THE CLOUD
Resources (material, technological, human, energy…) and the availability thereof historically have always been both the limiting and the enabling factors that determined architectural expression and logic. These resources have consistently challenged architects to innovate. Recently, however, we have reached the point of a supposed resource abundance, while simultaneously realising how harmful this abundance can be. The unsustainability of the building industry and its ecological damage are being gradually discovered and exposed, but the required change in the practice does not seem to follow at the necessary pace. This time, it is the resource abundance that’s challenging the architects.
AIM BIG
We must aim for a systemic change in the industry, primarily focussing on shortening the distribution chains (using local resources), minimising the use of nonreusable and non-recyclable composites, and developing construction methods that allow easy dismantling and reclaiming of materials for reuse. The ultimate objective is to reduce carbon release in the atmosphere during production and shipping, and at the end of the building’s life cycle. It is equally important to aim for change on a large scale in order to have an effect on the environment. Hence, this proposal considers alternatives on an industrial level.
GOOD INDUSTRY = POINT OF LEVERAGE
Aiming for large-scale change, we must look for points in the system that are the most efficient in catalysing change. We need to identify what materials and technologies we prefer in terms of resource availability, sustainability and effectiveness; which ones have the lowest carbon footprint during the whole life cycle? Currently one of the most common building materials - concrete - not only has a very high carbon footprint, but its afterlife is practically limited to downcycling it by crashing into rubble to be used in road construction. Timber, on the other hand, is a material that comes from a renewable source, if sustainably sourced, has a very low carbon footprint and, if properly maintained, offers a range of reuse options.
GOOD INDUSTRY = GOOD WASTE
Even the ‘greenest’ industries have inevitable leftovers and by-products, but it is much better to focus on how to make productive use of a good industry’s leftovers than attempting to greenwash an inherently unsustainable industry by recycling its waste. We have identified the CLT industry as one that offers considerable environmental benefits for large-scale construction in this region. But if we promote timber as a preferable building material, we must also take into account the increase of leftovers from the CLT industry. Thus, the project offers a new aesthetic point of view, inviting us to consider specific typical leftover elements as new construction materials.
AESTHETICS OF WASTE
The proposal considers different kinds of waste and leftovers from the CLT industry. The most valuable pieces are those that remain after cutting out window and door openings in the wall plates. These materials come directly from the factory - they are perfectly structurally sound, and have the necessary certification but due to their predefined sizes are considered leftovers and mostly turned into wood chips which are then input to chipboards. In other cases, energy recovery is a typical end-of-life scenario for timber products. The size, however, is not always small: typical door cut-outs are ~1,8x1 m, whereas window openings can vary considerably, often being also much larger. Another by-product of the CLT industry are the edge trims: timber battens of ~3 m in length and 5x10 cm in section. These are currently used in the packaging and transportation of CLT pieces from the factory to the construction site as distancers between the plates. The battens are joined together in the supporting grid structure of the roof that carries the waterproofing layer. Sawdust, an inevitable by-product, already has a range of various applications, but this project proposes to use it as part of the roof covering structure that adds weight to the structure and creates a slightly sloping surface for rainwater runoff. Ultimately, the plastic wrapping that has been used in the transportation of the CLT structures is repurposed to make plastic bags to be filled with sawdust and used for the roofing. Hence the project invites to look differently at the byproducts of the CLT industry while encouraging to expand the use of timber in architecture.
REUSE ≠ RECYCLING
Demolition should not be considered a significant source of building materials, as this paradigm allows for easily justifying the disposal of existing buildings, similar to how donating or recycling old clothes is sometimes mistakenly seen as a solution for the unsustainable fast fashion industry. We must aim at using the existing built structures as long as possible, and only when demolition becomes inevitable can we do our best to salvage and reuse some of the material. When doing this, we must avoid putting excessive amounts of energy into postproduction and recycling (downcycling) but instead use the materials that are still valuable in their actual condition. For instance, this proposal takes advantage of the fact that lots of Estonian school and kindergarten buildings from the Soviet period are planned to be demolished and replaced with new, more contemporary, and sustainable facilities. These demolished buildings can be seen as mines of prefabricated concrete beams and blocks still in perfect condition for being used as foundation structures of new constructions.
GOOD DEMOLITION = DISASSEMBLY
When designing new structures we must aim at construction methods that allow easy disassembly in order to enable a productive afterlife of the future buildings. Most importantly—composites must be avoided, as they can not be disassembled, and various ingredients can not be taken apart and reused. Also the connection joints and constructional logic need to be appropriate, and preferably some cataloguing of elements should be done when building.