Written by:
This is the third of three think pieces drawing on my own experience of architecture and the built environment, educationally and through practice, and inspired by an invitation to talk at MSA foundation year about participatory processes under the topic of Wider Issues within the built environment. I hope they will serve as a space for reflection and to challenge us to think critically about who shapes the built environment and how.
The planet burns as forests wither. The air we breathe is thick with poison. We relentlessly scar the earth, destroying the very soil that bears the weight of humanity’s ebb and flow. Urgency presses upon us, the planet begging for respite and reverence.
We are to blame, policies are to blame, governments are to blame, corporations are to blame. Predominantly those who hold power, bear the weight of this destruction, driving the climate to the brink.
We are perpetually navigating the precarities of global expansion, declining climate, growing populations, social and economic crises, and war. Within the context of the built environment, there is an ever-present need for housing and infrastructure to support human growth. This relentless pressure to build, grow, and expand often comes at the cost of natural landscapes and habitats.
From 2020 to 2060, the world is expected to witness the largest wave of infrastructure growth in human history. About 2.6 trillion square feet of new floor area will be added to the global building stock—equivalent to adding an entire New York City to the world every month for 40 years (Architecture 2030). This unprecedented growth underscores the urgent need for sustainable development that respects and preserves our natural world.
The architecture and construction industry significantly contributes to carbon dioxide emissions, accounting for 42% of all carbon emissions. Of this, 15% comes from the embodied carbon in construction and building materials, with 8% specifically from the production and use of cement. The remaining 27% results from building operations and maintenance.
So, what can be done to alleviate the constant burden humans place on flora, fauna, and all living creatures?
I am not suggesting that there is a single solution. The answer lies in a multitude of overlapping policies, systems, approaches, and tools. It also involves engaging in decolonising dialogues and fostering greater participatory processes across both built and natural environments.
As one of many starting points, I would be interested in exploring how we can diversify our construction methods and materials. A large part of the constraints on common building materials stems from the use of plastics and cement. But rather than focusing on the numerous barriers to diversifying our building techniques, let’s consider some possibilities.
If we can substitute these carbon-intensive materials with regenerative resources such as hemp, timber, and straw—which absorb and store natural carbon—it could become a key factor in decarbonising our built environment.
Hemp, for example, can sequester twice as much CO2 from the atmosphere as forests, grows much faster than trees, and requires less space for cultivation.
What would it mean to use materials more locally? One challenge, of course, would be the scale of development. Reflecting on my time walking along the rivers and canals of Greater London, and the East Midlands, often populated with dense forests of reeds, I think of traditional thatching techniques that have been replaced by quicker processes to meet cost and deadline demands.
What is the balance between regenerative building practices and the need to accommodate infrastructure for a growing population?
The abandonment of traditional crafts extends to the use of concrete as an ‘earth material composite.’ For millennia, various cultures have used earth materials through techniques like rammed earth, adobe, wattle-and-daub (or “quincha”), and cob.
Poured earth, scientifically known as loam, offers an alternative to concrete. Loam, made from grains, gravel, sand, and silt bound by clay particles, is considered a type of concrete. There are many benefits to its use. It absorbs and releases humidity faster and to a greater extent than any other building material. Loam stores heat, balancing indoor climates, saving energy, and reducing environmental pollution. Typically unbaked, loam can be recycled indefinitely and clay soil found on-site can be used for earth construction, saving on transportation. Additionally, loam preserves timber and other organic materials due to its low moisture content and high capillarity.
While there are many challenges to using more traditional, slower, regenerative methods, these approaches should constantly remind us of our potential as a people and a planet when we begin to work with the earth rather than against it.
References:
All visuals by Jake Stephenson-Bartley, unless stated otherwise.
Minke, G. (2012). Building with Earth. Walter de Gruyter.
https://www.bi0n.eu/news/poured-earth-an-alternative-to-cement-concrete-