For a long time, the construction industry has followed a linear process - extract raw materials, build structures, demolish them, and then dispose of the garbage in landfills. This approach has serious negative effects on the environment and society and is inherently unsustainable. Reconsidering traditional methods and workflows requires support from all stakeholders and a sense of urgency proclaimed by authorities. In the United States, city organizations have begun to implement new policies to keep construction waste out of landfills and support circular practices. Several cities like Seattle and Pittsburgh, have started implementing deconstruction ordinances that require older buildings to be carefully deconstructed rather than demolished. How might their key provisions influence circular practices in the country?
The built environment is responsible for approximately 42% of annual global CO2 emissions. During a building's lifespan, half of these emissions come from its construction and demolition. To decarbonize architecture and control global emissions, it is important to rethink and reduce the upfront or embodied carbon impacts of demolitions, as well as implement sustainable construction strategies for buildings. Demolitions typically involve dismantling, razing, destroying, or wrecking buildings and structural parts, leading to unsustainable levels of carbon emissions, material depletion, waste, and pollution. These hasty methods of ending the life cycle of a building have negative impacts on the environment, material components, and recycling strategies. Therefore, there is a clear need to re-think the way in which we approach the end of a building or infrastructure project's life towards a more sustainable system of deconstruction.
Casa Collage / S+PS Architects. Image Cortesia de S+PS Architects
Reform and adaptation of spaces represent a significant parcel of projects ordered to architecture firms, and reuse of preexisting structures is not newness. Functions and needs change over time, therefore adaptations are required to meet new demands. However, no matter how much the maintenance of a building is, in most cases, preferred in economic and ecological sense to its demolition and a new construction from the beginning, the logic of the reuse of a space does not usually extend to its parts that become, thus, rubble.
The concept of Design for Disassembly (DfD for short) gained increasing traction in recent years, as it addresses the growing concern around the high consumption of resources and low recycling rate within the construction industry. The following article details on the method and features guidelines for a design process that facilitates the dismantlement of future buildings, with the scope of providing a better understanding of this principle within the broader framework of the current practice and circular economy.
As an idea that was developed fairly early on in the movement for sustainability, and picked up significant traction a few years into the new millennium, "Design for Deconstruction" has been around for some years. Yet still, considered on the scale of building lifespans, the idea is still in its infancy, with few opportunities to test its principles. In this post originally published on Autodesk's Redshift publication as "Recycled Buildings or Bridges? Designing for Deconstruction Beyond Adaptive Reuse," Timothy A Schuler looks at the advances that have been made, and the challenges that still face, the design for deconstruction movement.
This summer, the Oakland Museum of California announced a new public arts grant program. Except instead of money, selected artists would receive steel. Tons of it.
The Bay Bridge Steel Program emerged out of a desire to salvage and repurpose the metal that once made up the eastern span of San Francisco’s Bay Bridge, originally constructed in 1933 (it was replaced in 2013). The steel in question, sourced from “spans referred to as ‘504s’ and ‘288s’ (in reference to their length in feet),” according to the application material, would be available for civic and public art projects within the state of California.
The program represents a unique opportunity to adaptively reuse infrastructure, upcycling what might have been waste. And yet any instance of adaptive reuse is inherently reactive because the design process is dictated by an existing condition.
.jpg?1452893796&format=webp&width=640&height=429)
.jpg?1452893796)