed into cooperative community spaces while retaining their layered history.
At metropolitan scale, the KANAL Centre Pompidou, developed by an international architectural consortium, including noAarchitecten, is converting a vast former 1930s Citroën garage into a predominantly public cultural space combining art, architecture, and play, an important addition in a dense and often rainy city. Meanwhile, in the European Quarter, long characterised by monofunctional office use, Whitewood is managing the transformation of 21 former European Commission buildings, totalling around 300,000 square metres, to bring vacant offices back into use and reshape the district into a more liveable, mixed-use neighbourhood.
Together, these examples show that reuse in Brussels is not confined to pilot projects but operates across building types and scales when supported by policy, design ambition, and implementation capacity.
## How is Brussels Making Reuse a Reality?
### Demolition is not the default
Demolition is not the default in Brussels because it is systematically difficult to carry out. The Good Living regulations state that “renovation will be the starting point for each existing building. Demolition of a building will only be allowed in very exceptional circumstances.” According to Olaf Grawert of [HouseEurope!](https://houseeurope.eu/), while local reuse practices exist in many countries and cities, the systematic difficulty of demolition is distinctive to Brussels.
### Supportive Governance and Policy
While some cities ripe for adaptive reuse have cold feet, Brussels is finding creative ways to jump in. Philippe Morel of DEMOCO says the commitment of the Brussels government to adaptive reuse and its shift in mindset are critical to getting things done. That change has allowed for more flexibility and freedom in changing design plans during the course of a project. The authorities are allowing architects to adapt building plans as they go so they can take advantage of reuse opportunities as they arise. For example, if a deconstruction project allows for windows of a certain size to be recovered, the architects can amend their plans to allow for those windows to be incorporated. This flexibility allows for “freedom in finding,” says Morel.
### Creativity and Informal Networks
Although mindsets are shifting toward adaptive reuse, sourcing systems remain oriented toward new materials. This requires commitment and creativity from architects and contractors engaged in reuse. For example, there is no centralized system (yet) for sourcing used materials, so practitioners rely on informal networks to recover materials before they are demolished. The efforts to reuse materials involve relationships, time, proper deconstruction, and storage.
## Barriers that Remain
Adaptive reuse still takes time, and time costs money. A key reason for the slower uptake of adaptive reuse and renovation is cost. In many cases, it costs more to save a building than to start from scratch. An architect and founder of *&bogdan*, Oana Bogdan, notes, “It doesn’t cost less to keep a building. You do it because you want to be a role model or because you have to.” Creating incentives for renovation over demolition is therefore necessary to enable market-driven transformation. Measures such as taxing demolition and offering tax reductions for renovations and material reuse could help shift behavior. Valérie Vermandel of Whitewood points to the logistical challenge of aligning the timing of a deconstruction with renovation. This raises the question of what systems could better connect deconstruction (rather than demolition) with renovation and transformation?
{{Pic3: Still from the documentary To Build Law, 2024 © CCA}}
Adaptive reuse and circularity also require a valuable, finite resource – time. It takes time to identify reusable materials and to test and certify circular components.
These cost and timing challenges are reinforced by the lack of supporting systems for reuse. Materials passports that track the past and future use of building components could reduce uncertainty around quality, availability, and certification, helping to lower risk and transaction costs. Closer alignment between deconstruction and renovation processes would further address timing mismatches that currently hinder reuse. Even with such systems in place, stronger incentives will be needed to make substantial reuse standard practice rather than an exception.
## Beyond Brussels
Brussels is not alone. Other cities are beginning to address reuse through research, policy experimentation, and data transparency. From April 2026, the [Horizon SUSTAIN Project](https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101201454) coordinated by the University of Barcelona will analyse adaptive reuse for affordable housing in five cities. At the same time, initiatives such as the [Demolition Atlas Europe](https://correctiv.org/en/europe/2025/07/21/demolition-atlas-europe-launched-correctiv-investigates-demolitions-across-europe/) are making the scale and environmental cost of demolition visible across the continent.
Beyond Europe, similar policy approaches are emerging in different contexts. In Japan, zoning flexibility and incentives linked to heritage preservation support the reuse of existing buildings in response to vacancy and demographic change. In Singapore, conservation and planning policies combine regulatory flexibility with financial incentives to enable new uses within dense urban fabric. In Chile, national and municipal urban regeneration policies increasingly prioritise the reuse of existing buildings and neighbourhoods as part of social housing and city-centre revitalisation strategies.
Of course, the problem persists, and in all these contexts change remains slow, but incremental policy adjustments are beginning to create space for reuse-led approaches.
{{Pic4: HouseEurope! Assembly by Edgar Rodtmann}}
## Takeaways for Global Urbanists
Brussels shows how mindsets shape policy, how policy in turn reinforces those mindsets,and how both gradually influence practice and culture.
From the Brussels case, it becomes clear that change occurs when values-driven pioneers demonstrate what is possible and when policy commitments inch toward enabling the architects and builders to prioritise reuse. Requiring a clear justification for demolition adds a critical layer of analysis to development decisions. Brussels also shows that creativity and problem-solving are essential to moving reuse forward, particularly in the absence of perfect systems. Waiting for perfect conditions delays action. We all pay the price of demolition, and policymakers, urbanists, planners, architects, construction and demolition companies, and everyday citizens all have roles to play in making adaptive reuse the norm.
**EU citizens can take action to support the shift toward adaptive reuse by [signing the HouseEurope! petition](https://houseeurope.eu/petition) by January 1, 2026.**