Thursday, January 30, 2014

DfD for (not against) Architecture

"The whole is to the part as the part is to the whole.” Frank Lloyd Wright

Background

“DfD is a new concept for the design and building community and is an important contributor to Design for Environment (DfE). DfE is a comprehensive consideration of design related to environmental and human health impacts over the life-cycle of a product. Design for disassembly (DfD) is a growing topic within manufacturing industries as greater attention is devoted to the management of the end-of-life of products. This need is driven by the increasing disposal problems of large amounts of consumer goods, and the resultant pollutant impacts and loss of materials resources and energy that is embodied in these products.” [Guy and Nicholas]

DfD should be applied to life-cycle of buildings due to the huge amount of material resources consumed annually around the world in their construction, renovation and destruction.

Principles of DfD

Typically, there are about a dozen or so principles of DfD. They include the following:
·      Accessibility,
·      Documentation of disassembly information,
·      Durability,
·      Exposed and/or reversible connections,
·      Independence,
·      Inherent finishes,
·      Recyclables,
·      Refurbish ability,
·      Re-manufacturability,
·      Reusability, and
·      Simplicity.  [http://www.sabmagazine.com/blog/2009/10/27/design-for-disassembly/]


It is possible to divide these principles into two broad groups: those that promote keeping components separate, safe and easily re-usable; and those that demand simplicity, exposed and accessible connections and standardization of parts and design.

Hypothesis

In the more recent past, the International Style of architecture has embodied many concepts of DfD, albeit with significant failures regarding aesthetics, occupant control, and overall sustainability.” [Guy and Nicholas]

It is possible to implement DfD without having to compromise design principles. Current DfD principles unduly restrict the architect to simplistic designs with joints that are necessarily visually, physically and ergonomically exposed. When DfD is applied to the manufacture of other products (e.g., cars, electronics, appliances, etc.) there does not appear to be a similar need to sacrifice design complexity for ease of disassembly. It is possible and necessary to develop a DfD methodology for architecture that is devoid of these three principles.

Detailed Strategies

God is in the detail” Mies van de Rohe 

Beyond the main DfD principles, there are more detailed strategies that are advocated to encourage the re-use and recycling of materials. These include minimizing the different types of materials in order to decrease the complexity and number of separation processes; allow for parallel disassembly to reduce the time required to disassemble; and separating the structure from the cladding. [Guy and Nicholas]

It will be argued that these detailed strategies can be respected without having to adhere to simplified and standardized design principles.

 "In details are the possibilities of innovation and invention and it is through these that architects can give harmony to the most uncommon and difficult or disorderly environment generated by a culture.”  Marco Frascari

Architecture requires that we preserve detail. Detailing is the most important means of avoiding building failure. In essence, detailing is the joining of building materials, components and parts in a functional and aesthetic manner. [Marco Frascari]



STRATEGY 1: Integrate advanced computational techniques into DFD principles in order to maximize the material potential and to push design exploration of connection detail.


STRATEGY 2: Creating a meeting point for top-down and bottom-up approaches where the idea of the building as a whole will be affected by the smallest components of the system.


STRATEGY 3: Transition the design from mass-production to mass-customization by creating parametric relations between each building component which, ideally, will result in visual diversity of the building as a whole.







1 comment:

  1. This is one of those propositions that tries to cover as much as possible without serving a clear message to the audience about what the larger strategic resolution(s) may be. You are also very close to investigate more about processes of constructing architecture (i.e. DfD) rather than describing architecture first and foremost. Worse still is that your position (or at least what is put forth as the position) is that "DfD should be applied... to buildings". Unfortunately that is not a very strong statement nor is it clear about what you are trying to do specifically with Architecture. To be clear about what you have here is that if you look at your strategies, they are solely process-centric issues. You can take some ideas from these points and reuse them but ONLY if you are able to phrase the strategies as both architecturally significant and deal with some unique spin that YOU bring. Currently what you have written here is cliched statements about sustainable design so you must demand more and refine them as uniquely serving your Architectural thesis goals.

    ReplyDelete