There is little disagreement about the need to reduce the embodied carbon of our materials; however, there is widespread disagreement about the type of action that should be taken. Should the focus be on dematerialization or rematerialization? Should we focus on the durability of materials, or embrace the laws of nature and time to decompose?
In terms of the main debate, dematerialization vs. rematerialization, I argue for the latter. Those who argue for dematerialization hope to see a drastic reduction in the amount of physical substance in the built environment. As Buckminster Fuller puts it, "doing more and more with less and less until eventually you can do everything with nothing." This argument loses hold, however, due to two main issues. The first is the focus on low-energy buildings such as Passivhaus, leading to an increase in material use to improve the thermal performance of buildings. The second is the quickly increasing demand for materials to meet the ever-increasing needs. This includes rethinking the building-material cycle, from extraction to processing, design, transport, installation, maintenance, and removal. The arguments against this belief are that radical change may require top-down mandates that override local concerns and require extensive research and trials — thus taking too much time to implement.
In terms of the durability discussion, I argue for materials to embrace the circular laws of nature. Material permanence disregards the evolution of needs and desires over time while also creating economic stagnation, negatively impacting society. Designing for circularity encompasses two aspects: biodegradability and design for deconstruction. Design for deconstruction implies designing a material with the intent that it can be easily and properly deconstructed without losing any of its value once its initial use has come to an end.
Having these debates is an important aspect of moving forward, and opinions are subject to change from situation to situation. For example, the following twenty-two propositions were debated during a series of roundtable discussions organized by the LafargeHolcim Foundation for Sustainable Construction. They range from pragmatic to utopian and acknowledge that each proposition has a place and time. These debates were summarized by Sarah Nichols in The Materials Book.
"How much does your building weigh, Mr. Foster?"
Know your materials.
Do not forget CO2.
Produce leaner.
Supply better.
What is the labor cost?
Is the price right?
Build local material industries.
Mine the city.
Maintain or renew, reuse or recycle?
Designing for nontoxicity: "Could I eat your furniture, IKEA?"
Simplify material labels.
Cross loops.
Create building-component exchanges.
Imagine a world without waste.
Match use span.
Design for disassembly.
Never demolish, always transform.
Rightsize.
Embed know-how.
Make it desirable.
If less is more, maybe nothing is everything.
Some of these propositions hold more weight than others, and I have highlighted the ones that resonate the most with Seacork Studio. I would also like to add my own to the list: Do not forget Biodiversity. Often times when we think about the environmental impacts of human activities, we tend to focus on carbon emissions. However, biodiversity rates are a major signaler for the health of our planet. It's very simple: the more biodiverse an ecosystem is, the healthier it is.
Comments