A Study in Durability and Adaptability
by Stephanie Aurora Lewis, RA, LEED
In an exclusive interview with Green Building Insider, sustainability research expert Walter R. Stahel, who coined the phrase “cradle to cradle,” recently offered a fresh look at what it means to build according to the principles applied to the cradle-to-cradle manufacturing ideals. The term has gained mainstream popularity in recent years thanks to William McDonough and Michael Braungart’s book Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things and their cradle-to-cradle (C2C) certification program.
Walter R. Stahel
“In the 1970s, it became obvious there was a problem with waste, energy and unemployment. Through a research project for the European Commission, I engaged in a concept referred to as cradle to cradle that was a strategy to increase labor with less waste and less energy,” said Stahel, who is a Swiss architect and vice secretary-general and head of risk management research with The Geneva Association.
“Americans responded to my research with the claim that ‘cradle to grave’ was the better of the two concepts. It was my goal to do away with the grave, and that economy reactors, such as manufacturers, need to be involved at the beginning. A company has to reuse [its] own goods,” he continued.
The Big Picture
Cradle to grave and cradle to cradle both refer to manufacturing processes. And in both cases, the initial cradle corresponds to a material that goes from the manufacturer to its end use. The difference obviously lies within the plan for the product’s end-of-life destiny. If the cradle-to-grave approach is engaged, the product or material is either incinerated or thrown to the landfill. Conversely, if the cradle-to-cradle ideology is the goal, the product will be recycled or reused in some way to avoid waste elimination.
What’s so bad about waste elimination? In the simplest terms, incineration contributes to air pollution, and an overabundant landfill eventually leads to land pollution. Switzerland has no room left for landfills, Stahel said, so the Swiss government has placed a moratorium on landfill usage for combustible materials — all combustible materials must be incinerated.
Stahel also believes that if a company can recycle its products rather than discard them, it will increase its labor force. In other words, the volume of labor will increase when reusing and recycling waste simply because it is an additional in the manufacturing process that requires more manpower. The result is higher profitability.
"The cost of waste elimination is a financial burden that if shouldered by the producer (rather than by the consumer) will lead to waste prevention strategies, such as product-life optimization, by re-using and remanufacturing goods and components. [It will also] lead to a regionalization of the economy, increased labor (more hours of skilled manpower), reduced resource consumption (equal resource costs) and increased profitability," said Stahel.
One example is the idea of an entity that has a 100- or 150-year contract to build and manage a bridge. If the organization builds the bridge, it also accepts the maintenance responsibilities for the next 100 years. With a long-term stewardship, it is in the company’s best interest to employ durable and intelligent building practices. As payment for the lengthy contract, the company would keep the toll profits. With wise up-front planning, it can reap a high profit margin. Ultimately, Stahel finds that durability and longevity of responsibility help avoid waste elimination.
Durability
Stahel’s recommendation for building durably is a rare concept for American buildings, which are typically designed to last 40 years. His idea of durability is more European, where 100 years isn’t considered very old. After all, people live in abodes that date back to the Middle Ages.
Durable building practices require additional structural fortifications to guard against hurricanes, earthquakes and floods. “We have the building technologies now that can secure a home from such natural disasters, but often these measures add more money to the project,” Stahel said.
Stahel recommends using concrete, plaster and brick as opposed to timber and drywall construction. “If buildings were built more solid, they would be better protected and the potential for risk would be reduced,” he said.
The approximately 700 schools that collapsed in the recent earthquake in China may have been spared if earthquake-proof building technologies had been used during construction, he noted. Admittedly, building costs increase with earthquake prevention measures, but architects and engineers know how to prevent (or at least minimize) earthquake damage.
“Building durable is cheaper in the long run,” said Stahel.
The antithesis of Stahel’s economic plan lies in the retail building sector; those structures are often demolished and rebuilt every 40 years.
Adaptability
The ability to retrofit a building to a new user’s needs and changes in technology is a positive sustainable response. “Because technology and user needs change drastically, it is important that you can turn the building into another functional use,” said Stahel. Building adaptability can be achieved by designing interior spaces with open expanses and demountable partitions to accommodate changes in room sizes and functions. Furthermore, flexibility relies on the former precept of durability. For example, exterior plaster and concrete masonry construction outlive wood studs and exterior-grade drywall; ceramic tiles trump sheet vinyl; and hardwood floors have a much longer life than carpeting.
World’s Largest Basket Building, TM. Longaberger. 05 June 2008.
Another consideration when building sustainable structures is to design with timeless styles and traditions in mind, not iconic images of the company’s identity. For example, the Longerberger basket building, though beautiful, is an enlarged representation of a basket. It is unlikely that another company will later be able to use the facility. A major renovation may be possible, but probably cost prohibitive.
Power Station
It is a great feat for a building to generate its own electricity, but Stahel’s cradle-to-cradle ideal encourages a building to generate more energy than it needs, turning it into a mini power station. Many new buildings in Europe are achieving this status of pushing electricity back into the grid for community use. The two-fold goal is that by producing extra energy, the building is then a net zero energy facility.
The most common way for a building to produce its own electricity is through photovoltaic cells or wind turbines. Yet, thermal massing, natural daylighting, and other passive solar techniques help reduce the initial amount of energy the building needs.
Changing the Mindset
Stahel’s educational and professional background in architecture and economics has significantly contributed to his cradle-to-cradle methodology for sustainable building. Unlike other theororists who focus on the green components that make up a structure, he recommends a mind change about the overall building system, arguing that it is a more effective way to achieve a strong sustainable status. Simply, Stahel recommends that the building industry focus on durability, adaptability and mini power stations.
References:
|
Map
eMail