The Natural Paradigm Shift

Sprouts evening

Written by Emmi Keskisarja, 14.6.2018

The contemporary doctrine of building in Finland is ultimately about imagining buildings that last forever. As a result, natural properties of wood, such as biodegradability, responsiveness to humidity, naturality, have been subject to fight. Could they be used as a positive driver for structural innovation instead? Could a new paradigm lie in respecting the natural qualities of each material? Using each material where it functions best? Could natural materials be utilized in ways appropriate to their unique characteristics – instead of homogenizing them into the – once so important – plasticity of concrete.

If we challenge the idea of eternity, then what is the appropriate life-span of a building? Should we come up with a number, or could we rethink the whole concept? What if we started thinking in a “ship-building mentality” – continuous replacement of the parts? If we accept this starting point, then rather than focusing on individual buildings, we should aim at building a system: a full product cycle from cradle to cradle, solving the assembly, the disassembly, and the reassembly.

Wood is a natural material. Should we try to turn it into homogenous products, or could we work to identify its characteristics, and make use of trees growing in certain climates, certain areas? We could look at inspiration from nature beyond human aesthetic perversions. The 60-year-old Linnanmäki roller-coaster carries a lot of charm from the 1950’s. But it hardly has any original pieces left. Same goes for the wooden temples in Japan and China. With technological advances, could we extend our dealings with construction material to its growing period? Could there be use for location coding timber material before it is even cut...?

New building materials have always lead to new structural and formal possibilities. But are the current problems concretic? Or could we benefit the whole more by imagining a complete circular economy?

In an ecosystem optimized for concrete, wood will only appear economical when the whole chain and the whole experience is considered. Wooden construction could be revived by letting go of imitating and seeking new optimal forms and structures. We should forget about the concrete building and forget about the “mökki”. The essence to big wooden structures will not be found there.

Design and the Numerically Controlled Realm

Material use and research are still substantially based on the demands of repetitive industrial thinking. Albeit wood and the combination of digital tools enable custom-crafted solutions. Wood could be the perfect material – when thinking the full cycle from customer-centric understanding to numerically controlled output. The ultimate customer being the globe.

Of the known industries, the construction industry uses the least time in Research & Design (as well as on the actual design). This is a deficiency. To move on, we need to utilize the latest information about the building process as such. When we should use more time in design and less in fabrication. This could be done by automating the repetitive parts of the process. Algorithms inherently detect and repeat patterns. By utilizing them more in the design process, time would be saved for creativity and for solving important case specific problems, such as user-inclusiveness.

To enable this, we need methods to evaluate the qualitative side of construction numerically. We need a shift from the shortsighted cutting of quantities to understand and to design holistic effects on the built realm.

The visual component of human brain activity is well researched and understood (...in most cases it is used for sole purposes of advertisement). Could construction benefit from this data? Through a complete understanding of how we experience environments, their qualities could be identified and quantified. Which construction company will be the first to develop their building product based on research on place-detecting-neuron cells?

Of course, sensory research of good environments and materials is already ongoing. But are the specialists knowledgeable enough to base decisions on facts, or do they rely on opinions instead? A research made in Norway stated that patients in wooden rooms healed faster than in regular rooms. So: quality can lead to efficiency if we know what to measure.

Responsibility and the Goals We Set

Timber has many technical advances, and we can use it often. When it comes to social responsibility, how do we define ‘efficient’? Should we focus on the act of construction, or the use of a building? It is ultimately a philosophical decision. We have to collectively decide what kind of perspective we want to value.

Getting a wider grasp of the world is a multidisciplinary process. It is also an international process: Exchange between different countries, global networks of specialists and promoters, is required. Circularity in sharing knowhow and learning together is where it all starts. The new paradigm has to be about collaboration.

Collaboration requires communication. Discussing sustainability often leads to frustrating moments - circling technicalities and a lack of common terminology. We are all dreaming of not having to discuss sustainability at all – so that it would be an obvious norm. But what if the term “sustainability” is too small ever to get us there? Should we encourage an ideological shift of focus from “carrying on with our activities in sustainable ways” to understanding the whole world of creating and consuming, the “circle of life” in a more thorough, less human centered way?

The only living thing on the planet that produces new energy are the small green particulates growing in plants. The rest of us are consumers.

What is our true role in the complex symbiotic whole formed by cities, bridges, fields, roads, seas, history, future, species, deserts, golf courses, vulcanoes, bacteria, and the forest... If it could be just one thing, then definitely not an endpoint?