Blog: Lessons from Tower Bridge Court: Rethinking Construction Through Reuse
In her latest blog, Madelaine Bradley reports on her learnings from the Footprint+ conference, specifically about material re-use and sustainable construction methods at Tower Bridge Court. Madelaine is an architectural technologist and holds a Master of Science in Environmental Building Design. She is passionate about delivering tangible solutions in the built environment to address climate issues.
On the 13th May, I attended Footprint+ 2026, a sustainability conference that brought together industry-leading perspectives, experience, and case studies over two days. A full day of talks and panel discussions highlighted how we can operate better for the planet and people, whilst still considering profit.
This article will focus on the Tower Bridge Court case study, zoning in on material re-use and sustainable construction methods, often challenging some of our industry’s default assumptions.
Tower Bridge Court
Tower Bridge Court is a 100% electric, net-zero refurbishment of an existing building along the Thames. The project architect, Stiff + Trevillion, described the path to achieving sustainability as the result of “1000 small choices”.
Intentional decisions made at every stage reinforce the fact that no one decision can create a sustainable project, and that a holistic approach is required.
What can we learn from this project that helped make this project a success?
Significantly reducing embodied carbon is the reuse of salvaged 1930s steel from a former House of Fraser building. In fact, 98.9% of materials in the project are reused, compared to the industry norm, where 60% of UK construction waste ends up in landfill.
Reusing decades-old structural steel is rarely straightforward. In this case, the 1930s steel sections are larger than comparable 1970s sections, creating warranty and insurance challenges that require careful navigation among the parties.
However, there is nothing innovative about the project. We have seen reused steel time and time before. The important part is to take the courage to challenge the status quo and ask: ‘why not?’ next time.
We always want to hear about the next innovative, new strategy, but until we make what used to be a novelty a norm (UKNZBS, Passivhaus, etc), we need to focus on using what we already know to improve our construction techniques. Maybe the lesson here is applying what we already know instead of quickly moving to the newest, untested in the real-world innovation?
How can we, as an industry, apply these lessons?
Changing industry culture means consistency instead of individual flagship projects. The Tower Bridge Court architects challenged the audience to consider whether we are treating projects, like this, as shining-example lighthouse projects that we learn from, or isolated experiments? What lighthouse projects can we look at for experience?
Procurement processes also require further consideration. Investors are understandably cautious, but the speaker asked: what’s our excuse for not understanding the materials we’re specifying? It is difficult to select materials that are the best fit, and to save time we often pick familiar products to avoid risk. In addition, the sustainable resource data sets, Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), remain inconsistent across the industry, adding another layer of complexity to material comparisons.
The economic forces of the industry are currently focused on futureproofing to create secure asset portfolio. This was a consistent theme throughout many of the talks at Footprint+. With ongoing geopolitical instability, fuel shortages, and supply chain disruptions, securing materials is becoming harder. Reuse is increasingly a hedge against viability risk and where there is opportunity – such as a gap in tenancy, will often reduce costs later on required to make sure the building is up to date with MEES rentable EPC standards.
Policy for some councils is also beginning to shift. Westminster for example, now requires justification for demolition. Waste audits are becoming more standard. The Net Zero Building Standard may simplify compliance, but we shouldn’t wait for regulation to lead, we should develop our expertise in these fields before they become required so that clients have an easy choice picking Bowman Riley for their project.
One statistic highlighted the urgency: the world has roughly six years of carbon budget remaining at current rates of consumption. We need to adapt the way we work now.
To conclude
Going forward it is important to ask ‘why aren’t we asking why more often?’. Our industry is risk-averse, and there’s constant pressure toward the safe and familiar. This case study on Tower Bridge Court demonstrates that the path forward doesn’t require breakthroughs. Instead, we need intention, communication and flexibility. Sometimes, using less material might mean less cost. The evidence exists. Now it’s time to act on it!