Inventive Matter: Architecture for a Third Resource Regime

Embodied Energy and Design Making Architecture Between Metrics and Narratives Edited by David Benjamin Columbia University GSAPP Lars Müller Publishers Claire Antelman, Jordan Barlow, and Briana Turgeon-Schramm, Artificial Thicket, proposed for KVA Matx’s RiverFirst project in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Inventive Matter: Architecture for a Third Resource Regime Blaine Brownell Throughout history, the built environment has been shaped by available resources. In the first material epoch, civilizations relied on prime movers, biomass, and primitive renewable energies; in the second, they unleashed the more potent capabilities of fossil fuels. Now we are witnessing the emergence of a third period, marked by the simultaneous expansion, variation, and optimization of resources. This new regime is motivated by a deeper awareness of the limitations of certain resources, the inefficiencies of current production and distribution systems, and the negative impact of human activity. It recombines first- and second-period approaches within a cyclical — as opposed to linear — paradigm of zero-waste material flows, exhibiting an unprecedented diversification of energy and material resources. This third resource regime represents a profound change in the design of the built environment. Once conceived as wholly new products composed of widely available virgin resources, buildings are increasingly seen as processes — or a temporary suspension of material flows — that make optimal use of available resources. No longer imagined as discrete islands, buildings are increasingly designed as spatial, temporal, and cultural bridges that connect with their larger contexts, as well as their past and (anticipated) future uses. To use an ecological analogy, architecture is embodied not only in mature, stable systems but also in scavengers, pioneers, and emergent systems. Recognition of the need to increase the proportion of retrofits, repurposed materials, and soft energy sources creates new opportunities for both technological innovation and design expression in architecture. Broadening the Spectrum Human societies are shaped by the energy and material resources they employ, and economic success is directly related to the quantity and types of these resources.1 During the first, and by far the longest, period of resource utilization, humanity derived energy from a combination of biomass (fire), renewable sources (wind, water), and physical labor. According to scientist Vaclav Smil, “for millennia our abilities to extract, process, and transport biomaterials and minerals were limited by the capacities of animate prime movers (human and animal muscles) aided by simple mechanical devices and by only slowly improving capabilities of the three ancient mechanical prime movers: sails, water wheels, and wind mills.”2 Building during the first regime was a painstaking and time-consuming enterprise, involving a significant quantity of human and animal labor. The second period emerged with the Industrial Revolution, when humans learned to harness the chemical energy of fossil fuels and unleash significantly larger quantities of kinetic energy in machines. The ensuing technological, economic, and cultural transformation is well known. However, it is not only the quantitative change in energy use that mattered during this transition but also 95 1 Efficiency is also a critical factor: “From a fundamental biophysical (thermodynamic) perspective, the fortunes of nations are not determined primarily by strategic designs or economic performance but by the magnitude and efficiency of their energy conversions.” Vaclav Smil, Global Catastrophes and Trends: The Next Fifty Years (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008), Kindle locations 900–901. 2 Vaclav Smil, Making the Modern World: Materials and Dematerialization (New York: Wiley, 2013), Kindle location 158. Inventive Matter: Architecture for a Third Resource Regime the qualitative change — particularly regarding resource type. During the first period, the predominant energy source was wood (and, by extension, biomass); in contrast, industrialization prompted a radical shift toward fossil fuels, and within a very compressed period. According to the US Energy Information Administration, in 1850 wood was the dominant energy source in the country, yet by 1900 it accounted for less than 20 percent of the nation’s energy, which by then consisted mainly of coal.3 The twentieth century is characterized by the predominance of fossil fuels, with petroleum and natural gas gradually taking nearly equal shares of the energy mix.4 Fig. 1 Share of energy consumption in the United States, 1776–2014. Fig. 2 Power generation capacity under different scenarios, 2012–2030. Concerns about limited supplies of oil, and the negative environmental effects of fossil fuels in general, have motivated the incremental reintroduction of renewable energy sources — and the beginnings of a third resource regime. Solar and wind generation began to make a measurable impact in the late 1980s, and in 2014 “the renewable share of energy consumption in the United States was the highest (nearly 10%) since the 1930s, when wood represented a larger share of consumption.”5 The global energy mix also reflects the declining — albeit still dominant — use of fossil fuels.6 Looking ahead, energy experts do not anticipate a complete reversal of the transition from renewable to nonrenewable resources; rather, they predict a diversification of energy sources that would result in a substantial share of so-called green power sources. For example, reports published by Bloomberg New Energy Finance forecast an increasingly multicolored spectrum of geothermal, waste, biomass, solar thermoelectric generation (STEG), solar photovoltaics (SPV), wind, hydroelectric, and other sources.7 Materials have traced a similar trajectory. First-period construction from biomass and earth was quickly superseded in the nineteenth century by secondperiod, energy-intensive alternatives such as steel, concrete, and plastic. Like energy, the predominance of industrial materials by the late twentieth century reflected a near-total shift toward nonrenewable options within the overall material mix.8 Today, industry analysts point to a rebalancing of the material spectrum, with an increase in renewables that is analogous to the recent shift in energy composition. “For the first time in 60 years, the carbohydrate economy is back on the public-policy agenda,” writes David Morris, director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. “It is an exciting historical opportunity, but one we should approach with deliberation and foresight.”9 In architecture, this change is evident in a renewed focus on wood structures and the increased use of novel, bio-based products. Advances in timber construction technologies, coupled with wood’s superior environmental performance compared to concrete and steel, have inspired a resurgence in their use for both low- and mid-rise structures. According to a 2014 industry report, “Wood building materials — specifically Plywood, Particleboard and Medium Density Fiberboard — are expected to show considerable price gains during the next three years.”10 Cross-laminated timber, structural composite lumber, nail-laminated timber, and other solid wood construction systems are becoming increasingly common in commercial as well as residential buildings — most notably in taller structures like Waugh Thistleton’s 9-story Murray Grove in London, Lund & Partnere’s 14-story Treet project in Bergen, and Shigeru Ban’s proposed hybrid timber building for Vancouver. Wood is not the only biomaterial for tall buildings: Beijing-based Penda has developed a high-rise construction system, called Rising Canes, made of interlocking bamboo rods 96 3 “Fossil Fuels Have Made Up at Least 80% of US Fuel Mix since 1900” (US Energy Information Administration, July 2, 2015), http: / / www.eia.gov / todayinenergy / detail. cfm?id=21912. 4 “Fossil Fuels Have Made Up at Least 80% of US Fuel Mix since 1900.” 5 “Fossil Fuels Have Made Up at Least 80% of US Fuel Mix since 1900.” 6 “Total Primary Energy Supply,” in Key World Energy Statistics 2015 (International Energy Agency, 2015), 6. 7 “The Future of China’s Power Sector,” Bloomberg New Energy Finance, August 27, 2013, 2. 8 Michael Ashby estimates the peak of nonrenewable material consumption at 96 percent. See Michael F. Ashby, Materials and the Environment: Eco-Informed Material Choice, 2nd. ed. (Oxford: Elsevier, 2013), Kindle location 480. 9 David Morris, “The Once and Future Carbohydrate Economy,” American Prospect, March 20, 2006, http: // prospect.org / article / once-and-future-carbohydrateeconomy. 10 Hayden Shipp, “Product and Service Segments with High Price Growth,” IBISWorld, February 2014, 1, http://media. ibisworld.com / wp-content / uploads / 2014 / 02 / Productsand-Services-with-High-Price-Growth.pdf. 1 Phase I Phase II wood renewables hydroelectric nuclear natural gas wood petroleum coal 1776 1850 1900 1950 2014 2 350 marine solar thermal pv gigawatts 300 small-scale pv 250 solar pv offshore wind 200 150 wind 100 energy from waste biomass hydroelectric nuclear petroleum 50 natural gas coal 0 2012 97 2015 2020 2025 2030 Inventive Matter: Architecture for a Third Resource Regime and rope connectors. Earthen architecture is also experiencing a revival, with projects like Herzog & de Meuron’s rammed earth Kräuterzentrum for Ricola, or methods such as Earthbag construction. These examples reveal a promising future for low-embodied energy architectural technologies that will likely occupy an increasingly significant portion of the construction market. Expanding the Resource Base In The Third Industrial Revolution, economist Jeremy Rifkin argues for a shift from centralized to distributed energy networks. Claiming that current energy infrastructure is based on an obsolete framework, resembling first-generation centralized communications technologies like radio and television, Rifkin claims that the new model “is distributed in nature and ideally suited to manage distributed forms of energy — that is, renewable energy — and the lateral kinds of business activity that accompany such an energy regime.”11 According to Green Tech Media Research, the US market is heading in this direction, with a projected photovoltaic capacity of over 20,000 MWdc in 2021 (a 20-fold increase from 1,000 MWdc in 2010).12 Renewable energy technology is well suited to a distributed network, given that solar, wind, and other renewable sources are physically accessible from most building sites — unlike the fossil fuels on which the centralized energy regime is based. As global electricity demand continues to increase — along with concerns about power grid vulnerabilities — distributed networks of renewable power have become a more desirable format. According to a recent US Energy Information Administration study, renewables are now “the fastest growing source of electricity generation.”13 In addition to superior environmental performance, distributed energy harvesting has the potential to fulfill two significant objectives for buildings: control and resilience. From a control standpoint, the ability to manage a building’s energy intake appeals to many users, despite the added effort, particularly if it costs less in the long term. From a resilience perspective, distributed energy supports resource diversification. Just as a balanced investment portfolio results in lower volatility, buildings with a diversified energy portfolio are better equipped to respond to short-term peaks and brownouts from centralized sources — as well as cloudy or windless days. Today, energy diversification represents one of the most potent territories for architectural innovation, especially as the incorporation of distributed energy systems into buildings invites creative approaches to technology integration and expression. This opportunity remains largely untapped, as is clear from the large quantity of structures that have solar panels or wind turbines installed without much design consideration. However, several notable examples take a more sophisticated approach. One is Inaba Electric Works’ Eco-Curtain, a multicolored facade composed of vertically oriented wind turbines in Nagoya, Japan. Throughout the day, these aerodynamic fins harness energy to power interior lighting, resulting in a continually transforming building envelope. Another example, Arup’s SolarLeaf bio-adaptive facade, pioneers the integration of biophotovoltaics into a building itself. The facade employs microalgae within liquid-infused glazing to harvest sunlight, shading the interiors that experience the greatest solar exposure. A third example celebrates the interconnected totality of off-grid systems: Atelier FCJZ’s Dream Cube is clad in a porous, internally illuminated lattice made of recycled plastic tubes. The open matrix exhibits both onsite rainwater harvesting and solar-generated electricity, transforming typically hidden resource flows into the fundamental building experience. 98 11 Jeremy Rifkin, The Third Industrial Revolution: How Lateral Power Is Transforming Energy, the Economy, and the World (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), 20–21. 12 “US Solar Market Insight” (Green Tech Media Research, [2016]), http://www.greentechmedia.com / research / subscription / u.s.-solar-market-insight. 13 International Energy Outlook 2016 (US Energy Information Administration, May 11, 2016), https: / / www.eia.gov / forecasts / ieo / electricity.cfm. 3 Fig. 3 Inaba Electric Works, Eco-Curtain, Nagoya, Japan (2005). Fig. 4 Philips bio-light creates light using the same chemical reaction used by bioluminescent animals like fireflies and glow worms. 4 99 Inventive Matter: Architecture for a Third Resource Regime Building with local materials was commonplace in preindustrial societies. Yet today, particularly in industrialized nations, it is just as common to transport building materials a great distance. Renewed attention to nearby resources not only reduces transportation costs and their associated energy consumption but also enables the creative reinterpretation of local building practices. Hangzhou-based Amateur Architecture Studio, for example, has made ingenious use of the traditional wapan tiling method in many projects. This custom of building new facades from salvaged local bricks and tiles takes on a new life in the National Academy of Art in Hangzhou, the Ningbo Historical Museum, and other iconic structures. Support for the creative reuse of materials is growing in other regions as well. Eindhoven-based StoneCycling collects rubble from demolition sites, much of which is in poor condition, and transforms it into new building modules called WasteBasedBricks. In each case, the materials tell the story of their checkered pasts as a defining feature of the design. Fig. 5 In contrast to the cliché that a building looks its best the day it is first photographed, Giuliano Mauri’s Tree Cathedral follows trends more common in landscape architecture, where projects are designed with respect for how they will grow and change over time. Fig. 6 MSR, Mill City Museum, Minneapolis, Minnesota (2003). Beyond just sourcing materials locally, materials can be sourced from the building site itself. In 2016, Italian fabricator WASP (World’s Advanced Saving Project) constructed the first 3D-printed adobe building on a site in Ravenna. Using their Big Delta printer, a 12-meter-tall mobile scaffold designed for in situ fabrication, WASP printed a one-room structure from raw earth and straw. In another example, the Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia’s Stone Spray project involved 3D-printing sandstone structures using onsite sand and loam. Even more radically, Dutch designer Daan Roosegaarde’s Smog Free Tower collects smog within some of the world’s most polluted cities, and the physical particulate captured is then compressed into tiny black cubes. In this case, the output is not a physical building but rather an inhabitable 1,000 cubic meter volume of purified air — a welcome destination in smog-choked cities like Beijing or Allahabad. The cubes are then encapsulated in jewelry sold to raise funds for investments in more towers; however, an exponential increase in the scale of the Smog Tower effort could deliver brick-sized smog blocks for use as provocative building masonry. Optimizing Existing Resources In an eye-opening study entitled “Survey on Actual Service Lives for North American Buildings,” scientist Jennifer O’Connor found that most structures are demolished for reasons other than physical obsolescence.14 More durable materials make more durable buildings, and therefore architects assume they should be prioritized. While this correlation is logical, it fails to take into account the large percentage of premature demolition for buildings. O’Connor’s study, which evaluated residential and nonresidential structures of wood, masonry, steel, and concrete, determined that less than a third of buildings were demolished due to their physical condition.15 The primary causes for destruction were area redevelopment (35%) and functional obsolescence (“no longer suitable for needs,” at 22%) — suggesting that “no meaningful relationship exists between structural material and average service life, and that most buildings are demolished for reasons that have nothing to do with the physical state of the structural systems.”16 A similar US Department of Energy survey estimates the national average life-span of all nonresidential buildings is only 45 years.17 Architect Takaharu Tezuka notes a similar phenomenon in Japan, where most modern structures are razed not due to physical shortcomings but because of their unpopularity. “When we talk about architecture, we emphasize the word fondness, because it is critical to buildings’ longevity that they are beloved.”18 100 14 Jennifer O’Connor, “Survey on Actual Service Lives for North American Buildings” (presented at the Woodframe Housing Durability and Disaster Issues Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, October 2004). O’Connor’s study investigated 227 structures in Minneapolis–St. Paul that were demolished between 2002 and 2003. 15 O’Connor, “Survey on Actual Service Lives,” 8. 16 Other reasons included the expense of code-mandated upgrades, changing land values, fire damage, and socially undesirable uses. 17 “Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey” (US Department of Energy, 2003), www.eia.gov / emeu / cbecs / cbecs2003 / detailed_tables_2003 / detailed_tables_2003.html. 18 Takaharu Tezuka quoted in Blaine Brownell, Matter in the Floating World: Conversations with Leading Japanese Architects and Designers (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2011), 30. 5 6 101 Inventive Matter: Architecture for a Third Resource Regime The aspiration to design works of significant cultural value is a fundamental to architecture, although unfortunately few buildings inspire a collective defense against the wrecking ball. However, the inherent inefficiency of the raze-and-rebuild approach, which produces a significant quantity of material and energy waste, is motivating a shift toward adaptive reuse. According to engineer Michael Ashby, at the current growth rate, “we will use and — if we discard it — throw away as much stuff in the next 25 years as in the entire history of industrialization,” a staggering truth that is prompting better recycling practices.19 Meanwhile, a building’s structure and foundations remain the most energy-intensive and expensive elements to demolish, thus driving their reuse. In Reshaping Metropolitan America: Development Trends and Opportunities to 2030, urban planner Arthur Nelson claims that “more than half the volume of nonresidential space existing in 2010 may be replaced, renovated, or in other ways repurposed for more intensive and / or different functions between 2010 and 2030.”20 Some of these opportunities are entirely unexpected. One of the most dramatic recent examples is the Mill City Museum and office complex in Minneapolis.21 When the Washburn “A” Mill was devastated by fire in 1991, the architecture firm MSR worked with the Minnesota Historical Society to build an educational center within the historic landmark’s ruins. Completed in 2003, the thoughtful insertion of an elegant, ferro-vitreous container within the disintegrated masonry shell projects a visual potency that would have been unachievable in an entirely new building. In most cases, however, less calamitous events give rise to renovation opportunities. For many vertical structures, poor environmental and technical performance often encourages adaptations. For example, the first generation of postwar office towers now have outdated and underperforming curtain-wall systems. According to a study by architects Mic Patterson and Jeffrey Vaglio, early high-rise glazing was imperfect from the start: “problems with water penetration and air infiltration were common; thermal performance was often miserable resulting variously in condensation, unwanted heat transfer, and general discomfort to building occupants.”22 Since the mid-twentieth century, curtain-wall technology has made considerable advances in performance, design, and fabrication — prompting building owners to consider facade retrofits. For the Urban Renovation Lormont project in Bordeaux, LAN Architecture wrapped a collection of Brutalist concrete housing blocks in a shimmering skin of polycarbonate panels. The new cladding not only provided a facelift but also expanded the usable space in each unit. “The renewal of the facades, which is initially designed to thermally insulate the building, opens up an opportunity for a dualistic approach to the rehabilitation,” claims the architect.23 Urban Shroud, a theoretical proposal I developed with Arup in 2009, seeks to demonstrate the potential of new cladding not only to upgrade facades but also to redefine spatial and circulatory potential. In this case, a new solar-harvesting ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE) envelope expands and connects two existing commercial towers in downtown Houston. This scheme adds the area of an additional tower and creates new connections between formerly separate structures. The likely frequency of future building adaptations — coupled with a resurgence of bio-based products — points to intriguing possibilities for commensalism 24 102 19 Ashby, Materials and the Environment, 2,035–2,036. 20 Arthur C. Nelson, Reshaping Modern America: Development Trends and Opportunities to 2030 (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2013), 6. 21 “Mill City Museum,” MSR, http: //msrdesign.com / project / mill-city-museum. 22 Mic Patterson and Jeffrey C. Vaglio, “Facade Retrofits: The Dilemma of the Highly Glazed High-Rise Facade” (presented at the 2011 Building Enclosure Sustainability Symposium: Integrating Design & Building Practices, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, 2011), 4. 23 “LAN Architecture Recalls Bordeaux Tower Blocks with Translucent Windows That Slide Back and Forth,” Dezeen, July 17, 2015, http: / / www.dezeen.com / 2015 / 07 / 17 / lan-architecture-reclads-bordeaux-brutalist-tower-blockssliding-translucent-windows. 24 Commensalism is an ecological term for the relationship between two organisms where one benefits without having a positive or negative effect on the other. 25 The actual year ecological overshoot first occurred varies by source, but is presumed to have occurred in either the 1970s or 1980s. See http: / / wwf.panda.org / about_our_ earth / all_publications / living_planet_report_timeline / lpr_2012 / demands_on_our_planet. 26 “Earth Overshoot Day,” Global Footprint Network, http: / / www.footprintnetwork.org / en / index.php / GFN / page / earth_overshoot_day. 27 Morris, “Once and Future Carbohydrate Economy.” in architecture. In a University of Minnesota design workshop I co-taught with architects Sheila Kennedy and Frano Violich, for example, students devised wall systems made of reused driftwood and recycled industrial lumber. Proposed for KVA Matx’s RiverFirst project in Minneapolis, the envelopes were designed to support migratory species and decay naturally over time — inviting a new tradition of material renewal as a strategy for public engagement and environmental stewardship. Toward a Third Resource Regime Beginning in the last few decades of the twentieth century, humanity’s annual demand for resources has exceeded the earth’s supply.25 Broadly defined, ecological overshoot includes both renewable and nonrenewable resources — as well as inputs and outputs (e.g., supplying virgin materials and absorbing waste). In 2016, Earth Overshoot Day — the date in a given year that global demand outstrips supply — was August 8. In 2015 it was August 13, and in 2014 it was August 19; thus, we are losing the equivalent of five to six more days of resources each year.26 As the population continues to increase, a significant change in the ways resources are used is the only way to avoid eventual environmental collapse. Most scholarship on the subject fails to emphasize the mutually reinforcing challenges that compound the problems of overshoot. On the one hand, the economically available supply of nonrenewable resources is dwindling, making renewables more desirable. On the other hand, the proportional shift toward renewable materials exerts additional pressure on the earth’s available biocapacity. Any effort to reverse overshoot will therefore require austerity (i.e., use fewer resources), reuse (i.e., use repurposed materials and recaptured energy), or technological advancement (i.e., develop tools and methods that enable a higher utilization of resources). A third resource regime could utilize all three strategies, as none will be sufficient alone. There is growing support for all of these approaches in architecture today; however, we need more aspirational visions for how they are employed. The grand opportunity is to capitalize on these strategies to advance the field, and a third resource regime invites such advancement in the form of new and innovative means of architectural production and expression. As David Morris states, “We may be changing the very material foundation of industrial economies. Whether and how we affect that change can profoundly affect the future of our natural environment, our rural economies, agriculture, and world trade.”27 Such change will also influence the future of our built environment. 103 Embodied Energy and Design Making Architecture Between Metrics and Narratives Edited by David Benjamin Design: Integral Lars Müller / Lars Müller and Esther Butterworth Copyediting: Glenn Perkins Lithography: Ast & Fischer, Wabern, Switzerland Printing and binding: DZA Druckerei zu Altenburg, Germany Paper: Condat matt Périgord, 1.1, 135 gsm ISBN 978-3-03778-525-6 Printed in Germany © 2017 by the Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York and Lars Müller Publishers Essays and projects © the authors All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner without the written permission of the publisher, except in the context of reviews. Every reasonable attempt has been made to identify the owners of copyright. Errors or omissions will be corrected in subsequent editions. This book has been produced through the Office of the Dean, Amale Andraos, and the Office of Publications at Columbia University GSAPP. Director of Publications: James Graham Managing Editor: Jesse Connuck Associate Editor: Isabelle Kirkham-Lewitt Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Benjamin, David, editor. Title: Embodied energy and design: making architecture between metrics and narratives / edited by David Benjamin. Description: New York, NY: Columbia University GSAPP; Zürich, Switzerland Lars Müller Publishers, 2017. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2017029853 | ISBN 9783037785256 (paperback) Subjects: LCSH: Sustainable architecture. | BISAC: ARCHITECTURE / Sustainability & Green Design. | ARCHITECTURE / Methods & Materials. | ARCHITECTURE / Criticism. Classification: LCC NA2542.36 .E47 2017 | DDC 720/.47--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017029853 Columbia University Graduate School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation 1172 Amsterdam Ave 407 Avery Hall New York, NY 10027 Lars Müller Publishers Zurich, Switzerland www.lars-mueller-publishers.com On a similar topic: Climates: Architecture and the Planetary Imaginary The Avery Review, in collaboration with Columbia Books on Architecture and the City and Columbia University GSAPP Edited by James Graham with Caitlin Blanchfield, Alissa Anderson, Jordan Carver, and Jacob Moore 2016, ISBN 978-3-03778-494-5