In the face of climate change, the housing crisis and aging buildings, the architectural profession is undergoing a profound transformation. Increasingly, instead of designing from scratch, it is necessary to responsibly change what already exists. New regulations, legal requirements, but also societal expectations are emphasizing adaptation in architecture.
At this year's American Institute of Architects conference in Boston, a clear shift in emphasis in the architectural profession was evident. Instead of spectacular visions and forms, the focus was on conversations about renovation, modernization and the urgent need to respond to environmental challenges. The role of the architect as a visionary of form, demiurge and creator of outstanding, distinctive buildings is finally receding, allowing the profession to give voice to more down-to-earth, yet more responsible work - directed toward adaptations of existing structures. In the end, the architectural debate ceases to be dominated by the question of how to create a spectacular, iconic facade - this time, sessions on energy efficiency, the carbon footprint of building materials and building regulations attracted more attention.
less visual effects, more responsibility
According to the AIA's 2022 data, for the first time, architects in the U.S. earned more revenue from projects involving the renovation of existing buildings than from new construction. The change is a consequence of regulations limiting demolition.
Some of the strictest building demolition regulations in the US are in effect in San Antonio. As of January 2025, a complete ban on demolition applies to all residential buildings and accessory structures built before 1945, regardless of whether they are in a preservation zone. Instead, deconstruction, or manual dismantling that allows materials to be recovered and reused, is required. This is intended to reduce construction waste and support the local housing market by reusing components to renovate other homes. With these regulations, San Antonio has become the largest U.S. city to implement a mandatory circular economy in the demolition sector at the local level.
Los Angeles has had regulations supporting the conversion of non-residential buildings to apartments for more than two decades. Their new iteration, Adaptive Reuse Ordinance 2.0, went into effect this year and expands citywide. While the original 1999 version only covered downtown and pre-1974 buildings, the new law allows for the conversion of all structures that are at least 15 years old. The goal is to increase the availability of housing and reuse vacant land, especially office buildings that continue to stand unused after the pandemic.
Recognition of adaptability is also reflected in prestigious architectural awards. Recent Pritzker prizes, such as the one for 2021, awarded to the founders of French office Lacaton&Vassal, signal that working with the existing fabric rather than creating an entirely new structure is beginning to be appreciated.
In light of climate challenges, housing needs and technological transformation, it may be that the future of the profession depends not on the ability to design solids, but on the ability to reinterpret the existing structure, plan for the aging of the building and create adaptive spatial strategies. Architecture based on reinterpretation not only redefines aesthetics, but also changes the entire system of design assumptions, perhaps even the values of the profession.
Why is this still a rarity in Poland?
This turn toward reusing resources and transforming existing buildings, increasingly evident in international practice, still meets resistance in Polish realities. It's easy to fall into the usual ruts of thought here, to give successful examples of adaptation - such as the transformation of post-industrial buildings into public spaces in Lodz, Wroclaw or Warsaw - but what about single-family, public buildings or even Solpol?
Meanwhile, more and more buildings are disappearing from Polish cities not because they are no longer usable, but because it is more profitable for investors to build them from scratch. In Warsaw, the demolition of two office buildings was announced in May and June alone: Prosta 69 and Intraco. In their place, new buildings will be built - larger, more profitable, offering a higher standard of lease. Also disappearing from the market are Pekao Tower at Grzybowska and the former Danone headquarters at Redutowa, while Ilmet at the UN traffic circle is waiting in line for demolition. According to Colliers, nearly 400,000 sqm of office space has already been retired since 2020. However, it should be made clear: every new construction is a massive emission - and the cleanest building is the one already standing. An aging stock is a challenge.
Although today it is often the market that dictates the pace of change, legal regulations and international obligations are also increasingly influencing decisions on existing development.
On a systemic level, the logic of demolishing and building from scratch still prevails. Why is this happening? The classic answer is that it's a complex problem, there are quite a few reasons, and each of them reveals a broader misalignment of spatial policy with the reality of the energy, climate and housing crisis.
Requirements for upgrading existing buildings are not only driven by economic pressures or the local need to improve living conditions. They are also driven by international obligations. The EU's Green Deal calls for all buildings in member states to achieve zero-emission status by 2050. This implies a thorough transformation of the building stock, which is not limited to insulating walls and installing photovoltaics, but also includes upgrading heating, water and ventilation systems.
The amendment to the EPBD (EU 2024/1275), effective from May 2024, for the first time so clearly directs the attention of member states to the buildings with the worst energy performance. In Poland, this is the vast majority of the stock. More than 70 percent of buildings do not meet modern standards. Many of them are single-family houses built in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, often with technology that today requires extensive reconstruction. Heating is largely based on solid fuels, which translates into emissions of dust and harmful substances into the air. Three million buildings still use coal-fired boilers, and more than 80 percent of carcinogenic benzo(a)pyrene and nearly half of particulate matter comes from the municipal sector.
unprecedented scale
According to national estimates, some 7.5 million buildings will need to be retrofitted. This is a task of a scale comparable to the largest infrastructure reforms of recent decades. However, despite the scale of the challenge, there is still no coherent strategy for action. Instead of anticipatory policies and support tools, the prevailing expectation is for bottom-up action - from owners, communities and local governments.
Meanwhile, improving the energy efficiency of buildings could not only lower bills and increase living comfort, but also realistically increase property values. In the long run, modernization would also bring social benefits: reduced energy poverty, cleaner air, healthier living conditions. However, it is difficult to expect massive action without an adequate system of advice or financial support. Lacking these tools, owners are still more likely to choose demolition over adaptation. As a result, rising climate expectations are crashing into the reality that a lack of clear impetus for action means no action at all.
The shortage of qualified personnel is also not insignificant. In many regions, there is a shortage of companies that specialize in technically demanding renovations and architects who can design adaptations that respect the existing structure. As a result, investors opt for simpler implementation paths, namely demolition and new construction. After all, the problem is not limited to large cities, where it is possible to hire a prestigious studio with an extensive portfolio of activities and experience in working with existing buildings. Adaptation or modernization also applies to buildings in smaller towns. Architects who have not had the opportunity to gain knowledge about renovation and working with existing fabric may be afraid to take on such an assignment - especially when the poor technical condition of the building, complex regulations or investor expectations are involved. Under such conditions, it is easier to choose a project from scratch than to face the unpredictability of adaptation.
Added to this is the lack of systemic support and a consistent information policy. Tools such as technical advice, building data repositories or catalogs of good practices exist to a limited extent. In many cases, investors are also operating in the dark, without access to reliable cost analyses or return-on-investment estimates.
but it's nicer this way
Added to this are social and market preferences. New buildings are associated with prestige, low operating costs and a better standard of finish. In the case of residential units, they are often easier to sell or rent. In the minds of many buyers, adapting a building means compromising - both functionally and aesthetically. These associations did not come from nowhere. Over the past two decades, a wave of mass thermal upgrades of blocks of flats across the country has left behind thousands of projects of questionable visual quality - full of bright colors, pastels, geometric patterns on facades. The result is a lasting association of modernization with makeshift aesthetics, deviating from notions of decent, modern architecture. In the public space today, it is difficult to point to positive, widely known examples of well-designed thermal modernization of residential buildings. There is a lack not only of role models, but also of language that could convince the public that renovating the old does not have to mean compromise.
It is good that today we are able to revitalize post-industrial buildings and create from them attractive spaces for culture, offices or housing. Examples such as the Koneser Praga Center in Warsaw, EC1 in Lodz or Concordia Design in Wroclaw show that combining history with the functionality of a modern city is possible. The problem is that these are exceptions - realizations that are created thanks to the involvement of large teams, the availability of EU funds and strong support from local governments. Meanwhile, it is not individual buildings that need modernization, but the majority of Poland's building stock - including more than 70% of residential buildings that do not meet modern energy standards. The real challenge is no longer the revitalization of selected spaces in city centers, but the everyday, scattered modernization of housing estates, blocks of flats and single-family houses. This is where the future of architecture will play out - and where the tools are needed to make adaptation possible, widespread and sensible.
The future of architecture in Poland will depend on whether the planning, financing and education system can keep up with climate realities. If it doesn't, adaptation will remain the privilege of the few, instead of becoming an everyday design practice, including in smaller towns and for less spectacular buildings.
We have revisited the topics of retrofitting and working with the existing fabric before - including in the 10/2024 issue of Architecture and Business magazine under the heading "Overgrowth and Circularity." It's worth a look there to see howadaptation can be approached in a variety of ways: both through landscape measures and through careful interventions in historic spaces. A reminder there that modernization does not have to be an action against nature - it can and should go hand in hand with greenery, water, local identity and the real context of a place.
We also covered topics related to adaptation and reuse of resources in the 4/2025 issue of Architecture and Business magazine under the heading RE-USE. This phenomenon, which is part of the closed-loop economy, is one of the most important responses to climate challenges. We presented it in a broad international context.
And speaking of a broad context - we already know that in the United States in 2022 it was from work on existing buildings that architects had the highest revenues, while demolition restrictions became the impetus for a change in priorities. One has to ask whether it's not time for similar mechanisms to emerge in our country as well?
A new approach to the architectural profession
Perhaps the best indicator of the direction in which modern architecture should go is the words of Carl Elefante1: "The most environmentally friendly building is the one that already exists." What matters is how quickly and wisely we can move away from architecture based on fossil fuels, on excess, on building for the sake of building.
Jack Murphy, editor of The Architect "s Newspaper, speaks in a similar vein, pointing out that the time of architectural Design - writ large - is over. The most important question an architect should be asking himself today is not "Can we build it?" but "Should we build it?". Technology today allows us to do almost anything - but that's why we need a new compass to help distinguish between need and ambition.
The answer may lie in acting more quietly, less spectacularly, but more responsibly: in reuse, adaptation, repair. In architecture that does not seek attention, but solves real problems. If we are to design for the future, perhaps the best starting point is what is already standing - and the question of how we can give it new life.
Magdalena Milert
[1] Carl Elefante, an architect associated with Quinn Evans Architects and former director of sustainable design there
