cradle to cradle-rehabilitation of industrial heritage
TRANSCRIPT
International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development / September 2011 195
SUSB Article
Invited Article
Cradle to Cradle-
REHABILITATION OF
INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE
The opportunities for Cradle to Cradle in the Netherlands
Bas van de Westerlo, Joris Ketelaars, and Ana Pereira Roders
Throughout the Netherlands, the impact of the Industrial Revolution is still very apparent by its
numerous industrial buildings. However lately new strategies of industrial development have
made them become more and more functionally obsolete. Rehabilitation is often considered
as sustainable for allowing the reuse of existing buildings. Though, that is not always the case,
not even in rehabilitations targeting durability. This assumption can be clearly evidenced,
when an accurate evaluation is done taking as base the Cradle to Cradle-principles. This
paper shall present the results of a MSc. Thesis and the conclusions reached when determining
the opportunities of Cradle to Cradle in the Netherlands within the perspective of
rehabilitating a complex of industrial buildings. Functionally obsolete industrial buildings could
be easily considered as waste. But Cradle to Cradle perceives them as food. We believe there
is much more potential on rehabilitating them, than simply wasting them. But, as believing is
not enough, we shall verify and present our conclusions, based on evidences and a newly-
developed Cradle to Cradle guidelines for the built environment.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5390/SUSB.2011.2.3.195
1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION
This paper presents the preliminary results of a challengingresearch undertaken by two MSc. students on their graduationthesis, at the Technical University of Eindhoven, theNetherlands. “Rehabilitation of industrial heritage withCradle to Cradle” is the title of their MSc. which later usesas case study the old industrial complex of Vlisco, locatedin Helmond, the Netherlands.
Cradle to Cradle was the starting point because of itstopical character. However, Cradle to Cradle in general isvery broad and can lead into many challenging researches.The impact of Cradle to Cradle ideology on architects andurban planners has been growing in the Netherlands,particularly after having been presented at the televisionprogram “Tegenlicht”, from VPRO, on October 2006. Theprogram was called “Afval = voedsel” (waste = food), a slogan
196 SUSB Vol.2 No.3 Sep.2011
frequently used by McDonough and Braungart (Braungartand McDonough, 2002).
Cradle to Cradle has three main criteria, (1) Waste equalsFood, (2) Use the Sun and (3) Celebrate diversity associatedwith corresponding terminology. The philosophy dividesmaterials into two cycles, techno- and biological, whichmay not infect each other. The positive mindset of Cradleto Cradle assumes eco-effective design. It foresees innovationand added value.
In the beginning there were some doubts and commentson the Cradle to Cradle ideology. But the potential regardingthe built environment was assessed, to say the least, aspromising. The two main research questions were: howcould Cradle to Cradle ideology be exactly translated into abuilding, as well as, how could Cradle to Cradle ideologycope with the existing building stock which is notaccordingly “designed”.
2. THE LEGACY OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
The development of industry in the Netherlands startedin the beginning of the 19th century and promoted a newsource of economical success and prosperity. Many urbansocieties emerged around the “healthy and prosperous”industries. Consequently, the development of industrialcomplexes would be located closely connected to thedevelopments of the urban tissue.
Nowadays, these industrial complexes are embedded in theurban centres and occupy strategic positions for development.They might be considered of no interest by some masterplanners and stockholders, but their site is certainly a“golden mine”.
These industrial complexes or their sites are quite desirable,as they create “meshes” within consolidated urban tissues,with interesting positions against the contemporarilyfunctions. These buildings have been built parallel to therun of industry and technological progress, making use ofnew construction techniques and architectural styles.Therefore, it is not uncommon to see these industrialcomplexes or some of their buildings became individualicons of their time, landmarks on their cities. Besides, thesebuildings uphold high cultural values such as historic,social, scientific and aesthetical (Pereira Roders, 2006). Infact, they were the motor of many city expansions.
Their high cultural values occasionally contribute fortheir classification as cultural heritage, which often preventsthem from being either demolished or extremely redeveloped.Unfortunately, this classification is not global and many ofthese valuable industrial complexes have already beendemolished and lost for present and future generations. Theurgency to develop new buildings still predominates in theNetherlands, above the contingences of getting the advantagesof rehabilitation. In fact, the changes of durable rehabilitationare still underestimated!
3. CRADLE TO CRADLE VERSUS REHABILITA-
TION OF INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE
The Cradle to Cradle ideology can also be considered asa technical design task. Accordingly, when a product has a
conscious and smart design; it should be harmless, non-toxic and infinitely sustainable. Meaning that, when allenergy consumed during its entire life-cycle could beprovided by the sun, it can be interminable consumed.
But to what extent is this applicable to the builtenvironment which is by far the largest polluter in terms ofwaste and energy and consumer of materials. To theimplementation of Cradle to Cradle ideologies in the builtenvironment would be a giant leap forward to the creationof a sustainable society. However, such large change doesnot happen overnight and can easily take decades. What isthe sensible and intelligent way to go until then? Wedefend a smart rehabilitation. Some of the arguments are:First of all rehabilitation is probably the most efficient“downcycling” process. A large portion of the time, materialand energy used to initially create the building can bepreserved by just keeping the possible parts of the existingbuilding intact. In fact it could be considered as recyclingbecause one would be contributing for an reusing-value-process, resulting in an upgrade of the existing structureand higher technical qualities in terms of eco-efficiency,like energy-efficiency, indoor environment and integratingup-to-date technology within the building creating anattractive ensemble.
The flow of building waste that is created if a building isdemolished added to the amount of new materials neededto create a new building contradicts the argument. Even ifthe newly supplied materials are implementations of Cradleto Cradle ideologies, the waste flow is indigestible with thecurrent technology and this process should be considereddubious, unconscious and wasteful.
In rehabilitation interventions, the original appearance isretained as far as possible and the cultural values are keptintact. Those are well appreciated by Cradle to Cradleideology.
When a rehabilitation intervention takes as target industrialcomplexes, an interesting and determinative question emergesand that shall be the main focus of the MSc. thesis in alater stage. What to do with the abandonment of industrialheritage within the Netherlands and how can Cradle toCradle ideology be correlated to their rehabilitation? Withinthis question there is an interesting paradox, because theindustrial heritage is the direct legacy of the industrialrevolution which is the point where everything, accordingto Cradle to Cradle, went wrong. Therefore it can provehow something infinitely bad can form the first step of atransition towards eco-effective and Cradle to Cradle design.
This proclaims the reason to choose for rehabilitationinterventions, before proceeding with demolitions or strongredevelopments. Especially, as long a fully Cradle to Cradle-community is not possible and all the cycles can not beclosed.
4. MAKING IT COUNT
In the last decennia different certificated assessmentprograms have been developed to assess the efficiency ofbuilding designs or realized buildings on durability (Fig.1).Some of the programs calculate the durable intention of a
International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development / September 2011 197
building concept based on the boundary conditions anddemands which are formulated from the outset. All thedifferent agencies, governmental or private, operate withtheir own set of standards. Though, a lack of understandingon what Cradle to Cradle means difficults its implementationin the built environment. Especially because, there are noestablished demands or conditions determined as guideline.
The Cradle to Cradle ideology is reflected as transgressingall the chains in the environmental atmosphere. McDonoughand Braungart defend the need of being conscious in everydecision which needs to be made. An interesting footnoteof the concept of Cradle to Cradle is the fact that the stateof the philosophy transcend some national methodologies,like the energy efficiency (Dutch EPC). Energy efficiencydefends high insulation values of the building’s envelope,while the Cradle to Cradle ideology defends the usage ofdurable energy sources.
With the purpose to formulate and provide guidelinesaccording to the Cradle to Cradle ideology, it was decidedto develop a general and universal decision support model.The criteria and properties have been collected fromliterature and combined into an Excel-based worksheet.With this dynamic working plain, users are capable ofchecking the Cradle to Cradle-score of their building designs.The decision support model is divided in five differentlevels: environment, building, component, material & raw
material. Every property exists in possible choices by usinga pull-down menu for checking a design.
An important precondition for further implementation ofthe Cradle to Cradle typology is the flight plan in thedesign process. Eighty percent of negative consequenceson the environment can be avoided in the design processby the design team (Thackara, 2005). First, the developerand/or design team have to define the Cradle to Cradle-ambitions and intentions for the proposed development.The decision support model takes the design team by thehand during the initiative till the construction phase of thebuilding.
Another distinction is made in case whether the buildingis new or rehabilitated. In case of rehabilitation interventions,some extra criteria are formulated with regard to theincorporation of existing components and materials. Ifrecycling from existing materials and components in caseof rehabilitation is out of the question, it will be moredifficult to maintain a high score and a durable Cradle toCradle design.
5. PUTTING IT INTO PRACTICE
In order to put the Cradle to Cradle ideology intopractice and verify the possibilities of combination, it wasdecided to implement it into a rehabilitation intervention ofan industrial complex. After some research, Helmond was
Fig.1 Timeline with important durable solutions till Cradle to Cradle.
198 SUSB Vol.2 No.3 Sep.2011
the city chosen with Vlisco as case study. The complexitself has a surface of 7 hectare and is strategically located(Fig.2) because of the direct link to city centre in the north,close public transportation systems, large expansion plansto the south, directly located next to canal and medievalcastle. There are 8 buildings of which 3 are cultural heritage,mainly because of their high historic values. Then, thereare some relatively new buildings, which have moretemporary character but high economic values.
The Vlisco buildings created around the 70’s were assessedwith low cultural values but high condition values, in termsof expensive and valuable materials. Therefore, an extensivematerial analysis was made in terms of volume, economicvalue, recyclability and flexibility of the individual elementsand materials.
In this way, deliberated choices could be made about thereintegration of some of these elements into the rehabilitatedbuildings. Some elements are slightly adapted to performin their new function, e.g. a combined floor system or aflexible separation wall system, for minimizing waste aswell as minimizing the need for new materials. The removedbuilding will provide space for a park-like environment,creating a needful green oasis within city centre andimproving its biodiversity.
With the Sustainable Service Plant (Fig.6), the decisionsupport model as reference, and the aim to reintroduce thesubtracted materials in the rehabilitation design as startingpoint an ”out of the box” installation-concept was formedspecifically engineered for the 1911 building. The conceptforesees in 5 interventions both inside and outside thebuilding. Two greenhouses of which one specially designedfor heating (A) and one for cooling the building (B), a floorconcept combining active heat/cooling with air treatment,an internal secondary façade (C) and 3 atria (D) create aseason-specific and adaptable system.
The 2 greenhouses are orientated on the south (red) andnorth side (blue) of the building allowing them to harvestsolar warmth in winter or detain in summer.
These are some of the applied measures to create aconscious and Cradle to Cradle rehabilitation on bothenvironment and material level, assessed by the decisionsupport model. Combining these measures with a sustainableinstallation concept the overall calculated Cradle to Cradlelevel of the individual buildings, as well as, the complex in
Fig.2 Aerial photo of Vlisco industrial complex in Helmond, TheNetherlands.
Fig.3 Rendering “out of the box” installation concept of Vlisco1911.
Fig.4 Sustainable Service Plant with closed energy-, water- and airflows.
International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development / September 2011 199
total can only improve.
6. THE ROAD TO A SUSTAINABLE CRADLE TO
CRADLE REHABILITATION
The road to a sustainable rehabilitation in combinationwith the Cradle to Cradle ideology requests an overallapproach. The metaphor of a cherry tree used by McDonoughand Braungart is not fully compatible with this kind ofarchitecture and asks for a broader description.
One of the most important elements in a sustainablerehabilitation, besides the general motives of Cradle toCradle, is thinking about the ‘continues loop’ componentsand materials from the current buildings. Therefore, incombination with the Cradle to Cradle ideology, the RE-ARCHITECTURE method (Pereira Roders, 2006) wasvery important for sustaining an adequate and sustainablerehabilitation at that level. Besides, the developed decisionsupport model was used with much success as a guidelinefor designing and testing buildings envisioned by theCradle to Cradle project. For rehabilitating Industrial Heritageon the basis of reusing materials such case study was veryimportant for the optimization of the system.
Act as nature is very important in the consideration ofCradle to Cradle. For a durable rehabilitation in combinationwith reusing materials from destructive buildings themetaphor of Mycorrhiza, either a root fungus, is a suitabletranslation for a rehabilitation design in addition of thecherry tree. The root fungus foresees the tree a larger rangeto absorb water and minerals. During the time the rootfungus is evolved in a perfect symbiosis with the tree. Thefungus gives the tree a new vital appearance and increasethe biodiversity in the surrounding. In an optimal situationthe symbiosis can be reflected in new life in form of amushroom. In opposite direction, the Mycorrhiza usesmaterials from the tree and aroused energy by the tree. Thetranslation of this metaphor into a building design willreflect a sustainable Cradle to Cradle-rehabilitation.
All the facets of creating sustainable rehabilitation projectsare in stock. Combining the decision support model,analysis of building plus surrounding and the metaphor ofMycorrhiza will reflect in an effective machine in- andoutside the building. The building will harmonize withenergy-, water- and airflows and make and optimal use ofthe qualities out of both building and surrounding. Incombination with reusing materials out of dismantledbuildings or parts the foundation is established for atechnical rehabilitation.
7. CONCLUSION
By the (re)development of buildings the followedmethodology was important to implement the Cradle toCradle principles with an Cradle to Cradle-mindset. Eightypercent of the negative consequences on the environmentcan be foreseen in the early design phase.
The most important design rules when rehabilitating anindustrial complex, implementing Cradle to Cradle typologywere:
● Create Cradle to Cradle principles as starting point.● Waste = Food. Reuse the available materials out of the
building itself or other buildings in the vicinity bycreating an inventory assessing the materials andelements on various levels.
● Use the Sun. Manage the air- water- and energy flowsas well as the material- and waste flow.
● Enjoy Diversity.● Make eco-effective choices from the beginning.● Innovate and create added values.● Take the next lifespan into account. Use it for further
embedment of the Cradle to Cradle typology.● Research the context and qualities of the building/
surroundings and its former function.● Use the qualities of the surrounding for energy and
storage. Especially in the case of industrial heritagewhich is often located near waterways.
● When adding new materials research its Cradle toCradle characteristics in the separate bio- andtechnosphere without infecting each other.
● Turn the building into a self sustaining cherry tree.● Use Mycorrhiza as a metaphor for the value adding
process of rehabilitation. Look at it as an independentidentity which cohabits with the building.
REFERENCES
[1] Braungart, M. and McDonough, W. 2002, Cradle to Cradle,
Making the Way We Make Things, North Point Press.
[2] Ketelaars, J. 2010, Rehabilitation of Industrial Heritage with
the Cradle to Cradle Designtool – Product Development,
Technical University of Eindhoven.
[3] Pereira Roders, A.R. 2006, RE-ARCHITECTURE, Lifespan
rehabilitation of built heritage, Scapus, Bouwstenen Publi-
catiebureau.
[4] Thackara, J. 2005, In the Bubble, designing in a complex
world. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
[5] Westerlo, B. 2009, Rehabilitation of Industrial Heritage with
the Cradle to Cradle Designtool – Building Technology, Tech-
nical University of Eindhoven.
200 SUSB Vol.2 No.3 Sep.2011
Joris Ketelaars
Vetrotech Saint-Gobain
the Netherlands
Joris Ketelaars is management trainee at Vetrotech Saint-Gobain.
Vetrotech is the world leading organisation in fire-resistant glazing-
systems. Currently active as a technical sales engineer he's involved
in the building market for the Benelux as well as the marine
worldwide, concentrating on passive firesystems.
Bas van de Westerlo
PhD-researcher
University of Twente
the Netherlands
Bas van de Westerlo is PhD-researcher at University of Twente, the
Netherlands, focusing on “Implementing the Cradle to Cradle-
principles in the design process” at the C2C ExpoLAB foundation
Venlo. It aims to stimulate and support developments in the area of
Cradle to Cradle (C2C), as well as, making them available to
government organisations, market players and knowledge and
educational institutions.
Ana Pereira Roders
Assistant Professor
Faculty of the Built Environment
Eindhoven University of
Technology
the Netherlands
Ana Pereira Roders is Assistant Professor at Faculty of the Built
Environment, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands
and co-editor of the Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and
Sustainable Development, Emerald, United Kingdom. Her research
explores and promotes the role of cultural heritage in the sustainability
of communities.