Opportunities and obstacles of implementing transformable architecture

Chapter 10 - Design for Life Cycle and Reuse

Opportunities and obstacles of implementing transformable architecture M. Vandenbroucke, N. De Temmerman & A. Paduart Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Department of Architectural Engineering, Brussels, Belgium mieke.vandenbroucke@vub.ac.be, niels.de.temmerman@vub.ac.be & anne.paduart@vub.ac.be

W. Debacker VITO, TEM, Mol, Belgium wim.debacker@vito.be

ABSTRACT: Due to inadequate design many building materials are lost whenever a building no longer meets contemporary needs. Those adaptations are labour intensive because disassembly is difficult and not planned. However, by implementing the time dimension in design, a structure will be (re-)build transformable and can respond to changing requirements of society and individuals. The last few decades design strategies and approaches were developed to facilitate change and the reuse of building parts; nevertheless time-based architecture is still restricted to a small scale and specific functions. To identify the causes in the specific case of Belgium, a qualitative survey of the market leaders of the Belgian construction sector is made. Besides the bottlenecks of implementing transformable building in Belgium, the potential opportunities and the necessary steps that must be taken in order to build in a more transformable way are interrogated too.

1 INTRODUCTION Despite the fact the construction industry is responsible for 30% of the total waste production and 50% of the extracted raw materials (Eurostat 2008), Belgium remains building in the same (static) way. The main part of construction and demolition waste is in fact recycled, but the recycling process occurs often with a quality descent by mixing different materials (OVAM 2011). For instance concrete rubble is almost exclusive reused as foundation material for roads and only 5% of the concrete rubble is used again in high-qualitative concrete applications (Vrijders & Desmyter 2008). The need for new buildings materials and the production of waste will be minimized by implementing the time dimension in the design phase. Therefore, buildings can more easily anticipate functional, technical or social changes during their life cycle. Namely by using compatible components and reversible connections, building components can be added and removed to fulfil new requirements. The removed components can be reused later on in a new configuration. The last few decades architects, designers and researchers developed design strategies and approaches to facilitate change and the reuse of building parts; nevertheless transformable building is still restricted to a small scale and specific functions, such as temporary / transitional buildings. To identify the causes in the specific case of Belgium, a poll of the market leaders of the Belgian construction sector was made. The data was collected with the aid of a long and short online inquiry, face-to-face interviews, and a workshop. Besides the constraints and downsides of implementing adaptable constructing in Belgium, the potential opportunities and the necessary steps that must be taken in order to evolve to transformable buildings were questioned. The people surveyed had to answer in which concepts they think their target audience is interested and in which not. Finally, it was examined which time-

775

Portugal SB13 - Contribution of Sustainable Building to Meet EU 20-20-20 Targets

based principles are already implemented and it was interrogated if the contacted organizations are interested in some concepts. 2 THE STRUCTURE OF THE SURVEY The online survey consisted of clustered questions: general and open questions, questions concerning the implementation and demand on building level, on component level, and on material level and questions concerning dismantling and marketing. The interviewees could pass over a cluster of questions if they were not applicable for their organisation. This implicates that not all questions are answered by as many interviewees. The questions are based on literature wherein transformable concepts are defined, such as (Durmisevic 2006). Unlike the online survey which contained direct questions, the face-to-face interviews and the workshop were conceived as a discussion and as a brainstorm session about the theme. Insofar five interviews can provide a certain indication, it seems an organisation is more positive in an online inquiry about its own realisations of principles regarding to transformable building than it is in reality. During the interviews it seems the organisations implement less than was indicated in the poll. The survey yields 66 independent organisations; consequently this is a qualitative research and not representative for the whole construction industry. Nevertheless clear insights emerge. Thirty individuals attended the workshop and we took five face-to-interviews. A low response rate of a short version of the survey was remarkable: of the 240 sent surveys, just 4 completed surveys returned, while for a twice as long version of the online inquiry 30 of the 165 inquiries returned entirely. The difference: the short version was send to arbitrarily chosen organisations, offices, etc. of the constructing industry; whereas the long version was send to market leaders and innovative companies of the construction industry. The low response rate of the short online survey can be explained by a lower interest of the industry in general. The largest group of respondents is producer of building materials and components (24%). (Fig. 1) Additionally, architects, researchers, consulting firms, governmental institutes and information centres replied the survey in high numbers too; whereas only a minority of contractors and educational institutes were reached. Though, in reality contractors are the largest group of the construction industry. A low interest in transformable building of the contractors could be the cause. The respondents are mainly private organisations (74%).

Figure 1. Primarily producers answered the survey. (n=66)

776


3 OUTCOMES OF THE SURVEY 3.1 Opportunities

Figure 2. A reduction of the life cycle cost is the most often cited as a possible opportunity of dynamic building. (n=53)

A first question examined if the organisations polled agreed that there are opportunities linked to time-based (re-)constructing. It is remarkable that all people interviewed answered this question positively. They could specify this answer by mentioning what they think adaptable architecture can change exactly in a positive sense. Figure 2 points out the most quoted opportunities. Interesting to see is that many people consider a reduction of the initial and the life cycle cost as a potential of transformable architecture for example by using 2nd hand and standardised components. As well as more economic advantages, like transformable architecture as an engine of innovation and an expansion of the 2nd hand market, there are of course potentials in the area of ecology too: the closing of the cycles on material- and component level, the reduction of the environmental impact and the extension of the life span of buildings. Most of the economic opportunities are established in a recent study by TNO, the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research. (Bastein et al. 2013) In their study the opportunities of circular economy for neighboring country the Netherlands are supported by figures. On social level the anticipation of demographic tendencies was pointed out frequently as a potential. To conclude, some other interesting opportunities mentioned are an easier maintenance, the possibility to lifelong living, more intense use of space, and a higher value real estate. 3.2 Demand In a second part we asked the respondents if they think there is a demand from their audience for applying dynamic principles. A majority reacts on this question very positively (64%) and 21% thinks their target group is possibly interested if some obstacles are overcome. Only 3% indicates their audience isn’t interested and the other people surveyed don’t know. Consequently, a majority is positive about the request from their target audience to implement transformable principles. Those percentages are equal if the interest of the organisations’ audience in more specific concepts is asked. A survey made in the Netherlands confirms this assumption. In this study more than 70% of the examined residents declare the space plan of his dwelling does not meet his needs. For this reason 30% of the families living in these dwellings would like to move out; additionally 45% would like to stay if the dwellings could be adapted to their needs.

777


Figure 3. The people interviewed think their target group is interested in most of the concepts regarding to dynamic building.

Figure 4. Apart from a few exceptions, many dynamic concepts are already applied or the respondents are interested to apply them. The gradation goes from applied, planned, and interested to disinterested.

(Marsman & Smit 1999) Figure 3 points out some significant statistics of the answers of the interviewees on the questions with regard to the demand for time-based architecture from their target group. The questions could be answered with ‘there is a demand’, ‘there is no demand’, ‘I don’t know’ and ‘unknown’. A majority believes there is a large market to make transformations possible in order to change the function (89%) and the capacity (96%), above all by the use of polyvalent spaces (96%). Closing the cycle by composting and fermenting of materials after use scores the worst. For this principle just 29% indicates there is a request. Although, 41% answers this question that he doesn’t know the answer and 12% reports he’s unfamiliar with the concept. As a result it can be concluded that the people interviewed can little imagine relating to closing the biological cycle according to the Cradle to Cradle concept. Another less scoring principle is the overdimensioning of the structure (32%). For more technical principles, like limiting the number of connection between different components (34%), the people polled don’t know if their target group could be interested; while open building systems are a relatively unknown concept, since 16% don’t know the meaning.

778


3.3 Application The abovementioned was demanded a second time, but now to know if the organisations are interested to apply certain concepts regarding adaptable (re-)constructing. First, it was asked if the people polled would like to realize principles concerning dynamic (re-)building. A large majority answers this question positively (71%) and even 21% reveals they already apply certain principles. The others don’t know. The percentages concerning the application of transformable constructing are higher than first generally indicated when more specific concepts are examined (37% average). However, as pointed out before, the respondents seem in an online survey to be more positive about their own realisations of principles regarding to time-based architecture than they have in reality. During the interviews it appears the organisations implement less than was indicated in the inquiry. Figure 4 shows the most remarkable outcomes about the implementation and interest in concepts concerning adaptable (re-)building. The gradation goes from applied, to planned, interested and uninterested. As mentioned before, many organisations are already implementing concepts. For example, the furnishing (52%) and the space plan (47%) are at present often designed adaptable in order to make replacements (44%) more easily and in order to adapt the comfort level (59%), the function (47%) and the capacity (38%), by for instance the use of polyvalent spaces (55%). More technical concepts, like the physical disconnections of functions with a different life span, are less frequent applied (21%). Like expected, open building systems are solely little applied (13%), as well as for product service systems (from 11 to 26%). Composting or fermenting of building materials is minimal implemented and a minority is interested (16%). The interest to implement certain concepts that are not yet applied is often high but for the most part of them there are no concrete plans to realise them. This high interest in transformability by the construction industry is shown in the results of a similar survey by Paduart too, where she questioned architects and social housing associations. (Paduart 2012) The upcycling of materials, or in other words the separated collection of materials to reuse them high-qualitatively and the use of semi-open building systems are the most often planned to apply (both 17%). There is less interest to overdimension the structure and the services in order to make adaptations possible (30% and 27%). In addition, mass production is a less popular concept too, since 35% is uninterested. All concepts are known by a majority. More technical concepts are less known, like the reduction of the number of connections between different components (for 14% of the surveyed unknown). The concept open industrialisation is unknown for 9% of the people, although, because some people polled indicates they already apply this concept (17%), while in reality this is still nowhere applied, we can conclude that this concept is the less known. A same conclusion can be made for the upcycling of materials. A survey in Czech Republic confirms that several sustainable principles are still unknown for most producers. (Sramek et al. 2013) 3.4 Obstacles All people polled are convinced that the realisation of dynamic constructing cannot happen without obstacles. Mainly an increased initial cost is seen by a large group as the impediment to conquer. (Fig.5) However this is a misunderstanding, the second most important impediment according to the respondents is a limited number of possible configurations. The opportunities of open building systems are not yet known by the respondents; and the fear for uniform, standardized houses is present. For this reason the people surveyed are related themselves to one of the other crucial barriers: ‘unknown practice in the construction industry’. According to some of the respondents the concept is still unknown to people; additionally, people have little awareness of the importance of closing the material cycle. Other important obstacles are associated to a lack of knowledge: the concept is not yet constructional and physical developed and there is a lack of general knowledge in order to apply dynamic principles according to the interviewees. Figure 5. A higher initial cost is a potential bottleneck of dynamic building according to a majority.

779


(n=54)

3.5 Disadvantages In addition we interrogated the respondents about possible downsides of transformable architecture. Three-quarters of the interviewed believes there are shortcomings and only a minority (13%) thinks there are no disadvantages. The other people surveyed don’t know. Equally to the primary quoted impediments the increased initial cost is again the most cited. (Fig. 6) Moreover, in this category there are some misconceptions too, viz. less esthetical value and a restricted architectural freedom.

Figure 6. An increased initial cost is the most often cited as a disadvantage of dynamic building. (n=29)

780


Figure 7. For a large part of the interviewees, there are still many needs that have to be resolved before dynamic building can be applied.(n=44)

3.6 Needs To provide an answer to those bottlenecks and downsides as described above, the respondents propose in the first place a (re)education of the construction industry. Furthermore there is, according to them, an urgent need to make an inventory of the existing knowledge regarding to dynamic architecture. A decision tool must be created too in order to support architects during the complex design process. Some respondents report an important role for the government by the sensibilisation of the surplus value of reuse, and by stimulating concrete projects, e.g. with aid of subsidies and higher environmental taxation. At the present time, there should be anticipated to many more needs before transformable structures can be applied; the most important needs according to the people interviewed are revealed in Figure 7. 4 CONCLUSIONS Despite this survey is not representative for the whole Belgian construction industry, some insights appear. Several insights are confirmed by other international studies. As a result it can be assumed that most of the results are valid in a broader international context. This research underlines the demand from the market leaders of the constructing industry to implement timebased concepts. Additionally, all people interviewed think there are opportunities related to dynamic building. Many people consider a reduction of the initial and the life cycle cost as the main potential of transformable architecture. But at the same time, an increased initial cost is seen by a large group as the impediment to conquer. A majority would like to realize principles concerning dynamic building and many respondents think there is a demand from their audience for applying dynamic principles. Even 21% reveals they already apply certain principles. However, the low response rate of the short online survey can be explained by a lower interest of the industry generally. Only a minority of contractors could be reached, while contractors are in reality the largest group of the construction industry. Moreover, the organisations who did react still don’t know the meaning of certain transformable concepts. In addition, there are certain misconceptions. For instance, the fear for uniform, standardized houses is still present. All people polled are convinced that the realisation of dynamic constructing cannot happen without obstacles. According to a majority the concept is still unknown; and there is a lack of knowl-

781


edge to apply dynamic principles. At the present time, there should be anticipated to many needs before transformable structures can be applied. These insights can be used for further studies of the transition towards building dynamically. 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENT This research is funded by IWT, Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology in Flanders. REFERENCES Bastein, T., Roelofs E., Rietveld E., and Hoogendoorn A.. 2013. Kansen voor de circulaire economie in Nederland, Delft, the Netherlands: TNO. Durmisevic, E. 2006. Transformable Building Structures: Design for Disassembly as a Way to Introduce Sustainable Engineering to Building Design and Construction (Ph.D. Thesis), Delft: Technische Universiteit Delft. Eurostat. 2008. Eurostat. Waste Statistics - Long-term Trends. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/. Marsman & Smit. 1999. Feiten En Achtergronden Huurbeleid Verhuurders. Amsterdam: RIGO. OVAM. 2011. OVAM. Bouw- En Sloopafval: De Helft van Ons Afval. http://www.ovam.be. Paduart, A. 2012. Re-design for Change: a 4 Dimensional Renovation Approach Towards a Dynamic and Sustainable Building Stock (PhD Thesis), Brussel: Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Sramek, O., Lupisek A., Hodkova J. & Koci V. 2013. How Business and Academia Can Work Together to Promote Sustainable Materials: A Case Study Fro Czech Republic, Prague: Grada Publishing for Faculty of Civil Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague. Vrijders, J. & Desmyter J. 2008. Een Hoogwaardig Gebruik van Puingranulaten Stimuleren, Mechelen: OVAM.

782