journal
Research Report
Bachelor of Interior Architecture
VSAR 4008: AAD Honours Research Studies 1
Roxane Adams
ENTRY ONE, WEEK ENDING 12 MARCH 2021
A friend gave me the article What must we do about rubbish? (Buchanan 2016). Before reading this, I’d been cognitively connected to my honours topic, but now I feel emotional; I feel like I have to do this thesis, and much more excited actually because I now feel not only do I want to do the thesis, but it’s worth doing.
I want to say, at every possible chance:
(Buchanan 2016)
I’m bursting with enthusiasm reading scholar’s reflections on reuse/redesign. I love that Appelgren’s Creating with traces of life: waste, reuse and design (2020) has ‘creating’ and ‘life’ in the title. For me these words honour the rich design process and later relationship to the object/space, that I value in redesign. I feel like I’ve found my people; who love “things” and “bits” and believe everything has potential! “all bodies are kin” (Bennett in Appelgren 2020, p65) translates as:
For me, redesign work is more about adoring and wanting to do materials justice and have them appreciated, than it is about a quantifiable environmental outcome. If redesign wasn’t needed for environmental reasons - I would still ‘collect, value and care for aging things’ (Appelgren 2020, p66). My background growing up in foster care means I value what it takes for things to arrive to me; I don’t take the having of things, or the life of things, for granted.
word count: 212
ENTRY TWO, WEEK ENDING 19 MARCH 2021
This week I’m disillusioned at some of the writing on redesign. I feel redesign has been belittled as an amateur craft (Appelgren 2019). I’m quite annoyed by this because redesign won’t be taken up as mainstream design practice if it is not considered professional. Some redesign outcomes will be amateur or folksy, as is the case with the execution of any design format. The intent of the practice however, is to achieve usual (interior) design objectives.
I find it interesting that the author I so loved last week, is the author that bothers me this week! The paper I adored last week was published a year after this weeks’, perhaps this reflects an evolution in the authors’ thinking about, and appreciation of, interior redesign?
Similarly, regarding last week’s entry about my joy in objects regardless of environmental impact, I notice most writing on redesign is published in “green” journals on sustainability or waste. Papers on the aesthetic credentials of redesign need to be published in design-specific journals for uptake to increase.
I’m appreciating Endnote, but have learnt a misery point: I’d double- and multiply-entered the same reference. I “cleaned up” by deleting all but one of each reference, but lost said reference in my documents because I ass-u-med that Endnote would consolidate where the multiples had been referenced. It does not.
word count: 218
ENTRY THREE, WEEK ENDING 26 MARCH 2021
Upon reading technical papers on component reuse, I’m seeing a disconnect I’ve noticed in the physical world, play out academically: scholars keen on BIM technology are writing about BIM, those interested in structural element reuse write on this, and so on (Swift et. al 2017, Gepts et. al 2019), but all write regarding their own interest in isolation. Construction waste is a wicked problem (Katsonis 2019), therefore requiring the interconnections of topics within the ecosystem of design, construction, demolition to be explored. For example, a paper on embedding RFID’s into structural steel elements to better facilitate reuse (Swift et. al 2017) is an infinitely sensible idea if only looking at it as a logical solution to waste. But when looking at what is required of stakeholders across the life cycle of the steel to implement this solution, I cannot see some stakeholders investing in a process they likely won’t benefit from. For example, if there is an incident eg. minor fire in the building the steel member is located, someone would need to 1) know this fire had occurred and 2) input this information into an RFID shared information system to benefit another (a future steel purchaser wanting to understand the steel’s life to ascertain suitability for its proposed new use).
word count: 211
ENTRY FOUR, WEEK ENDING 2 APRIL 2021
My first meeting with my supervisor Dr Robert Crocker was an enjoyable chat. I’m glad we’ll be working together as we seem philosophically and politically aligned.
My article-searching has been lengthy, but in reviewing the content of articles I’d found through a broader search, I was re-exposed to the concepts of ‘closed loop’ and ‘circular economy’ practices, which redesign sits within. I had forgotten this obvious and important reality. I also hadn’t heard of ‘deconstruction’ or ‘closed loop construction’ before. These useful and exciting finds led me to conduct more refined searches using these terms, with fruitful results.
It has not been explicitly stated by lecturers or students in my cohort, but it seems to be considered that interior architecture is not a creative practice. I’ve wanted to “stand up for” my profession and share the video below as an example of creative process expected of us, but it would be completely self-interested, so I refrained. It does resolve me to take care in my thesis to be explicit about creative practice in the moments where it occurs however. My thesis is about the documentation process moreso than the creative element, but I appreciate the reflective opportunity to think “what am I sticking up for?” (what should be shown off) with regard to my profession.
word count: 215
ENTRY FIVE, WEEK ENDING 9 APRIL 2021
I’m enjoying the process of creating the family tree; drawing relationships between authors and texts. It has helped me see that articles I’ve thought rather thin (eg. a cluster of papers from Malyasia, whose content deepened over time (Esa, Halog and Rigamonti 2017, Abd Hamid et. al 2018, Abd Hamid et. al 2020)), are not well-referenced, supporting my hunch they shouldn’t be in my Annotated Bibliography.
I’ve learnt the concept “buildings as material banks”, that is, the idea that you consider the material a building is constructed of, as laying in wait “in the bank”, to be used by future buildings once that one is demolished (or in circular building practices, deconstructed) (Copeland and Bilec 2020, Gepts et. al 2019). Whilst I like this idea, and think terms like this can grow a mainstream vernacular for understanding the circular building and the ecosystem required, like the discussion above regarding who will do the system input, storage and management work required, a smooth supply chain is yet to exist. Research is needed focusing on the “in-between areas” (the many moments where “it’s not my job” or “it will have no benefit to me”) and how government could support these actions that would bring great systemic, as opposed to individual or company, benefit.
word count: 211
ENTRY SIX, WEEK ENDING 16 APRIL 2021
I’ve learnt about the concept of “devaluing” materials; recycling or reusing them ‘into lower value product - downcycling’ (Rose and Stegemann 2018, p2). Most recycling efforts are actually downcycling; the material has less value or utility than it did in its first life. For example, the strength grade of recycled steel is lower than virgin steel and cannot be used for the same applications. That was of great interest to me, but also what’s of interest is the converse, ‘upcycling’ (Lusiardi 2021), which was a term that I had heard of; materials that have been recycled or reused such that their value, quality or utility is the same or greater than in the products’ previous life. The thing about this for me is, I have associated the term upcycling with often-poor-quality revamping of furniture items, not with work of a quality equating to design industry standard. This seems an important term to the redesign industry, but I feel it has been tainted by this association. I have previously used the term “crafted reuse” to indicate that something is made from a reused material/object but has been done-so with the skill of a craftsperson.
Perhaps I should gauge feelings toward terms such as upcycling in my surveys…
word count: 202
ENTRY SEVEN, WEEK ENDING 23 APRIL 2021
This week I handed up my Literature Review, and am happy with it in spite of all the things I haven’t read yet...
All this reading on waste, ecologies and the circular economy has me changing my tune; in many instances, waste is inevitable. But in the “natural world” waste goes on to have a further life, eg. as compost or food for another organism (Gorgolewski 2017, Section 6.5). Processes will inevitably have waste; it is necessary to chop the end off that timber; but waste only becomes a problem when it is dealt with as rubbish. Therefore, I have adjusted my neon sign:
word count: 102
ENTRY EIGHT, WEEK ENDING 30 APRIL 2021
I’m interested that the multiple diagrams I’ve made across this time I’ve not ended up using in any assignments. I know they’ll be useful either simply as a journey of thinking, or in the final thesis, but they are good examples of how I’ve been developing my thinking, so that’s what I’d like to share this week. This first series of mind maps is me managing my anxiety of not “solving the whole problem” and locating my area of work in the broader construction waste management project. When you click to see the board you can zoom in and out on content, but you might want to resize first:
This series of mindmaps is me starting to make sense of a potential model of interior redesign and deconstruction process, which will form part of my final thesis:
word count: 140
ENTRY NINE, WEEK ENDING 7 MAY 2021
This week I FINALLY got a copy of the Reuse Atlas (Baker-Brown 2017) that Robert had recommended I access. I had downloaded a digital copy, but promptly forgot I had. Printed books make a big difference to me; feeling less perfunctory, more personal and thereby encouraging a deeper read (which ironically I’m learning I need to do less of). It’s a treasure trove of beautiful redesign projects, and strengthens my resolve that redesign’s aesthetic and design credentials need to be emphasised.
Gando Primary School by Kéré Architecture, 2004 (in Baker-Brown 2017)
I am now reading about methodology (actor network theory ANT and post-structural feminism). Having a distant understanding of ANT as introduced by a proponent, I chose to read a paper by someone who doesn’t see much value in the theory (Sayes 2014), to uncover any blind spots. This turned out to be quite helpful; strengthening my understanding of the theory through critique of the authors’ interpretation of ANT (eg. I don’t agree ANT endows non-human objects with “competencies”; this is too intrinsic and ironically not “ambiguous” enough - a point Sayes sees as a negative) (2014, p138). I remain confident this is the right theory to discuss differences made (barriers, enablers) in the construction waste ecosystem, and how they are activated (Laser 2016, p172). I also appreciate the capacity ANT affords for postcolonial commentary (Laser 2016, p170) that to me is intrinsic to discussion on consumerism/consumption; which one of waste is.
word count: 226
ENTRY TEN, WEEK ENDING 14 MAY 2021
This video assignment is killing me! In the past when I’ve made videos, I’ve had a visually rich process to document, or have found an angle of humour, but I just can’t seem to get an anchor to start creating from. I have the content aspect of the assignment sorted in terms of the Research Design Canvas, but I don’t know how to present it such that anyone other than myself would be interested to watch…
Robert has discussed with me Jevons’s Paradox (Owen, 2010), an economic principle that argues that where efficiency is achieved, more will be consumed. This is a neat rounding back to one of the first papers I read that I was quite taken with: Valenzuela and Boehm’s Against wasted politics: a critique of the circular economy (2017). I recall enjoying the finger being squarely pointed at myself as a middle-class “green” consumer, at the ready to consume more of my “green” product; Jevons’s Paradox!
word count: 158
SUMMARY - JUNE 2021
I have a new sense of confidence in what I’m doing; I am clear now that whilst there is so much to discuss, so many facets to the issue, the digital BIM element of my knowledge is what I am uniquely contributing to the overall conversation, and I need to focus here. The issues may all be important, but there are many people who “have got this”; I only need assist with this share. Further, because it is a new contribution, I can be confident that it will be helpful in some way, if only to have something to reject. This clarity means I can be more refined about my upcoming reading. I need to go back over every paper I’ve already read, to allow my newly narrowed foci to seek and find different information. I will need to prepare myself to skim read (what am I looking for in this paper?) as it is not a natural mode for me. I also need to consider how I will remove papers from my list, as some are now simply of interest, rather than supportive of my refined topic. As a hoarder by nature, this will not come easily! But there is plenty of quality papers (which I was concerned there wouldn’t be at the start of this journey), so quantity should not distract!
The above is a process of reflecting on the work of others. I now need to produce; it is time to document, rather than allude to, the processes I believe can be used to facilitate BIM-based interior redesign. As this task nears, nervous thoughts are emerging about showing my own professional work. At first I felt I just need to manage these natural nerves, but then I realised that this concern - that my work may not be “pretty enough” - spoke precisely to the methods I am going to present; I’ll be presenting three options, two of which are purposely not perfect digital renditions for financial reasons, but I also believe these renditions are sufficient to communicate design intent to clients. So I can actually lean into these nerves to extract informative process data.
Looking back over the various tasks the curriculum has required, particularly those that generated diagrams or flow charts, I see I’ve considered my topic from a range of angles; there are so many ideas here I had actually forgotten quite a lot of them (eg. finding data in exhibition catalogues, the connection of redesign to health outcomes, ideas on measuring effectiveness…). I’ll be going back over these to extract the ideas, texts and provocations I want to take forward.
Having to write about my topic in prose: 100 and 200 word summaries, abstract, proposal abstract…. I recall the positive feeling of clarity when precious few words were allowed; really choosing which element of the conversation I felt I could contribute to best. This is where I need to return to, as I’m about to start reading again, and cannot afford for “everything to be interesting”. I’m reminded of Foucault’s notion ‘not that everything is bad, everything is dangerous’; so many of the papers and topics are interesting to me, but time-wise I cannot afford to be unfocused (Foucault, 1984, p. 343).
word count: 535
Reference List
Abd Hamid, AB, Mohd Taib, MZ, Abdul Razak, AHN & Embi, MR 2018, Building Information Modelling: Challenges and Barriers in Implement of BIM for Interior Design Industry in Malaysia, 140, IOP Publishing, p. 12002.
Abd Hamid, AB, Embi, MR, Mohd Taib, MZ & Abdul Razak, AHN 2020, 'Enhancing the Knowledge and Proficiency for Interior Designers in Malaysia through the Implementation Building Information Modelling', IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng, vol. 713, no. 1, p. 12047.
Appelgren, S 2019, 'Building Castles out of Debris: Reuse Interior Design as a ‘Design of the Concrete’', Worldwide Waste: Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, vol. 2, no. 1.
Appelgren, S 2020, 'Creating with traces of life: waste, reuse and design', Journal of cultural heritage management and sustainable development, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 65-75.
Baker-Brown, D 2017, The re-use atlas : a designer's guide towards the circular economy, RIBA Publishing, London.
Buchanan, I 2016, 'What must we do about rubbish?', Drain Magazine, vol. 13, no. 1.
Copeland, S & Bilec, M 2020, 'Buildings as material banks using RFID and building information modeling in a circular economy', Procedia CIRP, vol. 90, pp. 143-47.
Esa, MR, Halog, A & Rigamonti, L 2017, 'Developing strategies for managing construction and demolition wastes in Malaysia based on the concept of circular economy', The Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, vol. 19, no. 3, Jul 2017 2020-11-17, pp. 1144-54.
Foucault, M 1984, ‘On the genealogy of ethics: An overview of work in progress’. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault reader. New York: Pantheon
Gepts, B, Meex, E, Nuyts, E, Knapen, E & Verbeeck, G 2019, Existing databases as means to explore the potential of the building stock as material bank, 225, IOP Publishing, p. 12002.
Gorgolewski, M 2017, Resource salvation: the architecture of reuse, 1st ed. edn, Wiley-Blackwell, Newark.
Katsonis, M 2019, What's so wicked about wicked problems?, Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG), <https://www.anzsog.edu.au/resource-library/research/what-s-so-wicked-about-wicked-problems>.
Laser, S 2016, 'Why is it so Hard to Engage with Practices of the Informal Sector? Experimental Insights from the Indian E-Waste-Collective', Cultural Studies Review, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 168.
Lusiardi, F 2021, Design: Recycling vs Upcycling. What’s the difference?, Inexhibit viewed 12/6/2021, <https://www.inexhibit.com/case-studies/design-recycling-vs-upcycling-whats-the-difference/>.
Owen, D 2010, 'The Efficiency Dilemma', The New Yorker, 12/12/2010, <https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/20/the-efficiency-dilemma>.
Rose, CM & Stegemann, JA 2018, 'From Waste Management to Component Management in the Construction Industry', Sustainability, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 229.
Sayes, E 2014, 'Actor–Network Theory and methodology: Just what does it mean to say that nonhumans have agency?', Social Studies of Science, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 134-49.
Swift, J, Ness, D, Kim, KP, Gelder, J, Jenkins, A & Xing, K 2017, Towards Adaptable and Reusable Building Elements: Harnessing the Versatility of the Construction Database Through RFID and BIM,
Valenzuela, F & Boehm, S 2017, 'Against wasted politics: a critique of the circular economy', Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, vol. 17, no. 1, 27 February 2017.