part 5 of 5

Building design methodology commonly follows a linear progression – design, development, documentation, construction/fabrication, and evaluation. Material selection, sourcing, and specification often occurs during the development phase. Some special or featured materials are considered early in the design phase, but the vast majority of construction and finish materials are determined after form and function are finalized. What’s worse, many construction materials are taken for granted – steel structure, concrete block walls, concrete foundations and floor slabs, etc. Most of the resources used with buildings are selected without significant deliberation. Business-as-usual thinking ensures industrial age processes are maintained. Tight client budgets and minimal design profit margins produce disincentive for reinvention. How many times have you been told by a superior – we don’t have time or money to reinvent the wheel? I’ve heard that expression dozens of times. But if not now, when?

Until my clients started asking questions I couldn’t answer regarding material preferences, I was following the same course. Why does the typical design path consider material selection so late in the process, if examined at all? Form and function are powerful drivers. A client can quickly experience the pain of a poorly functioning building, but environmental impacts borne of  industrialized material production are generally indiscernible. Designers need to put resources forward for them to be a priority. Over the past five years I’ve employed an alternative process that moves material considerations to the opening phase. Today, I review material options with clients at the same time concepts are discussed, and long before creating form. My experience has been that clients are far more receptive to sustainable material conversations when they are proposed concurrent to design. Instead of form and function, I stress function and material. The most appropriate form is derived from matching the most suitable material to the highest functionality. I prefer to have my design be inspired by resources rather than bending them to my will.

The diagram above is a modified version of what’s called the Delft Ladder. In 1980, the Dutch government published an order for building construction waste treatment, called the Ladder of Lansink. It was a top down approach that focused on areas such as prevention, element reuse, material reuse, useful application, incineration with energy recovery, incineration, and landfill. Over time, the ladder has evolved in response to changes in building construction and recovery technologies. A newer version incorporating these adjustments was introduced by the Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands with an expanded focus. The Delft Ladder focuses on key decision points in the building disassembly process – prevention, object renovation, element reuse, material reuse, useful application, immobilization with useful application, immobilization, incineration with energy recovery, incineration, and landfill.

The Delft Ladder was designed in response to a growing Dutch interest in buildings designed for disassembly. That’s an admirable aim, but doesn’t go far enough. My modified diagram elevates resource preservation by moving material sourcing ahead of design (orange box), by acknowledging and leveraging the interrelationship between building stages and material cycles, and by locating points of entry for architects and designers to become active participants in the material sourcing process (brown boxes and arrows). The six sustainable material categories discussed in the previous posts of this series are primarily geared to evaluating source alternatives – those offered by manufacturers and suppliers. Even though ferreting out great options and carefully vetting environmentally favorable materials require a great deal of time, ultimately they’re passive measures. Designers armed with sustainable material knowledge and the drive to transition from industrial age to sustainable age are well positioned to bring about meaningful change. More information always trumps less. The diagram also identifies material feedback loops with potential for capitalization. The diagram proffers a way to appreciate the typical route of building resources and presents potential opportunities to discover additional preservation strategies. Designers don’t have to play a third party role. Instead, we can drive the entire system forward.

In the past year we’ve worked with clients to aggressively source uncommon materials. One strategy for a retail client is looking at how to collect raw material from current customers for future stores. In that project, design will not begin without direct community involvement in the sourcing process. In a way, customers will have a voice in determining the look and feel of their next store. With another project, we developed a system to harvest corrugated cardboard out of the balers of exiting stores as raw material for new stores. We’re setting up systems to collect scrap from construction dumpsters, working with clients to pool resources with competitors, and tapping into partially built housing stock stranded by the recently burst housing bubble.

Opportunities for expanded resource preservation abound so long as we’re ready to realize the design possibilities. That will not happen with random acts of greenness or scattershot tactics. Organization is key. No single system works for all designers under every condition. You should develop your own method for codifying sustainability so that it’s core to what you do rather than  added service. I’ve offered the information in this series hoping to get the conversation going. Please let me know what you think.

This is part five of five about resource preservation. Part one is entitled resource preservation – context, part two is entitled resource preservation – criterion, part three is entitled resource preservation – strategy, and part four is entitled resource preservation – sources.

related posts:

• April 8, 2010 -- stories of sustainability: Deborah Guyer Greene (0)
• April 5, 2010 -- stories of sustainability: Carol Baumgartel (0)
• March 24, 2010 -- on tour: Kirei USA (3)
• March 22, 2010 -- stories of sustainability: Vetrazzo (0)
• March 19, 2010 -- on tour: Coverings Etc (0)