Why is Estonian construction outdated?

The Estonian construction sector is thirsting for innovation. Lack of training and outdated regulations do not motivate developers to adopt new solutions and materials in construction.

Miko Niinemäe
Head of residential real estate development company Arco Vara

Estonia is an IT country and a start-up country. While it is true that this is an image that needs to be maintained, there is generally a fairly firm consensus internationally. Rather, we are used to thinking of Estonia as a small but smart country, almost a Nordic country, where industry and entrepreneurship are moving forward. There is, however, one important sector of the economy that is not keeping pace with innovation. It is the construction sector. As a developer, and as someone who wants to live in an energy-efficient home with the smallest possible footprint, I would very much like to use recycled materials and new construction technologies in our buildings, except that our civil engineers do not have the knowledge. And I don’t see that it makes much difference when you go to university. Even young people, who should come with a modern education, do not know how to see and use the opportunities for innovation in construction. A graduate engineer is a valued expert on the labour market, usually with work experience on top of his studies. This means that they have certain basic skills, but I, as an employer, want something more. A person with a higher education, a master’s degree, who has studied his speciality, should not come to the company as an apprentice, but should bring his added value, i.e. the latest knowledge and skills. It seems to me that this is not yet coming from our universities to the construction sector. I myself also graduated in engineering and not so long ago – 5 years ago. I studied both undergraduate and postgraduate studies in product development and production engineering. A very large part of the curriculum covered science subjects such as physics, higher mathematics, linear algebra. All of this is needed in real estate development. Only, I can assure you with all my heart, I have never done any of these calculations and solutions myself since university, there are computer programs for that work. A good acquaintance of mine studied the same subject at the Danish University of Technology in Copenhagen, only the curriculum was called ‘Product Development and Innovation Engineering’. So he also had maths and physics, but alongside that they had 3D printing as a separate subject, for example. We managed to see and use very little of it. It is quite possible that things are better now. When we talk about building materials, we learnt about steel, concrete, wood. Today, however, we have, for example, plastic composites, other new materials, the recycling of materials and the circular economy. Estonian universities do have specialisations in construction, but they often tend to focus more on traditional construction methods and materials, and not enough attention is currently paid to innovation education. There is also no direct pressure. As a developer today, if I am looking at replacing a plaster wall with a recycled wall made of roofing felt or using only recycled glass, I will not win on the other requirements imposed on the building. I will not have the advantage of using a different heating solution or of giving up solar panels. As recycled materials are still more expensive at the moment, it would be sensible to create flexibility in the regulation to allow property development to move in a more resource-efficient direction. Energy class alone does not indicate the footprint of a building.

When we talk about reducing heat loss, what does it mean – do we make the insulation thicker? But insulation is mainly a petroleum product! Or let’s take the requirements for landscaping. At the moment, in Estonia, vertical and container planting is not yet considered part of landscaping. Only the green area above the ground counts. So there is little incentive for the developer to do otherwise. At the same time, in Milan, high-rise buildings are landscaped on different floors and levels. Photosynthesis and CO2 sequestration can also take place in such gardens. In fact, the proportion of landscaping could include lawns, flower boxes and retained trees. In Estonia, building documentation is not updated very often. It is also understandable that nobody wants a grey area, but there could be more flexibility within the legal framework. So that the developer is more of a partner in urban planning. Sticking rigidly to the regulations could lead to a situation where a municipality requires double-width cycle paths in a residential area, just to be green-minded. At the same time, the municipality is asking to avoid “heat islands” caused by asphalt. Perhaps the developer could have been instructed at the outset to carry out a study of the actual level of cycling in the area. Perhaps a traditional 3.5 metre wide cycle path would be sufficient, as a 7 metre wide asphalt road is not ‘green’. For innovative thinking in urban planning and construction, I look again to education. No doubt things will improve, but at the moment progress is slow. Innovation studies should be very well funded and highly regarded, so that the brightest minds are attracted. Proper scholarships, good cooperation with other universities and also with businesses would certainly help. All in all, Estonia’s construction sector has great potential to become more innovative and environmentally sustainable, but this will require a change of attitude in both university curricula and legislation. The introduction of new materials and technologies in the construction sector is necessary not only from an environmental point of view, but also from an economic point of view, as sustainable solutions are more profitable and competitive in the long term.