6. Architects Amidst the Transition to a Circular Economy
Ninni Westerholm
Ninni Westerholm is an architect and researcher, whose research at the University of Tampere focuses on circular economy and multi-story wooden construction. She also works with building design at HELST Architects where she is currently developing life cycle assessment tools.
Biodiversity loss, global warming, increasing extreme weather conditions, and the pollution of our environment are hardly new concepts to us anymore. They are all in some way connected to overconsumption. Modern humans are accustomed to throwaway culture, and the linear economy based on producing, using, and discarding products is also heavily present in the building industry. We build, often consciously, things that are not sustainable or that are difficult to maintain, repair, and adapt when needs and requirements change. In nature, nothing is single-use. Natural processes utilize renewable energy and circulation - organisms get their life force from the sun and the waste of one creature a vital nutrient for another.
Our estrangement from natural processes has led to the greatest crisis humanity has faced. It is time to learn once again from nature and to redesign our economic models based on closed-loop systems which utilize renewable energy. If we accept the challenge in its severity and act fast, a solution for the unfolding environmental crisis can well be moving to a circular economy. But what is a circular economy and what does it mean for future architects?
In a circular economy, all human activity adheres to planetary boundaries. Materials are not removed from circulation, but rather utilized efficiently for as long as possible. Recycling of materials and products is optimized and emissions eliminated (or minimized). How materials circulate also affects their value. In the worst case, the value of the material deteriorates significantly (downcycling). In principle, all forms of recycling are still better alternatives than using waste for energy production or disposing of it in landfills, which leads to materials being removed from circulation.
Currently, we are recycling building materials in ways where the value reduction is significant, for example using aggregate (crushed concrete) in road construction. Our goal when moving towards a circular economy is reusing materials and products as they are, allowing them to retain their value for as long as possible. Additionally, we must find ways of recycling where the value is retained or even heightened in the next life cycle (upcycling).
Transition requires new ways of thinking
Circular economy thinking in modern construction is still in its infancy. The topic is prevalent in speeches but lacking in action. The whole construction industry requires a rapid, major transformation as the built environment is the cause of over a third of emissions in Finland. The Finnish building industry also uses approximately half of all the virgin materials and produces a third of all the waste. A big issue in Europe is that the building stock is relatively old and has not been designed with circularity or adaptability in mind, which often leads to premature demolition and inefficient reuse and recycling of the used building components.
Our attitudes towards building materials and the buildings they form must change. The maintenance and repair of buildings must gain priority. We must only build new buildings where there are no alternatives. The new buildings we find necessary must be designed with circularity and adaptability in mind and utilize primarily secondary materials that are already in circulation. This includes practicing urban mining by building from secondary materials within the city, and where these materials are not available, using renewable low-carbon virgin materials in ways that allow them to be repaired and reused easily and efficiently.
For a designer, this means favoring simple structures and easily openable joints. This may feel like a radical thought, but the principle has been practiced for centuries in log construction, which is a great example of a circular economy. Old log buildings are still in demand as they are easy to disassemble, transport, and reassemble in a similar form as the original structure or modified in varied ways to meet new needs. We must find similar processes for other building types. There are many ways to achieve this.
As the whole economic model changes, the materials available to designers also change. This means that architects must change their attitude towards materials. A sustainable material palette of the future is based on secondary materials and renewable natural materials. Buildings may well utilize materials whose original use has been something completely different. For example, a glass bottle or a car tire might become part of a wall, like in buildings designed by Michael Reynolds. The material palette, which has been quite static, will become more fluid as the availability and quality of secondary materials change constantly. This poses new challenges to design, as architects must learn to combine materials that are available at a certain time in ways that are of high technical and aesthetic quality. When used expertly, recycled materials can contribute to a more stimulating and livelier urban environment. Buildings comprised of parts older than themselves also add historical layers to the cityscape.
From experimental projects to the mainstream
An interesting example of a pioneer company in circularity is the Danish Lendager Group which boldly researches, tests, and realizes different circular design solutions and distributes knowledge gained through these projects in for example self-their published books. Their buildings utilize for example recycled windows, concrete- and brick elements, and recycled wood. They have not compromised on the quality of the architecture and the recognition given to the projects simultaneously honors the recycled building materials.
To mainstream circular construction it must be supported, promoted, and made easier. Currently finding secondary materials is difficult and time-consuming even if designers and customers are willing to realize a project out of reused and recycled materials. Designers need platforms that help them see where, when, and which materials are available. Sites like materiaalitori.fi (“materialsmarket” for selling and buying materials and side streams) must become widely accessible to ease the transition. Designers must also be able to see what kind of materials will be required and available for renovation. For this reason, the building industry must begin to produce, maintain, and utilize “building passports”, frequently updated digital databases which collect relevant material data from the whole lifespan of a building. The passport would make maintenance and planning of renovation, adaptation, deconstruction, and recycling easier.
Procurement models must be changed so that a circular economy will be realized in practice. There are varied examples of this, including the particularly fascinating Brummen city hall extension in the Netherlands. It was constructed with the knowledge that the need for the building would most likely be temporary which led to a leasing contract. The agreements also included clauses that material suppliers must repurchase building materials for a set price when the building is dismantled. This means that for economic reasons the building was already from the outset designed for disassembly and value retention. This hopefully ensures value retention if the building reaches the end of its use. In this case, as in many others, the economic incentive is key.
Incentives alone are not enough but must be paired with laws, regulations, sanctions, and penalties. Changes to these are coming soon also in Finland. The land use and building act is being renewed (1) and one of the goals for the new legislation is preventing high emission projects. Different building typologies will have emission budgets. Life cycle assessment will become mandatory. As a result, architects have an excellent opportunity to widen their territory by integrating life cycle assessment (LCA) into their design process. In the best case, simple LCA tools for designers will become available soon, and this will help reduce the emissions from construction. Most of the decisions that impact emissions are made in the early stages of a project. For this reason, life cycle assessment should preferably be done by the architects responsible for the design instead of outsourcing the assessment to consultants who would produce the necessary documentation only for acquiring a building permit. This could also strengthen the position of the architect and increase their understanding of the environmental impacts of construction. Standards also need renewal, as the current building codes significantly complicate the usage of secondary materials.
We architects and other experts in the construction sector must boldly and ambitiously take on climate action, fearlessly adopt new tools and try new ways of working. We will not find the best solutions immediately, but we can and should share our knowledge and our experiences in order to mainstream best practices and learn from previous mistakes. While searching for solutions to our societies’ problems, of which the current construction is one of the greatest, we must maintain good communication with our fellow members of society. The issues in the building industry cannot be solved by one profession - we can only tackle them by working together.
1 https://mrluudistus.fi/
