Energy Efficiency of the Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana

I. IDENTIFICATION
  • Investor (key institution): Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana
  • Contact person: Prof. Dr. Irena Ograjenšek, irena.ograjensek@ef.uni-lj.si
  • Year of implementation:
  • Implementation venue

  • Country: Slovenia
  • Region: Osrednjeslovenska regija
  • Town: Ljubljana
  • Size of area: 15900 m2
  • Impact: regional

    Total costs: 2000000 EUR

    Source per every institution

    II. TYPOLOGY
    1. Improved provision of local cultural and social events.
    2. Improved condition & quality of the public space between the blocks of flats.
    3. Improved support for the development of small business operators in the area of blocks of flats.
    4. Improved attractiveness of the architecture of the socialist buildings.
    5. Identified new functions for structures from the era of socialism in 1945 - 1989).
    III. DESCRIPTION
    1. What forms of cooperation were used as new approaches in the field of rehabilitation and conversion of urban functional areas?
    2. Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, was built in the 1970 according to the plans of the architect Jože Koželj. The pre-energy crisis construction plans did not take into account the problems of energy inefficiency and CO2 emissions which became the focal managerial point first with the energy crisis and then with the climate change. In order to save energy and reduce FELU’s carbon footprint the following investments have been made so far: - In 2000: insulation and renovation of the roof. - Since 2001: renovation of the central heating and cooling system (floor-by-floor). - In 2006: insulation and renovation of the façades. - Currently being implemented: installation of solar cells on the roof; this will reduce the use of fossil fuels by at least 10%.

    3. Was the building or the space between buildings) identified as a valuable socialist heritage?
    4. The FELU area and buildings so far do not have a special status as an official cultural or architectural heritage.

    5. What criteria were applied to make this judgment?
    6. None so far.

    7. Was the building or space between buildings) important to local communities and how were they involved in decision-making process about its rehabilitation or conversion?
    8. FELU is a school of national and international importance; as such it also tries to be a leader when it comes to sustainability issues. The local community might not be aware of FELU’s efforts in the area of carbon footprint reduction but will benefit from them in a long run.

    9. Were attempts made to improve territorial cohesion within the city/town/district? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged?
    10. The whole quarter where FELU is located has been in the focus of urban planners for the past few years because of some ongoing projects that are importantly changing its outlook (e.g. the Stožice Hall complex).

    11. Were there attempts to reduced disparities between districts within cities/towns achieved reduced? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged?
    12. These attempts are ongoing. Therefore their success cannot be evaluated yet.

    13. Other important facts and comments, e.g. critical review.
    14. One of the typical characteristics of the socialist era buildings is their energy inefficiency and consequently high carbon footprint. Therefore, one of the main challenges in the process of these buildings revitalisation is the question how to make them energy efficient. With its numerous initiatives – some already implemented, others ongoing, some still in planning – FELU is a best practice example in this area.

    IV. SUPPLEMENT

    There are more than 6 000 people living in Dědina block of flats. The whole revitalization 3 -phases -process took 4 years and the total cost of the project was 11 200 000 EUR. It is one of the first completely reconstructed block of flats as far as the public spaces in Prague are concerned.

    Web site: www.ef.uni-lj.si/en