Can stone return as a viable and sustainable material for buildings and constructions?
The design magazine Dezeen often runs fascinating editorial series - this one is about whether stone should come back to architects as a material for building, in an age which is super-conscious of the waste involved in construction (and destruction) in architecture.
There’s a strong case for, as revealed in their opening blog:
Now architects and engineers are aiming to reignite the stone age promoting the material as a viable structural alternative to steel and concrete.
While driven in part by the reasons that led to stone initially being so prevalent – it being strong, plentiful and fireproof – the material's reinvestigation is also driven by sustainability concerns.
The world is slowly facing up to the reality and scale of the climate emergency, and architects and engineers are acknowledging the built environment's role in it. The built environment reportedly accounts for 39 per cent of global emissions.
This is leading to serious thinking, and rethinking, about material choices and reinvestigating the merits of natural materials such as timber and cork, which are already in widespread use.
Much like the resurgence of timber as a structural material, although as yet far less developed, stone is seen by its proponents as a potential way construction can reduce its huge environmental impact.
Specifically, the proponents of stone say it can significantly reduce the embodied carbon of our buildings, principally because it can be used in its raw, unprocessed form. Embodied carbon refers to the emissions associated with bringing buildings into being as opposed to operational emissions generated during their lifetimes.
Some research suggests that stone could reduce embodied carbon emissions by as much as 60-90 per cent when compared to standard concrete and steel construction.
Of course, questions over the impact of stone extraction and transportation still need to be answered, while more practical concerns over inflexibility and how to incorporate the material within modern construction systems are addressed.
And there’s a strong case against, made by Natalia Petkova in this blog:
Petkova cautioned against claims that stone is a "limitless material" that can readily be extracted from the Earth's crust and transported to construction sites. Instead, she believes accessibility to stone at a given site should be considered before using it.
"In an absolute sense, that's true, but in reality, there are many limitations to its actual access," said Petkova.
"Sometimes the appropriate stone is not locally available with respect to a given construction site."
One of the main reasons stone is considered a sustainable building option is because it is a natural material that requires minimal processing from being extracted from the ground to being used in construction, minimising its carbon footprint.
However, Petkova claimed that any carbon cost benefit achieved by using stone might be lost if it is transported from a quarry by truck further than 200 kilometres, referencing a thesis by sustainability expert Dimitra Ioannidou.
She added that the number of new quarries that could be opened to make stone accessible to more construction sites is limited, for reasons such as potential impact on local communities.
"Recent research carried out at ETH Zurich suggests that if stone is transported by truck beyond 200 kilometres, it might no longer make sense to employ it structurally in terms of carbon reduction," Petkova explained.
"There are also political and anthropogenic limitations with people not wanting to have new quarries popping up in residential areas. These attitudes can of course evolve but it’s not a given."
For stone to become a leading structural material, Petkova believes architects and engineers need to learn to look beyond what is "convenient".
Yet, even with a full embrace of stone in the architecture industry, she is doubtful it can overtake go-to materials such as concrete, steel and timber in popularity.
"I do think we will see a lot more buildings being made from solid stone, but I don't think it's anywhere near replacing concrete or steel construction, or even timber," said Petkova.
"Its success will depend on the capacity of diverse actors involved in the production of the built environment to really question their professional habits and to adapt these to stone."
More here. Seeing as it’s Dezeen, there are beautiful pictures of ideal stone buildings:
