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 [...]]]>

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.

In the last three posts (resource preservation – context, resource preservation – criterion, and resource preservation – strategy) I outlined a basis for considering a building material selection criterion that contributes to resource preservation and described six categories of sustainable materials. With this post I’ll give specific [...]]]>

Panelite - Recycled Content

part 4 of 5

In the last three posts (resource preservation – context, resource preservation – criterion, and resource preservation – strategy) I outlined a basis for considering a building material selection criterion that contributes to resource preservation and described six categories of sustainable materials. With this post I’ll give specific examples of companies I feel are advancing the cause. The following are listed in the same six groups.

Reused
As I mentioned in the previous post, there are limited options for building component reuse supply on a national level, but here are some sources to consider:

• Second Use, located in Seattle WA, has been salvaging building components in the Puget Sound region for more than a decade. They have both a web presence and a physical store. They offer salvage sources where they break down existing buildings and harvest components for reuse. I visit there site often for inspiration and recommend the same for others.
• The Building Material Resource Association is an international group attempting to building visibility for component reuse. They offer resources, discussion forums, library recommendations, information, knowledge and a database of salvage suppliers in the US and Canada. My experience with their web site has been mixed. Many of the companies listed in the database are members of the organization and are contractors who provide some salvage services, but there seem to be very few retail or exchange services listed. There doesn’t seem to be a vetting process or ranking and you have to do a lot of work to find out what each company offers, plus some of the web links are not active. But it’s a good place to start when looking for a local company to assist in the dismantling of an existing building.

Recycled Content
As I mentioned in previous posts, new businesses are being formed and existing manufacturers are adding new environmentally favorable products with a high degree of recycled content at a rapid pace. In August, Aleida wrote a post about one of our favorite recycled products – Eleek Aluminum Tiles, and another in September about our favorite recycled glass products. Below I’ll go into greater detail with two companies we have worked with:

• ShetkaWorks manufactures a rigid, hard, solid surface material – called Shetka Stone – made from one hundred percent post-industrial and post-consumer paper, plant and cloth fiber. All scrap, waste, and reject material produced during the manufacturing process is returned to the production cycle – there is no waste by-product created. That’s something pretty rare for an industrial process. You might ask, how durable is a surface made largely from paper. I can personally attest that it’s hard as a rock. It’s durable, scratch resistant, stain resistant, and is class A fire rated. All product comes finished from the factory and ready to use or install. They’re most known for counter-tops or other solid surface applications, but since the molding process can be customized, the base material can be shaped and fabricated at the factory to meet any design. One downside, the fusing processes is protected by patent so the company offers no transparency about the method used to create the product. I presume some binding agent or matrix is needed, though it’s possible that only heat and pressure are use. But disclosing that information would be helpful. Other competitors are PaperStone, Squak Mountain, and Richlite.
• Panelite manufactures translucent architectural honeycomb panels with various patterns, colors, materials, and finishes. Their three primary product lines are ClearShade (an exterior grade facade panel), Laminates (textured translucent sheets), and Laminated and Cast Polymer Series (recycled polymer panels). All products have varying degrees of post-consumer recycled content. In the Cast Polymer Series, for example, the core is composed of eighty percent post-consumer PET or high quality pharmaceutical and food packaging. And, the Laminate  line is made of a non-hazardous and biodegradable mineral. Since all products are translucent, applications with back lighting are a natural. More recently they’ve added table and bench furniture made from their panels to their offering.

Reclaimed and Repurposed
In September Aleida posted a blog about reclaimed wood that listed a number of critical issues to consider and a good list of companies we like for wood. Below I’ll go into greater detail with two companies we have direct experience with and can recommend without hesitation:

• Restoration Timber, with showrooms in San Francisco and New York City, is a very service oriented supplier of reclaimed materials. They prefer to get engaged as early in the design process as possible to help architects and designers find the best wood type, color, size, patina and source to match the design intent. They specialize in reclaiming material made from first or second growth wood that typically has richer grain and color. In their flooring line, they offer a number of difficult to find wood species such as American chestnut, hemlock, hickory, and pecan. They also offer product with unusual original sources such as old factory floors, and some with unique finishes such as saw traced and hand scraped. From old industrial buildings and barns they save beautiful larger trusses and hand hewn beams. Most of their siding line is from barns more than one hundred years old. And since they do their own milling, they offer complete customization so that reclaimed wood can be used in any manner imaginable.
• Where Restoration Timber sources domestic regional wood, TerraMai sources globally. In particular, they’ve excelled in securing an amazing collection of reclaimed teak from southeast Asia. One of their most interesting lines is called World Mix. You can purchase flooring and mixed lumber that include wood species from around the world. This line often includes reclaimed wood from species where newly harvested wood should be avoided since new supply is typically sourced from old growth stands or are threatened species due to over-harvesting. One of my favorite international wood species is Brazilian peroba. I have furniture in my home made from reclaimed peroba and it’s a truly beautiful wood. In recent years TerraMai moved beyond the typical siding, flooring, and timbers offered by most reclaimed suppliers and now have product lines that include panel systems, veneers, and paneling that make it easier, and less expensive, for designers to use reclaimed wood. Go to their site or talk to them regularly because they’re constantly adding unusual items like bowling alley floors, school bleacher seats, and water tank wood.

Rapidly Renewable
As I mentioned in the previous post, Aleida wrote a recent post that presented our definition of rapidly renewable. Below I’ll go into greater detail on a few other materials:

• Smith & Fong have become one of the most recognizable bamboo product manufacturers with their Plyboo line. Their flooring and plywood are the only formaldehyde free FSC certified non-wood products in the market. They are made from Moso bamboo, a fast growing grass, that requires no irrigation, no fertilizers, and no pesticides. Each year only the five year growth is sustainably harvested to protect plantation ecosystems. Although their product lines began with flooring and a plywood substitute, they now offer spectacular material variations. It should be noted that palm is the other major material source Smith & Fong uses, but palm does not grow as fast as bamboo. Smith & Fong does not offer enough information about it’s palm products to know what species is used, where it is sourced, or how it is harvested. So we consider it just renewable, not rapidly renewable. But palm is worth considering. It is beautiful. Since all their raw bamboo is grown in China, shipping to the US is obviously it’s environmental weakness.
• Cork is a soft tissue composed of dead cells found in the inner bark from cork oak trees found primarily in Portugal and Spain. The tree bark is impervious to water, insects, and fire, and periodic removal is beneficial to the tree. The first harvest cannot occur in the first twenty-five years, older trees typically produce better cork, and they can be harvested for 150-200 years. Every nine or ten years following the first harvest the bark can be removed without harming the tree. Sustainable practices make cork an environmentally favorable material. Nova Distinctive Floors is one of the largest manufacturers of cork flooring with a wide range of beautiful patterns and colors. Although cork can be purchased in sheets from some sources, it works best in tile form, and that’s where Nova excels. Their tile patterns and colors are rich and varied. Obviously the down side to this material is source location – there are no domestic plantations.

Reduced Virgin Depletion
In September, Aleida wrote a post with a good list of salvaged wood suppliers. Below I’ll go into greater detail with two companies we think you should check out:

• Woodbank offers a great range of sustainable materials – FSC certified lumber, salvaged, and reclaimed – but it’s their approach to salvaged timber that’s worth talking about. They offer products in five groups – standing dead trees, hazard and windfall, agricultural waste, under utilized wood fiber, and sinker logs. Beetle infestation usually kills trees without damaging the wood, and fire damaged trees in low humidity regions can stand for decades. These trees can be harvested with minimal forest impact. In urban and suburban areas, storms or other natural events drop trees that can be used for lumber. Orchard trees typically only produce nuts or fruit for a number of years. Much of that wood is cut when the trees are no longer productive and used for firewood. Woodbank has contracts with orchards in WA to remove those trees for their timber potential. As mentioned in the previous post, there is a large quantity of logs sunk in low-oxygen cold waterways during past transport available for salvage. All of their sources offer a nice range of options depending on the design need.
• Sinker Treasures in Georgia specializes in salvaging wood from cypress swamps. Most of the old growth wood they supply was cut by ax in the late 1800s and was as much as six hundred years old when it was harvested. The company also offers what is called pecky sinker cypress. Pecky is caused by a fungus that hollows out the center of the tree and takes more than one hundred years to develop. Similar to other woods like wormy chestnut or maple, the hollow tracks formed by the fungus create a unique aesthetic that can be desirable.

Rethought Technology
For me, this is the most exciting group of materials. There is amazing brain power being applied to develop new products that could not have been created without rethinking how products are manufactured. Below are some of my favorites:

• Environ Biocomposites manufactures building materials that are bio-based. They are composite panels similar to OSB or other particle boards, but are composed of biological materials. Their three primary products are Dakota Burl (made from sunflower seed husks), BIOFIBER Wheat (made from wheat straw), and Environ biocomposite (made from newsprint, soy based resin, and color additives). If your project is within five hundred miles from mankato, MN BIOFIBER Wheat the net green house gas contribution is actually negative. All products are fused without added formaldehyde, do not off gas, and have no volatile organic compounds. An additional benefit for BIOFIBER Wheat and Dakota Burl products is how they’re also manufactured with a rapidly renewable resource.
• Sometimes rethinking processes will mean the best new ideas come from the rediscovery of older time tested techniques that were abandoned in the past in favor of industrialized automation. Although the family owned business has been making it product for more than thirty years, Caba Barkskin seems fresh and new. The company, located in Santa Fe NM, sustainably harvests mulberry and fig tree bark from local forests during the rainy season, shreds it, soaks it in water to create a pulp, hand pounds it (like paper has been made for thousands of years), and creates some of the most beautiful sheet goods I’ve ever seen. There are dozens of colors with incredible patterns. Their products are stunningly beautiful, surprisingly affordable, and versatile.

Although I’ve only highlighted two options for each group, there are many many more. Our list of vetted suppliers grows every month. I hope that means the industry is growing and beginning to become more mainstream.

My next post in this series will conclude the sequence and focus on how to apply design strategies that leverage these materials. Please come back to check it out.

This is part four 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 five is entitled resource preservation – design.

In the last two posts (resource preservation – context and resource preservation – criterion) I outlined a basis for considering building material selection criterion that contribute to resource preservation. With this post I’ll drill down on the six material categories previously mentioned. Here they are in [...]]]>

Caba Barkskin - Rethink Technology

part 3 of 5

In the last two posts (resource preservation – context and resource preservation – criterion) I outlined a basis for considering building material selection criterion that contribute to resource preservation. With this post I’ll drill down on the six material categories previously mentioned. Here they are in detail:

Reused

According to Architecture 2030, 1.75 billion square feet of buildings are torn down and five billion square feet is renovated each year in the United States. Another five billion square feet of new construction is added annually. With so much building stock getting demolished there should be ample supply of salvageable components. Structural steel, bricks, concrete block, stone, windows, doors, wall framing elements, some MPE components, and others are good candidates for reuse. Especially since many are composed of non-renewable natural resources.

A definition of this category as building components that can be reused directly. Some may require refurbishment or alteration to enable a second or third life, but these are materials that keep their form and function in going from an existing building to a new building.

One hurdle to clear is a lack of infrastructure. There are far more options for recycling raw materials than there are for salvaging services or operators of significant size or reach. There are many local or regional operators, but we’re unaware of any large national building material salvage exchange. For building component reuse to increase, improved infrastructure and easily accessible material markets will have to be built up. But building components are not the only candidates to consider. Many other industries can be explored for prospects. Other forms of construction can also lead to unexpected raw materials. In some regions, state surplus warehouses can be mined for components not previously considered in the built environment.

Recycled Content

There are three types of recycled content. Material salvaged at the the point of extraction – mine, well, forest, etc. – are called secondary materials; products made with waste collected at factories as part of manufacturing processes are called post-industrial; and products made with waste collected from products already in the market which have served a useful purpose are called post-consumer. The most important of the three are products composed of post-consumer waste since it lessens the amount of material typically headed to landfill or incineration. Post-industrial is also favorable, especially when a manufacturer creates new products from what would have previously been waste or discarded material.

In the built environment, there are construction materials which already employ a high percentage of recycled content. Today, very little steel is consigned to the landfill. It and similar metals are relatively easy to remove from demolition. As much as ninety percent can typically be salvaged and returned to production plants, melted down, and mixed with virgin material. New technologies, such as color and shape recognition, have been developed to help automate material separation processes and retrieve more value from disassembled buildings.

The construction industry is second only to packaging in its use of plastic. Most of us are familiar with the triangle symbol formed by three arrows enclosing the polymer type number. The symbol suggests all are recyclable, yet in reality most polymers end up in landfills as there are not recycling programs for all types of plastics. Even more difficult for anyone involved with building design or construction is the fact that most plastic used in buildings does not carry the symbol. Since few of us are polymer experts, far too much of the plastic in the built environment does not get recycled. For example, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) products technically can be recycled, but there are currently no recycling programs in place to do so. High impact polystyrene (HIPS) is a similar product, can be recycled, and there are a few companies currently offering product with a modest (fifteen percent) recycled content. The seven polymer code numbers are: 1 – polyethylene terephthalate (PET); 2 – high density polyethylene (HDPE); 3 – polyvinyl chloride (PVC); 4 – low density polyethylene (LDPE); 5 – polypropylene (PP); 6 – polystyrene (PS); and 7 – other, or a blend that cannot be separated or recycled. Of these, PET and the various polyethylene types are the easiest to be recycled. Many window and door systems are encased in PVC (code number 3), the best wall and roof insulation is expanded polystyrene (code number 6), polyester carpet is PET (code number 1), Tyvek vapor barrier is HDPE (code number 2), and vinyl flooring, wall coverings, and exterior sidings are all PVC (code number 3). In addition, buildings are full of code 7 products consisting of acrylics (paint), polymers (solid surfacing), and hydrocarbon derivatives. Knowing what type of plastic a product is, even if it doesn’t carry a polymer recycling symbol, helps you make design decisions. Especially when product manufacturers claim recyclability alone as an environmental attribute. Plastics are ubiquitous, but can be managed.

New products are introduced regularly with higher percentages of post-industrial and post-consumer content. And manufacturers are getting more aggressive in their efforts to explore what can be done to modify existing product formulations to include more recycled material. One potential barrier is the complexity of some manufactured building materials. Many are hybrid composites made of both renewable and non-renewable resources, are too difficult or too expensive to disassemble compared to recovery value, and may have components that are too hazardous to retrieve.

Reclaimed and Repurposed

In a previous post, Aleida offered our definition for reclaimed wood, but with this post I’ll expand on that to include all reclaimed materials. Where reused components come from existing buildings and are reused essentially unchanged in new construction, reclaimed materials can come from any other industry. They are typically modified to fit the needs of the built environment and change form and/or function in order to be repurposed.

The most common reclaimed material is wood. Some formerly abundant US timber species have fallen victim to disease, insect infestation, blight, and other maladies which have either extinguished supply or drastically reduced it. The only way to get access to some of this wood is through reclaim sources. It can come from the deconstruction of other buildings (barns, sheds, factories, etc.), from building related sources (stadium bleachers, furniture, storage tanks, etc.), or totally unrelated fields (boat sails, automotive parts, fabricated machine parts, industrial components, aviation parts, etc.)

A great secondary benefit these materials offer is amazing stories associated with the source. We often seek out supplies of unusual material that links directly to our clients, or our client’s customers. And with a growing list of suppliers throughout the country it’s getting easier to localize the source so that the material is regional and transport is minimized.

Rapidly Renewable

Two days ago we posted a blog (defining rapidly renewable) that attempts to clarify what constitutes a rapidly renewable resource. It seems these terms are bandied about too easily without consensus on meaning. We believe the definition should include a direct relationship between the biological maturity of the resource and human generational demand. In short we think there are hyper renewable resources, rapidly renewable resources, and just renewable resources based on how fast they are renewed and how quickly they are used.

One concern with some materials in this classification is source origin. Resources such as palm and bamboo are not grown domestically. There has been some concern that unscrupulous suppliers source from plantations that employ child labor, don’t pay a living wage, or harvest the plants in unsustainable aggressive ways. Most of those issues have been rectified by larger suppliers, but designers still need to be mindful that negative practices may still be occurring with smaller firms.

Reduced Virgin Depletion

Aggressive extraction, as well as natural events mentioned above, can push renewable resources beyond their elastic limits. We need to be careful when specifying building materials to research harvesting, mining, growing, and quarry methods. For the most part, resources extracted in the US follow either industry or government mandated guidelines that help ensure minimal impact. But the brewing controversy over mountain top removal mining for coal is a good example of how health concerns and public opinion can change quickly and disrupt supply. Designers hold similar power to public protest when selecting materials for building designs. We can vote with our dollars and move manufacturers toward processes that preserve resources and reduce the amount of virgin material consumed.

Salvaged wood, which falls in this category, was covered in a previous post so I won’t repeat the information here. But one of the best methods to lessen the consumption of virgin wood is to augment supply with material previously harvested but never brought to market. Sinker logs, bog trees, selective harvesting of dead timber, and other sources can go a long way to reduce demand on virgin supply. Similar substitution strategies are available for other materials and specific products.

Rethought Technology

Spectacular new technologies over the past fifty years have led to amazing advancements. But some have had unfortunate harmful environmental consequences. When it was first created more than one hundred years ago there were no known commercial applications for vinyl. Of the thirty billion pounds annually produced, sixty percent is used in building construction. It has provided measurable benefit, yet it is toxic to produce, toxic if on fire, and toxic at the end of it’s life. Most vinyl ends up in landfills or is incinerated. Vinyl does not biologically decompose. UV rays degrade the material is it breaks into smaller and smaller pieces over long periods of time – some estimate as much as ten or twenty thousand years. Those smaller particles can eventually leach out and contaminate the water cycle. Vinyl that’s incinerated may be more deadly as dioxin, one of the most carcinogenic compounds known, is released into the atmosphere.

But new companies are forming to leverage new thinking and new technology in ways that drastically improve the environmental impact of existing products and create totally new products previously unimaginable. New processes are fashioning new veneers, finishes, alloys, insulation, wall panels, translucent films, and much more. Still, other companies are turning to biomimicry and learning how nature works to develop new paints, solvents, adhesives, dies, stains, and more. Replacement products are also being developed. The environmental hazard posed by vinyl has created incentive to find substitutes. One leading commercial flooring manufacturer is adding renewable and/or recycled filler material in some of it’s products as they move toward reducing their total vinyl use.

All six categories have surprisingly deep lists of manufacturers and suppliers already embracing resource preservation. Other cutting edge thinking is breaking exciting new ground with many more products to come as the viability of sustainable material markets are proven. Let me know if you think I’ve forgotten any potential category, or if you have any ideas or suggestions for new products. My next post will include a list specific manufacturers and suppliers for each category and cover design strategies that maximize these six groupings. Please come back to check it out.

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

The US home building boom that raged between 2004 and 2007 created construction shortages experienced throughout the country. Some regions – southern FL, Phoenix AZ, southern CA, and Las Vegas NV – saw extreme scarcity of vital materials. Hurricane Katrina rocked the system in 2005. Rebuilding projects in the [...]]]>

part 2 of 5

The US home building boom that raged between 2004 and 2007 created construction shortages experienced throughout the country. Some regions – southern FL, Phoenix AZ, southern CA, and Las Vegas NV – saw extreme scarcity of vital materials. Hurricane Katrina rocked the system in 2005. Rebuilding projects in the gulf states added strain to already taxed supply. Concrete, gypsum wallboard, OSB, plywood, and other materials became extremely scarce. At the same time, China was adding pressure to the steel supply with their push to complete construction projects in time for the 2008 Olympic games and recovering from an earthquake in the Sichuan Province. Oil price increases during this period led to higher steel prices, more expensive transportation, and a fifty-two percent rise for framing lumber. According to the National Association of Home Builders, these and other shortages raised average home construction by $5,000 to $7,000 per home. Under normal circumstances, that kind of price increase could slow down growth. We now know that rampant housing speculation ensured demand outstripped supply, home prices rose at considerably higher rates, and climbing material prices were easily absorbed.

These shortages did little to halt the pace of construction, but did lead to consequences just now becoming apparent. To alleviate a dearth in gypsum wallboard supply, builders turned to alternative sources. It’s estimated that 100,000 homes in twenty states were built with toxic wallboard imported from China which must be replaced (I’ll cover this issue in a follow-up post). According to National Underwriter, an insurance industry publication, rectifying the situation could cost $15 to $25 billion – which includes material exchange, legal fees, and health impacts.

What will happen when natural resource supply cannot keep pace with demand? Or worse, when supply is dramatically reduced or extinguished? As mentioned in the previous blog post, if a resource becomes too scarce and expensive, incentive is created to seek abundant alternatives. But what happens when the alternatives are toxic, like the Chinese gypsum wallboard? What if the most abundant replacements are worse than the original material or product being substituted? These conditions may have been coincidence, once in a lifetime, and/or unlikely to repeat. But they demonstrate how sensitive and vulnerable the construction industry is to resource supply changes. Attempts to adapt were slow and, in some cases, dangerous.

In the US, natural resources have expired in the past. The American chestnut was at one time a very important timber species. It was a plentiful hardwood that grew faster than oak, was straight-grained, and highly resistant to decay. Early in the 1900s, the species was decimated when a fast-acting airborne bark fungus known as chestnut blight was accidentally introduced. Asian chestnut trees, which have evolved to be less susceptible to the blight, were imported to the Bronx Zoo carrying the fungus. Spreading at a rate of fifty miles each year, along with panic harvesting that may have accelerated the destruction, the blight wiped out a valuable timber product in fifty years. It’s estimated more than three billion trees were lost.

Today, no new American chestnut is available. There are less than one hundred adult trees remaining in its historical range, and another one thousand in parts of the country outside the historical range where the blight was less virulent. The wood was very versatile and often used to construct barns throughout Appalachia. Butternut, ash, and American elm are also at risk due to similar problems. Throughout the world, other timber species are endangered, threatened, or vulnerable, with names we’re probably all familiar with – African mahogany, teak, Brazilian cherry, wenge, redwood, western red cedar, cherry, and many more. There are dozens more not typically used in US building construction. I list all these examples to show how quickly natural events can occur to wipe out valuable resources. One hundred years later, the US population is three times what it was. Significantly greater demand on wood products combined with a natural calamity and far more aggressive harvesting practices means the US timber industry is at greater risk of rapid collapse.

Large scale drastic and permanent resource shortage is unlikely to occur in our lifetimes, but that’s no reason to discount preservation strategies which prolong access to and ensure stable supply of natural capital. Sustainable age design must consider two components when addressing resource preservation – extraction and waste. I’ll deal with waste issues in a later post. Extraction, as the word implies, is the removal of raw material from the environment and conversion into useful human purpose. There are two resource classifications for those extracted – renewable and non-renewable. Renewable resources are those where supply is continually replenished through natural processes – such as wood, water, and other plant life. Non-renewable resources have limited supply, were created through massive ancient geological processes, and no new supply is being generated – such as steel, oil, and stone.

Carefully determining material selection criterion and defining your own vetting process are two critical steps in crafting a resource preservation strategy. At thread collaborative we’ve spent the last six years honing our specification system and we’re pretty confident it helps us make intelligent sustainable material selections. We categorize sustainable building products in six groups – those that can be reused with minimal refurbishing, those that have been reclaimed and repurposed, those with a high percentage of recycled content, those made with rapidly renewable resources, those that reduce virgin source depletion, and those that rethink existing products or employ new technologies.

These six (reused, reclaimed, recycled, rapidly renewable, reduced, and rethought) have become our organizing structure for a sustainable materials database we’re building, for our material specification coding and notation system, and for our material sample library. Others who have offered similar groupings insist that they be accompanied with a selection hierarchy, suggesting that certain strategies should take precedence over others. In my experience, every project and every client is different. And every design solution requires a unique methodology and approach to materials. Therefore, the order of our list is not a suggestion of preference or ranking. Instead, the first three are loosely related to each other as options for returning previously produced components and materials back into the construction and/or material production cycle. The second three are loosely related to each other as raw materials.

I will dive into each of those six categories in detail in my next post. Please come back to check it out.

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