Circular Tectonics, Users, and Local Culture J. Johansson Copenhagen School of Design and Technology, Denmark
EXTENDED ABSTRACT: The aim of this paper is to contribute to the discussion regarding the challenges that architectural practice can face in meeting local users when new sustainable social housing is developed. It is argued that this is relevant when developing social housing for Design for Disassembly. The tectonic dimension of Design for Disassembly entails that the architecture becomes a way of communicating the construction’s logic to the users, and so the details become a very important part of the aesthetic expression. Social housing that is developed as Design for Disassembly can thus be articulated in its tectonics, the building materials’ reusability, the visible details of the joints, visible bolts, screws, fittings, etc. It will also challenge the operating of the building. Here, a traditional local culture can challenge the intentions for Design for Disassembly if the users do not value the aesthetic or do not have motivation or ownership regarding the intentions in general. This paper argues that new design strategies can promote social sustainability in a local culture, which can be of great importance for whether the intentions behind Design for Disassembly as ecological circular tectonics can create local support and work for the users in the operating phase. The paper suggests the need for new strategies for architectural practice collaborating with the users. The contributions to the discussion are based on the results of a qualitative evaluation of sustainable housing from the author’s PhD project entitled “Sustainability in Danish social housing – with a user focus”. The guiding research question for the PhD project was: Does the sustainability in sustainable social housing work for the residents, operating staff, and administrative staff? And this also included the sub-questions: What are the users’ experiences with sustainable social housing? How can the users’ experiences be used in the development of future sustainable social housing? The study has been limited to including three family-friendly and sustainable terraced social housing buildings in Denmark. The buildings are experimental constructions that have neither been renovated nor rebuilt after being taken into use. The choice of buildings that have not been renovated and/or rebuilt after being taken into use is made because the aim is to capture the users’ experiences with buildings that have been taken into use over a longer period in relation to the original intentions regarding sustainability. The choice of multiple cases is made in order to strengthen the precision, validity, and stability of the results. The project’s study design uses a phenomenological theory of science approach. With regard to methodology, three methods are used in a combination of deep and focus group interviews. In terms of a methodological strategy, several research techniques have been used with a view to validating data but also in order to be able to contribute with new knowledge with a focus on processes and making the qualitative (soft) values visible when evaluating existing sustainable social housing. The case studies are: “Økohus 99” (Ikast, Denmark), “Lærkehaven III” (Lystrup, Denmark), and “Grøndalsvænge” (Copenhagen, Denmark), which each in their own way represent three Danish social housing buildings with different approaches to sustainability. Sustainability is represented by: 1) ecology and the zoned home; 2) low-energy homes according to the Passive
House standard, and 3) social housing and low-energy homes in the energy class 2020 and increased self-management. For each of the three case studies, the following three combinations of methods are used: semi-structured deep interviews (method 1), semi-structured focus group interviews (method 2), and structured deep interviews (method 3). In this way, the strength of the validity was sought with the help of three subsequent follow-up methods as the basis for a triangulation of methods. Residents, operating staff, and administrative staff are chosen as the interview subjects because the subject matter of the research question is the operating issues in relation to the use of the sustainable building. Initiators/developers and architects are chosen as the interview subjects, since the aim is to create new knowledge that can partly frame the users’ experiences but also put the results into perspective with a view to real development potential. The results show that the building projects are challenged by a lack of user involvement. This means that the users – residents, operating staff, and administrative staff – do not have the necessary knowledge to inhabit, operate, and maintain the buildings. Challenges develop when the distance becomes too great between the decision-makers and the users. Users do not take ownership of everyday housing architecture unless they have been involved in the design process. Thus, neglecting to involve users can adversely affect both the users themselves and the local communities, the result being that a negative narrative of the project can occur. By involving users, architectural practices can gain an understanding of the local culture and the wishes and demands of the users regarding the given tectonics. In the early design phase, the operating staff wants architectural practice to use their operational experience. They want to influence the choice of materials, as these can enhance the usefulness of buildings. Involving users at this stage may help qualify circular tectonic choices and the circular life cycle of building materials in relation to maintenance and operating costs. Architectural practice should take the lead in “pre-studying” the local culture as well as the residents’ wishes and their understanding of what constitutes the “good life”. Residents and operators should be involved throughout the process. Both of these stakeholders need more knowledge and information about the architecture in question, how the architecture is to be used, and how the architecture has to be operated and maintained; finally, the aesthetic considerations surrounding a project should also be a factor. New social housing projects combine cost-cutting in production with increased selfmanagement by residents. This implies an increasing need for residents themselves to fulfil the tasks of operating and maintaining the buildings they live in. This shift requires new flexible tectonic solutions that will enable residents and operating staff – relatively easily – to disassemble and replace broken technology, building parts, facade cladding, etc. Residents need to be able to transform residential architecture over time. Residents can install new kitchens, change bathrooms, or put up interior walls made of old windows, recycled materials etc. Residents can also make changes that will dismantle the spacious qualities and architectural principles of a building. The concerns outlined above call for new tectonic solutions that make it easier for users to replace the materials in the components of a given building. Even though the present study has not directly investigated whether Design for Disassembly works for the users, the results point out typical features that suggest a certain generalisability. On this basis, it is argued that architectural practice can strategically involve the local residents, operating staff, and administrative staff in order to develop Design for Disassembly as an approach for ecological circular tectonics in architecture with local support. The users’ values should be identified with regard to their wishes and interests for aesthetics, functionality, and usability in relation to Design for Disassembly and flexibility, change, and sustainable operating of the building. Therefore, the users should be invited to project meetings, workshops, excursions, etc. so that the three user groups gain knowledge and information about, as well as real influence on, Design for Disassembly in the programming phase, idea phase, commissioning phase, and operational phase. It is thus argued that these new strategies for architectural practice can increase social sustainability in a local culture, which can be important for whether a housing project’s intentions of ecological circular tectonics and Design for Disassembly can work for users in the operational phase. Because nothing undermines even the best intentions of circular tectonics like the users’ negative narratives in a local culture.