Securing Healthy Circular Material Flows in the Built

Securing Healthy Securing Circular Circular Mat Healthy erial Flows In The Built erial Flows Circular Material Flows Envir onment In The Built | Bob Geldermans Environment The Case Of Indoor Partitioning Bob Geldermans Securing Healthy Circular Material Flows In The Built Environment The Case Of Indoor Partitioning Bob Geldermans TOC A+BE | Architecture and the Built Environment | TU Delft BK 20#06 Design | Sirene Ontwerpers, Rotterdam ISBN 978-94-6366-275-8 ISSN 2212-3202 © 2020 Bob Geldermans Digital version freely available at abe.tudelft.nl All rights reserved. No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the author. Unless otherwise specified, all the photographs in this thesis were taken by the author. For the use of illustrations effort has been made to ask permission for the legal owners as far as possible. We apologize for those cases in which we did not succeed. These legal owners are kindly requested to contact the publisher. TOC Securing Healthy Circular Material Flows In The Built Environment The Case Of Indoor Partitioning Dissertation for the purpose of obtaining the degree of doctor at Delft University of Technology by the authority of the Rector Magnificus prof.dr.ir. T.H.J.J. van der Hagen chair of the Board for Doctorates to be defended publicly on Wednesday 3 June 2020 at 15:00 o’clock by Robertus Johannes GELDERMANS Master of Science in Industrial Ecology Leiden University/Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands born in Beverwijk, the Netherlands TOC This dissertation has been approved by the promotors. Composition of the doctoral committee: Rector Magnificus, chairperson Prof.ir. P.G. Luscuere Delft University of Technology, promotor Prof.dr.ir A.A.J.F. van den Dobbelsteen Delft University of Technology, promotor Dr.ir. M.J. Tenpierik Delft University of Technology, co-promotor Independent members: Prof.dr.-Ing. T. Klein Delft University of Technology Prof.dr. N.M.P. Bocken Maastricht University Prof.dr. B. Croxford University College London Ir. D. Bruggink Orga Architects Prof.dr.ir. L.C.M. Itard Delft University of Technology, reserve member TOC Preface We all want a private home with the fundamental right to shape it in any way we like. However, in the last century mass housing appeared all over the world in the form of buildings in which occupants have no say about the space-plan and infill of their dwellings. Those buildings have a fixed subdivision in units with standard layouts. But households are all different and change over time, and so do their needs and desires. The reasons behind alterations may range from fashion preferences and lifestyle changes to adjustments in family size or reduced abilities. Dynamic and subjective user experiences, however, are seldom anticipated in residential building designs. With this in mind, the Open Building concept, originating in the 1960s, proposed two levels of intervention and decision-making: the (collective) ‘support’ and (individual) ‘infill’. Although the Open Building approach has been embraced conceptually, with a new wave of interest in the Netherlands at this very moment, it is largely overlooked in the actual design and construction of housing. Current attention for Circular Building (CB) puts, once again, the spotlight on Open Building (OB). This renewed attention is based on shared benefits around flexibility, and as such CB and OB are two sides of the same coin. Circular Building could thus prove to be a game-changer in inclusive sustainable architecture. This realisation formed the starting-point for my PhD adventure about 5 years ago. As a matter of fact, the seed was planted much earlier, preluding my submission to the Master track Industrial Ecology between 2007 and 2009. Ever since, in my work for Except Integrated Sustainability and the Ministry of Economic Affairs, as well as Delft University of Technology and the Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Metropolitan Solutions, I have been focusing on Cradle to Cradle®, Circular Economy and related concepts, with specific attention for material flows associated with buildings and cities. Regardless of the many exciting design and engineering challenges I encountered, there was always the realisation that social benefits were taken for granted. Most specifically, those social benefits that fall through the cracks of statistics, such as the aforementioned subjective user experiences. It was clear to me that my PhD trajectory needed to manifest itself on the intersection of social and technical territories, starting from the user of buildings: me, you, us, them. I hope I have succeeded in doing so. Either way, it has been an amazing, intense, and enriching experience, for which I am extremely grateful. My deepest respect and gratitude go to the following people: my colleagues in general, who have supported, advised and inspired me along the way, and my promoters in particular: Peter Luscuere, Martin Tenpierik, and Andy van den TOC Dobbelsteen. At the fnal stage of my dissertation, the independent members of my doctoral committee, and my proofreading hero Zoe, provided invaluable feedback as well, for which I am eternally grateful. Furthermore, several indirect colleagues and mentors have guided me along the way, both through publications and in conversations, notably: Frans van der Werf, Stephen Kendall and John Habraken. At moments, a PhD trajectory can be a solitary adventure, specifically during the long months of writing. In such periods, music has always been an essential lubricant to keep mental processes going. Therefore I’d like to thank the following people and acts, even if I do not know them personally: Augustus Pablo, Bei Bei & Shawn Lee, Burnt Friedman, Chilly Gonzales, Clutchy Hopkins, Colleen, Dictaphone, Felix Laband, Four Tet, F.S. Blumm, Hermanos Gutierrez, Nils Frahm, Prins Emanuel, Richard D. James, Suzanne Kraft & Johnny Nash, and Woo. Moreover, I owe many thanks for the support and love I received from my parents, as well as my brother and sister. Finally, none of this would matter if it wasn’t for my wonderful wife and son: Zoe and Isaac, this is for you, I hope I have managed to stay sane enough throughout the years of its writing. Bob Geldermans TOC Contents List of Tables 12 List of Figures 13 Summary 17 Samenvatting 21 Terms, Definitions & Abbreviations 25 1 Introduction 33 Problem statements, Research questions, and Methodology 1.1 Circularity Problem Statement 33 1.1.1 Ecological Debt: Earth Overshoot Day 33 1.1.2 Circular Economy 37 1.1.3 Circular Built Environments 38 1.2 Flexibility Problem Statement 41 1.2.1 Social Debt: The Great Indoors 41 1.2.2 Home 42 1.2.3 Social housing 44 1.2.4 Perceived value of real estate 45 1.2.5 The indoor domain 46 1.3 Delineation and Research Questions 48 1.3.1 Partitioning 48 1.3.2 Materialisation 51 1.3.3 Dutch Residential Construction, Demolition and Renovation 51 1.3.4 User Health & Well-being 54 1.3.5 Systems integration: Operations 54 1.3.6 Research Questions 57 1.4 Methodology 58 1.4.1 Mixed Methods 58 1.4.2 Methodology per chapter 61 7 Contents TOC 2 Background 69 Housing and Environmental awareness 2.1 Housing 69 2.1.1 Introduction to Dutch public housing 69 2.1.2 Dutch Housing in the 21st Century 70 2.1.3 Modernism and Structuralism in Architecture 72 2.1.4 Adaptable and Open Building 73 2.1.5 Prefab Architecture 76 2.1.6 Participatory Design 77 2.1.7 Circular Housing in the Netherlands 79 2.2 Environmental awareness 80 2.2.1 Introduction 80 2.2.2 Limits to Growth 81 2.2.3 Sustainable Development 82 2.2.4 Systems Thinking 83 2.2.5 Circular Economy 84 2.2.6 Between pragmatism and radicalism 87 2.2.7 Circular Economy and Sustainable Development Goals 88 2.2.8 Circular Cities 89 3 Design For Change And Circularity 97 Accommodating circular material & product flows in construction 3.1 Introduction 97 3.1.1 Circular Material Flows 97 3.1.2 Flexible Buildings 99 3.1.3 Research questions 101 3.2 Methodology 102 3.2.1 Four workshop sessions 104 3.3 Results 105 3.3.1 Key findings from the workshop sessions 106 3.3.2 Intrinsic properties 107 3.3.3 Relational properties 108 3.3.4 Preconditions for Circular Building 108 3.3.5 Circular Building Matrix 109 3.3.6 Stepwise approach of Circular Building 111 8 Scrn Health Circular Material Flows In The Built Environment TOC 3.4 Discussion 113 3.5 Conclusion 115 4 Circular & Flexible Infill Concepts 119 Integration of the Residential User Perspective 4.1 Introduction 119 4.2 Methods 121 4.3 Literature Study 123 4.3.1 Housing Quality and the Time-Factor 124 4.3.2 Residential Building Performance Evaluation 125 4.3.3 Open Building as a Driver for Circular Material Flows 126 4.3.4 Properties of Circularity 127 4.4 Lessons from Four Cases and Expert Consultations 128 4.4.1 Lessons from Four Cases 129 4.4.2 Expert Consultations 131 4.5 Derivation of Circ-Flex Criteria 136 4.6 Discussion 140 4.6.1 Reflection on Methodology 140 4.6.2 Institutional, Legal, Cultural, and Demographic Context 141 4.7 Conclusions 143 5 Human Health & Well- Being In Relation To Circular And Flexible Infill Design 149 Assessment Criteria On The Operational Level 5.1 Introduction 149 5.2 Methods 151 5.3 Literature Review 152 5.3.1 The Operational Level 155 9 Contents TOC 5.4 Analysis and Synthesis of Three Assessment Schemes 157 5.4.1 Cradle to Cradle Certified™ 157 5.4.2 WELL Certified™ 158 5.4.3

Load more