This paper discusses an interior architectural design model to enable a sustainable design strategy for efficient resources/waste management. The proposed design concept, referred to as ‘interior architectural design for adaptive reuse’, is based on reintroducing reclaimed or salvaged building construction materials and products acquired from demolished or refurbished buildings, into the structure of interior components. The presented design approach puts circular design methods and techniques in interior design practice at the core of environmentally responsible design.

This journal explores how interior designers can integrate sustainability into their practice. It emphasises reducing environmental impact, enhancing occupant health, and optimising resource efficiency. Key topics include selecting sustainable materials, improving indoor environmental quality (IEQ), and implementing energy and water-saving strategies. McCoy advocates for adaptive reuse, modularity, and durability in design, urging designers to act as sustainability advocates. This guide bridges theory and practice, empowering professionals to create spaces that are eco-friendly, functional, and beneficial to human well-being.

Hello hello!

In this blog, I am mainly going to talk about the debate that was held during the seminar as I have just walked out of it and found it very interesting, enriching and raised a lot of questions for me personally. I unfortunately did not make it to the workshop in the morning but tried to carry out the task myself (fig. 1).

Figure 1: Circular Redesign idea – deodorant packaging.

Today, I was on the ‘against’ side of the motion ‘This house (i.e. we) would enforce a circular economy’ and throughout my research I actually found a lot of limitations to the idyllic ‘circular economy’ model. There is quite a few reasons that this way of living would not be as beneficial as it sates to be in our current society and here are a few that stuck out to me;

1. The limits of recyclability is a big one, and especially in the design field where we are so reliant on a materials properties. Materials degrade and disperse over time and with use, and recycling will (more or less depending on the material) loose of their original high quality. This is definitely a limitation in interior design and specifically construction as it is extremely reliant on material properties of strength and toughness which could in the long run compromise safety and durability. Furthermore, restoring end-of-life products to a reusable state requires a lot of energy and new material inputs.
2. Consumer mindset and behaviour is another, if not the biggest in my opinion, challenge as it requires us to detach from throwaway culture which is so deeply rooted in our current society. Changing consumerist habits that are so deeply ingrained is a big challenge and something that needs to come from a strong communal desire to do so. An individual living according to the circular economy model in a society that does not support it can only have a limited impact.

A lot of very interesting points were made by both parties of the debate and I can’t cite them all but it was overall such a nice conversation and realisation that the incentive to make positive change is actually mostly there and that it is now about implementing it on a deeper level. But I really do believe that our governments will eventually have to follow through if we put enough pressure emphasis the common wish to do so. It is now about making it happen sooner rather than later.

Bibliography:

Hello! Welcome back to my blog.

This week has been very interesting, a little intense too because we are starting to uncover a lot of the root reasons behind the current environmental state of the planet and it is sad and at times discouraging.

However, it made me very happy to dig out the book ‘Cradle to Cradle’ which I had already read a couple of years ago. Re-reading certain chapters having now started a design-related degree gave me a whole new understanding of it. Interior design is a very ‘material’ field and feels like a never ending source of consumption as it is still so heavily dependent on aesthetic. I recently read an article about a study made by LMN Architects that found that, even though it has always been thought that the interior of a building ‘would account for only 7 to 10 per cent of its overall carbon footprint’, ‘throughout an average building’s life span, the carbon footprint of its interiors will equal if not exceed that of the structure’s construction.’ Finding this out was quite shocking to me but I can definitely see how that is the case. Going back to ‘Cradle to Cradle’, it was very nice to hear examples of design practices that can make a difference, I thought the way it is written is not aggressive at all and actually quite encouraging, unlike a lot of publications that deal with similar topics. I really resonate with what they were saying about biological mass and technical mass and how keeping them separated is essential to a circular production cycle. In interior design, for example, avoiding to ‘contaminate’ timber with toxic substance such as chemical varnishes would allow for the timber to be completely biodegradable and ‘return’ to the earth.

Figure 1: Screenshots from ‘The Story of Stuff’ video showing that contaminated products emit toxic substances when discarded. The toxic substances put in a product

They also talked about the benefits of creating ‘product services’, designing products to be disassembled which has so many benefits for the manufacturer, the consumer AND the planet as it creates incentive to design without hazardous materials, saves manufacturers billions of dollars in valuable materials and diminish the extraction of raw materials. This is particularly true in interior design, making all elements of construction and decoration able to disassemble would allow consumers to follow trends guilt free as they know that what they are getting rid of will stay in the production cycle (taken back by manufacturers) and the new elements they get come from the same production cycle. In the book, they use the example of carpets and that designing them to be disassembled would mean that ‘when a customer wants to replace the carpeting, the manufacturers simply removes the top, snaps down a fresh one in the desired colour, and takes the old one as food for further carpeting.’

I look forward to talking more about this with my classmates during the debate next week ads we all agreed that we really enjoyed that reading in the seminar this week.

Bibliography:
Braungart, M. and McDonough, W. (2009). <i>Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things</i>. Vintage Digital.
Chouinard, H. (2020). <i>A new study shows that interior designers have a major impact on climate change</i>. [online] businessofhome.com. Available at: https://businessofhome.com/articles/a-new-study-shows-that-interior-designers-have-a-major-impact-on-climate-change.
The Story of Stuff Project (2009). <i>The Story of Stuff</i>. <i>YouTube</i>. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GorqroigqM.

Hey, me again!

This week we continued the exploration of the relationship between the human experience and the environment and I particularly enjoy the different tasks we carried out this week and how collaborative they were. In preparation for Thursday I researched into the debate question and the arguments for (as that is the group I was assigned in). I also researched into its meaning specifically in the field of interior design.

After the lecture on Thursday morning we got split into pairs to have a closer look at some of the different elements of our surrounding environment and their entanglements with nature and culture. It was quite a tricky exercise as we had to think more deeply about everyday things that we don’t usually think twice about. It was funny to observe how nature is culturally so immersed in our ways of designing and more broadly in our ways of living but yet how far apart humanity and nature can be placed sometimes. It was also interesting to see how different elements, like for example pubs, meant to s, my pair being from England and I from Belgium.

Figure 1: Answers from morning workshop.

The debate that took place during the seminar in the afternoon was also super interesting. Before we started, we got into our groups, mine was ‘for’, and gathered our arguments and what it meant to each of us personally in our field of study. We opened the debate by saying that even though there has been a collective intention to be more careful of environmental impact in recent years, the solutions implemented so far have been very superficial. We argued that, in the society we live in today, profit and the planet are unfortunately positioned against each other. Design for the environment will not make good profit, and design for profit will be bad for the environment. We argue that it is hard to make the consumerist world we live in today more sustainable and that the right approach would be to go back to our foundation and the roof ideas we have of what design means. The other side of the room, the ones ‘against’ the debate prompt, argued that companies are making real efforts that should not be neglected and that we are actually in an age where we are being more conscious about the environment than we ever have been. I did agree with some of the things that they were saying but still believe that the approach we are taking today is too superficial, and often not even real (greenwashing!). We used the example of Patagonia’s recycled cotton and polyester shirts that are advertised as being sustainable but that quite limited as that recycled piece of garment is actually not recyclable anyone after that (cotton and polyester are too hard to separate to be recycled again). This is example shows what I believe our problem is; our inability to see the bigger picture. Referring back to the Environmental Histories of Design article from last week, the physical is not just about bringing forth products, but it also, and most importantly, conditions life practices and shapes society (Ramia Maze). We need to be better at considering the environmental impacts that not only the production, consumption and disposal of design has but also the habits they create, the values they promote and the sustainable or unsustainable ethics they advertise.

At the end of the debate it was very interesting to see that majority of the class actually agrees with the debate argument (even if they were in the ‘against’ group) and we all agreed that it is a shame that, even today, environmental design is not a bigger part of our studies. It is a shame that it is just an optional course and not a priority in our project briefs. I hope this changes soon and I hope to be part of the change.

I look forward to more debates like this.

Speak to you soon!

Bibliography:
Deleted: Fallan, K. and Jørgensen, F.A. (2017). Environmental Histories of Design: Towards a New Research Agenda. <i>Journal of Design History</i>, 30(2), pp.103–121. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/jdh/epx017.

Figure 1: Noel, E. (2024a). Answers from Morning Workshop. own work.