This respectable tradition of sturdily building for eternity, which now embraces concrete for its tremendous

applicability in combination with steel, has been the cause of overlooking lighter alternatives.According
to lightness specialist Prof Adriaan Beukers, who leads the Laboratory for Lightweight Structures at Delft
University of Technology, most buildings could be 50% lighter if not more, by applying different combinations
of materials, concepts and processing methods. Currently his laboratory is working on a principle to build high
structures that consist of hollow composite shapes filled with air under high pressure, the advantage being that
buckling is excluded. The implications of weight reduction are potentially enormous in terms of production and
transportation efficiency. Theoretically they would consume a lot less energy if all building components
would be, say, 25% lighter. Now it is standard procedure to place concrete piles, chop off the top metre (and in
the case of underground building sometimes as much as six metres) and transport these leftovers back to some
demolition facility. Even the ancient pyramid builders would have loathed such a procedure. Building sites are
usually even more messy than demolition sites. This has its charm for building professionals, but also indicates a
lack of efficiency awareness.
The efficiency of lightness may involve replacing material mass with intelligent feedback systems. There have
been some experiments in this field. The German pneumatics company Festo has developed pneumatic ‘muscles’
(tubes that become shorter when the air pressure inside is increased) and their head of development Axel
Thallemer led a project to build an inflatable exhibition hall to demonstrate their potential. Of course pneumatic
muscles are just one option. Elastic tailoring is another. It involves designing composite structures that change
shape in relation to load, a strategy that doesn’t require extra energy.
The way buildings are used, however, provides by far the largest contribution to their consumption of effort.
They need heating and/or cooling, cleaning and maintenance, and of course water and sewage. These all add up
to the cost component of efficiency. In principle there are two strategies to put limitations on this. One could be
called ‘symbiosis’, which involves using the waste of one facility as input to the other, preferably to the benefit
of both. The second is self-sufficiency by minimizing input from energy and water systems and output
to a sewer system. It is what makes space stations tick, but sophisticated technology is not necessary on earth.
Down here it is called autarkic living. Dutch designers and artists are experimenting with it. The two strategies
can be combined to further enhance exploitation. If waste water from a home is used to fertilize land on which to
grow vegetables, what you get is both autarky and symbiosis at no cost.