Billionaire Silicon Valley investor Peter Thiel has a great question he puts to people he’s interviewing. “Tell me,” he asks, “something that’s true that almost nobody agrees with you about.”
I promise I’m not fishing for a job with Thiel, but here’s how I’d answer. When I started my company Second Home in Spitalfields in 2014, I was convinced that as we created spaces for entrepreneurs and cultural events, we should refurbish and reuse existing buildings, and try not to go into shiny new developments.
In a sense, this was bad for my business, because brand new corporate developments tend to be in the choicest locations, right next to transport hubs.
But I just felt something to be true that not many people agreed with at the time — which is that the whole system for rating buildings totally understated the true environmental impact of new developments.
Let me explain. A typical new metal and glass office building in London may well be rated as “excellent” for energy efficiency — because it’s well insulated and doesn’t let much heat escape.
The construction industry produces around 40 per cent of the UK’s total emissions and two thirds of its waste
What this kind of rating completely — and deliberately — excludes is anything about the carbon emissions involved in making the perfectly good old building that got knocked down to construct this supposedly environmentally friendly new structure. And that’s where the numbers get scary.
The construction industry produces something like 40 per cent of the UK’s total emissions — and roughly two-thirds of all the waste generated annually. That’s not a surprise when you see that more than 50,000 buildings are demolished each year — many of which could simply have been retrofitted, instead of being torn down.
The key point is that up to half of the lifetime carbon emissions of a building come during construction — meaning many new structures will take decades to pay back their carbon debt by saving more emissions than they created.
That means that the current environmental ratings for new buildings are a sustainability scam — and should be ignored until they’re overhauled. Because I’m not saying we shouldn’t have any new buildings — it’s that we ought to be able to see their true environmental impact, and we could be reusing far more existing spaces than we currently do.
Luckily these days I’m a little less isolated in thinking this way. Will Hurst — editor of the Architects’ Journal — is doing a brilliant job of campaigning on this issue, and pushing for change. As Hurst rightly points out, refurbishing old buildings isn’t just good for the planet — it’s also positive for the architectural heritage of our cities, with more characterful and historic places protected.
But sadly most office tenants still assume that an “energy efficient” sticker on the side of a building means it’s somehow sustainable or good for the environment.
And politicians continue to insist that you pay zero per cent VAT if you’re constructing a new building, but you get hit with 20 per cent VAT if you refurbish an old one, which obviously creates a massive financial incentive to tear buildings down.
That’s exactly the opposite of what we need to do to hit our zero-carbon goals — or make London more liveable and beautiful.
So sadly I’m still in a minority on this issue. But maybe someday most people will come to see the truth: the best thing for the environment is to make do and mend.
Happy birthday, Choose Love
Happy eighth birthday to one of the most energetic and inspiring groups in the capital — refugee charity Choose Love.
Back in 2016, three Londoners — Josie Naughton, Dawn O’Porter and Lliana Bird — were so moved by the sad scenes in the refugee camps in Calais that they launched a fundraising campaign on social media, and used the money to take a van full of supplies to France.
Within weeks, these Londoners and their friends were the biggest providers of aid to displaced people in Calais — and Choose Love was born.
Eight years later, theyhave raised more than £100 million in donations, served 5.5 million hot meals and handed out more than a million items of clothing.
Along the way they’ve been championed by the glitziest set of celebrities outside a Bafta red carpet — everyone from Harry Styles to Phoebe Waller-Bridge has been spotted in an iconic (Katharine Hamnett-designed) Choose Love top.
But for me, what’s best about the charity is how it shows Londoners don’t stand idly by at a time of crisis. To borrow a phrase, we choose love.
