DEMOLISHED and rebuilt anew.
With a heavy retrofitting was possible -in theory- to satisfy the requests of contemporary standards and clients, but this option was not chosen.
In this case 2 norms combine maliciously:
If lowering VAT to 6% for a refurbishment is good, then considering “refurbishment” leaving 1 wall standing IS NOT. 🔴 covert demolition
This corner has been "transformed" for good, not the ones in the centre owned by rich people...
But even then...
There’s a recent proposal to “must reach the pace of 1-3% renovations per year” (emphasis on “must”).
Here some scrap plans.
This doesn’t count embedded energy, carbon/water footprint, etc.
The building risks overheating (the skin is too lightweight) although ± no impact on the score.
You’re not exactly forced to have all this, but they make it extremely “advantageous” to have. It’s the lock-in temptation, and it’s using a lot of energy while attempting to save some.
With half of the money we could have retrofitted the previous building AND saved demolition costs.