FAQ

The foundations for this decision are entirely non-transparent.

Commissioned by BIG, a feasibility study on the alte WU campus was carried out between 2021 and 2023 – yet the decision to demolish seems to have been made as early as 2013. It remains unclear whether the study ever thoroughly and purposefully evaluated the potential for adaptive reuse of the existing structures. The results of the study have not been made public. Only two pages, titled “Study: New Development,” were shown to Allianz alte WU by BIG.

Sustainable urban development must go beyond “green” new construction. Demolition represents an outdated approach to deal with existing buildings, especially when considering the urgent need for resource conservation and reducing carbon footprints. The development strategy for the alte WU campus must be fundamentally reimagined, as it contradicts the growing global consensus on climate action, environmental preservation, and the importance of adaptive reuse in building practices.

The planned demolition of a functional building is an enormous waste of resources. Existing buildings are well known to be vast CO2 reservoirs, as they contain significant amounts of embodied or grey energy. Retaining existing buildings helps conserve our limited resources, reduces carbon emissions, and prevents vast amounts of non-recyclable demolition waste. The construction industry is a major driver of the human-made climate crisis. So where is the careful approach to existing buildings? An approach that restores and repairs, repurposes and transforms, rather than demolishing and rebuilding?

Preserving and transforming the building could turn it into a flagship project for a sustainable and climate-conscious approach to building stock.

The modernist-inspired façade from the 1970s and 1980s may be liked or disliked. However, the question of preserving buildings is not a matter of aesthetics. The architecture of this era has many qualities and should be appreciated, just like the buildings of other periods. It too deserves to remain a part of our urban landscape. There is broad consensus regarding buildings from the historicist architecture of Vienna’s Gründerzeit period, agreeing that they are worth preserving and that they can be renovated, transformed, and expanded. The same approach should be applied to the alte WU campus.

The alte WU has a spacious and generous architecture and a flexible building structure. It forms an open urban landscape. Through its “temporary use” in recent years, socially developed structures have emerged, utilizing the building in a meaningful and community-oriented way.

It is not the goal to treat and preserve the campus as a monument. From today’s perspective it has several shortcomings, such as insufficient natural lighting or a now historical car-centered planning approach in the base level. We therefore clearly say: yes to transformation!

The Austrian Federal Real Estate Company, BIG, commissioned investigations on this matter. However, detailed results of the study have not yet been made publicly available. According to verbal statements from BIG representatives, a significant number of building components are affected by asbestos contamination. The asbestos is reported to be firmly bound. Even the reinforced concrete elements are impacted due to asbestos-containing spacers used in ceilings and walls.

Firmly bound asbestos requires particularly careful handling of the existing structure. For this reason as well, the greatest possible preservation of the building fabric should be a priority. Consequently, the disposal of extremely large amounts of non-reusable and hazardous construction waste can be avoided, as asbestos is subject to a recycling ban.

Asbestos that is firmly bound within building components poses no risk to users. However, challenges arise during renovation, demolition, and the complex disposal processes. Once deposited in landfills, this hazardous material remains permanently, posing a long-term problem for future generations. Demolition work should therefore be reduced to an absolute minimum.

According to investigations conducted by the project developers, the overall condition of the building is considered to be good. However, the results of structural investigations, some of which date back more than ten years, are still not publicly accessible. The same applies to more recent studies. This prevents a transparent, public, and democratic discourse on the future of the building.

At this point, we would like to quote from the document “Preliminary Development Guidelines for Althangrund”, produced between 2012 and 2014:

“The most essential finding of the structural assessment is that the ‘slab’ is fundamentally in good structural condition and would only require partial reinforcement through additional supports in the event that taller buildings […] are constructed.” (p. 30)

The document further states: “Therefore, the load-bearing structure can be used as a foundation for future development. The addition of further supports and reinforcement of the foundations – for example, in the case of constructing taller buildings or in order to comply with Eurocodes (e.g., to ensure seismic safety) – is also feasible.” (p. 56)

In this context, the term “slab” refers to the reinforced concrete ceiling located directly above the railway tracks. To avoid disruption of rail operations, this structure must not be demolished.

Renovation and conversion projects are often criticized as being too complex and uneconomical, making them seem unfeasible. However, it is difficult to make simple judgments. Numerous successful examples prove the opposite.

On the other hand, new construction is a profitable venture for construction companies and raw material suppliers.

We demand that project decisions should not be based solely on economic feasibility and considerations of cost, but must also take societal and ecological factors into account. New construction serves the interests of economic actors. Demolition exacerbates the climate crisis. Transformation is a sustainable approach to deal with existing buildings.

Well, no. New buildings with high energy and environmental standards can show excellent “performance” on paper. However, sustainability cannot be reduced to good building ratings. It must consider the overall environmental impact. The construction sector consumes half of all newly extracted raw materials across the EU, half of total energy consumption, contributing to 40% of greenhouse gas emissions, and one-third of water consumption. Therefore, every existing building holds vast amounts of embodied energy. So when we talk about climate and environmental protection, we need a radical shift in the construction industry.

It is long overdue to rethink the repetitive logic of demolition and new construction. For the campus alte WU, this means not to plan a completely new replacement building but extending the building’s lifecycle. This is possible by adapting, renovating, and repairing where necessary. This is what we mean by sustainability and building for the future.

According to current plans by BIG, the former university building is to be largely demolished to make way for a new structure with similar functions, intended for BOKU University, University of Vienna, as well as a school. It remains unclear why these uses should not be feasible within the existing educational facility. 

Adapting the functional and spacial programme to suit the existing building, especially according to its capacity would be a logical and sensible approach to preserve the structure.

The currently planned spatial program does not take the existing building into account This will most likely result in demolition.

While the continued use of the site for educational purposes is welcome, the proposed monofunctional use should be critically reconsidered.