Recycling & Architectural Design

RECYCLING & ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Mario A. Benavides Abstract: The United States currently leads the world in waste production, with an estimated 200 million tons per year. Recycling and the use of recycled materials is a growing area of popular interest and concern in the United States. Two-thirds of all of this trash produced, made up of paper, organic materials, metals, plastics, glass and other miscellaneous products, is recoverable, meaning that it can be recycled for other uses. This paper sought to explore the relationship between the field of architectural design and recycling, both in terms of the use of recycled materials and the innovation of design concepts which lend their components to recycling. Lastly, this paper maintains that the architect as an influence on both built and natural environments must take responsibility and promote recycling behavior and ecological behaviors in general through his work.

Introduction The United States currently leads the world in waste production, with an estimated 200 million tons per year (US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1992). To fully realize this number it is suggested that one picture a convoy of garbage trucks encircling the earth eight times! This figure seems monumental. Closer to home, Utah produces 1.95 million tons of solid waste per year, a large amount for such a small population, even considering industry (Steuteville, 1994). Solid waste production has continued to increase and options for disposal of this waste are becoming more scarce and more expensive. The future will necessitate some degree of critical thought and creativity on the part of many persons and professions. Generally, trash is made up of paper, organic materials, metals, plastics, glass and other miscellaneous products such as rubber tires. Two-thirds of all of this trash produced is recoverable, meaning that it can be recycled for other uses. It is becoming ecologically imperative that alternate forms of waste management, besides burning and landfilling be considered (approximately 70% of waste is landfilled; EPA, 1992). Many of these waste materials can also be economically recycled into materials suitable for architectural uses, which will be discussed in more detail. With all of the potential of these materials, it would be worthwhile for architects to explore all of the possibilities of building with recycled materials and recycled concepts and to promote the use of these materials accordingly. Social attitudes towards recycling, actual recycling behaviors and the social acceptance of products made from recycled goods are all critical issues for the future. Regardless of technology, quality of recycled goods and the positive ecological impact the use of recycled materials has, it is ultimately the attitudes and motivations of people that will influence the acceptance of recycled materials and allow them to be used more, such as in the construction of homes. Beyond personal beliefs, there are also the social systems of economics and politics at play. In a conservative corporate climate, the recycled-goods industry could potentially threaten the existing power structure of big industry, if allowed to grow outside of its control. The potential of recycling and recycled materials will be greatly dependent upon the fit between the

self-perceived future of big industry, as it changes, and new ideas, such as larger scale use of recycled goods. The challenge to the individual architect, as well as to architecture as a profession, is to fully educate himself or herself concerning all possible materials and design futures. The architect needs to not only realize the existing potential of recycled goods, but also to explore future uses and design theory. To treat the use of recycled goods as a mere social trend denies the seriousness of current and future environmental problems such as waste management. After realizing the design and building benefits of the recycled-goods, the architect will need to be knowledgeable concerning social attitudes and motivations, and the overall power structure of the society in which he or she lives, and to attempt to reconcile the interests off all of these parties through her or his work. The future of architecture as it relates to environmental concerns is for the profession to enhance training and education, as well as for the profession to be a first and consistent factor in present and future dialogues and actions to preclude any future disasters associated with the problem of waste management.

Materials, Technology & Architecture The following figures are approximate per-annum tonnages of production and percentages of solid waste components (not including demolision/construction waste) in the United States (EPA, 1992): -37.5% Paper -- 73.3 million tons/yr. -24.6% Organic -- yard trimmings, food scraps...48.2 million tons/yr. -8.3% Misc. -- rubber, leather, textiles, ... 16.3 million tons/yr. -6.3% Wood -- lumber, failed trees, etc...12.3 million tons/yr. -8.3% Metals -- 16.2 million tons/yr. -8.3% Plastics -- 16.2 million tons/yr. -6.7% Glass -- 13.2 million tons/yr. Of the above categories of materials, all, recycled, offer some materials of architectural benefit. From landscape to skyscraper, recycled materials offer effective alternatives to originalproduction goods. Paper - Besides its many uses, such as being recycled into office products and toilet paper, the greatest potential of paper as a recycled good for architectural purposes is for use as an insulation (Sweeney, 1992). Paper (cellulose) already has a history of being used as insulation. Until the 1960's when fiberglass came along to virtually replace it, paper was effectively used in all building insulation (Grove, 1994). It is again being considered in its recycled form, for actual performance, cost effectiveness and ease of use. When considering the actual use of a product such as paper for insulation, one large concern has been that of safety. Fiberglass replaced paper as the choice insulative material not only because fiberglass was thought of as an advancement, but, also because fiberglass was deemed safer than paper, with a lower risk of fire. Many professionals in the building industry are now disputing the safety advantage of fiberglass. There are efficient methods for treating paper insulation for fire retardance.

Organic Materials - Organic materials are things such as food wastes and yard trimmings. These materials, if recycled in the form of compost, offer wonderful properties that are valuable for landscape architecture (Miller, 1991). Composted materials are very good fertilizers, which are healthier than chemical fertilizers for people, animals, and the environment in general. Water supplies are also healthier if not constantly under the risk of contamination due to chemical runoff. The cost of organic fertilizers is potentially better than that of chemical fertilizers, by the mere fact that compost is a natural process. Metals - All metals are recyclable (Grove, 1994), but it is aluminum and steel which are most usable in architecture. It is a misconception that the material strengths of these materials are diminished by the recycling process. Anything that metals are used for architecturally can be made from recycled metals. Aluminum is commonly used architecturally for windows, doors, roofing, flashing, siding, trim and hardware. Recycled aluminum, like original-product aluminum, can be welded, bonded with adhesives or mechanically fastened. Generally any use of architectural use of aluminum is a valid use for recycled aluminum. Aluminum is cheaper to recycle than to initially process. Steel is 100% recyclable, and can be reprocessed indefinitely, maintaining its strength and other architecturally desirable properties. Common architectural uses of steel are light and heavy structural framing, windows, doors, hardware, and fastenings. It is considered the strongest, lowest-cost material available for construction. Recycling steel is cheaper than mining and processing ore. Much of the steel that goes into structural components is from auto and industrial scrap, bridge and building demolition (Sweeney, 1992). Plastics - There is much more to recycled plastics than soft-drink containers and shampoo bottles. Architecturally, plastics can be recycled into a wide variety of materials (Grove, 1994; Crosbie, 1992). Polyethelene terephthalate (PET) -- the common drink container type plastic-can be reprocessed and spun into fibers suitable for insulative purposes or interior elements such as carpets. Plastic lumber, looking and acting very much like the original product, is emerging as a newer architectural material with potential (Sweeney, 1992). Products such as this are recycled from higher-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastics, such as used milk jugs (Grove, 1994). This product would blend the traditional and desirable uses of wood construction with beneficial properties of plastics, such as durability and non-corrosiveness. Termites would not eat plastic lumber. Glass - Glass can be recycled into....more glass, for windows and other traditionally glass elements in construction . A novel use of recycled glass is as "glassphalt," (Grove, 1994) where glass is used as an aggregate in asphalt pavement. Another potential use would be as an aggregate in concrete. Miscellaneous Materials - One of the most interesting propositions for recycling is what to do with all of the miscellaneous solid waste. Landfills are filling up with rubber tires alone. Beyond tire-swings, rubber tires are finding many uses, not the least of which are very effective

and innovative architectural uses (Logsdon, 1991; Riggle, 1994). Rubber tires are an effective thermal mass when filled with earth, and they are being used as walls in home construction. Shredded rubber tires have also been found to be effective when mixed into fill for construction sites, as the rubber reduces the extent to which the fill will settle. Shredded rubber also has aids in water flow and other properties which make is ideal for mixing in to soil to be landscaped. Another use of shredded tires is as another form of aggregate for asphalt. Recycled Building Materials - The recycling of building materials themselves is an often overlooked point of recycling behavior. Building construction waste is not included in the solid waste figures collected and published by the EPA or any other group. As an example of approximate components in the building construction waste of a large urban area, the Toronto Home Builders Association has published its figures as waste product by percent volume (Wilson, 1991): Dimensional lumber -- 25% Manufactured Wood -- 10% Drywall -- 15% Masonry and tile -- 12% Corrugated cardboard -- 10% Asphalt -- 6% Metal wastes -- 4% Plastic and foam -- 4% Fiberglass -- 5% Other packaging -- 4% Other wastes -- 5% The above figures indicates areas in which architects, developers and contractors are responsible for contributing to solid waste, and how they can and should be involved in waste reduction. These same professionals should be aware of how the waste materials can best be reused and recycled, either in further building or by being reprocessed for other-than-architectural uses. On the other side of the recycled building materials coin is the issue of recycling the waste materials from demolished or remodelled structures1. Key to the ease with which this type of recycling is carried out is the realization that this will entail thought and attention to how components and materials are used in construction, so that they may be used in a way which will facilitate their recovery for recycling and reuse in the event of demolition.

Society and Architecture Social beliefs must change before recycled materials become mainstream. There is a popular fear that recycled goods are inferior to original properties. These beliefs are false. To understand how the architect can better meet the challenge of making use of recycled materials and to help change social perceptions of recycled goods, the architect needs to be knowledgeable concerning the nature of people's values and attitudes regarding recycling and recycled goods. 1

No figures for percentages or weights of waste materials produced by demolition or remodelling were found, although several articles have indicated this practice.

Increasing amounts of social science research have been conducted regarding values and attitudes towards recycling and recycled goods. One very relevant study (Stern , Dietz and Kalof, 1993) attempted to match a social-psychological model to the idea that "environmentalism" is a new way of thinking, a paradigm shift, a new worldview. The authors looked at various "value orientations" related to environmental attitudes, namely, egoistic self-centered, social-altruistic, caring for fellow beings and quality of society, and biospheric, orientation to welfare of nonhuman environment/species. Consequence and responsibility were discussed, consequences being good or harmful things which could result from a behavior or attitude held, versus responsibility, the degree to which the person takes it upon the self to change the offending environmental or behavioral condition. The personal combination of realization of consequences and personal responsibility, paired with original orientation, influences the personal action. Environmentally positive behavior reflects a compromise between altruistic and egoistic motivations, neither acts alone. A person's choice to behave environmentally is like a personal cost/benefit analysis or cost to self (egoistic motivations) versus social benefit (altruistic motivations). Gender was mentioned, women being more socialized to be closer to the environment and therefore environmental issues and altruistic motivations. I wonder, will this change as women's roles change in society? Monetary aspects of environmental behaviors are important; this is an egoistic aspect or motivation, traditionally more important to the male, and this may be one reason he is socialized more away from the environment. Socialization and access to information are important to changing or influencing environmental behaviors. This idea is also presented in numerous architectural journal articles discussing recycling. The implication here is that the more information that reaches the public, such as the value of recycled materials as architectural components, the more informed the public will be, and attitudes will change. Architects will have to take the responsibility upon themselves to use recycled materials wisely, to promote their use and to promote accurate information and representations of their use. On the other side of the social issue, is the power structure and the economic power base. Problem definitions are important to collective social behavior....how the "powerful" define the issues can certainly influence behaviors. This was not discussed in depth in the Stern & Dietz article, but is nevertheless an important issue for the architect, as his or her livelihood is dependent to an extent on who controls the purse strings that pay for design and construction. The willingness of the economic and social powerbase of a culture to embrace recycling and recycled materials as things which can be and should be mainstreamed, is one of the most important obstacles in the way of the optimal use and potential of recycled materials. For architecture, this means changing the minds of the developers who not only put large amounts of money into construction, but who also control large amounts of interest in sources of original materials which recycled goods would compete with, such as mining and petroleum exploration and recovery. The orientations of these powerful people will slowly change, hopefully with the changing of public attitudes in general.

Architectural Futures The Profession - For architects as professionals to fully fulfill their present and future responsibility in regards to the recycling issue and the use of recycled goods as materials, their behavior will need to be modified. This modification should ideally start with the professional training and education of architects. Schools should enhance current curriculum with information and knowledge concerning future possibilities such as the increased use of recycled goods in construction. Courses should explore more design issues associated with recycling and "green" houses. Furthermore, the training of architects as students and even after they become professionals should not be limited to practicalities. Architects should practice critical and conceptual thinking. The more oriented education and training are towards understanding how theory works and can influence practice, the better equipped architects will be to shape the future. Professional and peer associations, such as the AIA also have an impact upon the acceptance of new ideas in the field of architecture. The AIA has talked about and debated what "green" architecture should be and how it should be implemented, under what conditions and by whom (Branch, 1993; Post, 1993; Dietsch, 1993; Fisher, 1993). "Fashionable Environmentalism" has been pointed out as a possible stumbling block to the implementation and mainstreaming of environmentally sound and recycling practices in architecture (Wines, 1990). It is not just the Western or American practice of architecture which has been reluctant to implement environmental measures. The Welsh School of Architecture published survey results (Grainger, 1994), which state that '85 percent of architects remain cautiously quiet about their green ideas until clients show spontaneous interest, for fear of the image problem of the beard and sandals,' and that 'most architectural practices are influenced by environmental issues but are loath to lead with green ideas early in a project, believing it risks their credibility with clients.' This study further indicated that fewer than half of the architectural practices they were associated with considered environmental issues when making decisions concerning office energy use and consumable goods. Designing for use of Reusable & Recycled Materials - One example of how the present potential of the use of recycled goods in architecture is being met in current practice is that of Michael Reynolds, who builds what he calls "earthships," in a book by this title. His thinking is progressive, in that he deals with many environmental concerns, from waste management to energy efficiency through very simple yet effective solutions to building needs, coupled with the use of reusable and recycled materials. What intrigued Reynolds was "the possibility of recycling junk, like tires and aluminum cans, into building materials." His designs, however, are limited to the scale of private-dwelling structures; his concept would not be workable for most large, commercial projects. Earthships depend on the natural physics of thermomass for all heating and cooling (Logsdon, 1991). Reynolds uniquely implemented rubber tires, filled with earth, to act as the thermomass. Aluminum cans laid with concrete and plastered over make up the structurally sound and versatile walls of the structures. Reynolds has also integrated composting into the structure, toilet and all, so that all organic wastes produced in and by the earthship can be composted and used to fertilize the landscaping.

The potential remains for other creative architects and designers to develop ways in which reusable and recyclable materials can be used in building. Also, individual architects and designers can simply use for themselves and promote the use materials made from recycled materials whenever and whereever appropriate. By starting to use basic, traditional building components which happen to be made of recycled materials, architects will find that the use of recycled materials will become more mainstreamed. Designing for Recyclable Buildings - As an architect, a very different approach to the application of architecture to recycling issues, is to take a step outside of mainstream, traditional architecture and to look at the whole, of architectural thought, theory and method, and to consider how the past should not be necessarily returned to, but how the past can influence the course of progressive practice. One example of "recycling" past architectural concepts is that of looking at the Metabolic movement in Japan in the mid 1960's, The principle that metabolists held was that architecture should not be static, but be capable of undergoing metabolic changes, instead of thinking in terms of Form and function, architects should be concerned with space and changable function, of note is Kurokawa's Nagakin Capsule Tower in Tokio, This building was designed as a central core with 'Plug in' modules or capsules for living spaces. An example closer to home is that of the Israeli Architect Moshe Safdie and his prefabricated housing complexes such as his Habitat project built for Expo '67 in Montreal, it consisted of steplike clusters of cubic, precast concrete apartment units which interlocked acording to a flexible plan. These concepts were not very successful for the time and the reason supporting them. But, in light of recycling and the use of recycled materials, part of this concept has present and future potential. A modular concept in building design would promote recycling in two distinct ways. The first way is that the modular components of the design, as well as the framing structure could be constructed from recycled materials. Beyond this, the unique aspect that the modular concept would offer to future architecture is that it would make buildings themselves easier to recycle. Entire units, as well as parts of buildings, could be reused and recycled into other new structures. This idea is important, especially with the mentality with which Americans view their built environment. For example, in American cities, many old buildings are demolished and new buildings built. A great deal of the rubbish is currently landfilled. If modular structures were designed for urban areas, with the forethought that they would not last more than a few decades, destruction would be much easier and reuse would be encouraged, socially, professionally, and economically. The destruction of the buildings into modular parts would replace whole-building demolition, which reduces the structure to a pile of mixed rubbish. The modular units would allow for easier extraction of materials for recycling or reuse, and/or reuse of the modules themselves. The modular idea could also be incorporated into more main-streamed design. One example is based on the thinking of Buckminster Fuller and Nicholas Grimshaw, who designed variations of modular bathrooms, which could be joined to existing structures and were suitable for mass production (Davies, 1988). Looking at these ideas from the recycling perspective, the components of the modular bathrooms (or any other modular component of a designed structure) would not inhibit freedom of design, but would offer a creative challenge to architects, to design

parts of buildings with more than mere end-use in mind. As architects successfully challenge the notion that there is no end-use of materials or components, other parts of society may follow the lead, and think about this idea in new ways. The challenge would be to ecologically design building units, also projecting future possible uses for these units. The further challenge would be to design and implement these units in such a way that they are economically and socio-politically feasible, as these areas are where new ideas either fade as trends or become mainstreamed. One last extension of the modular concept could be to the areas of urban development and planning. Cities could be thought of as structures, built of components which could be recycleable. The phenomenon of urban revitalization lightly touches on this idea, where older units of cities are being recycled, such as former warehouses being recycled and renovated into comfortable or even luxurious apartments. This idea would need to be studied for definite benefits and/or limitations; it is, however, a possible perspective from which to look at urban development issues.

Conclusion In conclusion, it is important to fully realize the impact that the field of architectural design has on the environment. Social scientists have long acknowledged the impact of the built environment on human behavior, and thereby, the collective behavior that is exhibited in social attitudes. Environmentalists and Naturalists have also pointed out the impact of built environments on the natural environment, in the use of resources, in the disposal of waste, and in the way in which built environments promote the pollution of air and water. To a large degree, architects are ultimately responsible for the built environment, and following this logic, they are responsible for the impact that the built environment has on people, societies and nature. Recycling and reuse of resources and materials has become a very popular issues over the last few decades. The popularity of the issues is mostly due to the immediacy of problems connected to the exponential growth in waste production. If recycling behavior and the use of recycled and reusable materials can be influenced by architecture, as this paper proposes, it is the present and future responsibility of architecture as a profession and architects as individuals to be knowledgable concerning all recycling issues, as well as to implement design innovations which will positively influence recycling behaviors.

Acknowledgment of Project Consultants I would like to thank the following project consultants for their help in understanding and clarifying issues related to this study topic, as well as for suggesting appropriate resources: Angela Dean, M.Arch., Salt Lake City, Utah; Carol Werner, PhD., Professor, Dept. of Psychology, University of Utah; Bob Young, PE, Professor, School of Architecture, University of Utah.

Cited References Branch, Mark A. (1993). "Happy talk" at green AIA convention. Progressive Architecture, August 1993, p. 23.

Crosbie, Michael J. (1992). Toward a greener architecture. Architecture, 81, p.99-101, Jan. Davies, C. (1988). HIGH TECH ARCHITECTURE. New York: Rizzoli, pp.6-21. Dietsch, Deborah K. (1993). Green realities. Architecture, 82, p.15, Apr/Jun., 1993. Fisher, Thomas. (1993). The paradox of "green" architecture. Progressive Architecture, 74, p.9, March 1993. Grainger, Catherine. (1994). Survey finds architects reluctant to risk credibility by promoting green design. Architect's Journal, 199, p.8, March 9, 1994. Grove, Noel. (1994). Recycling. National Geographic, 186:1, p.92. Logsdon, Gene. (1991). The architect who builds with scrap tires. BioCycle, Sept., 1991. Miller, William H. (1991). Back into... Industry Week, Feb. 4, 1991. Post, Nadine M. (1993). Architects, engineers marry sustainable-design efforts. ENR, June 28, 1993, p.8. Reynolds, Michael. EARTHSHIPS. Riggle, D. (1993). What's happening in sustainable architecture? Energy Policy, 21:8, p.20. Stern, Paul C., Dietz, Thomas, & Kalof, Linda. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25:3, p.322-348, May 1993. Steuteville, Robert. (1994). The state of garbage in America. BioCycle, April, 1994, p.46. Sweeney, Thomas F. (1992). Econstruction materials. Home Mechanix, 88, p.50-54, May 1992. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1992). Characterization of municipal solid waste in the United States: 1992 update. EPA/530-R-92-019; NTIS #PB92-207 166. Wilson, Alex. (1991). Materials alternatives. Architecture, 80, p.113-118, May 1991. Wines, James. (1990). Green architecture. Architectural Record, 178, p.78, Apr. 1990. Musgrove, Jhon. (1994) Sir Banister Fletcher's A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE, London: Butterworths, pp.1474-1480. Microsoft Coorporation. (1994) Microsoft Encarta 95, Redmond WA, "Safdie Moshe"