In many Finnish cities, technically healthy buildings are left standing empty/without any use. These buildings once served as schools, health care centers, government offices, or workplaces—but now they are waiting a new purpose of use. Migration trends, SOTE- reforms, and decisions regarding service networks have already led to i.e. many health care centers and schools becoming unused. Question is: what should be done with these buildings?
The Ministry of the Environment and VTT conducted a study titled “Sustainable development of modern building stock” (YM 2025:25), which highlights the impacts of various intervention strategies. The project explored how existing buildings can be reused through renovation, repurposing, or expansion—instead of demolition and replacement with new construction.
The goal was to support municipalities and property owners in making decisions that consider ecological, social, cultural, and economic sustainability—not just short-term costs. The study emphasized that preserving and reusing buildings can be not only climate-smart but also economically and socially beneficial.
Maintaining existing building stock benefits the environment
Even major renovations are far more environmentally friendly than demolishing a building and replacing it with new construction. For example, in the Tammela district of Tampere, a 1960s apartment building underwent extensive renovations—including window replacements, facade insulation, heat recovery from exhaust air, partial upgrades to building systems, and apartment refurbishments—resulting in only about 30% of the emissions of new construction and using a fraction of the materials.
Another way to preserve a building is to change its function. In Helsinki, an office building located near good transport links and services was converted into student housing. The original facades were retained, and mini-apartments and shared spaces were created. This approach generated only 25% of the emissions of new construction and saved 90% of the materials compared to demolition.
Planning is essential for the future of SOTE buildings (social and healthcare facilities). Reforms in service networks within wellbeing services counties are leaving many healthcare centers vacant. The study emphasizes the need to find new uses for these buildings—such as community services, housing, or business activities.
What should municipalities and property owners do?
- Recognize the building’s value. Technical lifespan alone is not enough to justify demolition—cultural and social significance must also be considered.
- Utilize adaptability. Many buildings from the 1970s–1990s were designed to be flexible—this feature should be leveraged.
- Consider alternatives before demolition. Demolition causes significant emissions and cultural losses. If demolition is unavoidable, plan it according to circular economy principles.
- Make visible the resources invested in the building. Preserving and reusing building components are concrete ways to reduce the carbon footprint.
The study was prepared by Terttu Vainio, Paula Ala-Kotila, Tiina Vainio-Kaila (VTT Oy), and Minna Aarnio (Rakennusasiaintoimisto Aarre Oy). The publication was requested by the Ministry of the Environment as part of the EU Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) funded program.
Final report and info sheets: Sustainable Development of Modern Building Stock – Climate Impacts of Renovation Options and Holistic Valuation of Sites – Valto
Press release from the Ministry of the Environment: Keeping Modern Building Stock in Use Supports Sustainability in Many Ways – Ministry of the Environment
