There has been a fine set of programmes on the BBC recently entiled The Genius of Design” – design-history of the C20th with a bit of “wither design in the C21st” thrown in. Very thought-provoking they were too.
The final programme mentioned a concept called “cradle to cradle”. This accepts that rapid fashion cycles are “good” (or at least inevitable) in the modern world but seeks to defuse the trash-timebomb by designing things to use materials that are genuinely recyclable. The “genuinely” means that used-up items do not have their constituent materials ground up together into a lesser material (think wood to paper to grey pulp) but rather use materials that may be recovered in the same quality as when they went into the recycled object.
In addition, tha materials used are also non-toxic and can be “returned to the soil” with nil ill effects.
Of course, the obvious example is wood. But there are apparently even a number of modern plastics that meet these “resusable forever or return to soil” parameters.
So I wonder…..
What are the design parameters that could inform furniture design if the pieces are to meet these criteria: all parts resusable and expected to be so-reconfigured every few years. Some might say, “Ikea”! But that chipboard stuff is more down-cycled than recycled, soon in a landfill – maybe after just it’s first generation as furniture.
What styles of furniture and materials would be reconfigurable ad infinitum? If the material is wood, the designs can’t be too frou-frou, as this severely limits its re-use. I recycle a lot of old furniture into planks for my own furniture. Even with the squarer/flat stuff, there is often a significant percentage lost to the waste bin.
Perhaps one tactic would to start up a market for reuse of even small offcuts. Custom knob makers co-operative maybe…..
Any thoughts?
Lataxe
Replies
reconfigurable ad infinitum
Hemp Legos? ;-)
It seems to me that the re-usability factor places too heavy of a burden on design to be practical. You might, for example be able to make a crib out of 2x4 segments. But, I don't think I'd want to live in a house where the studs were recycled crib parts.
Glue
Ralph,
Wunnerful stuff, that glue.
I can imagine recycled solid wood that does'nt so much result in the parts degrading in quality as morphing from "continuous wood lengths" to "blockboard-like glue-ups". In fact, we have already seen an item or three using this very technique. I seem to recall a small table by Chris Flairwoods not so long ago, in which the top was made of many small blocks of walnut. I have seen similar things in various books and catalogues.
Don't forget also the immense strength of those I-beam things made of small bits of wood glued togther.
Eventually wood might well all be rendered down into flakeboard then sawdust, I suppose. Even sawdust can end up as chipboard, which itself might be reconfigurable if the glues were not so hard and toxic.
The new "cradle to cradle" materials include many plastics that are ultimately reconfigurable into any new shape. As long as the object that includes a part made with such a plastic keeps that part "pure", the plastic can be disassembled from the defunct object, reduced to granules then remelted in a former to make a new part. The plastic itelf is both stable when formed into parts for normal use but also degradable in the right environment. If an excess is generated, it will break down in soil to become just another nutrient for the worms.
Could we make sawdust-objects like that?
****
The bigger question is really the one concerning the rapid fashion cycles that seem to be slowly obliterating the idea that objects should be long-lasting. Rapid technology acceleration along with market-driven fashion cycles mean that there are fewer and fewer people who want long-lived objects. If this trend cannot be defused, we must have infinitely large landfill sites or discover more cradle to cradle materials and designs - or so goes the proposal of the fellow mooting the concept.
I confess, despite preferring long-lived super-functional objects myself, I also tend to snort a bit of derision when "designer-maker" fellows go on about their products being "antiques of the future". If that picture was realistic, our homes would end up looking like those landfill sites! Also, the designer-makers might soon run out of work, or at least outcompete all the other designer-makers to produce the new design hegemony.
Lataxe, not fond of rubbish, especially in the landscape.
Lataxe,
I don't know that in the future that wood will be the material of choice for future generations. The raw material that remains from our work may have little (or great) value in the years ahead. I know some here have reclaimed materials with great results. In reality I feel a very small percentage of new wood products that are not sawdust based are recycled wood. In my area of the U.S. we have the ability to recycle plastic, glass, metals and other materials for free. Yet I see old televisions, couches, and more head to the landfill because people won't make the effort to break down items to recycle properly.
This doesn't mean I can't choose to have an eco friendly impact with my shop work. I feel that if I create furnishings that have the ability to last generations, it just might. A future owner of my work may no longer wish to keep my work for a number of reasons. But the longer my work continues to hold together, the better chance it will be in service, and out of the landfill.
Our methods and material choices can have effects today. Something we can control. Utilizing local woods that didn't take 2 barrels of crude to get to our door, recycling metal blades, sawdust, wood scrap, using low VOC finishes, and energy efficiant lighting/heating/cooling in the shop come to mind. Most of these not only help the eco system, but save us money for that pint at days end.
Regards,
GRW (who is building a familyroom set that will(may) be used in the customers current and next home,then be handed to their children for their 1st home, sold at a church auction 10 years later, used for 14 years by a couple who wins the lottery, donates it to The Salvation Army, where a new woodworker buys it to make it into a router table, She uses it for 9 years, and moves it into her greenhouse to hold plants for 6 years, her husband it told to break it up and through it away, but is unable to break the glue joints, and sends it to be burned at the power plant that makes electicity for the power grid, the power generated lights a bulb at the U.S. President's (who has yet to be born as I write) signing of a bill banning formeldahyde use in household wood products.)
At least that's the plan.
""Most of these not only help
""Most of these not only help the eco system, but save us money for that pint at days end."". And you are just going to piss that away
ron
glue and spit
I agree that it's possible to perform reclamation of the wood in furniture at several levels. I've done that, as well, by recutting and resurfacing wood from things that are no longer functional or needed in the original form. There is, however, a balance point (or, tipping point) between practical re-use and the energy required for the process. There is also the possibility of carrying the concept of saving for later reclamation to the extreme, nudging one into the category of "hoarder".
I still like the idea of making things out of hemp Legos, though. If you don't need the item, you can always smoke it. ;-)
The question is for me;is it economical to save it. for restoration work some of those old pieces of material are invaluble, but for everyday use in the shop, no. I throw very little away and a lot gets used out of the cutoffs. I despise cutting of boards just for the ske of cutting offf a little piece. what is left goes to a friends stove. most of my sawdust and shavings get recycled and where it goes depends upon applications. the other day I had a g/bag full of padauk sawdust; just so happens the local weavers were doing a natural dying program. I do quite a bit of fir turning sometimes a dozen large garbage bags full. lots of horse owners around here a they love clean fir shavings. it is usaully picked up and gone within the hour of phoning someone. In my complex is an auto body and a mechanical shop, they take they crap sawdust for oil spills and such.
some stuff deserves to go to the landfill
ron
those that begin in this wonderful world of woodworking are the main collecters of free wood as most do not want to spend the money for materials
destiny
"some stuff deserves to go to the landfill"
True, or, to a recycle center that can use it for something other than termite food. ;-)
Lataxe,
"What are the
Lataxe,
"What are the design parameters that could inform furniture design if the pieces are to meet these criteria: all parts resusable and expected to be so-reconfigured every few years."
This is the first "design" that comes to mind that fits your parameters:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_dX4ur47QXWM/Stypfrue-xI/AAAAAAAAAFY/1zxQ7tHEbz0/s320/Bookshelves+with+Owl.JPG
Ray
As a homebuilder, I find it troubling to observe how much landfill waste is created in building process. I'd say the average home would fill a twenty yard dumpster at least once if not twice.
In the small town I work from there are limited options available for recycling. In most cases recycling would require added labor cost and it is cheaper just to throw it in the dumpster.
To avoid excess scrap lumber, it would be best to design the structure around the available lumber sizes. Custom homes such as I've built runs contrary to this concept. One could de-nail and cut up all the scrap wood and sell it as fire wood (or give it away) but there is labor required for that. And what about all the OSB and treated lumber? You aren't supposed to burn that. You can hire a chipper to come in and grind it all up and use it for landscaping or as soil additive but you have some environmental issues there also with what's in the wood.
We have no local way to recycle drywall scrap, it all goes to the land fill.
Packaging is a major contributor to landfill content. Almost everything that goes into a home comes packaged and in most cases the packaging is larger by volume the the product being used. Fortunately we have a local recycler that takes cardboard. But you still have to break down separate the cardboard and you are left with lots of plastic wrapping, molded Styrofoam and my pet peeve, foam peanuts.
In my shop I separate the chips from the sawdust. I add the chips to my compost pile which is mostly horse poop. The sawdust goes in the garbage or landfill along with packaging waste. Most of the scrap gets burned. When I deliver something locally, I wrap it in moving blankets which I bring back to the shop and use over and over.
My observation here is that it takes effort to limit waste. It's an area that I need to work on.
Bret
recycling resources
Local politicians (mayors, city councils) need to be educated to get on the recycling bandwagon in order for local resouces to be made available. As I recall, when San Jose, CA (where I used to live) initiated recycling a decade or so ago, the city spent $10million on a fancy sorting machine, getting everyone up in arms. Then, the city encountered a huge problem (from the usual city perspective) - in the first year, they made a $2million profit from the program. Talk about Green and $green. ;-)
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled