978-3-0356-2109-9_HebelHeisel_EN

CIRCULAR CONSTRUCTION

AND CIRCULAR ECONOMY

Better

Less

Different

CIRCULAR

CONSTRUCTION

AND

CIRCULAR

ECONOMY

Felix Heisel, Dirk E. Hebel

with Ken Webster

BIRKHÄUSER

BASEL

Better

Less

7

10

22

Preface

Sustainability – The Importance

of a Holistic Approach

Introduction by Dirk E. Hebel and

Felix Heisel

Principles of Circular

Construction

Introduction by Felix Heisel and

30

32

Better – Efficiency in the

Construction Industry

Introduction to Circular Construction by

Felix Heisel and Dirk E. Hebel

The Case for Deconstruction

How Cities Can Stop

Wasting Buildings

Article by Gretchen Worth, Felix Heisel,

Anthea Fernandes, Jennifer S. Minner

70

72

79

Less – Sufficiency as Innovation



Strength Through Geometry and

Material Effectiveness

Article by Philippe Block

Less – Moving towards

Eco-effectiveness

Dirk E. Hebel

and Christine O’Malley

Introduction to Circular Economy by

Mark Milstein

24

Principles of a Circular

Economy

Introduction by Ken Webster

38

Building Capacity and

Knowledge in the Local

Economy

The Catherine Commons

Deconstruction Project

80

The Economy of Urban Mining

The Korbach City Hall Model

Project

Article by Anja Rosen

Case study by Felix Heisel and

44

Allexxus Farley-Thomas

New Buildings from Old

92

Carbon Fees and Dividends, and a

Circular Construction Industry

Article by Ken Webster

Case Study by Kerstin Müller

52

Deconstruction of Place,

Acceleration of Waste

A Preservationist's Warning

on the Challenges and

Pitfalls of the Urban Mine

96

Towards a More Responsible

Society with the Polluter Pays

Principle

Commentary by Annette Hillebrandt

Commentary by Andrew Roblee and

Jennifer S. Minner

55

Better – Moving towards

Eco-efficiency


Mark Milstein

56

Reuse Infrastructure

An Essential Foundation

of the Circular Economy

Article by Diane Cohen and

Robin Elliott

62

Deconstruction Policy in

Portland, Oregon

Article by Shawn Wood

Different

Better + Less + Different

100

Different – Consistency as

a Principle


142 The Urban Mining and Recycling

155

(UMAR) Unit

Case Study by Felix Heisel and

155

Acknowledgements

About the Autors

102


Ecology Must Have Priority!

Commentary by Annette Hillebrandt

Dirk E. Hebel

157

158

Illustration Credits

Index of Persons

104

The Kendeda Building for

Innovative Sustainable Design

Acting at the Intersection of

Carbon, Health and Equity

Case Study by Joshua R. Gassman, RA

158

159

Index of Firms, Institutions and

Initiatives

Index of Projects, Products and

Publications

108

Triodos Bank

Circular Wooden Cathedral

160

Colophon

Case Study by RAU Architects

114

Concular

The Digitisation of Materials

in Buildings

Case Study by Dominik Campanella

118

Materials Passports

Enabling Closed Material Loops

Case Study by Sabine Rau-Oberhuber

122

The Urban Village Project

Case Study by EFFEKT

129

Different – Moving towards

Disruptive Innovation


Mark Milstein

130

Cooling as a Service (CAAS)

The Case of Kaer

Case Study by Dave Mackerness

134

A Circular Approach in Flooring

The Case of Interface

Case Study by Erin Meezan

138

Be Careful What You Wish For

Commentary by Ken Webster

CIRCULAR CONSTRUCTION + CIRCULAR ECONOMY

6 — 7

In 2019, the European Union outlined its ambitious Green Deal to be the first continent

to become climate neutral by 2050. It requires that we reduce net emissions of greenhouse

gases to zero by 2050. Not only that: it also stipulates that Europe must transition

to a functioning circular economy by 2050 and thus establish a statutory basis for

a metabolic approach to thinking about physical goods and commodities, their reuse,

recycling and natural composting. While sustainability is to become the guiding principle

of social action and economic activity, the ways and means by which we will achieve this

are far from clear. As a holistic praxis, sustainability must combine technical and material

as well as social, economic, ecological and also ethical strategies, which have multiple

complex interactions and all too often also conflicting goals and priorities. In no other

field can these be better observed, addressed and influenced than in architecture and

building, because in the organisation, design and construction of the built environment

we encounter the complexities of sustainable action including all its various experiences,

problems and potential solutions. At the same time, sustainable action cannot only look

forward towards a – hopefully – better future but must also address the enormous existing

stock built long before the guidelines and targets of the Green Deal. The need to adapt

and convert this stock is a formidable but necessary task, given that the building sector is

responsible for 50 % of primary raw material consumption globally and at least 40 % of all

greenhouse gas emissions.

The series of publications, of which this is the first issue, aims to help guide us

along this path and examines the central topics of the process and its interactions and

dependencies from both a scientific and practical perspective. Each volume of Building

Better – Less – Different details two fundamental areas of sustainability and explores their

respective dynamics and interactions. After introductory overviews, each book presents

established methods and current developments along with analyses of potential conflict

points and relevant international case studies. The sustainability criteria of efficiency

(“better”), sufficiency (“less”) and consistency (“different”) form the framework for each

book. Together, the volumes will provide a systematic and up-to-date compendium of

sustainable building.

This first volume presents concepts, methods and examples of circularity in construction

and the economy. Here, the focus is on the question of resources: where will raw

materials for future construction activity come from, given the increasing bottlenecks in

supplies and depleting reserves? What role will the bio-economy play? Which methods

and processes do we need to trial, implement and politically establish for us to achieve the

goals of a circular economy? Urban mining and circular construction are two approaches

to the challenges that architecture and urban design are facing, using techniques such

as mono-material constructions and design for disassembly, and tools such as materials

passports and databases. The circular economy is not solely about recycling but also

encompasses a wide range of strategies from local community projects to new ownership

and service models and steering mechanisms such as carbon fees and dividends. We must

learn to understand the respective dynamics and interdependencies to avoid the pitfalls of

blinkered silo thinking.

This book rises to this challenge by providing multiple ways of linking interrelated

topics to one another. As such, it is more than just a linear sequence of articles, case studies

and commentaries; it is also a field of relationships defined by the categories “better”,

“less” and “different” as well as construction and economy. A corresponding visual table of

the contents (see p. 9) aims to encourage a variety of ways of accessing the topics within.

Further references at the end of each contribution help readers broaden their perspective

and establish links between the different subject areas. After all, each area can learn from

one another: how can we apply and incorporate economic models and ideas from the energy

and resources sector to the construction industry, and vice versa? As such, a building is

not just an architectural or constructional challenge but also a vehicle for adopting and

discussing relevant economic models and contexts. For this, we must learn to work and act

in cycles within a metabolic economic model.

PREFACE

Accordingly, the various ⬤ introductions, ⬤ articles, ⬤ ⬤ case studies and

⬤ commentaries in this book highlight – and introduce – the inherent relationships within

this field to further vital discourse on implementing and establishing circular models. The

third decade of the 21st century will be crucial to whether we succeed in finding ways to

live and act consistently, i.e., in harmony with the environment and its natural cycles and

processes. Only then will we be able to dispense with the man-conceived and man-made

distinction between the built and natural environment, so that we may exist together in

dignity on this planet without exploiting one or the other.

Felix Heisel and Dirk E. Hebel, August 2022


8 — 9

Circular Construction

Circular Economy

Sustainability –

The Importance of a

Introduction

Principles of Circular

Construction

p. 22

Holistic Approach

p. 10

Principles of a

Circular Economy

p. 24

Better

Less

Better –

Efficiency in the

Construction Industry

p. 30

Better –

Moving towards

Eco-efficiency

p. 54

The Case for

Building Capacity and

Reuse

Deconstruction

Knowledge in the

Infrastructure

p. 32

Local Economy

p. 56

p. 38

New Buildings

Deconstruction

from Old

Policy in Portland,

Deconstruction of

p. 44

Oregon

Place, Acceleration

p. 62

of Waste

Less –

Less –

p. 52

Sufficiency as

Moving towards

Innovation

Carbon Fees and

Eco-effectiveness

p. 70

Dividends, and a

p. 78

Circular Construction

Strength Through

Industry

The Economy of

Geometry and

p. 92

Towards a More

Urban Mining

Material Effectiveness

Responsible Society with p. 80

p. 72

the Polluter Pays

Principle

p. 96

Different

Triodos Bank

p. 108

Concular

p. 114

Different –

Consistency as

a Principle Ecology Must

p. 100 Have Priority!

Kendeda

p. 102

Building

p. 104

Materials

Passports

The Urban p. 118

Village Project

p. 122

Different – Moving

towards Disruptive

Innovation

p. 128

Cooling as

A Circular Approach

a Service (CAAS)

in Flooring

p. 130

p. 134

Be Careful What

You Wish For

p. 138

The Urban Mining and

Recycling (UMAR) Unit

p. 142

SUSTAINABILITY –

THE IMPORTANCE

OF A HOLISTIC

APPROACH

Introduction by Dirk E. Hebel and

Felix Heisel

1 James Cook, A Voyage Towards

the South Pole and Round the World,

Volume 1 (1777). Tredition Classics,

2011.

A CONSIDERATION OF UNSUSTAINABILITY

To discuss the principle of sustainability, it can help to first consider the opposite: a

situation that we would describe and classify as “unsustainable” so that we may derive principles

and methods of sustainable action from it. A particularly striking example of unsustainable

behaviour is the fate of Easter Island in the South Pacific Ocean and the events long

ago that led to its demise. The island was first discovered by an exploration party on behalf

of the Dutch West India Company under the command of Admiral Jacob Roggeveen on

5 April 1722 – an Easter Sunday, which explains its modern European name (Paasch Eyland).

The crew of the three-ship expedition, which was actually searching for “Terra Australis”,

was astonished and shocked by the living conditions of the few remaining people on the

island. Many housed in caves, and the canoes the natives used to paddle to meet them were

small, leaky and barely seaworthy. The island was dry and scorched by the sun, with mostly

grasses and shrubs as vegetation and no plant higher than two metres. On a visit in 1774,

Captain James Cook wrote in his logbook: “Nature has been exceedingly sparing of her

favours to this spot.” 1

That this cannot have always been the case was evidenced by the large rectangular

stone ceremonial platforms (ahu) and huge stone statues (moai) scattered across the

island, which were an impressive and imposing sight, then as now. There are a total of

887 statues, the tallest of which is 21 m high and weighs 270 tonnes (metric tons). These

upright abstract male figures with large heads but no legs or arms were probably created

as ancestral representations and direct their gaze towards the interior of the island, towards

their descendants. The question was: how could these statues have been created, moved

into place and erected when there were no trees for making scaffolding with and not enough

vegetation for making ropes?

More recent findings suggest that the island was originally settled as early as the

9th century AD by travellers from other Polynesian Islands to the west. At that time,

the settlers brought plants and domestic animals from their homeland, including the

sweet potato, yam, taro, banana, sugar cane and chicken. In addition, the inhabitants’ diet

comprised dolphins, mussels and land and sea birds, which had thrived due to a lack of

natural predators. Well provided for by agriculture, small animal husbandry, fishing and bird

catching, the population grew steadily into a sizeable society of ten tribes spread across the

island. Although one of the driest (a product of its predominantly flat geography), windiest

and coolest of all the Polynesian islands, it was originally fully covered by a mixed forest with

many species (21 such species have been identified from charcoal remains). Of these, the

most impressive species was certainly the genus Jubaea. This Easter Island palm could grow

to a trunk diameter of 2 m and was also the largest species of palm tree on the Polynesian

Islands at that time. It is estimated that the island was originally home to some 10 million

palm trees and other tree species covering an area of about 172 km².

The trunks of the trees and their fibres would therefore have provided the raw materials

for constructing the statues, and it is probable that significant quantities of the wood

were used to build the cultural-religious representations. However, the palms and other tree

species were also an important resource for the lives of the people, for example for building

shelters and boats, and as a source of sweet sap and firewood. From the 13th century

onwards, however, deforestation advanced considerably for several reasons. The island’s

geographical location and climate did not provide conditions conducive to rapid reforestation

and the problem was compounded by rats that had arrived with the settlers. Without

natural predators, they were able to multiply rapidly and feed on the shoots of the palm

trees, as bite marks on palm nuts have shown. But it was mainly the islanders themselves

who were responsible for the demise of their own livelihood through the progressive overexploitation

of natural resources.

The dry and windy climate soon caused erosion of the deforested areas. Although the

inhabitants adopted measures to try and protect the land by building stone walls or laying

so-called lithic mulching (placing stones on exposed soil to trap moisture, act as mineral

fertiliser and compensate for diurnal temperature fluctuations), they were increasingly


10 — 11

forced to abandon their farmland and settlements. Without larger trees, they were unable to

build larger canoes for hunting dolphins out at sea. Only the rather meagre stocks of smaller

fish species near the shore remained as a source of food. As the forests disappeared and the

rats multiplied, safe habitats for land and sea birds disappeared resulting in the gradual loss

of a further source of food. As wood reserves for firewood, for building dwellings and boats

and for providing nourishment depleted, the population probably retreated more and more

to the stone caves in the centre of the island. Between the 17th century and the arrival of

the first Europeans, social coexistence gradually broke down, resulting in violent conflicts

and ultimately also cannibalism. With the conflicts came a loss in the belief in the protective

powers of the ancestors, and rival groups began toppling each other’s stone statues.

While it is estimated that up to 15,000 or more people lived on the island in the 16th and

17th centuries, by the end of the 18th century there were just 2,000 inhabitants, and in the

middle of the 19th century probably only several hundred left, mainly also due to political

reasons (e.g., deportation as forced labourers) and diseases introduced by outsiders.

This theory of Easter Island’s collapse as a consequence of ecological overexploitation

was put forward by Jared Diamond in his book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or

Succeed. 2 It is particularly distressing because the remote location in the middle of the

Pacific and the impossibility of the inhabitants to interact with other people paints a picture

of complete isolation and hopelessness. But there are also doubts about the complete

ecological demise of the island. The ecosystem researcher Hans-Rudolf Bork of the University

of Kiel does not assume a complete collapse of the food supply due to deforestation,

arguing that the application of stone mulching prevented a complete breakdown. And yet,

as with a laboratory experiment, excluding other influencing variables and parameters, a

systemic view can be described and evaluated.

Were the island’s inhabitants particularly ruthless in the way they exploited their natural

environment? There is no reason to presume that. It is more likely that they behaved just as

their ancestors had done in the centuries before them. The narrow boundaries, the insular

geographic situation and specific climatic conditions were key reasons why it was not

possible to sustainably replenish the resources they had increasingly consumed. And, as with

our own planet, there was no exchange with outside systems that might have been able to

compensate for the deficit. Today, the island, which now belongs to Chile, numbers some

8,000 inhabitants, most of whom live from tourism and supplies imported from other areas

of the Pacific region. Even today, the island is largely without significant vegetation – the

consequences of the disaster are still visible.

REFLECTIONS ON ECOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY

What would have been a more sustainable approach on Easter Island? Did the inhabitants

understand the consequences of their actions for their livelihood? Surprisingly, around

the same time as the deforestation of Easter Island began, there were similar examples of

unreflected action in many regions of the world, for example in the German Erzgebirge, the

Ore Mountains. Here, the motivation was profit maximisation for silver and ore mining. While

mining for metals had been common since the Middle Ages, the practice of “fire-setting”

produced greater yields. Large wood fires were lit in cavities to induce stress cracks in the

rock and often the heated rock was cooled with water to accelerate the effect. Wooden

wedges were driven into the cracks and doused with water to cause them to swell. Both

these practices required vast quantities of wood, which was sourced from the surrounding

forests. The more successful the mine, the greater the degree of logging of the natural

environment. At that time, a certain Hans Carl von Carlowitz (actually Johann “Hannß” Carl

von Carlowitz) was the Royal Polish and electoral Saxon Chamberlain and Mountain Councillor,

as well as chief mining administrator of the Ore Mountains. The Carlowitz family, a

long-standing aristocratic family in Saxony, owned and managed large areas of forest in

the region. Carlowitz realised that once the forest was gone there would be nothing left to

manage, and that the only way to ensure their own ongoing financial security, as well as that

of the mining community in the Ore Mountains, was to protect the forests – especially as

2 Jared Diamond, Collapse: How

Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.

New York and London: Viking Penguin,

2005.

there were no rules or laws governing forestry at the time. In 1713, only a few years before

the arrival of the Europeans on Easter Island, he wrote a treatise entitled Sylvicultura oeconomica

oder haußwirthliche Nachricht und Naturmäßige Anweisung zur wilden Baum-Zucht

[Sylvicultura oeconomica – Forest Economy or Guide to Tree Cultivation Conforming with

Nature]. 3 In it he describes in detail the connection between the valuable natural raw mater ial

and the desire for profit maximisation. Today, one would speak of an energy crisis caused

by the unchecked felling of woodland to supply a rapidly growing population. And so, he

declared: “For this reason, the greatest art ⁄ science ⁄ labour and management of our lands

will be based on how such conservation and cultivation of wood can be arranged so as to

make possible a continuous, steady and sustaining use, as this is an indispensable necessity,

without which the country cannot maintain its being.” Although the expression “sustaining

use” occurs only once in the 432-page treatise, the Sylvicultura oeconomica is considered

the origin of – at least the European – terminology and awareness of sustainability.

The Ore Mountains was not the only region to be affected by deforestation. Other

areas, such as the Black Forest, experienced a similar period of persistent unsustainable

use in the late 18th century, though there it was not a consequence of silver and ore mining

but instead the result of the forest grazing of livestock. While the intention was that they

would feed on beechnuts and acorns, the animals also ate most of the young tree shoots,

preventing the natural regeneration of the forest (much as the rats had done on Easter

Island). In addition, the felling of large trees for timber rafting down the Rhine to the

Netherlands had become a profitable business. Sturdy timber was highly prized for building

foundations for dikes and settlements in the soft marshland of the Netherlands and accordingly

was exported in large quantities from the Black Forest and Upper Rhine Graben. The

Kinzigtal raftsmen were famed for their skill and craftsmanship in binding and steering

exceedingly long rafts down the Rhine. But such was their avarice that wood became so

scarce in the Black Forest towards the end of the 18th century that in some places fence

posts, stairs, carts and other wooden objects had to be burned to ensure the inhabitants’

survival over winter. The ensuing hardship led to the realisation that the natural resource of

the forest had to be protected and preserved and that felling must be limited to an extent

that permitted the forest to regrow naturally. By then, however, the majority of the Black

Forest had already been cleared and some bare, eroded mountaintops one sees today bear

silent testimony to the tragedy of bygone times.

Laws were subsequently passed regulating the amount of felling and prohibiting forest

grazing and fire setting in forests, and most of these still apply today. Ironically, what saved

the Black Forest was not primarily the realisation of the need for sustainability but a technical

advancement that would become a new problem for later generations: the invention of

the steam engine and the advent of the Industrial Revolution caused wood to be displaced

by coal as the primary source of energy – a development that soon spread the world over

and is now a global challenge.

The examples discussed here show that we must understand the links and interdependencies

between economic goals and prevailing ecological, social and societal conditions,

both locally as well as for the planet as a whole. Only then can we take sustainable action

that does not lead to the destruction of our own livelihood.

3 Hanns Carl von Carlowitz, Sylvicultura

Oeconomica oder haußwirthliche

Nachricht und Naturmäßige Anweisung

zur Wilden Baum-Zucht, ed. Norbert

Kessel. Reprint of the first edition

from 1713. Leipzig: J. F. Braun, 2011.

4 Rachel Carson, Silent Spring.

Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962.

SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY

In 1962, the US-American biologist Rachel Carson published the book Silent Spring, 4

which today is regarded as marking the beginning of a socially driven environmental movement.

It was one of the first non-fiction books written for a broad audience to make clear the

connections between the release of toxic substances such as DDT and other pesticides and

herbicides into the environment and its consequences for animals and humans within the

food chain. To give the topic a sense of specific relatability, she astutely chose to set it in a

fictional small town in America. The book links the principle of ecological balance with the

human and social perspective, right down to the premature death of the bald eagle, which as

the heraldic animal of the USA was no doubt chosen to represent American Society, though


12 — 13

Carson only mentions this in passing. And so it transpired that this bird of prey went on to

become the symbol of the fight against DDT in the years that followed. Carson’s book therefore

adds a third dimension to the topic of sustainability alongside the ecological (Easter

Island) and the economic (Carlowitz): the ethical responsibility of a socially oriented society.

These three dimensions are seen to this day as the three primary pillars of sustainability:

ecology, economy and sociology. Like the principle of communicating vessels, a

balance needs to be found between these three aspects and their interactions. The process

of weighing these up against each other, and the inevitable prioritisation this entails, has

a dynamic socio-political dimension, and Rachel Carson’s book helped bring about a broad

social awareness of this collective responsibility.

In 1972, Harrison Schmitt, an astronaut on the Apollo 17 mission, took what is still

one of the most iconic photographs in the world: Blue Marble, as it is titled (the official

designation is AS17-148-22727), shows a view of the Earth from 45,000 km away, perfectly

illuminated by the sun behind the photographer. It depicts the earth against a background

of black nothingness, isolated, frail and vulnerable, and we see just how thin, fragile and

ephemeral the atmosphere around the Earth is. As an impression of an organism in need of

protection, it evoked a sense of collective unity, and since then the image has been printed

on countless T-shirts, flags and other items and has become a symbol of the emerging

environmental protection and sustainability movement. It is frightening to think what

could happen to a population of billions of people on this one planet if we are not able to

learn from the examples of the past and adapt our behaviour to the situation at hand and

act accordingly.

CALCULATING (UN)SUSTAINABILITY

A few years earlier, in 1968, two other protagonists of this movement, the Italian industrialist

Aurelio Peccei, then a member of the boards of Fiat and Olivetti, and the Scotsman

Alexander King, then Director of Science, Technology and Education at the Paris-based

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), organised a conference

to try and raise awareness of the future of humanity against the background of global population

growth, emerging reports of resource depletion and the need to engender a sense of

ecological responsibility towards the planet. To the organisers’ dismay, however, the conference

at the Accademia dei Lincei in Rome failed to bring about the hoped-for awakening of

a global awareness of the issues. Only many years later did this finally come about under the

auspices of the United Nations.

Six of the attendees – Erich Jantsch, Alexander King, Max Kohnstamm, Aurelio Peccei, Jean

Saint-Geours and Hugo Thiemann – did, however, agree to work together to pursue the issues

further as a collective that they called the “Club of Rome”. Dennis L. Meadows, a computer

scientist at MIT, later recalled: “It was a circle of intellectuals, scientists, industrialists and

other public figures […]. In 1970, the club met for its first official annual meeting in Switzerland.

The members debated at length, including how they could conduct research on the future of

the world. One of the members had a concrete idea. That was Jay Forrester, a professor at

MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology […] who was already famous at the time. He

suggested that his computer models could help simulate the future development of world

population, industrialisation and resource consumption. […] I was already at MIT at that

time and put forward a proposal on how to improve Forrester’s models using the computer

language Dynamo in such a way that you could develop a so-called ‘world model’ from them.

The idea was to simulate the systemic behaviour of the Earth as an economic model according

to different scenarios. And to see how long the world’s resources would last. […] Computer

programmes that could simulate so-called systems, i.e. mutual dependencies between

different variables, was one of MIT’s major achievements at the time.” 5 Taking up this suggestion,

the Club of Rome commissioned a group of scientists to conduct a study based on Jay

Forrester’s preliminary work and make an estimate of how long the system Earth could remain

viable – assuming global population growth and increasing economic activity, while also taking

into account the limited availability of natural reserves and their increasing exploitation.

5 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung,

“Dennis Meadows im Gespräch:

‘Wir haben die Welt nicht gerettet’”,

https://www.faz.net/aktuell/

wirtschaft/dennis-meadows-imgespraech-wir-haben-die-welt-nichtgerettet-11671491.html,

published

3 March 2020 (accessed 3 January

2022).

ECONOMIC

An

equitable

world

SOCIAL

Sustainable

Development

A

liveable

world

A

viable

world

ENVIRONMENTAL

1

Sustainability is often described

as the holistic synergy of social,

economic and environmental

concerns. The intersection of

and interaction between these

individual aspects allow us

to better understand their interdependencies

and identify

corresponding objectives. The

isolated consideration or predominant

emphasis of a single

aspect results in an imbalance in

the system.


14 — 15

Industrial output

Resources

Population

Food

Pollution

1900 1950 2000 2050

2100

In 1972, the book The Limits to Growth 6 was published, which presented the results of

these simulations to the public. Its authors were Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows,

Jørgen Randers and William W. Behrens III, representing a team of 17 scientists. The findings

of the study were devastating: if global society fails to make more sustainable use of natural

resources and does not radically reduce its levels of consumption, the study predicted

that the global system of the earth would collapse in the first half of the 21st century. The

causes cited included the pollution of the environment through solid and gaseous emissions,

the depletion of natural resources (or an end to their viable extraction) and a decreasing

productivity of agricultural land, which together with the pollution of natural flora and fauna

ecosystems would lead to a decrease in food supply. This would, in turn, lead to a steep

decline of the birth rate, the aging of society and, above all, a sharp decrease in industrial

production and services. Given the unthinkable outlook it predicted, the book came in for

heavy criticism. Several attempts were made to recalculate the models with updated data

and better software and hardware, most notably in 1992 7 and in 2004, 8 but the overall

results remained unchanged. For the authors and initiators, it was important to show the

interdependencies of the individual systems and the influencing variables. As such, their

work represents a continuation of the earlier approaches by Carl von Carlowitz and Rachel

Carson, albeit at a much higher level of complexity.

2

State of the World: In The Limits

to Growth, published in 1972,

scientists modelled how long

the planet can maintain various

existing systems before increasing

imbalances will inevitably

result in radical shifts in the

world order.

Based on: Donella H. Meadows, Dennis

L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers and

William W. Behrens III, The Limits

to Growth; A Report for the Club of

Rome's Project on the Predicament of

Mankind. New York: Universe Books,

1972.

SOCIO-POLITICAL DEMANDS FOR SUSTAINABILITY

During the 1970s and 1980s, a strong global social movement emerged that aimed

to make sustainability issues a central concern of politics. Various initiatives were formed,

partly driven by anti-war and peace campaigners or other green and alternative groups who

opposed the civil and military use of nuclear power and the exploitation of natural resources.

In 1980, Germany’s first green party was founded in Karlsruhe, which from then on advanced

this agenda, initially at a municipal level, and later in government. Since then, these issues

have gained broad support in society. Internationally, similar calls for a responsible and

sustainable use of resources grew increasingly vocal and in 1983, the United Nations established

the World Commission on Environment and Development, 9 based in Geneva, as an

independent expert commission. It was tasked with developing a study on how the global

community could establish long-term environmental strategies for sustainable development

while reconciling these with economic and social aspects. When it was founded, it comprised

19 members from 18 nations and was chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland, former Minister of

the Environment and then Prime Minister of Norway.

6 Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L.

Meadows, Jørgen Randers and William

W. Behrens III, The Limits to Growth; A

Report for the Club of Rome’s Project

on the Predicament of Mankind. New

York: Universe Books, 1972.

7 Donella H. Meadows, Jørgen

Randers and Dennis L. Meadows, Beyond

the Limits. White River Junction,

VT: Chelsea Green Publishing, 1992.

8 Donella H. Meadows, Jørgen

Randers and Dennis L. Meadows, The

Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update.

White River Junction, VT: Chelsea

Green Publishing, 2004.

9 World Commission on Environment

and Development (WCED).

Its first report was published in 1987 and provided a concise definition of sustainability

that is still widely acknowledged today: “Sustainable development is development that

meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to

meet their own needs.” 10 – a simple, succinct but also unequivocal description of the responsibility

we all bear, individually and collectively. Anticipating that professional circles would

not find this adequate, the report offered a second, more detailed definition: “In essence,

sustainable development is a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the

direction of investments, the orientation of technological development; and institutional

change are all in harmony and enhance both current and future potential to meet human

needs and aspirations.” 11 This second definition adds several noteworthy aspects: Firstly, the

report recognises that sustainability is a dynamic system that is constantly being renegotiated,

and secondly, it expands the framework of the communicating vessels system to

include not just the three aforementioned pillars of ecology, economy and sociology but also

the concepts of technology and politics (institutions) and explicitly addresses the question

of resources.

10 World Commission on Environment

and Development, Our Common

Future. Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 1987. Chapter 2, §1.

11 Ibid., Chapter 2, Section I §15.

12 The Natural Step Germany,

https://www.thenaturalstep.de/

approach/ (accessed 5 January 2022).

13 Ibid.

14 Mathis Wackernagel and William

Rees, Our Ecological Footprint. Reducing

Human Impact on the Earth.

Gabriola Island, B.C.: New Society

Publishers, 1996.

DEFINITIONS OF SUSTAINABILITY

However, even this second definition was not scientific enough for some experts. In

1989, Swedish cancer researcher Karl-Henrik Robèrt and a group of 50 scientists formulated

a more far-reaching approach that draws on the laws of thermodynamics: “The Earth’s

biosphere is a system open to energy, which enters the atmosphere in the form of sunlight,

generates winds and ocean currents and partially leaves as heat radiation. The Earth’s

biosphere is a relatively closed system in terms of matter, due to gravity as well as slow

geological processes that put and keep minerals, metals and fossil fuels underground.” 12

Within the biosphere there are established cycles that form the basis for life on earth

and ensure its ongoing survival. For example, plants produce oxygen and food through

photosynthesis, which humans and animals absorb, producing carbon dioxide and natural

fertilisers (from excretions and composted organic material) that promote plant growth.

The biosphere is also dependent on the earth’s crust, the lithosphere. Materials enter the

biosphere, for example through volcanic eruptions, which with the help of biosynthesis are

transformed into other material compositions. Similarly, materials also enter the lithosphere

from the biosphere through mineralisation or sedimentation. “These natural processes have

evolved over billions of years. Humans are an adaptive, self-organising social species with

fundamental needs to be fulfilled. […] Humans depend on each other and on these systems

to sustain them. The challenge is that these natural and social systems are being influenced

more and more by humans, up to a point where we are degrading these systems on a global

scale. In a nutshell, the root causes of unsustainability are: 1) Extraction of a relatively large

flow of materials from the earth’s crust. 2) Introduction and concentration of persistent

chemical compounds foreign to nature. 3) Physical inhibition of nature’s ability to run cycles.

And 4) Allowing the existence of obstacles to people’s health, influence, competence, impartiality

or meaning-making.” 13

Following these principles, and by preventing and opposing these four causes, Robèrt,

together with public institutions, private companies, government bodies and environmental

associations in Sweden, went on to design a framework of sustainable development, which

was made available to all schools in Sweden and is used as a teaching aid to this day. By

its own account, it has greatly influenced the country’s agricultural, energy and forestry policies.

Generally speaking, this predominantly scientific approach aims to lend greater consistency

to our actions within the existing natural cycles, which must be protected at all costs.

MEASUREMENTS OF SUSTAINABILITY

In 1997, Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees published the book Our Ecological Footprint.

Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. 14 In it, they describe a systematic attempt to

quantify the unsustainable behaviour of humankind and present a tool that any individual,

community or country can use as a basis for comparison. The approach measures patterns


16 — 17

Atmosphere

Biosphere

Entirety of living organisms

Lithosphere

of human consumption in terms of the amount of land required to supply that demand and

uses them as a means of conceptually visualising environmental consumption at global,

national, regional and individual levels. Wackernagel and Rees include the consumption of

both land and sea areas as well as the waste resulting from the prevailing linear economic

model. The consumption of land and water is differentiated into areas used for energy

production, as built-up area, as cropland, grazing land and forest land, as marine areas and

for depositing waste. The ecological footprint, as they called this unit of measurement, made

it possible to calculate per capita consumption and compare it against the corresponding

ecological productivity – or biocapacity – of the natural environment.

It goes without saying that the more a population grows, the more land it consumes.

With this tool, however, it becomes possible to calculate whether different kinds of individuals

or societies consume more or less space. And not only that: it is also possible to

calculate the point in time at which human consumption exceeds the biocapacity of the

entire planet. Wackernagel is now founder and president of the Global Footprint Network,

an organisation that calculates the point in each year at which the consumption of resources

exceeds their provisioning or renewal potential. It is striking – and deeply disturbing – that

the so-called Earth Overshoot Day occurs earlier and earlier each year. According to the

network’s calculations, in 1970 global overshoot occurred on 29 December: in 2022, it was

reached on 28 July. From that day on, the world’s population lives at the expense of (and

accordingly accepts the destruction of) our natural cycles and the well-being of future

generations. It is a measure of unsustainability.

In addition to measuring the sustainable behaviour of people and societies, it is also

possible to assess the ecological balance of industrially manufactured objects and products,

including buildings. Known as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), it has in recent years become

an increasingly important method for measuring and comparing the ecological impact of

products and the built environment. A product life cycle can be considered in different

phases: the production (raw material extraction, manufacturing, construction, installation,

3

The Global Climate System: For

millions of years, the biosphere

as the parts of the earth populated

by living things has interacted

with the lithosphere and

atmosphere in a natural cycle in

which the energy exchange with

the sun and outer space is the

only open system.

Based on: The Natural Step

Deutschland, Unsere Lebensgrundlage

retten. Die negativen Entwicklungen

stoppen. Planegg: Sustainable Growth

Associates GmbH, 2016–2020.

BIOLOGICAL CYCLE

TECHNICAL CYCLE

Production

Production

Plants

Product

Product

Technical

nutrients

Biological

nutrients

Disassembly

Use

Use

4

The Cradle-to-Cradle principle

differentiates between biological

and technical cycles that must

be considered separately to

avoid compromising the circularity

potential of nutrients, goods

and products and their corresponding

mechanisms.

Based on: William McDonough and

Michael Braungart, Cradle to Cradle:

Remaking the Way We Make Things.

New York: North Ponit Press, 2002.

Biological

Degradation

15 William McDonough and Michael

Braungart, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking

the Way We Make Things. New York:

North Point Press, 2002.

Return

transportation), the use phase (operation and maintenance, including repair and replacements)

and disposal (demolition, transportation, landfill or incineration). LCA examines and

quantifies the different impacts on the natural environment over the various phases of the

life cycle to provide a reliable basis for assessment and comparison. Aspects of reuse and

recycling diverge from the conventional linear “cradle to grave” model, and as such can only

be calculated as a potential. LCA methods can certainly also be used to map closed material

cycles but it is, unfortunately, difficult to predict – and even more difficult to guarantee –

what will actually happen to a product at the end of its service life as currently there is no

legal obligation to adopt circular economy principles.

Important in any life cycle assessment is a clear definition of the goal and scope of the

analysis: which parameters should be calculated – for example energy demand or consumption

of resources – and for what purposes are they needed? The system boundaries must

also be clarified: should the scope include potentials of circular material usage or not,

and what assumptions does this entail? The next step is to undertake a life cycle inventory

– identify and quantify all materials and components used, where they originate from,

including all emissions and waste resulting from their production, transport and installation

– as well as an assessment of the impact that these substances have on humans, natural

ecosystems, the climate and global resources (greenhouse effect, toxicity, radiation, land

consumption, etc.). The final step is to interpret these findings: even though LCA methodologies

are now part of national and international norms, there is no one scientific basis

for establishing the results of life cycle assessments across the board as universally valid

numerical values, such is the complexity of the specific interactions between the different

systems within the levels of consideration.

Another well-known approach within the field of circular thinking was developed in

the early 2000s by William McDonough and Michael Braungart and is likewise based on the

principle that matter, rather than being consumed, only changes state. In their book Cradle to

Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, 15 the two authors develop a design concept that

comprises two closed cycles that should not mix: a biological metabolism that reflects the

natural cycle of organic matter in which organic waste becomes a nutrient for new organic


18 — 19

Under current trends

the global extraction

of materials would

double again by 2050

170-184

2015

COP21: Agreement of Paris

Over the last five decades,

the global extraction of

materials has more

than tripled.

53.6

76.4

92.1

Global extraction Globale Rohstoffentnahme of raw materials in billion Millionen tonnes Tonnen (Gt) (Gt)

42.9

7.0

1972

Club of Rome:

The Limits to Growth

27.0

34.0

1900 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015 2050

5

The exponential growth of the

global extraction of raw mater -

i als between 1900 and 2050.

Based on: Circle Economy, The circularity

gap report 2021. Amsterdam:

Circle Economy, 2021.

growth; and a technical metabolism, in which non-biological products are designed, produced

and constructed in a way that is repairable, reconfigurable and fully separable so that they

may be used over and over again in new applications. The authors’ principle of “cradle to

cradle” stipulates that these two metabolisms be considered and engineered strictly separately

from one another. Any transfer from one to the other is tantamount to breaking the

cycle and losing the (biological or technical) nutrients circulating in it. The concept consequently

allows for material overuse, since all materials are recovered and returned to their

cycles eventually. In this respect, the authors often cite the example of the cherry tree, which

produces a million blossoms but only 1,000 cherries, while the withered petals become nutrients

for the production of new blossoms in the following year. Braungart and McDonough

also propose a reconfiguration of the responsibilities of producer and consumer. Their hope

is that by establishing clear regulatory frameworks for continuous circular economies, a new

generation of businesses can emerge that break with the linear economic model of the past

and understand waste as nutrients for producing future products.

Building

with mineral-based

materials

Building

with bio-based

materials

350 Mya 1750 2020 2050

Creation of

carbon stock

Extraction of

carbon stock

Build-up of

carbon stock

6

The sequestering of carbon from

the atmosphere in the earth’s

crust (lithosphere) began over

350 million years ago through

photosynthesis. Since the first

industrial age and the more

widespread use of fossil fuels,

carbon emissions into the atmosphere

have increased significantly,

with far-reaching consequences

for the climate and

living conditions in many areas

of our planet. Buildings must in

future be conceived as carbon

sinks, as repositories of reusable

biological building materials.

Based on: G. Churkina, A. Organschi,

C. P. O. Reyer et al., “Buildings as a

global carbon sink”, Nature Sustainability,

3, 2020, pp. 269–276, https://

doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0462-4.


20 — 21

BUILDING BETTER – LESS – DIFFERENT

Designing and constructing sustainable buildings requires that one think holistically at

a multitude of levels and in multiple arenas: socio-cultural, economic, ecological, functional

and aesthetic concerns must be considered alongside local and global factors as equally

important aspects that interact with one another. This complexity makes it impossible to

offer simple answers and patent remedies, or to propose generally applicable scenarios.

Instead, designing and building sustainably is the product of an unbiased, critical view of a

specific brief and thus also a personal approach to the challenge – one that draws on empirical

values from one’s own experiments and experience, paired with a broad foundational

knowledge of the topics of sustainability.

Building Better – Less – Different aims to provide an overview of the many current

topics and issues concerning questions of sustainability from the perspective of building

construction. Each volume examines and contrasts two of these topics. This first volume

begins by looking at circular construction principles and questions of the circular economy

in order to identify commonalities, overlaps, potential learning effects and possibilities but

also differences, risks and impossibilities. Together these reveal the complexity of the tasks

that lie ahead. Further comparisons planned for future volumes include energy, digitalisation,

land use or participation, and will help broaden and advance the discourse. The book’s

structure offers readings from several perspectives: beginning with the status quo in each

topic area, the contributions look at potential means of improvement (efficiency), possible

radical departures (sufficiency) and finally complete transformations to an unequivocally

circular model of action (consistency). This will be the common thread in each volume of the

series, a reminder of what must inevitably happen: informed sustainable action.

PRINCIPLES OF

CIRCULAR

CONSTRUCTION

Introduction by Felix Heisel and

Dirk E. Hebel

1 In 2015, Germany imported some

355 million tonnes of raw material,

135 million tonnes of semi-finished

goods and 152 million tonnes of

finished goods. Umweltbundesamt

(German Federal Environment Agency),

“Inländische Entnahme von Roh stoffen

und Materialimporte”, https://www.

umweltbundesamt.de/daten/

ressourcen-abfall/rohstoffe-alsressource/inlaendische-entnahmevon-rohstoffen

(accessed 28 June

2020).

2 Umweltbundesamt (German

Federal Environment Agency),

“Ressourcen und Abfall”, https://

www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/

ressourcen-abfall/abfallaufkommen#

deutschlands-abfall (accessed 28

June 2020).

3 Mitchell Joachim, "City and Refuse.

Self-Reliant Systems and Urban

Terrains", in Dirk E. Hebel, Marta H.

Wisniewska and Felix Heisel, Building

from Waste. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2014,

pp. 21–25.

In September 2020, as part of her State of the Union address, the President of the European

Commission Ursula von der Leyen reiterated the goal to establish a fully circular economy in

the EU, as outlined in the Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) published in March of that year.

She singled out the construction sector as bearing particular responsibility as, according to the

Commission, it was responsible for 50 % of primary raw material consumption within the EU in

2019 and for 36 % of solid waste production. The reason for this lies in our current linear model

of thinking and economics: raw materials are extracted from natural cycles, turned into goods

and products for public consumption and eventually disposed of. This still dominant approach

has profound consequences for the planet and is seriously disrupting existing ecosystems.

Materials such as sand, copper, zinc or helium will soon no longer be technically, ecologically

and economically viable to extract from natural sources. As an alternative to the prevailing

destructive pattern of linear raw material consumption, Ursula von der Leyen called for the

adoption of closed material loops that are intelligently planned and designed with foresight.

The scale of the problem can be seen in Germany’s own pattern of consumption: The

Federal Republic of Germany is a country without abundant raw material resources of its

own and accordingly imports some 642 million tonnes (metric tons) of goods every year. The

quantity of raw materials consumed, however, is far greater – by a factor of 2.5 1 – because

imported semi-finished and finished goods (i.e., manufactured products) in turn consumed

raw materials for their manufacture and processing in the producing countries. The direct

material use of the German economy therefore amounts to 1.3 billion tonnes. According to

the German Federal Environment Agency this mass of material corresponds in visual terms

to an 800 m high, tall and wide cube of concrete. If this were a building, it would be by far

the largest building in Germany, dwarfing the currently tallest structure in the country, the

Fernsehturm in Berlin, at 368 m. And that every year.

At the same time, the mountain of waste produced in Germany is no less imposing:

the gross volume of waste generated in Germany in 2017 amounted to a total of 412 million

tonnes, 2 of which 53.4 % – or 220.3 million tonnes – was construction and demolition waste

(including road debris). The lion’s share (85%) of that was excavated soil and earth.

These figures from Germany are just one example of how throughout the world we have

been building up an unimaginably large anthropogenic material stock, but at the same time

have relatively little idea of what to do with this gigantic material depot other than to dump

or incinerate it. Put another way: while traditional sources of raw materials are depleting ever

faster, our cities have the potential to become material mines for the future. Seen from this

perspective, cities are both consumers and suppliers of resources, and can draw on themselves

to further their ongoing development. As the New York architect Mitchell Joachim puts

it, “the future city would make no distinction between waste and supply.” 3

Understanding this anthropogenic stockpile of materials as a momentary instance in

a continuous and ongoing cycle of resources represents a radical paradigm shift for the

building sector. These “urban mines” have enormous quantitative potential as suppliers

of materials. The challenge is to develop new construction methods and technologies to

transform these into a new generation of qualitatively sustainable, i.e., ecologically sound,

materially separable and economically attractive – because endlessly (re)usable – building

materials. Established materials and customary construction principles need to be re-examined

in the context of a fully continuous circular economy. There are two key prerequisites

for this: buildings should be constructed of mono-materials, using construction techniques

that are separable and designed for disassembly. Only then can we plan and organise the

deconstruction of buildings, and in turn the subsequent reuse or recycling of the materials

they contain, in the same way that we currently design and plan their construction.

In this context, mono-materials are comprised of material constituents with the same

material properties (even if they are themselves material combinations). The alternative,

composites materials consist of two or more materials that have different material properties

and are bound to each other by adhesives or other irreversible connections. Monomaterials

are not mixed, anodised, laminated, coated or otherwise connected to another

material with different material properties.


22 — 23

The same applies to circular construction methods and joining techniques. Many materials

that in terms of their material properties could be considered mono-materials cannot

be recycled or reused because they have been contaminated with another substance or

installed using a construction technique that is inappropriate for circular construction. Typ -

ically this applies to the way materials and products are joined, bonded, sealed, mortared,

grouted or mixed in such a way that they cannot be salvaged or reclaimed at high value,

unmixed and contaminant-free for renewed use.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of the existing built environment is made of precisely

such problematic material combinations and construction methods and was neither

designed nor built with deconstruction or reuse in mind. In this respect, urban mining is a

response to the anthropogenic material depot as an ill-fitting construct where only fragments

of the materials and building elements can be salvaged, and only with the help of

the additional input of energy and labour. The principle of circular construction is instead

forward-looking and requires all new buildings and conversions to adhere to the aforementioned

principles of mono-materiality and design for disassembly. Technically speaking, such

buildings are then no longer an urban mine from which materials are extracted but a materials

depot that can be directly reused and recycled in the future.

From an economic perspective, circular principles are opening up new business models

that are beginning to disrupt prevailing linear material flows. For example, companies are

beginning to switch from selling their products to charging only for their use. After their

service time, the materials (which are designed to be easily retrieved) are returned to the

companies’ own production cycles. Through far-sighted design and assembly, the product

becomes a future source of raw materials. By leveraging circular economy principles, these

companies develop new know-how and new technologies and market these innovations.

In this change of thinking lies an enormous opportunity to revolutionise the construction

sector as well as to open up and develop completely new business areas. The development

of new construction principles therefore represents the technological basis for enabling the

circular use of raw materials.

Converting the building sector to operate according to circular construction principles

requires radically rethinking the way resources are managed in the construction industry and

the built environment. Similar to warehousing, the buildings, cities and regions will have to

keep track and anticipate the stocks and flows of materials. The goal must be an inventory

that documents and communicates (at the right moment) which materials in what quantities

and qualities become available for reuse or recycling where and at what time in the future.

This has major implications for the design and construction process, for supply and value

chains within the construction industry, and for data capture and management – all of which

are currently the focus of various global research initiatives.

To understand material flows and enable their incorporation into closed cycles, circular

construction requires detailed data sets. The concept of the materials passport emerged in

response to this. Broadly speaking, a materials passport is a digital record of all materials,

components and products used in a building, including detailed information on quantities,

qualities, dimensions and positions of all materials. In addition to such thorough documentation

at the level of the individual building, a further prerequisite for circular resource

management at a regional level lies in the standardisation and registration of such passports

on a central platform or in official cadastral plans.

The following chapters explain the principles of circular construction according to the

sustainability strategies “Better”, “Less” and “Different”, and are intended – along with

circular economy principles – to inspire new, possibly unfamiliar but entirely sustainable

ways of thinking and acting.

PRINCIPLES OF

A CIRCULAR

ECONOMY

Following its reintroduction in the West as a heuristic around design, materials management

and business models around 2011, the notion of a circular economy has spread across

the globe. As it did so, many different descriptions or definitions circulated. Here is one

generally useful example by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, accompanied by a schematic

displaying the essentials of a “closing of the materials loop”:

Introduction by Ken Webster

“A circular economy is a systemic approach to economic development designed to benefit

businesses, society, and the environment. In contrast to the ‘take-make-waste’ linear model,

a circular economy is regenerative by design and aims to gradually decouple growth from

the consumption of finite resources.” 1

More than a decade earlier, Braungart and McDonough described several core ideas of

today’s understanding of circular economy in their seminal work Cradle to Cradle. These

include waste = food, aiming to design out waste and define materials as nutrients for the

next pathway (see diagram); a shift to clean energy and renewables; a celebration of diversity;

and the goal to restore and regenerate natural capital.

Other definitions began from the notion of waste management and materials recovery,

and aligned with established ideas of resource efficiency. Yet others took the circular

economy to be part of some form of corporate social responsibility or as a new greenwashing

label. Collating these different notions and concepts – as well as the lessons learned from

the past years – we now know what circular economy means in practice, by and large.

Stefano Pascucci and his colleagues summarized their findings on the circular economy

(CE) debate “through the following three key propositions:

i. CE gathers the principles of other schools of thought 2 and elaborates them in a narrative

able to inspire policy actions.

ii. CE is evoking a socio-technical transition into multiple regimes in which societal and

material needs are fulfilled by innovative industrial systems.

iii. CE contributes to the environmental and economic dimensions of sustainability by

means of an eco-effectiveness approach to industrial systems.” 3

1 https://archive.ellenmacarthur

foundation.org/explore/the-circulareconomy-in-detail.

2 E.g., in addition to Cradle to

Cradle: Natural Capitalism, Industrial

Ecology, Blue Economy (Pauli), Performance

Economy.

3 Massimiliano Borrello, Stefano

Pascucci and Luigi Cembalo, “Three

Propositions to Unify Circular

Economy”, in Sustainability, 12 (10),

2020, https://www.mdpi.com/2071-

1050/12/10/4069/htm. Emphasis

added.

4 Stephen Jay Gould, “Darwin’s

Untimely Burial” (1976), in Alex Rosenberg

and Robert Arp (eds.), Philosophy

of Biology: An Anthology. John Wiley &

Sons, 2009, pp. 99–102.

This summary is thoroughly mainstream, in a sense that it is not going to make anyone shift

uncomfortably in their office chairs. It is a familiar sequence from new technologies, very

much digitally focussed, which prompt changing business models and feeds back to innovative

product, system and service design. The aim is varied, depending upon who is asking

the question. Conventionally it offers something to the client, perhaps owners or managers

of buildings – for example in its onward appeal to customers and users, or perhaps through

efficiency in terms of lowered costs of labour, materials and energy for maintenance and use.

And yet, because it is a design-led systemic approach, when well done, it is challenging to

existing custom and practices.

Pascucci and his colleagues speak of eco-effectiveness, not efficiency, suggesting the

shift is also in perspective: effectiveness addresses the purpose of the system in question.

What is it for? And part of that inquiry is the question of how the system itself fits the

contexts within which it operates. It is an old trope, but Darwin saw evolution as the survival

of “that which best fits the system”, 4 not as the survival of the fittest – as in defeating the

others in the form of a “last one standing”. How could it be otherwise, now that the climate

crisis is upon us, as an example of what happens if we ignore encompassing systems?

Equally contextual is the idea of barriers and enablers of change. Economic sectors

are shaped by the rules of the game. In the construction sector, building codes and land

use zoning are everyday familiarities. But strong impacts may also result from changes in

the value of land or the fiscal regime. Some form of carbon fee and dividend may be in the

pipeline and sharply volatile energy prices are already the norm – as is the notion that waste

management needs to be replaced with materials management and the obligation to know

exactly what elements constitute a building or infrastructure in play.

CIRCULAR ECONOMY

24 — 25

BIOSPHERE

Renewable flow

management

products safe for

humans and nature

REGENERATIVE

ENERGY

TECHNOSPHERE

Stock management

products safe for

humans and nature

Harvest of

bio-based resources for

Biosphere and Technosphere

MATERIAL

FORMULATION

Harvest

Mining

Up-cycle

Re-cycle

Regeneration

by natural

environment

Cascading use

COMPONENT

PRODUCTION

Re-furbish

Re-manufacture

T1

B1.1

B1.2

B2

B3

PRODUCT

ASSEMBLY

SALES,

SERVICE AND

DISTRIBUTION

Re-use

Re-pair

Share

Maintain

T3

T2

B4

T4

Regeneration by

industrial

processes

USE,

CONSUMPTION

AND COLLECTION

NO WASTE

1

The butterfly diagram represents

a powerful and holistic

view of the main assumptions

driving the shift towards a circular

economy, the proposed

changes and the range of solutions

that facilitate the transition.

Based on: Growth within: a circular

economy vision for a competitive Europe,

2015. – Ellen MacArthur Foundation

and McKinsey Center for Business

and Environment, and EPEA – Part of

Drees & Sommer.

DIFFERENT

TRIODOS

BANK

Circular Wooden

Cathedral

Case Study by RAU Architects

The headquarters of Triodos Bank in

Driebergen-Rijsenburg, The Netherlands,

one of Europe’s leading ethical banks, was

designed with the ambition to create a

dynamic balance between nature, culture

and economy, reflecting the norms and

values of the bank. The building is the

world’s first office building to follow the

concept of “design for disassembly”, with

a structure above ground made entirely

from wood, including its wooden cores.

Every element can be reused and is documented

in a materials passport, effectually

turning the building into a material bank.

The building is energy positive and blends

respectfully into the surrounding nature of

the historical estate. The immediate landscape

is designed to enhance the biodiversity

of the area.

ASPECTS OF CIRCULARITY

The five-story, 12,994 m² large building

addresses circularity on various levels. It

not only includes various aspects of the

classical XR-model (rethink, reuse, reduce,

recycle, etc.), but extends the notion of

circularity from the pure material dimension

into other dimensions such as energy,

water, biodiversity and social impact,

striving to give a beneficial contribution

to society at large, as described in the

following paragraphs.

DESIGN FOR DISASSEMBLY AND

RECONSTRUCTION

On the material level the building is

designed to be fully demountable. The

entire building, from the ground level

upwards, consist of a unique wooden

construction: 338 standardized wooden

elements, wooden floors, wooden shafts

and wooden columns are held together

with 165,312 screws to form three towers

of up to five stories. If the company ever

needs to relocate, or if the office closes, all

of the components can be easily disassembled

and reused. The building contains

1,615 m³ of laminated wood, more than

1,000 m³ of cross-laminated timber (CLT)

and 5 original tree trunks. The wood, used

in both the furniture and the floors, mostly

comes from the estate. Only the basement

has a concrete structure necessitated by

the need for water management.

MATERIALS PASSPORT

RAU Architects define a circular building as

a temporary placement of products, components

and materials with a documented

identity. The origin and planned reuse of

all products, components and materials

are carefully documented in a materials

passport and registered in Madaster, an

online database for material used in the built

environment (see p. 118). A digital record

of the building has been established which

lists every material, component and product

used in the building. This allows for different

parts to be easily recovered and reused in

the future, turning the Triodos Bank building

literally into a digitally transparent material

depot. The building will even be a material

bank: the financial residual value of materials

used in the building is being made

accountable.

RECONFIGURE

The building has an open floor plan arranged

around three wooden shafts and flexible

drywall system. This provides maximum flexibility

to reconfigure the building over the

course of the years and adapt it to changing

spatial needs of the bank or even a new user

without destroying any material.

REUSE & RECYCLE

While the design focused on maximizing

reuse of material in the future, the building

also made use of recycled materials or

existing construction materials harvested

from demolition projects through a special

cooperation with the Dutch Urban Mining

Collective. About 10,000 m² of reused

drywall was integrated into the flexible wall

structure. The sunscreens for the canteen

were partly made from recycled ocean

plastic. Wooden beams which formerly

served in a building in Rotterdam were used

after the nails were removed by employees

of a social work initiative.

REDUCE

A large part of the building was prefabricated

and assembled on site. It was

constructed within 13 months, five months

faster than it would have taken using traditional

methods for a building of a similar

scale. This allowed for just-in-time delivery,

minimizing the space needed for construc-


108 — 109

1

The form of the building and

its glazed facades allow ample

daylight into the interior and

afford the staff not just expansive

views outdoors but also a

sense of being immersed in the

landscape.

DIFFERENT

2 ↗

A staircase in the middle of

the building’s timber core. Its

design and the production of

materials draw inspiration from

the structures of nature.

3 →

The unique ribbed structure of

the timber ceilings recalls the

gills of a mushroom, further

underlining the building’s relationship

to nature.

4 ↓

Some 3,300 m² of solar panels

on the roof of the car park provide

the building with energy

as well as 120 bi-directional

charging points for electric and

hybrid vehicles.


110 — 111

tion and storage, thereby reducing pressure

on the sensitive natural environment of the

estate and reducing construction cost. The

use of prefabricated elements also significantly

contributed to minimizing construction

waste and costs associated with errors.

A thorough sorting system allowed for the

high-quality reuse of excess materials. The

choice of materials and building solutions

aimed to maximize the lifespan of products

while minimizing maintenance, by applying

a 40 year time horizon for the total cost of

ownership (TCO). Lastly, due to the choice

of wood, the building captures 1,612,000 kg

of CO₂, more than was emitted during its

fabrication and construction, making it one

of the first carbon negative office buildings

in the world in this size.

ENERGY

Due to the use of solar panels in combination

with two underground heat/cold

storage systems, the building is energy-positive.

The parking site is equipped with one

of the world’s largest bi-directional charging

stations, which is used as energy buffer for

the building.

WATER AND BIODIVERSITY

The building was designed to respect and

enhance the surrounding nature of the

forested preserve: the shape of the building

was modelled according to the flight of

bats living in the area. The facade provides

nesting space for birds, bats and insects and

its relief surface prevents birds and bats

from loosing their orientation. A green roof

captures rainwater for flushing toilets, cools

the building in the summer and provides

space for insects and birds. The landscape

design focused on strengthening the biodiversity

in the area by creating a variety of

ponds, biotopes and woodlands to provide

food and shelter for animals living in the

area. A historical vegetable garden provides

food for the canteen of the bank.

USERS AND VISITORS

The composition of the building strengthens

the relation between nature and the people

working in the building. Its glass facades

ensure maximum natural light penetration

and a magnificent view of the estate so that

all employees work not only on but also in

the estate. The building is designed without

any “rear” side, providing evenly attractive

working space at every place in every part of

the building. The building design also stimulates

resource-efficient behaviour: the spiral

staircases in the voids connecting the floors

form open spaces which stimulate the use

of the staircases in a natural way. Changing

rooms and showers encourage commuters

to bike, and the site is near a train station.

Health and wellbeing were guiding principles

for the choice of natural materials in

the building and the interior design.

STEWARDSHIP

Circularity is only a means to an end: a

healthy, flourishing society on a healthy,

flourishing planet; implying that an attitude

of long-term responsibility needs to

be established in every (economic) activity.

The guiding principle for the development

of the building can be summarized by the

word stewardship. By realizing the building,

Triodos Bank became a steward not only

for the materials used in the building but

also for the natural estate surrounding it.

Together with the building design, which

focused on the long-term preservation of

all materials, water and nature involved, a

concept for the long-term economic stability

of the historic estate was developed in

which the building plays a vital part.

Further Reading

▶ Deconstruction, “The Case for Deconstruction”, p. 32

▶ Biodiversity, “Ecology Must Have Priority!”, p. 102

▶ Users, “The Urban Village Project”, p. 122

DIFFERENT

5

The green roofs provide a habitat

for insects; the building’s

form is informed by the flight

path of bats; and ponds were

created in the landscaping to attract

larger and smaller animals.

6

The building is embedded in its

surroundings. The planting is

intended as a habitat for local

insects.


112 — 113

BUILDING

MATERIALS PASSPORT

Materials Passport of

Building

All elements and materials

applied in the building

are described in a report,

which gives information

about resources, emission

rates, origin, connections

and applicable certificates

DEMOUNTABLE

Demountable

The wooden structure is

utlizing dry connections

only, e. g. 165,321 screws,

so that all parts can be

demounted

FLEXIBLE

Flexible Interior Walls

To provide interior flexibility,

all interior walls are

constructed in such a way

that they can be replaced

or removed

Flexible Floor Walls

The floor ist constructed

in such a way that it can

be demounted

SURROUNDINGS

MATERIALS PASSPORT

Materials Passport of

Terrain

All elements and materials

applied on the

terrain are described in

a report, which provides

information about resources,

emission rates,

origin, connections and

applicable certificates

DEMOUNTABLE

Demountable

The steel structure covering

the parking places

is utlizing dry connections

only, so that parts

of the structure can be

demounted

REUSE

Reuse of Seating

The park benches were

repurposed from other

Triodos Bank properties

Reuse of Wooden

Beams

The wooden beams

used in the restaurant

are reused from other

buildings

Reuse of Pavement

Stones from the construction

site were

repurposed as pavement

7

Cross-section of the Triodos

Bank showing the principles of

circularity.

PROJECT DETAILS

Client

Triodos Bank N. V.

Architects

RAU Architects

Lead Architects

Thomas Rau, Erik Mulder, Dennis

Grotenboer, Michael Noordam

Landscape

Arcadis

Interior

Ex Interiors

Area

12,994 m²

Year

2019

DIFFERENT

THE URBAN

VILLAGE PROJECT

Case Study by EFFEKT

1 S. Wetzstein, “The global urban

housing affordability crisis”, Urban

Studies, 54 (14), 2017, pp. 3159–3177.

2 R. King, M. Orloff, T. Virsilas and

T. Pande, “Confronting the urban

housing crisis in the global south: adequate,

secure, and affordable housing”,

World Resources Institute Working

Paper, 2017.

3 T. Abergel, J. Dulac, I. Hamilton,

M. Jordan and A. Pradeep, Global

Status Report for Buildings and Construction—Towards

a Zero-Emissions,

Efficient and Resilient Buildings and

Construction Sector. United Nations

Environment Programme, 2019.

4 J. Woetzel, S. Ram, J. Mischke,

N. Garemo and S. Sankhe, A Blue -

print for Addressing the Global

Affordable Housing Challenge. New

York: McKinsey Global Institute, 2014.

5 J. Woetzel, S. Ram, J. Mischke,

N. Garemo and S. Sankhe, Tackling the

world’s affordable housing challenge.

McKinsey Global Institute, 2014.

The Urban Village Project presents a vision

for how to design, build and share our

future homes, neighborhoods and cities as

based on the principles of circular construction

and shared equity. The aim is to tackle

some of the urgent challenges related to

human development, while creating more

livable, affordable and sustainable homes

for the many.

Cities all around the world are facing

major challenges when it comes to rapid

urbanization, aging populations, loneliness,

climate change and lack of affordable housing.

Rising costs due to labor and material

shortages have cut into the margins of real

estate projects, driving developers to focus

on luxury units, which can turn a higher

profit. This has resulted in a global housing

affordability crisis, triggered by an increase

in real estate prices that has outpaced

wage growth in many urban centers around

the world. 1

Considering these challenges, it is estimated

that by 2025 as many as 1.6 billion

people around the world could lack access

to affordable, adequate and secure housing. 2

With the global building stock expected to

double by 2050, 3 it is necessary to rethink

the way housing is planned, built and financed,

to ensure greater equity, quality and

affordability within the built environment.

At the intersection of these pressing

boundaries, EFFEKT believe The Urban Village

Project offers a new model for designing,

building and sharing our future homes,

neighborhoods and cities in order to improve

quality of life. Based on the idea of “Home

as a Service”, the project is built on three

main pillars:

1. A modular timber-based building system

that can be prefabricated, flat-packed

and disassembled, ensuring a circular approach

to the management and life cycle of

future buildings.

2. A new financial model that offers a

lower entry point into the housing market

through subscription-based financing, allowing

homeowners to build equity as and when

they can afford it.

3. Cross-generational shared living communities

with access to flexible, high-quality

homes and a variety of shared services and

facilities that optimize resource use and improve

the quality of everyday life.

At the core of the project is a building

system designed with material cascades

in mind, prioritizing the reuse of technical

components to maintain resources at their

highest potential value.

As the traditional “design-bid-build”

construction process struggles to provide

efficient solutions to the global housing crisis,

the project looks towards prefabrication

to speed up supply and reduce costs. The

Urban Village Project is therefore based on

a modular system that can be built off-site,

flat-packed and easily assembled on location

in a matter of days without the use of heavy

machinery. Making use of more efficient

construction methods, such as prefabrication,

and shifting towards a systematized

supply chain could lower project costs by up

to 30 % and speed up delivery times by up to

50 %. 4 The modular building system enables

a range of living units that can be configured

and adapted to different urban settings and

family typologies. The various building components

were designed and grouped into

shearing layers according to their functions

and expected lifespans, to ensure a circular

supply chain where materials can be reused

and replaced through take-back schemes.

The use of materials passports ensures the

traceability of each building component,

making it easier to maintain, refurbish and

reconfigure the different parts of the building

throughout its lifetime. This strategy

draws on the many benefits of building in

wood to ensure cost-effectiveness, versatility,

carbon sequestration and biophilic

qualities. Combining a timber beam-andcolumn

structure with prefabricated building

components enables a high degree of

adaptability and ensures that the system

can be used to build everything from town

houses to high-rises.

The project's building system is key not

only to its environmental performance, but

also to securing affordability through a new

subscription-based financing model. Unlike

other sectors of the economy, residential

housing is generally still being built and

sold the same way it was 50 years ago. 5 The

developer model most common today is

based on the speculation that by the time

the project is finished, suitable buyers or

leasers will appear, if market conditions are

favorable. The little interaction between de-


122 — 123

veloper and end user creates a huge divide

between supply and demand, further escalating

the affordable housing gap. In contrast,

The Urban Village Project proposes a

circular economic model based on shared

equity, a new form of home ownership that

enables members to receive equity shares in

return for their investment. The idea is that

homeowners buy what they can at the time

of purchase and rent the rest. This means

lower down payments, allowing members

to build equity as and when they can afford

it. The shared equity model allows costs to

be spread across the housing community’s

members according to their ability to pay:

more affluent households can buy more

equity shares, making other homes in the

community more affordable for households

on modest incomes. When a member leaves,

they can sell their equity shares, releasing

the capital to buy a home elsewhere. The

Urban Village Project’s shared equity model

is supported by a digital platform which

allows homeowners to keep track of their

monthly costs and investments, as well as

their consumption patterns over time. This

fosters a high degree of financial flexibility

for the end user and a more diversified

portfolio for investors, thus mitigating risk

for both parties.

The project looks at how we can create

more desirable neighborhoods by unlocking

1

The Urban Village Project is a

vision for creating shared living

communities for people of all

ages, backgrounds and living

situations.

DIFFERENT

Extraction Prefabrication Delivery Assembly Ready Home

2

Building with sustainably

sourced timber enables CO₂

reductions, faster construction,

minimized waste and a healthier

indoor climate.

Tool Shed

Public Gardens

Waste

Management

Energy

Production

Fitness/Gym

Playscape

Co-Living

Family

Work/Live

Media Room

Mini Market

Shared Living

Room

Cafe

Maker

Space

Event Space

Divorced

Living

URBAN VILLAGE

Couple

Farm

Shared Kitchen

Car

Sharing

Health Clinic

Single Parent

Multigenerational

Sensory Gardens

Storage

Allotments

Gardens

Laundry

Extended Family

Single

E-bike Station

Waterscape

3

The Urban Village Project also

seeks to make life more affordable

by enabling people to share

more, pool resources and unlock

better deals on daily needs.


124 — 125

4

A modular building system

that can be prefabricated, flatpacked

and even disassembled

ensures a circular approach to

the management and life cycle

of our buildings.

5

The project is based on a modular

grid system that allows a

highly adaptable program distribution.

DIFFERENT

6

The Urban Village Project

enhances sustainable living

through integrated solutions

like water harvesting, clean energy

production, recycling, local

food production and localized

composting

the multiple benefits of living in a tight-knit

community. It proposes to establish multigenerational

living communities that combine

private living with shared spaces. The

Urban Village Project’s modular design allows

residents to choose from a wide range

of living units and customize their floor

plan. As needs change, floor plans can be

adapted over time, thanks to flexible walls

and adaptable furniture. The community

benefits from a wide range of shared services

that offer easy access to everything one

requires on a daily basis: day care, shared

mobility, communal dining, coworking spaces,

health care, urban gardening or a gym. The

sharing of resources, in its material and

monetary sense, enhances social interaction

within the village.

Further Reading

▶ Prefabricated modular construction, “The Urban Mining and Recycling (UMAR) Unit”, p. 142

▶ Construction layers, “The Economy of Urban Mining”, p. 80

▶ Communal ownership, “Principles of a Circular Economy”, p. 24


126 — 127

7

Many facilities and services –

like day care, urban farming,

communal dining, fitness and

transportation – are shared

among the dwellers, enabling a

better everyday life through the

multiple benefits of living in a

tight-knit community.

Appendix

APPENDIX

154 — 155

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, we would like to thank

all the authors of this book: Ken

Webster, Gretchen Worth, Anthea

Fernandes, Jennifer S. Minner, Christine

O’Malley, Allexxus Farley-

Thomas, Kerstin Müller, Andrew

Roblee, Mark Milstein, Diane Cohen,

Robin Elliott, Shawn Wood, Philippe

Block, Anja Rosen, Annette Hillebrandt,

Joshua R. Gassman, RAU

Architects, Dominik Campanella,

Sabine Rau-Oberhuber, EFFEKT,

Dave Mackerness and Erin Meezan.

Without their readiness to share

their convictions, appeals, visions,

activities, research and findings,

this book and the discourse it has

given rise to would not have been

possible. Our thanks go also to

both teams at KIT in Karlsruhe and

Cornell University in Ithaca: Elena

Boermann, Katharina Blümke, Daniel

Lenz, Sebastian Kreiter and Damun

Jawanrudi for their tireless work in

drawing and improving the graphics,

editing and correcting the texts

and ongoing consultation with our

authors. We would like to thank our

universities, Karlsruhe Institute of

Technology KIT and Cornell College

of Architecture, Art, and Planning,

and their departments of architecture

for their continued motivation

and support. And a special thank

you to our editor Andreas Müller

and Birkhäuser Verlag as well as the

graphic designer of this book, Tom

Unverzagt, for their trust, passion

and outstanding creativity.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Felix Heisel is an architect working

towards the systematic redesign of

the built environment as a material

depot in a continuous cycle of use

and reconfiguration. He is an Assistant

Professor at the Department

of Architecture at Cornell University’s

College of Architecture, Art,

and Planning, where he directs the

Circular Construction Lab. Heisel is

one of the founding partners of the

Circularity, Reuse, and Zero Waste

Development (CR0WD) network

in New York State, as well as a

founding partner of 2hs Architekten

und Ingenieur PartGmbB Hebel

Heisel Schlesier, Germany, an office

specializing in the development of

circular prototypologies. He has

received various awards for his

work and published numerous books

and articles on the topic, including

Urban Mining und kreislaufgerechtes

Bauen (“Urban Mining and Circular

Construction”) (Fraunhofer IRB,

2021, with Dirk E. Hebel), Culti vated

Building Materials (Birkhäuser,

2017, with Dirk E. Hebel) and Building

from Waste (Birkhäuser, 2014,

with Dirk E. Hebel and Marta H.

Wisniewska). Felix Heisel graduated

from Berlin University of the Arts

and has taught and researched at

universities around the world, including

the Berlage Institute, the

Ethiopian Institute of Architecture,

Building Construction, and City

Development, the Future Cities Laboratory,

Singapore, ETH Zurich,

and Harvard GSD.

Dirk E. Hebel is Professor of Sustainable

Construction and the

Dean of the Department of Architecture

at the Karlsruhe Institute

of Technology (KIT), Germany. He is

the author of numerous book publications,

including most recently

Urban Mining und kreislaufgerechtes

Bauen (“Urban Mining and

Circular Construction”) (Fraunhofer

IRB, 2021, with Felix Heisel). He

is co-founder and partner of 2hs

Architekten und Ingenieur Part-

GmbB Hebel Heisel Schlesier, practicing

architecture with a focus on

resource-respectful construction

methods and materials. His work

has been shown in numerous exhibitions

worldwide, most recently

in Plastic: Remaking our world,

Vitra Design Museum Weil am

Rhein (2022) and Environmental

Hangover by Pedro Wirz (both with

Nazanin Saeidi, Alireza Javadian,

Sandra Böhm and Elena Boerman),

Kunsthalle Basel (2022), as well as

Sorge um den Bestand, BDA, Berlin

and other venues, (2020–). As

Faculty Advisor together with Prof.

Andreas Wagner, he won the first

Solar Decathlon Competition 2022

held in Germany (Wuppertal) as

part of the RoofKIT team (Regina

Gebauer and Nicolas Carbonare).

Ken Webster is a Visiting Fellow at

Cranfield University and was formerly

Head of Innovation at the Ellen

MacArthur Foundation. His book

The Circular Economy: A Wealth of

Flows (Ellen MacArthur, 2nd edition

2017) relates the connections between

systems thinking, economic

and business opportunity and the

transition to a circular economy. He

is on the Club of Rome‘s Transformational

Economics Commission

and a contributing author to Earth

For All (2022). He makes regular inputs

to conferences, workshops and

seminars around the world.

Philippe Block is Professor at the

Institute of Technology in Architecture

at ETH Zurich, where he

co-directs the Block Research Group

(BRG) together with Dr. Tom Van

Mele. He is Director of the Swiss

National Centre of Competence in

Research (NCCR) in Digital Fabrication

and founding partner of

Foreign Engineering. Philippe Block

studied architecture and structural

engineering at the VUB, Belgium,

and at MIT, USA, where he earned

his PhD in 2009. His research at

the BRG focuses on computational

form finding and the optimisation

and construction of curved surface

structures, specialising in unreinforced

masonry vaults and concrete

shells.

Dominik Campanella is a co-founder

of Concular and restado. Concular is

a digital platform for circular construction,

and restado is the largest

marketplace for reclaimed materials

in Europe. He holds a Bachelor in

Computer Science (University of

Mannheim) and Master in Management

(HEC Paris). After several

years working for Google in various

positions and countries, he founded

Concular in 2020. Dominik Campanella

is a member of the Leadership

Group of the EU Circular Economy

Stakeholder Platform and the Expert

Pool for Circular Construction

of the German Sustainable Building

Council (DGNB).

Diane Cohen is Executive Director of

Finger Lakes ReUse, Inc., a nonprofit

501(c)(3) organization founded

in 2007 to help reduce waste and

reinvest value back into the community,

and has been working in used

material management since 2001.

In 2021, Diane Cohen received the

Lifetime Achievement Award from

NYSAR³ (New York State Association

for Reduction, Reuse and Recycling).

Finger Lakes ReUse has received

several additional honors, including

the New York State Environmental

Excellence Award, the Environmental

Champion Award from the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

and the Ithaca Journal’s “Best of

the Best” Readers’ Choice Award for

Best Department Store.

EFFEKT is a research-based,

multidisciplinary architecture and

planning office based in Copenhagen,

Denmark. The company was

established in 2007 and currently

employs 55 full-time staff under

the creative direction of the two

co-founding partners, Tue Foged

and Sinus Lynge. EFFEKT is the Danish

word for “impact”, and describes

the studio’s conviction that architecture

and urbanism must have a

lasting positive impact on our surroundings

and our planet. In recent

years, EFFEKT has distinguished

themselves on both the national

and international architecture scene

through several prestigious and

award-winning projects, such as the

Camp Adventure Forest Tower, the

Urban Village Project, GAME Streetmekka

Viborg, ReGen Villages as

well as some of Denmark’s largest

urban planning projects, Rosenhøj,

Gellerup and Vinge.

Robin Elliott, based in Ithaca, New

York, USA, has worked at Finger

Lakes ReUse since 2016. In her

current role as Associate Director

at Finger Lakes ReUse she works

primarily in fundraising, communications

and community programs.

Robin is passionate about all things

relating to equity as a paradigm for

a more sustainable future.

Allexxus Farley-Thomas graduated

from the Master of Architecture

program at Cornell University in

2021. During her degree program

she was a Research Assistant in

the Robotic Construction Lab and

a Shop Assistant specializing in

workflow and tools for the 6-axis

robots. After graduating she spent

six months as a Research Associate

in the Circular Construction Lab,

focusing on emerging trends in

architecture, construction, engineering

and robotic fabrication for

material reuse. She is currently an

Architectural Designer with ongoing

research in fabrication and data

science for building new databases

related to the circular economy.

Anthea Fernandes is an urban

planner who engages with communities,

city and state agencies in the

USA to develop mobility planning

studies, urban design strategies

and street infrastructure to make

neighborhoods livable and resilient.

Her goal is to make places safe

and inclusive through design and

community mobilization. Anthea

Fernandes received a Master of

Regional Planning with a Minor in

Historic Preservation from Cornell

University. During her studies, she

received the Alan Black Transportation-Related

Grant at Cornell University

(2020/2021) for her research

on gendered experiences, mobility

and safety in public spaces, as well

as the New York Upstate Chapter of

the American Planning Association

(APA) Outstanding Student Project

Award in 2021. Drawing from her

training in architecture and historic

preservation, Anthea became

involved with Just Places Lab and

CR0WD at Cornell University.

Joshua Gassman, RA, LEED AP

BD+C, is a Principal and Sustainable

Design Director at Lord Aeck Sargent

Planning and Design located in

Atlanta, Georgia, USA. His practice

is dedicated to the holistic execution

of complex, sustainably focused

projects. With a broad portfolio of

diverse clients, his career has been

centered on technically challenging

projects with large, multifaceted

consultant teams. He has extensive

knowledge of the USGBC’s Leadership

in Energy and Environmental Design

(LEED) System, as well as ILFI’s

Living Building Challenge (LBC).

Joshua Gassman has degrees from

Arizona State University and from

Washington University in St. Louis.

He is a LEED-accredited professional

(BD+C), a NCARB Certificate

Holder and member of professional

organizations, including AIA Atlanta

Committee on the Environment,

Georgia Solar Energy Association,

Southface Energy Institute, I²SL (International

Institute for Sustainable

Laboratories), USGBC and the International

Living Future Institute. He

sits on the Board of Directors of the

Georgia Audubon and is the Co-Vice

President of the Georgia Chapter

of I²SL.

Annette Hillebrandt has been a

freelance architect since 1994 and,

after holding Professorships in

Kaiserslautern and Münster (since

2001), is now the holder of the Professorship

of Building Construction

| Design | Materials Science at the

University of Wuppertal. As partner

in planning offices in Cologne

she has received several awards

for her buildings. In addition to

memberships in design assurance

committees and prize juries, she has

been involved in the Expert Pool

“Rückbau- und Recyclingfreundlichkeit”

(Deconstruction and Recycling

Friendliness) of the German Sustainable

Building Council (DGNB)

since its inception. In 2015, she received

the Urban Mining Award and

2020 the Hans Sauer Award for her

commitment. Annette Hillebrandt

researches and publishes on circulation

potentials in building construction

(www.urban-mining-design.

de; Manual of Recycling, Edition

DETAIL, 2019) and is the initiator of

a publicly accessible information

platform for building materials

(www.material-bibliothek.de, since

2010) and co-initiator of a nationwide

student competition (www.

urbanminingstudentaward.de, since

2018). She is a founding member

of the “Bauhaus Earth Initiative”, a

member of the High-level Workshop

on Research and Innovation for the

“New European Bauhaus” and of the

Sustainable Building Commission

at the German Environment Agency

(KNBau am Umweltbundesamt,

since 2022).

Dave Mackerness leads the Customer

Success Team at Kaer Pte Ltd,

where he is responsible for delivering

Kaer’s brand experience across

their regional “air-conditioning as

a service” portfolio. With a background

in consumer marketing and

over ten years of experience in the

building industry, he specialises in

customer insights that drive Kaer’s

product development roadmap and

customer engagement platform. As

an advocate of the circular economy

and the “product-as-a-service” business

model, Dave Mackerness regularly

shares experiences with large

multinational companies and startups

that are looking to transition to

this disruptive business model.

Erin Meezan is a sustainability

leader and keynote speaker on

sustainable business, climate and

the decarbonization of the built

environment. She has more than 20

years of experience leading sustainability

strategy at Interface, Inc.,

and is currently Vice President and

Chief Sustainability Officer. At Interface,

she leads a global team that

provides technical assistance and

support to the company’s global

business, addressing sustainability

at all levels. She is also focused on

creating a path for Interface and

others to reverse global warming

as part of the company’s current

sustainability mission, Climate Take

Back.

Mark Milstein is Clinical Professor

of Management and Director of the

Center for Sustainable Global Enterprise

at the Samuel Curtis Johnson

Graduate School of Management

at Cornell University. He conducts

applied research in and oversees the

Center’s work on market and enterprise

creation, business development,

clean technology commercialization,

and sustainable finance. Dr.

Milstein specializes in framing the

world’s social and environmental

challenges as unmet market needs

which can be addressed effectively

by the private sector through innovation

and entrepreneurship, thereby

allowing companies to achieve

financial success by creatively addressing

problems such as climate

change, ecosystem degrad ation and

poverty. He has received funding

from the National Science Foundation,

the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,

the Rockefeller Foundation,

the World Bank and others, and has

worked with more than 100 firms

across a range of industries, including

renewable energy and carbon

markets, life sciences and sustainable

agriculture, as well as finance

and international development.

Jennifer S. Minner is an Associate

Professor at the Department of City

and Regional Planning at Cornell

University. Dr. Minner directs the

Just Places Lab, an interdisciplinary

platform for research and creative

action centered on community

memory, public imagination and the

socially just care of places. Her research

and teaching focuses on land

use and spatial planning methods,

historic preservation and the reuse

of buildings and building materials,

and equitable urban development

and creative place-making. She is

one of the founding partners within

the Circularity, Reuse, and Zero

Waste Development (CR0WD) network.

Jennifer Minner is National

Conference Chair for the Association

of Collegiate Schools of Planning

and serves on the editorial board of

the Journal of the American Planning

Association.

Kerstin Müller, Dipl.-Ing. Architektin,

studied architecture at the

University of Stuttgart and at the

École d’architecture de Lyon. After

working internationally for several

years as an architect in Vancouver

and Vienna, she joined the construction

office in situ in Basel in 2013,

where she has managed multiple

reuse projects. In 2019, she joined

the management of baubüro in situ

ag and in 2020 became managing

director of zirkular gmbh, Basel/

Zurich, specialists in designing

for circular economy and reuse

in construction. At zirkular, she

steers the company’s conceptual

direction and communicates their

reuse projects in public. She is on

the board of the association Cirkla,

Switzerland, which promotes the

reuse of building components. For

the German Chamber of Architects,

she sits on the climate advisory

board of the city of Lörrach and is

a member of Baden-Württemberg

Chamber of Architects’ “Climate

Energy Sustainability” strategy

group. In 2022/2023, she took up

a visiting professorship funded by

Sto-Stiftung at the KIT Department

of Architecture in Karlsruhe on the

topic of “Sustainable Materials for a

New Architectural Practice – Entering

a Circular Economy”.

Christine O’Malley works for Historic

Ithaca. Her responsibilities

include preservation services and

research, and she leads the organization’s

efforts in education,

advocacy, and community engagement.

She has completed successful

local designations of properties

and National Register nominations.

Christine O’Malley is a former board

member of the Vernacular Architecture

Forum and has presented papers

at several national conferences

and symposia on various topics related

to preservation, reuse and the

history of American architecture. As

part of the CR0WD (Circularity, Reuse,

and Zero Waste Development)

network, she participates in ongoing

efforts to promote salvage, deconstruction

and sustainability.

APPENDIX

156 — 157

RAU Architects/Thomas Rau is an

architect, entrepreneur, innovator

and recognized thought leader on

sustainability and circular economy.

His office RAU has been recognized

for being at the forefront of producing

innovative CO2-neutral, energy-positive

and circular buildings

as a norm. Thomas Rau was elected

as Dutch Architect of the Year 2013

and awarded the ARC13 Oeuvre

Award for his widespread contribution

in both promoting and realizing

sustainable architecture and raising

awareness of the circular economy

through international lectures, TV

documentaries, TED Talks and publications.

In 2016 he was nominated

for the Circular Economy Leadership

Award of the World Economic Forum.

He received the Circular Hero

Award 2021 from the Dutch ministry

responsible for the circular economy

for his vigorous and groundbreaking

work on establishing a circular

economy.

Sabine Rau-Oberhuber is an economist

and Director of Turntoo, founded

in 2010 as the first company in

the Netherlands with the mission

to achieve a circular economy.

Turntoo works with manufacturers

and consults with clients to facilitate

new processes and methods

that reduce or eliminate material

waste. The company also assists

municipalities on circular city strategies

and regional development

planning. Turntoo sees the need

for necessary transformations on

four levels: the design of products

and supply chains, the financial and

business models involved, the data

and IT infrastructure supporting the

transition, and the mental transformation

leading to a new way of

thinking. Turntoo’s multidisciplinary

team works with clients that wish to

transform to a regenerative model.

Together with Thomas Rau, Sabine

Rau-Oberhuber co-authored the

book Material Matters (Bertram +

de Leeuw Uitgevers BV, 2016), which

dissects and critiques our current

linear systems of production, consumption

and waste, proposing a

new economic paradigm to radically

change the status quo.

Andrew Roblee is the President of

Roblee Historic Preservation, LLC,

and has had extensive training in

historic preservation planning and

the evaluation of historic resources.

Before receiving his MA in Historic

Preservation Planning at Cornell

University, he worked for ten years

in the construction trades, a source

of pride which complements and enhances

his understanding of building

systems and historic preservation.

His study of history and his deep

interest in the trades and building

systems led him naturally down the

path to historic preservation, and he

has lectured on historic preservation

and environmental sustainability

throughout New York State. Andrew

Roblee is the current President of

the Preservation Association of

Central New York (PACNY), and is a

founding partner of the Circularity,

Reuse, and Zero Waste Development

(CR0WD) network.

Anja Rosen is an architect and,

as managing director of energum

GmbH (agn Group), developed the

urban mining concept for Korbach

town hall. In 2022, she founded C5

GmbH in Münster together with

Frauke Kaven. She completed her

doctorate on the “Urban Mining Index”

at the University of Wuppertal

(BUW) in 2020 and was appointed

Honorary Professor for Circular Construction

there in 2021. Dr. Rosen is

a founding member of the re!Source

Stiftung e.V. and also an active

member of the DGNB, campaigning

for a change in the approach to resources

in the construction industry.

She has received several awards for

her work: in 2021, for example, she

won the DGNB Sustainability Challenge

for her research on the Urban

Mining Index, and in 2020, the

Manual of Recycling (Edition Detail,

2019), which she co-authored, was

awarded the Hans Sauer Award.

Shawn Wood is a Construction

Waste Specialist with the City of

Portland’s Bureau of Planning and

Sustainability. He studied architecture,

landscape architecture

and urban planning at Virginia

Tech and has more than 25 years of

planning and development-related

experience in regional and local

government, as well as the private

sector. For the past eight years,

Shawn Wood’s work has focused

on developing and implementing

deconstruction and building material

reuse policy and advising other

governments and organizations as

they pursue similar work to reduce

embodied carbon in the built environment.

Gretchen Worth is the Project

Director of the Susan Christopherson

Center for Community Planning,

which works with New York State

communities to support efforts

to achieve a more equitable, climate-resilient

built environment.

The Christopherson Center is one

of the founding partners of the

CR0WD (Circularity, Reuse, Zero

Waste Development) network.

ILLUSTRATION CREDITS

Arcadis landschapsarchitectuur,

Timo Cents 110: 4

ARGE agn – heimspiel architekten

82: 3; 86: 12; 87: 13; 88: 14

baubüro in situ 45: 2

Block Research Group 75: 4

Elena Boerman, Sebastian Kreiter,

Tom Unverzagt 14: 1; 15: 2; 17:

3; 18: 4; 19: 5; 20: 6; 25: 1

Zooey Braun 143: 1; 144: 2; 148: 10;

149: 11, 12; 150: 13; 151: 14;

152: 16, 17

Christina Bronowski 45: 3

Jan Brütting, SwissGrid AG 45: 1

Sean Campbell, Robyn Wishna,

Robin Elliott, Diane Cohen 57: 1;

58: 2; 59: 3, 4; 60: 5, 6, 7

Concular/Thomas Jones 115: 1; 116:

2, 3, 4, 5; 117: 6, 7

EFFEKT 123: 1; 124: 2, 3; 125: 4, 5;

126: 6; 127: 7

Empa 151: 15

Allexxus Farley-Thomas, Circular

Construction Lab 40: 4

Anthea Fernandes, Just Places Lab:

33: 1; 34: 2; 35: 3

Good Wood 65: 5

Felix Heisel 36: 4, 5; 41: 5, 6; 42:

7, 8; 121: 3, 4; 147: 8 (with Laura

Mrosla); 9 (with Sara Schäfer)

Jonathan Hillyer 106: 3; 107: 4, 5, 6

incremental3D 74: 2

Jason Koski, Cornell UREL 39: 1, 2;

40: 3; 42: 9

Juney Lee 77: 5

Lord Aeck Sargent and Uzun & Case

105: 1, 2

David Mackerness, Kaer Pte Ltd

131: 1; 132: 2, 3; 133: 4

Madaster: 118: 1; 119: 2

Joseph McGranahan, Circular

Construction Lab 42: 10, 11;

43: 12

Jennifer Minner 37: 6

naaro 73: 1

Northwest Deconstruction

Specialists 63: 2; 67: 6

Antje Paul 83: 7

Christopher Payne/Esto 134: 1, 2;

135: 3; 137: 4, 5, 6

Portland BPS 62: 1, 64: 3

Preton AG 48: 6 (from Schweizerische

Bauzeitung, 35, 1966)

Rapp Architekten/Lichtbox Basel

46: 4

RAU Architects 113: 7

Matthias Rippmann 75: 3

Anja Rosen 81: 1; 82: 4, 5, 6; 84: 8,

9; 85: 11; 89: 15; 90: 16, 17, 18, 19

Werner Sobek with Dirk E. Hebel

and Felix Heisel 145: 3, 4

Structural Exploration Lab, EPFL

49: 8

Christian Thomann, agn 81: 2

Universität Kassel/CESR 85: 10

Alexander van Berge 109: 1; 110: 3

Ossip van Duivenbode 110: 2; 112:

5, 6

Shawn Wood 65: 4

Wojciech Zawarski 146: 5, 6, 7

Martin Zeller, Basel 50: 9; 51: 10, 11

Zirkular 47: 5; 48: 7

INDEX OF PERSONS

Auken, Ida 138

Bastien-Masse, Maléna 49

Beck, Roger 43

Behrens, William W. III 15

Bennink, Dave 43

Block, Philippe 72–77

Bork, Hans-Rudolf 11

Braungart, Michael 18, 19, 24, 26

Brundtland, Gro Harlem 15

Brütting, Jan 45

Büttgenbach, Simon 153

Campanella, Dominik 114–117

Carlowitz, Carl von 11, 13, 15

Carson, Rachel 12, 13, 15

Churkina, Galina 20

Cohen, Diane 43, 56–61

Cook, James 10

Darwin, Charles 24

Desruelle, Joseph 45

Devènes, Julie 49

Diamond, Jared 11

Earle, Patti 43

Eiklor, Kasey 43

Elliott, Robin 56–61

Erasmus of Rotterdam 118

Farley-Thomas, Allexxus 38–43

Fernandes, Anthea 32–37

Fischer, Reto 153

Fivet, Corentin 45, 49

Forrester, Jay 13

Gassman, Joshua R. 104–107

Grotenboer, Dennis 113

Hannan, Scott 43

Hansen, James E. 93

Hebel, Dirk E. 10–23, 30, 31, 70, 71,

100, 101, 142–153

Heinlein, Frank 153

Heisel, Felix 10–23, 30–43, 70, 71,

100, 101, 142–153

Hillebrandt, Annette 96, 97, 102, 103

Hirigoyen, Julie 26

Holland, Susan 43

Jantsch, Erich 13

Joachim, Mitchell 22

Kaufmann, Matthias 153

King, Alexander 13

Köhler, Bernd 153

Kohnstamm, Max 13

Küpfer, Célia 49

Mackerness, Dave 130–133

Makwana, Rajesh 94

Marchesi, Enrico F. 153

Marsh, Dave 43

McDonough, William 18, 19, 24, 26

Meadows, Dennis L. 13, 15

Meadows, Donella H. 15

Meezan, Erin 134–137

Miller, Daniel H. 93

Milstein, Mark 55, 79, 128, 129

Minner, Jennifer S. 32–37, 43, 52, 53

Mulder, Erik 113

Müller, Kerstin 44–51

Noordam, Michael 113

Novarr, John 43

O’Malley, Christine 32–37

Organschi, Alan 20

Otto, Frei 72

Pascucci, Stefano 24

Payne, Christopher 134, 135, 137

Peccei, Aurelio 13

Randers, Jørgen 15

Rau, Thomas 113

Rau-Oberhuber, Sabine 118–121

Rees, William 16, 17

Reyer, C. P. O. 20

Robert, Karl-Henrik 16

Roblee, Andrew 52, 53

Roggeveen, Jacob 10

Rosen, Anja 80–91

Saint-Geours, Jean 13

Schmitt, Harrison 13

Segal, Paul 94

Senatore, Gennaro 45

Sobek, Werner 142, 153

Stahel, Walter 139, 144

Stone, Gideon 43

Thiemann, Hugo 13

von der Leyen, Ursula 22

Wabbes, Jules 148, 151

Wackernagel, Mathis 16, 17

Webster, Ken 24–27, 92–95, 138, 139

Wood, Shawn 62–67

Worth, Gretchen 32–37, 43

INDEX OF FIRMS,

INSTITUTIONS AND

INITIATIVES

Accademia dei Lincei 13

agn 80, 81

Amstein-Walthert AG 153

Arcadis 113

Architects for Future Germany 102

Arnot Realty 43

Basic Law of the Federal Republic of

Germany 102

Baubüro in situ 46, 47, 49

Bay Area Deconstruction Working

Group 37

Beck Equipment 43

Block Research Group (BRG) 73, 74

BNP Paribas Fortis 151

Building Deconstruction Institute

38, 43

CaaS (Cooling as a Service) 130–133

Circle Economy 19

Circular Economy Action Plan

(CEAP) 22

Circularity, Reuse, and Zero Waste

Development (CR0WD) 32,

35, 37

Club of Rome 13, 19, 30

Concular 114–117

COP21: Agreement of Paris 19

Cornell Einhorn Center 43

Cornell Circular Construction Lab

(CCL) 37, 38, 41–43

Cornell Just Places Lab 37, 43

Cornell University 153

Cortland ReUse 37

Deconstruction Advisory Group

(DAG) 64, 65

DESSO/Tarkett 152

Dutch Urban Mining Collective 108

Dutch West India Company 10

EFFEKT 122–127

Ellen MacArthur Foundation 24, 25,

73, 138

Empa (Swiss Federal Laboratories

for Materials Science and

Technology) 142, 143, 153

Energy Innovation and Carbon

Dividend Act (EICDA) 94

EPEA GmbH – Part of Drees &

Sommer 25

EPFL Lausanne 46

ETH Zurich 73

EU Construction Products

Regulation 95

European Commission 22

European Green Deal 7

European Union 7, 22, 114

Ex Interiors 113

Federal Building Use Ordinance

(BauNVO) 102

Federal Institute for Research on

Building, Urban Affairs and

Spatial Development (BBSR) 84

Fiat 13

Finger Lakes ReUse 37, 43, 57, 60, 61

Frischbetonwerk Korbach 83

APPENDIX

158 — 159

Georgia Institute of Technology 104

Générale de Banque 150

German Committee for Reinforced

Concrete (DAfStb) 83

German Federal Environment

Agency 22, 95

German Waste Management Act

95

Global Footprint Network 17

heimspiel architekten 80, 81

Historic Ithaca 37, 43

Holcim 73

Ice Nugget 151

incremental3D (in3D) 73

INSEAD Asia Campus 132

Interface 134–137

Interface ReEntry Recycling and

Reclamation program 134–137

International Monetary Fund (IMF)

92

Ithaca Community ReUse Center

(CRC) 56–60

Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency 43

Ithaca Urban Timber Salvage 43

Kaer 130–133

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology

(KIT) 153

Kaufmann Zimmerei und Tischlerei

GmbH 153

KBOB 75

Kendeda Fund 104

Kyoto Protocol 95

Laborers Local 785 42, 43

Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory 130

Lifecycle Building Center 106

Lord Aeck Sargent 104

Madaster 118–121

Magna Glaskeramik 151

Massachusetts Institute of

Technology (MIT) 13

McKinsey Center for Business and

Environment 25

Miller Hull 104

Norwegian Global Pensions Fund 94

Olivetti 13

Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ)

65, 66

Organisation for Economic Cooperation

and Development

(OECD) 13

Portland Bureau of Planning and

Sustainability (BPS) 64, 65

Portland ReBuilding Center 62

Preservation Association of Central

New York (PACNY) 37

Primeo Energie Kosmos 45, 46,

49, 51

Rapp Architekten 46

RAU Architects 108–113

restado.de 114

Rotor Deconstruction 151

RWTH Aachen University 116

Significant Elements 37, 43

Skanska USA 104

Susan Christopherson Center for

Community Planning 37, 43

Sustainable Growth Associates

GmbH 17

Swissgrid 45

The Natural Step Deutschland 17

Tompkins County Climate and

Sustainable Energy (CaSE)

Advisory Board 35

Trade Design Build 43

Triemli Hospital 47–49

Triodos Bank 108–113

UK Green Building Council 26

United Nations 13, 15

University of Kassel 84

University of Kiel 11

US Department of Housing and

Urban Development 33

US Environmental Protection

Agency 56, 66

Werner Sobek Group 153

Work Preserve 37

World Commission on Environment

and Development 15

World Economic Forum (WEF) 138

Zaha Hadid Architects Computation

and Design Group

(ZHACODE) 73

Zirkular 46, 47, 49

INDEX OF PROJECTS,

PRODUCTS AND

PUBLICATIONS

206 College Avenue 43

24 (TV show) 106

Blue Marble (Schmitt) 13

“Buildings as a global carbon sink”

20

Catherine Commons Deconstruction

Project, Ithaca, New York 38–43

Chacona Block building, Ithaca, New

York 37

Collapse: How Societies Choose to

Fail or Succeed (Diamond) 11

Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way

We Make Things (McDonough

and Braungart) 18, 24

Deconstruction and Salvage Survey

Toolkit (ScanR) 38

ERZ Disposal + Recycling Zurich 47

Georgia Archives building, Atlanta,

Georgia 104

Good Wood Showroom, Portland,

Oregon 65

Growth within: a circular economy

vision for a competitive Europe

(Ellen MacArthur Foundation and

McKinsey Center for Business

and Environment) 25

HiLo, Dübendorf 77

K118 rooftop extension, Winterthur

47, 50

Kendeda Building for Innovative

Sustainable Design, Atlanta,

Georgia 104–107

Korbach City Hall Model Project

80–91

Lysbüchel Industrial Estate, Basel

47, 50

Nail Laminated Timber (NLT) 105,

106

NEST building, Dübendorf 142, 143,

145, 146

nora® rubber flooring 134

Ökobilanzdaten im Baubereich,

2009/1 (KBOB) 75

Our Ecological Footprint (Wackernagel

and Rees) 16

Primeo Energie Kosmos Science and

Learning Centre, Münchenstein

46

Rampage (movie) 106

Recycling Shed for Primeo,

Münchenstein 49, 51

Resource-saving concrete (Rconcrete)

80, 82, 83, 84, 85,

87, 89

Rippmann Floor System (RFS) 74–77

Silent Spring (Carson) 12

Striatus Bridge, Venice 73, 74

Sylvicultura oeconomica oder

haußwirthliche Nachricht und

Naturmäßige Anweisung zur

wilden Baum-Zucht (Carlowitz)

12

Tech Tower, Atlanta, Georgia 104

The Circularity Gap Report 2021

(Circle Economy) 19

The Limits to Growth (Meadows,

Meadows, Randers and Behrens

III) 15, 19

Unsere Lebensgrundlage retten.

Die negativen Entwicklungen

stoppen (The Natural Step

Deutschland) 17

The Urban Village Project 122–127

Triemli Personalhäuser, Zurich 47,

48, 49

Triodos Bank Headquarters, Driebergen-Rijsenburg

108–113

Urban Mining and Recycling (UMAR)

Unit, Dübendorf 121, 142–153

Urban Mining Index 86–89

Why Fee and Dividend Will Reduce

Emissions Faster Than Other

Carbon Pricing Policy Options

(Miller and Hansen) 93

Zürich – Stadtspital Triemli

Personalhäuser – Resource

assessment of structural

elements (Devènes, Bastien-

Masse, Küpfer and Fivet) 49

COLOPHON

Layout, cover design and typesetting:

Tom Unverzagt

Translation from German into English

of the texts by Felix Heisel/Dirk E.

Hebel, Kerstin Müller, Anja Rosen,

Annette Hillebrandt and Dominik

Campanella: Julian Reisenberger

Editor for the publisher: Andreas

Müller

Production: Heike Strempel-

Bevacqua

Printing: Grafisches Centrum Cuno

GmbH

Paper: 120 g/m² Amber Graphic

This publication is also available as

an e-book PDF (978-3-0356-2635-3)

and in a German language edition

(Print ISBN 978-3-0356-2108-2,

e-book PDF 978-3-0356-2634-6).

Library of Congress Control Number:

2022945635

Bibliographic information published

by the German National Library

The German National Library lists

this publication in the Deutsche

Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic

data are available on the

Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

This work is subject to copyright.

All rights are reserved, whether

the whole or part of the material is

concerned, specifically the rights

of translation, reprinting, re-use of

illustrations, recitation, broadcasting,

reproduction on microfilms or in

other ways, and storage in databases.

For any kind of use, permission

of the copyright owner must be

obtained.

As a rule, this book does not make

reference to existing patents, registered

designs, trademarks, etc.

If such reference has been omitted,

this does not mean that the product

or the product name is not

protected.

ISBN 978-3-0356-2109-9

e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-0356-2635-3

© 2022 Birkhäuser Verlag GmbH,

Basel

P.O. Box 44, 4009 Basel, Switzerland

Part of Walter de Gruyter GmbH,

Berlin/Boston

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

www.birkhauser.com

978-3-0356-2109-9_HebelHeisel_EN

Transform your PDFs into Flipbooks and boost your revenue!

Delete template?

Save as template ?