Critical Study Dissertation. Aestheticsising waste, Iconic development impacting sustainability. by Ryan Cooksey

Aestheticising Waste Iconic development impacting sustainability

By Ryan Cooksey 2

Aestheticising Waste Iconic development impacting sustainability

Foreword This dissertation focuses on aestheticising waste through iconic strategic development. A line of inquiry influenced after initially reading Architecture and Waste. The following will focus on the development of Waste-to-Energy facilities, from cheap versions of the boxy sheds” governed by their contents to elaborate user utopia ‘new breed’ facilities.

Ryan John Cooksey Birmingham City University S17123027 ARC6010 , Level 6 Critical Study In Architecture 17 February 2020 Word count 5451

Contents 1.0. 1.1. 2.0. 3.0. 2.0. 4.0. 5.0. 6.0. 7.0. 8.0. 9.0. 10.0. 11.0.

Introduction................................................... 6 ‘New Breed’ Waste to Energy Plants............ 13 Bjarke Ingels Group, BIG.............................. 18 Amager Bakke, Waste-to-Energy Plant......... 20 Shenzhen, Waste-to-Energy Plant................ 26 Uppsala, Waste-to-Energy Plant................... 30 Veolia, Waste to Energy Plants..................... 34 Discussion ................................................... 40 Conclusion.................................................... 52 References / Bibliography............................. 56 Fugues........................................................... 60 Appendix ..................................................... 64

1.0.

Introduction:

This dissertation will highlight the significant impact that the built environment has on climate change. It will discuss the challenges and opportunities faced by all stakeholders, especially architects, as they seek to implement ecologically-based strategies, specifically within existing and new wasteto-energy (WtE) plants. Firstly, this will be shown by identifying institutes that are supporting strategies to achieve ecological sustainability as well as recognising why such an important topic needs to be implemented successfully within a short time frame. The investigation will continue by looking at architectural practices that have been influenced to design ecological power plants, followed by a discussion that favours strategic visions within urban development. Can an iconic building that in itself is not sustainable, stimulate a local strategic vision towards becoming sustainable, and thereby create an ecological environment? Is this approach one which is preferred over a building that focuses on function over form, one which is arguably sustainable but not an icon for environmental and ecological change within its surrounding context? Should architects bend the rules by aestheticising waste and therefore not being as sustainable in order to produce an iconic building, one which sparks ecologically-based strategies within the existing architectural stock or new build construction?

Fig. 1

International institutes such as the United Nations have declared a climate crisis in response to rising concerns towards global warming (UN, 2019). The UN investigation into ecological sustainability has shown that global warming will lead to catastrophic events, concluding that stakeholders should act now before their actions become irreversible. Throughout the 2016 Paris Climate Agreement, there was a “renewed optimism” towards reducing global emissions (UKGBC 2019: 4). Antonio Guterres, UN secretary, believes, “The climate emergency is a race we are losing, but it is a race we can win” (UN, 2019). The UN recognises that “the global community can, and will, work together to reduce emissions and limit warming to safe levels” (UKGBC, 2019: 4) and insist the aim is to “eliminate global emissions by 2050” (UN, 2019).

“The climate emergency is a race we are losing, but it is a race we can win” Antonio Guterres, UN secretary (United Nations, 2019)

Fig. 2

Due to the misuse of key terms, architect Julien de Smedt believes that definitions have become stereotyped, meaning that terminology clarification is needed to reflect on each case study proportionately. In particular, Julien states that there is undoubtedly a definition “issue when using the terms ‘green’ and ‘sustainable’ (James, 2013: 1). For this critical study, one should also add the term ‘ecology’ to the inventory of tainted words. Collectively using these key terms when designing in such environmentally demanding times in order to ‘tick boxes’, make the phrases anything but “codified, commodified and certified” (Mostafavi, 2015: 118). Misuse will be identified with further reading, whilst investigating why Sushil Bhatia sees these words as “temporary fixes” (Banerjee, 2010: 147). Firstly, the term ecology should be recognised as the collaboration between cities and nature in the development of eco-architecture (Mcdonnell, 2009: 12). Ecology differs from eco-architecture by sensitively reconnecting the urban and natural environment while reducing, net embodied energy. One must recognise the challenges that prevent changes in perceptions within an urban setting. In some cases, to create ecological awareness, designers have to break the ‘rules’ of ecology/sustainability and exploit resources to allow opportunities for iconic buildings as a solution to change perceptions. (examples will follow). 7

Global CO2 emissions by sector Architects and urban designers have recognised the significant impact they can have on the climate crisis Other by taking the opportunity to kickstart 9% Building in some cases, sluggish ecological Operations economies (Brown, 2016). John 28% F.Kennedy noted, “Leadership Industry 30% and learning are indispensable to each other” (Spencer, 2015). In Construction 11% the same respect, architects and Transportation users are indispensable to each 22% other as construction would be based upon precedents. Architects, Fig. 3 however, recognise problems and study design theories to overcome in this case, sluggish ecology. UN’s Collaboration chart Collaborative responsibility has the ability to determine whether a relationship is successful or not. Such relationships could Public Authorities achieve strategic visions that naturally, possibly unknowingly, persuade the attitudes of even the most ignorant person to perform more efficiently. Collaboration is Knowledge Businesses acknowledged within the CPH Institutions 2025 climate plan (Copenhagen 2012). With this in mind, never has it been more critical for ecological Fig. 4 urbanism and sustainable design to be implemented successfully. Statistically, the built environment is responsible for approximately “40 per cent of global carbon emissions” (UKGBC, 2019) while other sources such as Mazria claim the figure was closer to “70 per cent” (Hartman, 2015) The latter is credible as the UN’s 2050 Imperative similarly states that urban areas are responsible for over 70% of global CO2 emissions (fig.3). The UN report estimates that 60% of the world’s current building stock will be built or rebuilt in the next 20 years (UN, 2020). In a bid to unite efforts, 124 architectural institutes across the world have collaborated by signing up to a global commitment to “eliminate CO2 emissions in the built environment by 2050” (Architecture, 2020). 8

Stages of Preventing and Migrating waste

Prevention

-Avoid wastefulness -Product reuse -Reprocessing materials

Recycling

-Resources recovery in biogas plant

Mitigration

-Waste-derived fuels

Recovery

-Incineration with energy recovery

Disposal

-Incineration without energy recovery -Land filling

Fig. 5

The effects of aestheticising waste have influenced this dissertation after initially reading Architecture and Waste. The book is the result of a 3-year investigation researching industrial design, specifically waste-to-energy (WtE) facilities, completed at Harvard University’s Graduates’ School (fig.5). Kara recognises that population increase is an instigator for constructing facilities to manage increasing volumes of waste (et al 2017). Kara points out that industrial buildings could have the potential to be iconic and beneficial to both the environment and society. However, Kara also provides the reader opportunities to reconsider how architectural design could be crucial to “counteracting negative public perceptions of such facilities” by suggesting that hybrid buildings “could unite energy production with the public and institutional programs” (2017: 326). These prospects could thus create new social perceptions and attitudes, emphasising local environmental goals as a result. Architecture and Waste provokes further enquiries, questioning whether energy and carbon consumption is better linked to the iconic commissions rather than those that on paper are actually ‘sustainable’. Architecture and Waste influenced this dissertation by suggesting that sustainable design often does not provide innovation or design excellence. However, this is open to disagreement as it is evident that some buildings excel in innovation and design excellence and also contribute to sustainable design (case-studies to follow). Emerging economic, political, social and cultural considerations create a complex range of perspectives and responses that are fundamental for future builds, as will be analysed later. 9

RIBA President, Ben Derbyshire, alleged: “The climate emergency is the biggest challenge facing our planet and our profession”. Nevertheless, “To have a significant impact, we need to do more than make symbolic statements” (RIBA, 2019). It appears that there is an acceleration of symbolic/iconic buildings within the utility sector. This is evident as Trent Long’s findings show, “there are some 230-300 WtE incinerators, with intentions to build 300 more” (2018)(fig.6). He also suggests that some “aspire to become ecological icons” which indicate stakeholders attempts to change perceptions of powerplants. With this in mind, the following analysis will explore the effects of aestheticising WtE powerplants which claim to be ecologically driven within urban environments. There is reason to question the legitimacy of such claims. The legibility of impacting society through constructing symbolic cornerstones as an addition to the urban environment will be analysed by comparing various case studies. Analysis of facts and figures, along with mapping techniques and observational analysis will uncover whether these symbolic cornerstones achieve a sustainable, net carbon zero future.

Mapping existing Waste-to-Energy Plants

Waste-to-Energy Plants, Larger Rings = Larger amounts of waste incinerated. There is corrlation between the maps.

Fig. 6

Waste generation per capita per day.

Lowest <20%

40%

60%

80%

>80% Fig. 7

Percentage of waste to landfill.

Lowest <20%

40%

60%

80%

>80%

Fig. 8

Germany sweden Belgium Netherlands Denmark Austria Luxembourg France Finland Estonia UK Ireland Italy Slovenia Portugal Czech Rep Poland Spain Hungary Bulgaria Slovakia Lithuania Cyprus Romania Greece Malta Croatia Latvia

Waste management to support case studies

Sweden

Incineration

Denmark

Recycling

Composting

Other

Landfill

Fig. 9

1.1.

‘New Breed’ Waste to Energy Plants:

A ‘new breed’ of industrially originated buildings are emerging, and this exploration will specifically investigate WtE plants. Characteristically, WtE plants are functional to the extreme, allowing one to think that technology would dictate everything about them. Historically, according to Kara, utility buildings would be referred to as a “repetition of standardised design tropes, which led many simple, cheap versions of the boxy sheds” governed by their contents (2017: 29). As BIG agrees, this reduces the “impact of architectural creativity” (2020)(fig.10). However, we have emerging examples where this is not the case. Installation of the cleanest technology is standard practice when designing WtE plants at such economies of scale. However, these novel industrial projects see aesthetics and urban ecology as secondary as we see a rise in architectural tension to evolve urban environments. Architects, including Bjarke Ingels, have introduced the ‘new breed’ of power plants with the ultimate aim of creating strategic visions. Architects idealise that their visions, therefore, allow the human population to share awareness about the value of ecology unknowingly.

Structures that have either been governed by contents or by architectural creativity

Governed by contents

NOT

Architectural creativity Fig. 10

It is essential to recognise the importance of introducing natural ecology in coexistence or harmony with our human-made environment. However, as Brown highlights in his book, Futurestorative, currently the “trend is still one of a woefully wasteful construction industry”, and he highlights that “being less bad is no longer good enough” (Brown, 2016). It is evident that implementing ecology is topical when the ‘new breed’ of WtE plants are concerned, as immediate green surroundings have become common. Ecology is elaborated as various cases are subject to the extreme when publicly framing the combination of human interaction and ecology alongside waste and electricity generation, thus generating a theoretical argument of how location, aesthetics and function influence the social relationship.

Ecology strategy - Hiking pathways at Amager Bakke

Fig.11

Ecology strategy - External landscaping at Shenzhen

Fig.12

Ecology strategy - External landscaping at Uppsala

Fig.13

Broadly speaking, current pressures to eliminate carbon within the built environment stimulates a cityscape to evolve towards ecological urbanism. That being said, ecological urbanism differs little from modernism, except with the addition of professional environmental guidance when implementing master planning theories. What is unavoidable in both cases is the inevitable process of waste to landfill. Unfortunately, it appears that regardless of how advanced the built environment develops, there will be a social factor that will continue to produce household waste. This will only increase with population growth. Ecological urbanism and traditionally built environments are placed within a theoretical ‘bubble’ when it comes to the removal of waste (fig. 14). In both cityscapes, waste is exported out to suburban locations. The imaginative ‘bubble’ allows for fantasising that the generation of waste is not a relevant occurrence. Social awareness of waste is eliminated as ‘Out-Of-Sight Out-OfMind’ summarises the evading sense of ownership. In response to social awareness, the new generation of power plants is designed to achieve an iconic status within the built environment, generally by creating green public spaces and secondary functions. Radically, it is the placement of waste in relation to built environments that pressures consciousness, as waste is now the city’s immediate neighbour. WtE plants, “Strategically placed near or within urban environments” create beneficial opportunities for the future, such as opportunities for hybrid designs (Kara et al, 2017:17). Such designs could raise some concerns about celebrating waste, and this investigation will consider what it means to aestheticise waste. Should one be concerned that industrial ecology is potentially making waste visible and glamourous not visible and ugly? Arguably the most influential and admired ‘new breed’ utility structure is the Amager Bakke WtE plant.

Co2

Direction of waste

Out of sight, out of mind:

Co2

Ecological city out of sight, out of mind:

Co2

In-sight, In-mind: Co2

Ecological city: In-sight, Out of mind:

Fig.14

2.0.

Bjarke Ingels Group, BIG:

Bjarke Ingels Group, commonly abbreviated as BIG, shares a clear vision across all their projects. As a group, BIG “steer clear of boring boxes and naïve utopian ideas of digital formalism” instead they insist that they “create architecture by mixing conventional ingredients, such as living, leisure, working, parking and shopping” to create a user utopia (BIG, 2020). When it comes to achieving sustainable design, founder, Bjarke Ingels, believes in the “idea of information-driven-design as the driving force for his design process” (2020). Although BIGs designs integrate exceptional technology allowing them to operate sustainably, one challenges BIG’s efforts for sustainability when designing — using excessive amounts of structural material to ‘steer clear of boring boxes’, and their choice of materials when building (fig.15). Evident excessive roof space to produce a ski slope at Amager Bakke highlights that the concept for an iconic building can contradict efforts for sustainability.

Amager Bakke’s structure

Elevation

Plan

Elevation

Plan

Amager Bakke’s necessary structure

Fig.15

Viewing Amager Bakke from the harbour

Fig.16

Amager Bakkeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s internal structure and mechanics

Fig.17

3.0.

Amager Bakke, Waste-to-Energy Plant:

Amager Bakke WtE plant is otherwise known as Copenhill. This alternative title, the combination of, ‘Cope’ which would be linked to the city name Copenhagen and ‘hill”, a natural landform, deters assumptions that its primary function is a power plant. Psychology alone would change some perceptions into thinking the site is a natural landform used as a ski slope. Therefore, starting the process of aestheticising of waste recognised by some articles calling it White trash (Wired 2020). From the offset, the competition highlighted that the winner should aim to “become the next landmark of Copenhagen” (BIG, 2015: 627). It is disturbing that a waste incinerator can be aestheticised to become so iconic. However, justified as incineration produces electricity which prevents waste reaching landfill. Alternatively, the city’s power would still be produced via burning coal just a few hundred metres away from Amager bakke. Both coal and incineration are stereotypically frowned upon (Tsui 2019). Bjarke Ingels, a founding partner of BIG, says that unlike Copenhagen’s coal plant the new incinerator has “become the bedrock of the social life of the city” (Hartman, 2019). Situated just outside of the city centre of Copenhagen, Denmark, the site is now internationally known and referred to in UN articles as “The cleanest waste to energy plant in the world” (Murray, 2020). Completed in 2017 its ski slope, a secondary function was opened to the public in 2019 with future ecology planning still underway. BIG’s acclaimed phrase “any problem is an opportunity” is undoubtedly correct in this case (BIG, 2015: 629). Essentially the 45,000m2 structure has two functions, power generation, and social utopia. The power theory is simple; the city’s waste problem arrives as a product into the plant; the opportunity is power generation as heat is extracted from the incinerators. Amager Bakke

Copenhagen coal power plant

Fig.18

Amager Bakke’s, ‘White trash’

Fig.19

Whilst on a visit we interviewed these skiers Myself: why do you come to this ski slope? Interviewee: We visit once a week after work as a social evening, its a great place to relax ski, then have a drink in the bar/ cafe after with a warm meal. you wouldn’t belive that a few of my friends here couldn’t ski before this was built , so its great for us . we don’t see it as a power plant not us.

Ecology strategy - Ski Slope at Amager Bakke

Fig.20

The relationship between plant and the local population is fundamental for providing the material to heat and provide electricity to 150,000 homes, generated from waste produced by 590,000 residents (BIG, 2015: 629). To put this into perspective, 90% of homes within Copenhagen receive heat contribution from the WtE plant. (BIG, 2015: 529). Such reliability generates a strong relationship between residents and the plant. However, the dependability stretches internationally as Amager Bakke is oversized for the five municipalities it serves, acting as a dumping ground for the UK, who also shipped “30,000 tonnes” of waste to the plant last year. Keith Taylor, [member of the European Parliament’s Environment and Public Health Committee], highlights: “Once an incinerator is built it needs a steady input of waste to feed it” (Dobinson, 2018). This would be to maintain efficiency, encouraging waste incineration internationally, a decision which ARC director Jacob Simonsen justifies as a climate win because the gains of importing waste outweigh the losses, even when transport is considered (Hartman, 2019). Amager Bakke’s incinerators are the cleanest in the world, producing secondary opportunities such as using the ash by-product for concrete production (BIG, 2015: 529).

Amager Bakke Info-graphic:

Rock wall

Ski Slope

Viewing platform

Hike

Green Space

Cafe

124m Tallest elevation in the Copenhagen

Secondary Functions

1 Ton of CO2

370,000 Tons of Waste per year

Inports 30,000 tonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s of waste per year. Provides electricity to 60,000 homes

Provides heating to 160,000 homes Euclidean distance between Copenhgen city centre to Amager Bakke 3KM

Fig.21

This particular project has been an iconic commission in a nation that has clear fundamental values, “aiming to be a carbon-neutral city by 2025” praised by the UN (Copenhagen, 2012). BIG suggested that the Amager Bakke plant “stands in the same way as the Eiffel tower does for France”, a compelling statement as they are relating waste to a national treasure (BIG, 2015: 567). Ingels himself regards the “mountain of waste” as a “cathedral of waste to energy” (Digital society, 2020). However, unlike the Eiffel tower, this landmark [Amager Bakke] will not stand the length of time with a surprisingly short “30-year operational life” (Kara et al, 2017: 123). Although, if its vision is successful, the icon will encourage an alternative lifestyle long after the plant’s replacement, “if we are to deliver a sustainable built environment, we must create places that people will value and to which they can connect emotionally” (Mostafavi, 2015: 593). In order to create a social connection and become an asset to the community, BIG recognised that Copenhagen is such a cold country with months of snow, however, it has a flat topography with no mountains to ski, with the closest resorts hours away in Sweden (fig.23). Location is crucial to the plant’s success. In attempting to achieve a relationship with the local population the creation of a ski slope evolved as part of the design. The plant is located 3km away from the city centre and is visible to the surrounding area, shadowing the city. BIG says it is the tallest and largest structures in Copenhagen, slightly incorrect as the “highest elevation being 171m” (Hartman, 2019). Locations of the closest ski resorts

1h 57m

2h 12m

Copenhagen

Ski resorts

1h 57m - Travel

time by car Fig.23

Comparing ‘Land marks”

Landmark, Oxford Dictionary. “something, such as a large building, that you can see clearly from a distance and that wil” “A building or a place that is very important because of its history, and that should be preserved”

Amager Bakke

Eiffel Tower Fig.22

4.0.

Shenzhen, Waste-to-Energy Plant:

Continuing with the glorification of waste, Gottlieb Paludan, a specialist in industrial architecture has designed a “new breed’ WtE plant in China, meaning Shenzhen will be home to the “largest [WtE plant] of its kind in the world” (Trent Long, 2018). From a functional point of view, Babcock & Wilcox Vølund figures show, the plant will burn up to “5,600 tons of municipal waste per day”, approximately one-third of the waste generated by Shenzhen’s 20 million inhabitants (2017). Waste incineration is a necessity in Shenzhen as the region is expected to reach its landfill capacity by 2021. Themelis identifies that there are substantial government incentives such as tariffs and other incentives for renewable energy in China, allowing WtE plants to be constructed (Trent Long, 2018). China is in desperate need to educate its population to reduce waste as 200 million tonnes per year will multiply to 500 million per year by 2025. Paludan states that China must “reduce the environmental impact and resource consumption but also strengthen social and aesthetic qualities”. He has designed secondary functions that aim to educate visitors about this growing waste challenge and create relationships by taking them on an elevated walkway tour (Trent Long, 2018). With the growth in waste, a framework on how they deal with pollution and waste has been adapted (Olley, 1999). It urges that an iconic design scheme is needed to encourage awareness and change China’s attitude towards waste and attempt to be more sustainable than European counterparts. There has been a change of attitudes towards waste, and governmental standards to air pollution, evident in China’s waste import ban which has put worlds waste industry into a crisis (National Geographic 2019)

Visual of Shenzhen Waste to Energy Plant

Fig.24

Visual of Shenzhen Waste to Energy Plant

Fig.24 Visual of inside Shenzhen Waste to Energy Plant, Elevated walkway

Fig.26

Number of WtE Incinerators

Number of WtE incinerators in china 200

100

12 Year

Amount of waste Incinerated (Million tonnes)

Amount of waste incinerated in China 60 40 20

Amount of waste sent to landfill (Million tonnes)

12 Year

As waste is increasing in china so are the amount of WtE plants being built, meaning there is a larger amount of waste incinerated. whilst waste sent to landfill is still increasing, it is not at a rate which matches the amount of waste burnt. which suggests that incineration is becoming the preferred option within China.

Amount of waste sent to landfill in China 120 100 80 60 40 20 10

12 Year

15 Fig.25

Schenzhen Info-graphic:

Viewing platform

Hire-able rooms

Education centre

Hike

Cafe Secondary Functions

External Landscaping

Not visible from city centre

Complete solar panel roof

2 Million Tons of Waste per year

Fig.27

Provides electricity to 230,000 homes

5.0.

Uppsala, Waste-to-Energy Plant:

The Uppsala biomass plant is a WtE plant that has adapted the ‘new breed’ approach by supplementing its existing structure to improve perceptions and achieve a social awareness about waste. BIG radically transformed the plant, both visually and functionally, by designing a minimal envelope façade that has the maximum effect and will enclose the existing plant. When demand for electricity falls during the summer months the plant becomes vacant. BIG recognise that this is when tourism is at its peak. BIG deals with these pragmatic elements of utility by integrating an otherwise ‘ugly’ building as part of the social environment. The identity of this power plant dissolves as it is enclosed within an organic form. The coloured glass used between the steel framework is 100% transparent allowing visitors to see the “organs of the power plant”…“allowing an educational glimpse of what happens within”. It therefore attempts to alter views towards waste (BIG, 2015: 564). As with all ‘new breed’ plants, there are attempts to build strong relationships between the burning of waste and the population, achieved by its secondary function as a public space when the power plant is not operating. This creates a positive relationship and social attitudes within such proximity of the city, which older plants such as Veolia, the following case study, fails to achieve. Again, this leads to dull awareness to the problem of waste.

Existing WtE Plant

Lightweight Steel structure

Transparent Coloured glass

Process of integration of a lightweight facade to change Perceptions Fig.28

BIG’s visuals of Uppsala Waste-to-Energy Plant

Fig.29

BIG’s visuals of Uppsala Waste-to-Energy Plant

Fig.30

Fig.31

The Effects of integrating a lightweight facade to change perceptions

Community Space Power Plant

Look a power plant can we go?

Of course not, its bad for our health and a dirty environment. Not suitable for us!

Community Space Power Plant

Can we go to the power plant?

Of Course! itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s got everything that we want, Green space, educational area.......

Fig.32

Uppsala Info-graphic:

Internal Viewing platform

External Landscaping

Viewing platform

Hike

Secondary Function

Cafe

Overlooks the city

?? Tons of Waste per year

Provides electricity to 150,000 homes

Provides heating to 150,000 homes Euclidean distance between city centre Uppsala WtE Plant 2KM Fig.33

. Veolia, Waste to Energy Plants:

6.0

Veolia is also a WtE plant, located in the suburbs of Birmingham, UK. Unlike the other precedents, Veolia does not claim to be ‘sustainable’, ‘iconic’ nor is there any evidence to suggest that they were its intentions. However, Veolia should boast that its underlying function, waste management, is most successful when comparing it to previous case studies. This particular waste plant forms part of the analysis of aestheticising waste due to the similarities that it shares with some ‘new breed’ plants. However, Veolia does not celebrate or take advantage of potential opportunities. Veolia’s only function, waste recovery, incinerates “350,000 tonnes” of Birmingham’s rubbish each year collected from 1.1 million residents” (Veolia, 2020). Veolia (2020) claim to generate up to 25MW of energy – enough to power “41,000 Birmingham homes. The plant was constructed in 1996. With this in mind the efficiency is expected to be less than newly-constructed plants with the latest technology, hence a factor in its location.

Veolia, Waste-to-Energy Plant

Fig.34

Veolia, Waste-to-Energy Plant

Fig.35

Differing from ‘new breed’ WtE plants, Veolia appears to lack a relationship with the local community, ‘a sweep it under the carpet plant’. The industrial aesthetics, location, and the absence of a secondary function allow the plant to be disguised on an industrial estate in Birmingham’s suburbs. This is because the form does not have recognisable characteristics that would stimulate social interests. However, Veolia has the opportunity to implement ecology-based strategies without disrupting the local urban environment. Due to undeveloped land neighbouring the plant, when comparing that to Amager Bakke, equal opportunities for ecological strategies are present (fig.38). Again, due to the location resulting in insignificant industrial aesthetics, it does not have an iconic status to spark social interests. It would be assumed that at the time of construction views towards utility buildings such as Veolia would have been negative. Indeed, as the technology was not as advanced, any fumes produced were toxic. Therefore, due to negative perceptions, construction would be away from the city centre, resulting in little consideration of aesthetics and social functions.

‘Sweep under the carpet scenario’

Fig.37

Surrounding land Veolia, Birmingham

Amager Bakke , Copenhagen

Fig.38

Forestry walks Opportunities

Undeveloped land, possible ecology strategies

Canal walks / Fishing opportunities

Fig.39

Questionnaire results: 20 familyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s were asked if they would visit these 4 locations.

Responses

Fig.40

Yes we would visit Yes we would visit

Veolia

X Rock wall

X Ski Slope

Viewing platform

Hike

X Secondary Functions

Cafe

Tallest elevation towers the plant

350,000 Tons of Waste per year

Provides electricity to 41,000 homes

Euclidean distance between Birmingham city centre to Veolia 5 KM

Fig.41

7.0.

Discussion:

After acknowledging the opportunities that ‘new breed’ plants offer it is essential to remember that they are incinerating waste to create power. Incineration in itself is seen as sustainable by not relying on fossil fuels but generating electricity through a human-made product that would otherwise be sent to landfill. The reasons for most of these utility buildings are located outside the city because of historic/perceived perceptions towards pollution and chemicals (fig.43). Investigating public reactions towards functional necessities will highlight if one ‘gazes’ at WtE plant’s or ‘closes the curtains’ in shame. The image of a by-product entering the atmosphere can produce both positive and negative reactions when analysing energy production, waste, and pollution. Kara suggests smokestacks are emblems of industrialisation and have gained a stigma that derives from their original public encounters (2017: 264). In response, I produced a questionnaire to investigate this further. The results confirm Kara’s statement that 18th-century cities are notorious for having an identity of smoke pluming from chimneys, forming a dull, polluted topography. “Technical advancements in industrial flue-filtering technologies have made such structures obsolete” (Kara et al, 2017: 264). This development replacing smoke with water vapour paves the way for architects to minimise, conceal or transform smokestacks to improve community interactions/ perceptions towards WtE plants. In order for emerging power plants to create positive public relations, designs must change perceptions by iconising and aestheticising them, offering the benefits that industrial plants do not.

Unsightly Polluting Box !! EW

Wow! Look at that ski Slope, and Floating Rings!!

Fig.42

Of these images which one would you relate industry to?

Responses

1940â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Coal Power Plant

Amager Bakke WEP

Uppsala WEP

Fig.43

Amager Bakke WtE plant has implemented technology in the design of its smoke stack in an attempt to transform negative perceptions by strategically iconising it as a tool to inform citizens. Cartoon-like smoke rings are projected into the skyline with the intent of framing emitted carbon for all to see. The stack produces ‘clean rings’ that emit water vapour and nontoxic CO2 (BIG, 2020). Each ring drawn from the chimneys indicates that 1 ton of CO2 is released into the atmosphere. BIG state that aestheticising smoke is, therefore, providing “every citizen intuitive information to help them inform the decisions they make in their lives and the city they want to live in” (BIG, 2015: 650). However, one should question BIG’s statement; how can celebrating the burning of waste be sustainable? What are the implications of producing 1 ton of CO2? If people are not educated to understand, then it will not act as a successful driver of behavioural change. The engaged public should recognise that ultimately the core of the problem is to reduce waste production and to demand electricity generated from solar/wind sources. Ideally, motivation would be gained by monitoring the artificial rings within the horizon, thus reducing waste, resulting in fewer rings. However, it should be a concern that some ignorant citizens could visualise the by-product as a conscious ‘do not worry about creating waste; we will just burn it regardless’. There is a theory that Jonathan Essex shares, for “there is no justification for building incinerators, which are polluting and energy inefficient and would lock us into continuing to burn high volumes of waste, thus stopping us recycling and reducing this waste in the future” (Dobinson, 2018). However, Veolia would disagree that emerging plants are aestheticising waste, as they state, “It is evident that energy recovery as part of an integrated waste management system does not deter recycling”, as Denmark incinerates “45% of its waste and recycles 42%” (Veolia 2020). These figures can be seen as reliable as BIG carried out a similar study which resulted in, “42% recycled, 54% incinerated and 4% sent to land fill” (BIG, 2015: 628). Assuming that the presence of a WtE plant is not disrupting recycling efforts, then Architects must focus on achieving iconic status in order to generate awareness.

Amager Bakke’s Cartoon-Like rings :

= 1 Ton of CO2

Fig.44

“Every citizen intuitive information to help them inform the decisions they make in their lives and the city they want to live in” (BIG, 2015: 650)

BIG as well as the UN and Denmark are quick to praise the plant as being the cleanest WtE plant in the world with “non-toxic smoke exiting the chimneys” (BIG, 2015: 529). The technological advancement, therefore, allows the ‘clean’ plant to be much closer to the city centre. Other emerging WtE plants have celebrated the chimneys by designing the stacks as an integral aspect when incorporating hybrid design - using the fumes as gateways in the case of Shenzhen, forcing visitors to enter between them. Alternatively, Uppsala has been discreet, reducing perceptions by hiding the stacks, providing visuals that ignore any by-product of burning waste. Instead, they provide visuals that showcase blue skies, and gatherings of people socialising. There is certainly no social relationship with the by-product at this WtE plant. However, compared to these ‘new breed’ plants, Veolia’s functional aesthetic, makes no attempt to become iconised. thus, the public perception is no different from those of its forefathers, 18th century coal plants are recognised for industry, production and pollution. In order to aestheticise and produce such clean by-products within ‘new breed’ plants, toxins must have been removed, which then asks the question: Where do toxins go? Removing toxins does not necessarily mean that the process is clean, in the same way that a nuclear power plant is perceived as clean, likewise containing and managing the by-product certainly is not (Towie, 2019). Aestheticising the by-product removes social responsibility compared to a traditional chimney, if nothing else the smoke produced was a visual contribute to global warming. However, if Veolia was situated in the city centre, one could argue that it would force a reduction in waste in order to see the plant retire and be dismantled.

Smoke stacks

Shenzhen, Walkway passes between the smoke stacks.

Uppsala, the smokestacks are out-of-sight, out-of-mind

Amager bakke, Cartoon-like smoke rings.

Veolia, industrial smokestack

Fig.46

A WtE plant’s location is significant to its relationships with the local population. As a rule of thumb aesthetic public buildings are positioned closer to the city centre than those used for industry (Kara, 2017). As discussed, the ‘new breed’ plants have implemented technology, allowing them to be positioned closer to urban environments due to the perceptions of clean by-products. The location of WtE plants can have many functional benefits, such as reducing fuel consumption by minimising transportation. Therefore, the closer the plant is to the supplier (city), the greater the potential benefit and efficiency that can be achieved when burning waste. Fig 47 maps the WtE plants studied in relation to their closest city centre. The figure indicates that emerging plants are much closer to the city centre when compared to Veolia. Possibly this is related to pre-millennium construction when there was much less concern for global warming with fewer incentives provided by the government for waste management plants to fulfil ecological visions. As discussed, the aesthetics were not considered. Compare this to the ‘new breed’ of plants that are within the city loop which commonly share visions for iconic status, through a beneficial secondary user utopia function. Situating the plants in close proximity to the city centre naturally generates awareness and therefore discussion. However, in order to be positioned with such proximity they must show aestheticism towards waste, to alter perceptions of utility buildings, thus removing “NIMByists [Not in my back yard]” complaints (BIG, 2015: 629).

Mapping the location of the WtE plant against aesthetics

This is a map that locates that all of the WtE plants are East of their neatest city centre. Below is a chart that proves that as the distance from the city increases the aesthetics of the WtE plant decreases.

City Centre

Aesthetics

Aesthetically pleasing

1KM 1 KM

5KM Distance from city centre

Fig.47

What is the relationship between people, city and government? It could be assumed that ‘new breed’ proposals are not that sustainable. Instead, they are serving as an iconic cornerstone to drive ecological development. When “functional” utility architecture is elevated to the status of public architecture, attitudes towards materials provide responsibility. Before the emergence of ‘new breed’ WtE plants, industrial utilities such as Veolia would have been driven by economies of scale, as utility plants were only as elegant and large as necessary. Conceptually there is a trend towards functional buildings becoming ‘architecture’ (RIBA, 2020). Plants such as Veolia are functionally efficient but if raised to the level of an iconic/public piece of architecture, materials should be considered more carefully. Veolia’s Architectural appearance has been designed in a way that is as functional and economical as possible, one could assume a lackadaisical approach when selecting materials for example, unstainable imported options. But there are cases such as a 1970’s coal plant, currently known as Tate Modern, which is also as functional as it gets, amid some consideration towards aesthetics with what can be assumed local, sustainable materials. By contrast Amager Bakke may have had initiative to consider that all materials are sustainable. As integrated public architecture poses anti-carbon incentives, in order to raise the ecological profile of such an industrial building.

WtE Success Factors

WtE Setbacks

- Government and regulatory environment fosters WtE.

- Lack of communication and public engagement.

- Waste management is regulated as a public service.

- Lack of state and federal support.

- National environmental targets. - Clear division roles and responsibility.

- Financing and costs. - Public opposition.

- Cooperation between and within multiplicities. - Communication and public engagement . Fig.48

Opportunities For Regeneration Tate Modern

Tate modern regenerated in to a museum

Copenhagen coal plant

There is no aesthetics or functional attraction to regenerate this plant

Amager Bakke

Secondary functions will live long after the closing of the plant

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Tate Modern was a power plant that turned into a museum. We are trying to make a functioning power plantâ&#x20AC;? Bjarke Ingels BIG(2020)

Fig.49

Nevertheless, as mentioned, the form is oversized in order to accommodate its secondary function, thereby challenging the sustainability by using more material than necessary, thereby increasing embodied energy in the elaborate design. A straightforward function over form would have reduced the amount of embodied energy, aesthetically ‘ugly’ buildings excel in this way. Kara quotes a Swedish architect as saying “my concern is to make these huge WtE plants look good, make them icons. He feels it should go beyond aesthetics and have an identity of its own” (2017: 134). Urban planners and architects recognise good hybridisation would establish symbolic relationships through aesthetics and function regardless of sustainable attributes. “WtE plants inherit a mostly negative public perception” (Kara et al, 2017: 139) which influences location. “I think trying to take away some of the industrial attitudes could be ultimately beneficial” (Kara et al, 2017: 134). Hybrid and iconic buildings thrive from the psychology of “Aesthetic experiences that involve a wide range of responses, from pleasure, preference, liking, and interest to disgust, anger, and surprise” (Silvia, 2009). Power plants that successfully promote ecology are the ones that have psychological hedonism. Bjarke Ingels states “just because something is routed in sustainability does not mean that cannot also be fun, and you should not sacrifice comfort or enjoyment to do good for the planet” (Digital society 2020). Utility plants that show psychological hedonism generate conversation through permanence and media responses, therefore aestheticising waste could be more educational than casting a shadow on it. Bjarke Ingels is undoubtedly correct in saying that they have “made green fun” (Big, 2020).

Questionnaire results: 20 familyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s were asked if they would visit these 4 locations.

1940â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s coal plant

Yes we would visit

Violoa

Amager Bakke

Uppsala

Fig.50

No we would not visit

8.0.

Conclusion

To further investigate this relationship, an interesting study would be to construct a function-over-form WtE plant in close proximity to the city centre and ensure that it looks unsightly. The intention would be to provoke social controversy by being socially unattractive but politically attractive. This experiment could spark greater pressure to recycle and reduce waste in order to see the proposal quashed (fig.51). One should understand that although incineration currently offers a convenient option both socially and environmentally, it should be regarded as a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;sweep under the carpet scenarioâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. Certainly, the aestheticising, glorification and social reliance on waste to produce power will not see it decline globally.

Power plant/ waste / co2 / pollution /

Power plant/ Ski Slope / Rock wall/ Fields

Fig.51

World Population increase

10.9 Billion 2100 9.7 Billion 2050

Population increase

7.7 Billion 2019

5 Billion 1987

2.5 Billion 1950 2 Billion 1928 1 Billion 1803

Year

1800

1900

2000

2100 Fig.52

Predicted global waste increase Other Textiles Industrial Machinery Consumer & Institutional Products Electrical/Electronic Building & Construction Transportation Packaging

Projection

Fig.53

Maybe it is too complicated to come to a conclusion how an aestheticised iconic status impacts on ecological sustainability in a built environment, as there are too many other uncontrollable forces include varied perceptions and population increases (fig. 52). It is clear that efforts to recycle are not reducing in cities that have implemented hedonistic, ecological, user-utopia powerplants; however, inevitably waste production is increasing (fig.53). Arguably this renewable source of energy is a temporary fix, making the best out of a bad situation. However, funding aestheticising recycling and prevention could be a better option as Jonathan Essex agues. Indeed, as Kara says “Industrial buildings do not have to be ugly” (2017: 21). As explored, these buildings are the ultimate oxymoron: waste and sustainability, powerplant as a social space, industry and community: so we should accept what we have and be aware that the “physical appearance… [of a utility building]…may in ecological terms outlive the initial purpose” (Kara et al, 2017: 16). Furthermore, once they become obsolete, these hybrid WtE plants have secondary functions that will be essential to leave a positive influence/ perception behind after the ‘death’ of its primary function.

Ultimate oxymoron

= Fig.54

9.0.

References

ARCHITECTURE 2030 (2020) ARCHITECTS TO PHASE OUT CARBON BY 2050. Available at: https://architecture2030.org/architects-to-phase-out-carbon-by-2050/ [Accessed 12 February 2020]. Banerjee, P. and Shastri, V. (2010) Social responsibility and environmental sustainability in business. London: SAGE Publications ltd. BIG (2015) Hot to cold, An odyssey of architectural adaptation. Copenhagen: Taschen GmbH. BIG (2020) Bjarke Ingels Group. Available at: https://big.dk/#projects [Accessed 31 January 2020]. Brown,M. (2016) FutuREstorative: Working Towards a New Sustainability. London: RIBA Publishing. Copenhagen 2025 Climate Plan (2012) CPH 2025 Climate Plan. Avalible at: https://kk.sites.itera.dk/apps/kk_pub2/index.asp?mode=detalje&id=983 [accessed 31 January 2020]. Cucchiella,F. D’Adamo,I. and Gastaldi,M. (2017) Sustainable waste management: Waste to energy plant as an alternative to landfill. Energy Conversion and Management, 131. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/ DOI:10.1016/j.enconman.2016.11.012. [accessed 31 January 2020]. Digital society (2020) Inside CopenHill, the clean energy power plant that's also a ski slope. [Video] Available through: https://www.wired.co.uk/video/ inside-copenhill [Accessed 14 January 2020]. Dobinson, I. (2018) Surrey County Council accused of proposing ‘secret incinerators’ on green belt land in latest waste plan. Surry Live, 19 January. Avalible at: https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/surrey-countycouncil-accused-proposing-14171425 [Accessed 10 February 2020]. Hartman, H. (2015) More British architects should make climate pledges. Architects Journal. Available at: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/opinion/ more-british-architects-should-make-climate-pledges/10000381.article [Accessed on 20 January 2020]. James-Tabb, P. and Senem-Devin, A. (2013) The Greening of Architecture: 56

A Critical History and Survey of Contemporary sustainable architecture and urban design. New York: Ashgate Publishing. Kara, H. and Villoria,L. and Georgoulias,A. (2017) Architecture and waste: A (Re)Planned Obsolescence. Harvard University Graduate School of Design: Actar Publishers. McDonnell, M. and Hahs, K and breuste, J. (2009) Ecology of Cities and Towns: A Comparative Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge publication press. Mostafavi,M. and Doherty,G. (2015) Ecological Urbanism. 4th edn. Kosel, Altusried-Krugzell: Lars Muller Publishers. Murray, A. (2020) BBC news, The incinerator and the ski slope tackling waste. Avalible at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49877318 [Accessed 31 January 2020]. National Geographic (2019) National Geographic. How Chinaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s plastic waste ban forced a global recycling reckoning. (June 2019). Available at: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2019/06/china-plasticwaste-ban-impacting-countries-worldwide/ [accessed 31 January 2020]. Olley, R. and Olbina, R (1999) 25th WEDC Conference, Innovative solid waste management in China. Available at: https://wedc-knowledge.lboro. ac.uk/resources/conference/25/335.pdf [Accessed 20th January 2020]. RIBA (2019) RIBA declares environment and climate emergency and commits to action plan. Available at:https://www.architecture.com/ knowledge-and-resources/knowledge-landing-page/riba-declaresenvironment-and-climate-emergency-and-commits-to-action-plan [Accessed 20th January 2020]. RIBA (2020) Moderism. Available at:https: https://www.architecture.com/ explore-architecture/modernism [Accessed 20th January 2020]. Silvia, P,J. (2009). Looking past pleasure: Anger, confusion, disgust, pride, surprise, and other unusual aesthetic emotions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(3). Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/232434487_An_Experiential_Account_of_the_Psychology_of_Art 57

[Accessed on 28 January 2020]. Spencer. B (2015) Leadership and learning are indispensable to one another. Available at: https://blog.teamsatchel.com/leadership-andlearning-are-indispensable-to-each-other-j.f.k [Accessed 31 January 2020]. Towie, N. (2019) The Guardian, Burning issue: are waste-to-energy plants a good idea?. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/ feb/28/burning-issue-are-waste-to-energy-plants-a-good-idea [Accessed 31 January 2020] Tsui, T. and Wong, J. (2019) A critical review: emerging bioeconomy and waste-to-energy technologies for sustainable municipal solid waste management. Waste Disposal & Sustainable Energy, Available at: https:// link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42768-019-00013-z [Accessed 31 January 2020]. Trent Long, M. and Colombie, S. (2018) Burning waste – China’s solution to ocean plastics. [Podcast] Available at: https://chinadialogueocean. net/2889-podcast-burning-waste-chinas-solution-to-ocean-plastics/ [accessed 27 January 2020]. UK Green Building Council (2019) UKGBC’s vision for a sustainable built environment is one that mitigates and adapts to climate change. Available at: https://www.ukgbc.org/climate-change/ [Accessed on 10 December 2019]. UN (2019) Climate action summit, report of the secretary - general on the 2019 climate action summit and the way forward in 2020. Avalible at: https:// www.un.org/en/climatechange/ [Accessed on 14 Febuary 2020]. UN (2020) Emissions Gap Report 2019. avalible at: https://www. unenvironment.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2019 [Accessed on 14 January 2020]. Veolia (2020) Veolia. Available at: https://www.veolia.co.uk [Accessed on 14 January 2020]. Wired (2020) No Joke: A Massive Trash Incinerator With a Ski Slope on Top Avalible at: https://www.wired.com/2013/11/mttrashmore/ [Accessed on 14 January 2020]. 58

Bibliography BIG (2010) Yes is more. Copenhagen: Taschen GmbH. Flucher, M. (2015) More British architects should make climate pledges. Architects Journal. Available at: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/opinion/ more-british-architects-should-make-climate-pledges/10000381.article [Accessed on 20 January 2020]. Mรถrtberg, H. and Zetterberg, J. and Joel, P. et al. (2013) Urban ecosystems and sustainable urban development--analysing and assessing interacting systems in the Stockholm region. Urban Ecosystems, 16(4). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/DOI:10.1007/s11252-012-0270-3. [accessed 31 January 2020]. Pelsmakers, S (2015) The environmental design pocket book. 2nd edn. London: RIBA Publishing.

10.0.

Figures:

Fig 1: Cooksey. R, (2019) Waste in the news.

Text was taken from: United Nations (2020) Climate Action Summit 2016: UN officials call to take action to the next level. Available at: https://unfccc.int/news/climate-action-summit-2016-un-officials-callto-take-action-to-the-next-level [Accessed on 10 January 2020] text was adapted by author.

Fig 2: Avalible at : https://arynews.tv/en/un-secretary-general-antonio-guterres-to-visit-pakistan-on-feb-15/ [Accessed on 10 January 2020]. Data was adapted by author.

Fig 3: Cooksey. R, (2019) Global CO2 emissions by sector. Fig 4: EPA, US Environmental Protection agency (2020) Global Green-

house Gas Emissions Data. data available at: https://www.epa.gov/ ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data [Accessed on 10 January 2020] Data was adapted by author.

Fig 5: Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-waste-management-pyramid_fig1_259308943 [Accessed on 10 January 2020] Data was adapted by author.

Fig 6: Cooksey. R, (2020) Mapping existing Waste-to-Energy Plants. Fig 7: Kara, H. and Villoria,L. and Georgoulias,A. (2017) Architecture and waste: A (Re)Planned Obsolescence. Page 65. Harvard University Graduate School of Design: Actar Publishers. Data was adapted by author.

Fig 8: Kara, H. and Villoria,L. and Georgoulias,A. (2017) Architecture and waste: A (Re)Planned Obsolescence. Page 65. Harvard University Graduate School of Design: Actar Publishers. Data was adapted by author.

Fig 9: Cooksey, R. (2020) Waste management in the EU

Kara, H. and Villoria,L. and Georgoulias,A. (2017) Architecture and waste: A (Re)Planned Obsolescence. Page 70. Harvard University Graduate School of Design: Actar Publishers.

Fig 10: Structures that have either been governed by contents or by architectural creativity. Visual by Author.

Fig 11: Ecology strategy - Hiking pathways at Amager Bakke . BIG

(2020) Bjarke Ingels Group. Available at: https://big.dk/#projects [Accessed 31 January 2020].

Fig 12: Ecology strategy - External landscaping at Shenzhen Arch

daily (2020) Worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Largest Waste-to-Energy Plant Set to Open Next Year in Shenzhen. Available at: https://www.archdaily. com/909843/worlds-largest-waste-to-energy-plant-set-to-opennext-year-in-shenzhen [Accessed 31 January 2020].

Fig 13: Ecology strategy - External landscaping at Uppsala BIG (2020) Bjarke Ingels Group. Available at: https://big.dk/#projects [Accessed 31 January 2020].

Fig 14: Positional perceptions of waste-to-energy plants. Visual by Author.

Fig 15: Amager Bakkes Structure. Information obtained from: BIG

(2020) Bjarke Ingels Group. Available at: https://big.dk/#projects [Accessed 31 January 2020]. Visual by Author.

Fig 16: Viewing Amager Bakke from the harbour. BIG (2020) Bjarke

Ingels Group. [photograph] Available at: https://big.dk/#projects [Accessed 31 January 2020].

Fig 17: Architect news (2020) BIGâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s waste-to-energy ski slope, Amager

Bakke, is now open [photograph] Available at: https://archinect. com/news/article/150162866/big-s-waste-to-energy-ski-slopeamager-bakke-is-now-open [Accessed 21 January 2020].

Fig 18: Ramboll (2020) BIO4: Towards carbon neutrality in Copenhagen.

Available at: https://ramboll.com/projects/re/bio4-towards-carbonneutrality-in-copenhagen [Accessed 03 Febuary 2020].

Fig 19: Amager Bakke’s, ‘White trash’ . Wired (2020) No Joke: A Massive

Trash Incinerator With a Ski Slope on Top Avalible at: https://www. wired.com/2013/11/mttrashmore/ [Accessed on 14 January 2020].

Fig 20: Amager Bakke ski slope. Photographs taken by author Fig 21: Amager Bakke Info-graphic by Author Fig 22: Eiffel Tower image. 56 Real Estate (2020) Eiffel Tower Avalible at: https://www.56paris.com/new-eiffel-tower-park-planned/ [Accessed 09 February 2020]. Photoshoped by author.

Fig 23: Locations of the closest ski resorts. By Author Fig 24: Schmidt hmmer lassen architects (2020) Shenzhen East Waste-

to-Energy Plant Available at: https://www.shl.dk/shenzhen-eastwaste-to-energy-plant/ [Accessed 31 January 2020].

Fig 25: Cooksey, R (2020) Data Avalible at:http://usa.chinadaily.com. cn/china/2016-06/06/content_25617677_2.htm [Accessed 10 February 2020].

Fig 26: Image Available at: https://ecotechnica.com.ua/arkhitektura/727samyj-bolshoj-v-mire-zavod-po-proizvodstvu-energii-iz-musorapostroyat-v-kitae-video.html [Accessed 31 January 2020].

Fig 27: Shenzhen Info-graphic by Author Fig 28: Process of intergrating a lightweight facade to change perceptions, By author

Fig 29: Fig: 29 Arch daily (2020) BIG’s “Unconventional” Uppsala Power

Plant Designed to Host Summer Festivals Available at: https:// www.archdaily.com/603259/big-s-unconventional-uppsala-powerplant-to-host-summer-festivals [Accessed 10 February 2020].

Fig 30: Fig: 30 Arch daily (2020) BIG’s “Unconventional” Uppsala Power

Plant Designed to Host Summer Festivals Available at: https:// www.archdaily.com/603259/big-s-unconventional-uppsala-powerplant-to-host-summer-festivals [Accessed 10 February 2020].

Fig 31: Arch daily (2020) BIG’s “Unconventional” Uppsala Power Plant

Designed to Host Summer Festivals Available at: https://www. archdaily.com/603259/big-s-unconventional-uppsala-power-plantto-host-summer-festivals [Accessed 10 February 2020].

Fig 32: The Effects of integrating a lightweight facade to change perceptions, By author

Fig 33: Uppsala Info-graphic by Author Fig 35: Birmingham live (2020) Introduce Birmingham food waste

collection to raise city’s appalling recycling rates say green campaigners. Available at: https://www.birminghammail. co.uk/news/midlands-news/introduce-birmingham-food-wastecollection-10720961 [Accessed 10 February 2020].

Fig 37: ‘Sweep under the carpet scenario’ by author Fig 38: Surrounding land, Cooksey, R. and Ram, L. and Gillingan, R. et,al (2019) Group Work, See Group Appendix.

Fig 39: Undeveloped land, possible ecology strategies Anti-Incinerator

(2020) Cheshire Anti Incinerator Network – [CHAIN] available at: http://www.anti-incinerator.org.uk/the-waste-debate/incineration/ what-youll-hear-about-incineration/ [Accessed 19 Febuary 2020].

Fig 40: Interview Regarding what people thought of the plant. Questionnaire about all the plants: by authour

Fig 41: Veolia Info-graphic: by Author Fig 42: Gazing out of the window: By author Fig 43: Of these images which one would you relate industry to? Questionnaire by author

Fig 44: Amager Bakke’s Cartoon-Like rings: By author Fig 45: Smokestacks: By author Fig 46: Mapping the location of the WtE plant against aesthetics: By author 63

Fig 48: Table interpreted from page 78: Kara, H. and Villoria,L. and

Georgoulias,A. (2017) Architecture and waste: A (Re)Planned Obsolescence. Harvard University Graduate School of Design: Actar Publishers.

Fig 49: Opportunities For Regeneration: By author. Fig 50: Questionnaire results: 20 familyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s were asked if they would visit these 4 locations. By author.

Fig 51: Gaphic: By author. Fig 52: Available at: https://ourworldindata.org/future-populationgrowth[Accessed 10 February 2020].

Fig 53: Available at: https://cosmosmagazine.com/society/global-plasticwaste-totals-4-9-billion-tonnes [Accessed 10 February 2020].

Fig 54: Ultimate oxymoron: By author.

11.0.

Appendix

Contents 11.1. Copenhagen Study Visit ............................... 68 11.2. Study Video................................................... 69 .

Copenhagen Study Visit Cultural Context Within Architecture ARC6010 Level 6 Ryan John Cooksey (S17123027) Sufyan Muzaffa (S17110435) Raheem Gillingan (S12110047) Abdullahi Mahmoud (S16155354) Liam RamWithin (S17111634) Cultural Context Architecture

Copenhagen Study Visit ARC6010 Level 6

Available at: https://issuu.com/ryancooksey Ryan John Cooksey (S17123027) Sufyan Muzaï¬&#x20AC;a (S17110435) Raheem Gillingan (S17110047) Abdullahi Mahmoud ( S16155354) Liam Ram ( S17111634) Copenhagen Study Video https://youtu.be/Cc2l-kDJfh8

Study Video

Scan this QR code using any smart phone camera.

This dissertation focuses on aestheticising waste through iconic strategic development. A line of inquiry influenced after initially reading Architecture and Waste. The following will focus on the development of Waste-to-Energy facilities, from cheap versions of the boxy sheds” governed by their contents to elaborate user utopia ‘new breed’ facilities.

Ryan John Cooksey Critical Study In Architecture 17 February 2020