|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1845
Location: San Francisco
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 8:53 pm Post subject: |
    |
|
I agree, in principle. But there are exceptions to every rule. If the intended purpose of the building is slated to change or even to disappear, then why shouldn't the building be recycled, especially if its form is suited only to its initial use. Similarly, if the land on which the building is placed is intended to be redeveloped at some future time, wouldn't it make sense to put only the amount of material and energy into the building for its projected life ?
Of course, planned obsolescence has a nasty ring to it. Burt there may be reasons to accept this concept, in some cases -- don't you suppose ?
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
i don't think it is 'throw away' it is just tailored to its realistic life span...
really if we look at the house example which i think what you are saying is true- how can you convince someone to pay for something they will not be the beneficiary of?
if i'm 60 years old with no kids and i'm building a home that i expect to die in- what are you going to tell me to convince me that i want to spend the extra money to put a solid 50 year roof on the thing? as far as i'm concerned a 30 and most likely a 20 year roof will be perfectly fine for the use i expect to get from the building...
i'm the only one paying for this house... the next guy who buys it at my estate sale isn't going to be helping with the roof payments when i build the place...
ultimately that is the wrong attitude but its extremely hard for people to think otherwise when for most people housing is seen as something similar to an automobile...
maybe people need a little more of the arrogance that results in homes that are known by names instead of a street address...a monument to their owners or designers... of course most don't have the cash or the attitude to get anything more than a ryan home that looks just like the one across the street |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1977
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ultimately that is what it always comes down to...what is the client willing to pay for? Not many Pharaohs hanging around looking to build another limestone Pyramid in the middle of a desert these days.  ..
but if you notice what the oil-rich middle eastern tycoons have been building, I tend to notice that getting more "bang for your buck" even translates into some of the larger projects: people would rather spend money in materials that last a lifetime, enough time for the owner to enjoy it, rather than "forever". Why build a 5 foot thick stone wall if you can achieve the same spatial quality with CMU and stone veneer?
Maintenance is of course one way to make anything last, but in reality it is the act of replacing materials and systems as they break down...ending up with a "bionic house", so to speak...u know, new improved bits and parts.
So a good designer does make the best of what they have to work with...which is often limited by costs. Good designers create systems to work with nature (ie, good drainage as birgco mentioned) rather than just plunking a hug stone wall and expecting it to outlast nature. We've developed our construction methods to be more efficient and they are somewhat recyclable (woods, metals,...uhhhh...not much though)...haha.
There have been buildings created that are meant to be disassembled and re-assembled elsewhere but it is intially more costly whereas a homeowner, for example, would rather spend that money on other additional elements (like a new car or HDTV) especially if they don't REALLY plan on moving with their house...
...it almost becomes gimmicky really. In all honesty, it's clear we all know the limitations of certain materials and we assemble them to the best of our knowledge as part of our design. A brick wants to be an arch, but what are the differences of clay, concrete or even lightweight concrete (flyash) bricks? And what of the mortar and perhaps details that wick water away...? I guess it's similar to our hman bodies...we do the best with what we have with the full understanding that it will not last forever and yet we still try to beat time as best we can....
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
birgco
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 302
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We need to rethink the concept of the limited lifespan building if only for environmental or energy conservation reasons. Is it really in our best interest as a society and planet to be constructing a building to be "recycled" in the not to distant future when the energy/fuel expended to produce most materials is not fully recoverable. Even as materials are recycled, they are still transported, remanufactured and fuel/energy is used to dismantle and reassemble.
The average and not so average homeowner is interested in a better quality home and it's up the professional to educate and inform them about value added materials and design. And..... of course there is always the exception to the rule..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1977
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree in principle but simply put, the problem is that people are not willing to invest in added costs (money) for someone else's benefit...even their own childrens, if they don't HAVE TO. I equate it to smoking cigarettes...smokers know its bad but wont quit until they have cancer.
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
its a totally reasonable proposition for certain commercial architecture ventures...
obviously hospitals, schools, universities, some corporations and governments have a very long view on how they expect to build and maintain their facilities... due to that these clients tend to be a little easier to sell on the idea that this building needs to be built to live a long life and also a flexible life- particularily for hospitals and universities
the reason for that of course is that these institutions expect to be around for a long time and expect to benefit from their physical plants for a long time as well
the same cannot be said for the single family home... if its meant to house a family then it really only needs to meet the expectations of that family institution which in our current society means it needs to support the second half of life for one generation and the first half of life for their offspring...after that period of time their is no use for the owners... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1977
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Out of curiosity...and fun...can anyone suggest some specifics? I mean, for example, take any building system (floor, walls, roof, mechanical, etc) and derive a manner and/or method to make it recyclable. Most buildings are demolished and only valuable materials are salvaged (some woods and metals), for re-use elsewhere often not even in buildings. But to truly make a building "re-usable" perhaps we are speaking of true lego-type constructability...in which case we have modulars, foams, pre-fab, pre-cast, etc, etc,,...but it has yet to truly be recycled, or at least in a mainstream manner....
Any ideas?
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1845
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
If a roof membrane were not adhered except at the perimeter, wouldn't it be potentially reusable -- on a smaller building ? Bricks are reusable; if a meltable (?) "mortar" were used on brick or block, there might not be even wasted "mortar" material. . .
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1977
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Most roofing membranes MUST be adhered, however, metal standing seam roofs come to mind and they are re-usable, for sure. But they have their own issues, in terms of durability and functionality as a roofing system. They tend to leak. Bricks for sure...very valuable especially with some aged texture. That's one of the few. Blocks and mortar, no way.
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1845
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My "mortar" is a polymer of some sort -- the blocks would have spacer bumps to make a load-bearing block-to-block contact. Maybe the mortar isn't there, just a reusable weather strip. Guess we're into already-available stacking-and-interlocking landscape block.
Ya gotta DREAM, man. . . 
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1977
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Of course...it's a good exercise. I once tied to invent low-income housing by re-examining the material and method of construction down to the most basic of materials...long story short, everything I thought that I had "invented" had already been done. Some worked, some didn't.
That said, there is the dream but the real world applicability is key...one must test each theory. My biggest problem in real world is trying to meet code requirements. Hurricane resistance is critical and building a house of cards is not really a good thing...but I can see a modular block system with rods or reinforced corners that tie into the roof...or perhaps a wrap as an exterior finish, like a wire lath with a membrane streteched opver it...or maybe something organic, like plantings...
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1845
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Right. My strategy for using block (CMU) to make furniture is to make the "mortar beds" of Homasote and to tie the whole mass together with allthread thru top and bottom plates of plywood or similar. Something like that would permit the blocks to be reused.
But reusable building materials may be a red herring, for all I know, in the bigger scheme of things.
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1977
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, breaking down CMU...essentially cast concrete walls were pared down to lessen the amount of material needed and easier to carry and assemble with cheap labor: hence the concrete masonry unit. The mortar is meant to replicate a continuous concrete wall that has been hollowed out making for a lighter wall (smaller footings) and easy to modify. But a concrete wall can't be deconstructed for re-use without destroying the units...unlike the solid clay bricks that can mostly be salvaged. I've always wondered if large 8x8 plastic blocks with little round pegs could be stacked and interlocked making for planes...
with embedded colors, like yellow and grey...lol..slap some wheels on it and oh yeah...we got lego city for real.
http://www.brickmasterpieces.com/wp-content/uploads/1.jpg
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the problem with plastic blocks is that the code is very particular about the use of plastics on the exterior of buildings... you'd need something that would be fire resistant...
what about putting buildings together in a matter that is easy to disassemble im thinking something like gusset plates and threaded rods etc etc... so basically heavy timber type construction methods... i love me some turn buckles...
this seems like it could work with wood and steel pretty easily... probably not masonry structure... except for the brick discussion as already stated.
maybe stuff doesn't necessarily need to be reused... but if a building is going to have a short life make it of short life materials or rapidly renewable materials so that their waste is not a big deal... i'm thinking straw bale or bamboo or poplar or something along those lines...
keep the brick and steel and concrete for stuff that is expected to be around for a while...
mx2 hit it on the head though- much of the problems with all of this is going to come down to code issues...
lets build teepees again |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1845
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like it. Wood in compression, steel in tension.
Wood has always been taken from one building and used in another. So have blocks of stone -- unfortunately for certain historic structures !
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
