Thursday, March 29, 2012

Nothing goes to waste


“We can’t solve problems using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them” (Albert Einstein).  As we all know the industrial revolution was a time of rapid growth and new developments. Most of these inventions and technologies improved quality of life, and therefore were a positive addition to society. Today we are informed of the damaging impact that the interiors and the architectures industries have had on our natural environment and need to develop a new tactic to design with respect for nature.

40% of all carbon emissions are generated through buildings. Construction, maintenance, heating, lighting and refitting interiors all contribute to this. There is a longing ideal that if we all went back to living in bamboo tree houses the world would become more sustainable as nature and humans would once again be balanced. But realistically, we all know that our society wouldn not go back to living in those conditions. The cradle-to-cradle concept, however, has a different method. McDonough and Braungart break up all matter into two types of nutrients: Biological nutrients, which are products that are (biodegradable, natural, ex.wood), and technical nutrients, which are (manmade, ex. plastic). Both of these have value, in contrast to the common idea of using only compostable materials in construction. In my concept I want to use both of the nutrients created by McDonough and Braungart, because this will allow companies to reuse manmade construction materials and allow them to compose new materials from existing ones.  Instead of ignoring and discarding these manmade materials that we already have available, why not keep them in a “close loop cycle”, where they can be used over and over again? Instead of putting valuable materials in landfill, we could be breaking down and reusing valuable resources.

What if we start to design with the life of a product (or building) in mind and think about what will happen to it after its ‘life’? A wealth of opportunity arises. Manufacturers will start reusing parts or packaging from products that are over their lifespan and non consumable. Is it really necessary to knock down existing buildings in an attempt to build new structures just to stimulate the architect’s ego? It makes business sense to reuse. In the long run, everyone wins. The producer, the consumer and our environment.

In the past decade,s designers have been debating efficiency; How to get the most out of the least resources. Efficiency and sustainability seem to have got so overwhelmed with technical solutions that other design qualities have been compromised. We begin to excuse ugly monumental buildings and interiors if they are ‘energy efficient’. How can we be inspired by interiors that are minimal in every aspect? Michael Braungart says “what would life be like if everything were efficient? Its just the minimum.” (Lets Cradle Congress, Nov 07)

As an interior designer, I have learned that there will always be constraints on materials, space and money. The overwhelming factor is almost always money. Meaning the building that costs the least is the winning plan. What if we considered the value of our natural surroundings not as a given, usable resource but as an indispensable one, such as coal or oil? A resource that will eventually run out. If we measure value by scarcity, meaning the greater the availability is of something, the cheaper it becomes, eventually the natural unharmed world will be invaluable.

With the idea of reusing structures and their building components, could help the interior and the architecture industry become sustainable.  Not only should designers take into consideration what materials they should use to build a new structure but they should also take into consideration nature.  If we start to consider how our environment works when designing a building we could become more efficient.  For example we can utilize mother nature by the placement of windows.  In cooler climates, we can design buildings that that have more windows on the south side of the structure in order to allow natural lighting to enter the structure.  This could eventually reduce the energy use. 

This concept will ensure that less money would be used if we reuse the structures that are already built and when building new structure less money will eventually be used because it will be built in aspects of efficiency and sustainability.  

8 comments:

  1. Hey, Olivia; You have done a nice job of explaining the ecological vs. market value issue of natural resources. I've always thought it was interesting how we define "cheap construction," because invariably, cheap construction simply passes on the expense not taken in the building phase, to the consumer who pays dearly for the use of a cheaply made building in energy, water, etc. I like this idea you have to be more future minded when building, but think the idea needs some details: how does this work? How are reusable materials defined and utilized?
    Have a great weekend!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dr. Armstrong

      Obviously, if we reuse structures that are already built instead of building new ones, we would not have to use resources to produce materials for this new structures. However, if structures were to be torn down, a company could be formed to house all of the building components that could be reused in other structures. Obviously, building components are probably really hard to keep in one form, especially if they are for commercial building but we could use scraps of the building components like wood, glass, metal, steel etc. to upcycle and make new products out of this materials. There are other materials that could be upcycled within the interiors of the structure. For example the company could upcycle carpet, wood flooring, or any type of furniture with in the structure.

      Delete
  2. Olivia,
    Good explanation on the facts, but what is a specific idea that you have for this new type of construction and how will it be re used in the C2C lifecycle?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Larissa,

      Please read my responds to Dr. Armstrong on the C2C lifecycle.

      Delete
  3. I like this idea, Olivia! You clearly see where the issues are in your industry. Do you think construction companies will take more care into tearing down buildings than they do now? It's seems likes the most efficient way to demo a house is to just break it down to nothing, is this where the components would be broken down and used for new structures like you said in yore response to Dr. Armstrong?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lindsey,

      I honestly think with the movement towards a sustainable environment new structures will be focused to be built completely eco friendly which will later help out our environment. And yes that is exactly how I see it for the C2C cycle.

      Delete
  4. Olivia,

    Very interesting idea and I understood it more once I read your explanation to Dr. Armstrong. Do you think companies will be willing to use recycled materials in their buildings?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kelsey,

      I do think more companies will be willing to use recycled materials because of the movement towards sustainability. Also because most of the materials that are already being made from recycled materials are as durable or better than the original component.

      Delete