Green design is a daunting challenge that’s well worth the effort

Hong Kong’s “Super March” has come and gone. According to Financial Secretary Paul Chan Mo-po, mega-events such as Art Basel, LIV Golf and the Hong Kong Sevens significantly boosted tourism and the city’s economy. I happened to work on a temporary project at Art Basel – a VIP Lounge for a major host partner and property developer. Having witnessed the art enthusiasts coming and going from the fair at the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre, I knew March would end on a high note. The VIP lounge might have been small but it represented a big idea. The developer had a vision of truly recycling materials from their previous projects for this pavilion. We were not asked to specify off-the-shelf products with green labels indicating that they contain recycled materials – a fairly common practice in the industry. Instead, materials were directly harvested from the developer’s decommissioned projects and painstakingly turned into raw materials at the contractor’s factory. Truth be told, I had never worked on a project with such a focus on cradle-to-cradle design – whereby old materials are used as new, thus eliminating the idea of waste as we understand it. In green design, it is more usual for clients to ask what the project team can do to earn credits for sustainability certificates under the BEAM Plus or LEED rating systems. In other words, their focus is often less on sustainability than on earning a sustainability rating. In contrast, true recycling was nothing short of an education. First, the contractor had reservations about the process. Its representatives reminded me that “sustainability has a price”. They had to exert more effort in extracting, cleaning and testing the materials, as well as customising wood and steel panels to our design requirements. Due to the extra man-hours needed to pull this off, labour costs could easily outweigh the sum of purchasing new materials. Second, while we wanted to use as many recyclables as possible, structural and safety concerns demanded that we use some new materials. Although what the public sees is often just the surface, properly sourcing a display’s supporting elements is just as significant. We knew we couldn’t make the VIP lounge out of only recycled content but we aimed for the most optimal result short of 100 per cent. Third, recycled materials are far from perfect in quality. There were defects, chips, cracks, holes and scratches. The contractor could only do so much without using harmful chemicals – for instance, adhesives that emit volatile organic compounds – to repair them. Imperfection is part of recycling. One might say that building cheaper, faster and prettier is the trinity of project goals in modern construction. But if bona fide recycling is not cheaper or faster, is it even worth it? The answer lies in how we perceive value. If we only consider value in monetary terms, most owners would not want to pay a premium for what they could construct better and faster by spending less. This is perhaps the biggest hurdle in getting the construction industry to adopt recycling methods. If we consider alternative metrics in assessing value, such as how much trash is reduced and how many finite objects are reused, recycling materials would be worth every effort and expense. Recycling needs owners who understand that nature is valuable to all of us despite not having a price tag. If the act of sustaining materials is to allow them to continue in their lifespan for the longest possible period of time, even reusing materials would come short of the aspiration. Recycling should be a closed loop, but in the process of refurbishing old materials, some of them would be shaved down and trimmed into new forms. Therefore, we may only be able to achieve “downcycling”, instead of pound-for-pound recycling. Besides, various machines and tools would be used when preparing and modifying materials and it is not always easy to trace if those machines used renewable energy during the whole process. But do we just sit back and give up, since genuine sustainability is too hard to achieve? By no means do I advocate such a nihilistic view. To my mind, sustainability is comparable to the state of perfection we aspire to but often fall short of. Knowing we can’t get there does not mean we shouldn’t even try. We desperately need the “mamba mentality” – to borrow the term from basketball legend Kobe Bryant. This mentality helps us aim for perfection but focus on growth and improvement throughout the journey. Trusting the authenticity of that process validates the efforts and expenses along the way. To draw a parallel: in green design, the first step is to be truthful with ourselves, know the limits of our technical know-how and avoid glorifying and advertising only certain aspects of the process. Only by admitting our shortcomings and constraints can we recognise the colossal problem in sustainability design as we continue to explore, research and collaborate with industry experts, material suppliers and like-minded individuals for better resources, methods and techniques. The second step is to educate others including building owners, users and the general public. We must correct misconceptions about green design. Making false or misleading claims and abusing the concept of sustainability as a marketing buzzword is arguably more harmful than not doing anything at all. There is no last step. Sustainability should be a continuous learning process that never ends.

Green design is a daunting challenge that’s well worth the effort

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}If recycling is not cheaper and faster, is it worth it? Building owners need to understand nature is valuable despite not having a price tag

If recycling is not cheaper and faster, is it worth it? Building owners need to understand nature is valuable despite not having a price tag