The architect as gatherer – a new role takes shape

In a traditional architectural project, the process often begins with an idea or a sketch, while material choices come into play later, when it is time to decide on façade materials, or what floors or windows should look like. But if buildings are to be constructed to a greater extent using reused materials, as called for by current climate conditions and national and international guidelines, this order needs to change. Materials need to enter the process at an early stage, and the architect may take on a new task: seeing possibilities in what already exists.

This is the starting point of the research article Architecture and gathering: on spatiality, conception and revaluation in material reuse practice, in which Daniel Norell, architect and Senior Lecturer at Chalmers University of Technology’s Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, together with Einar Rodhe at KTH Royal Institute of Technology, has developed a theoretical framework for understanding what happens when architects work from a basis of material reuse. The two researchers also explored this practically in a case study: the Raamland project, which was built using reused materials as part of the Art and Architecture Triennial in Bruges, Belgium.

A shift in the starting point

The researchers use the concept of “gathering”, which goes beyond simply using second-hand building elements. Instead, they propose a shift in how and where the design process begins.

The starting point of an architect’s assignment or work does not necessarily have to be developing a concept or making a sketch for a new building. Instead, architects should get into the habit of starting an assignment by taking stock of existing resources that could be reused,” says Daniel Norell.

He emphasises the difference between reusing materials and recycling materials, where the latter refers to elements and materials that can be broken down into raw materials and made into new products – an energy-intensive process. In reuse, by contrast, the material is used again without first being broken down, which creates different conditions for the architect. When windows, timber cladding or beams are to be reused, the architect must not only ask what is aesthetically desirable, but also what is actually available. The selection itself then becomes part of the design process.

“Architecture can thereby become both more creative and more expressive. By using reused elements and materials that have a history and perhaps a patina, you can make a new building more vibrant and multifaceted,” says Daniel Norell.

Materials as part of the creative process

The architect therefore needs to develop a different way of looking at materials. A reused object does not necessarily have to continue serving the same function it had in its previous life. Daniel Norell describes this as developing an “eye” for reuse: being able to recognise what an element or material is, appreciate its cultural and historical value and what it was previously used for, but also to see what it could become. In this way, limited material availability does not necessarily have to be an obstacle to architecture – it can instead create new possibilities.

“This eye is about whether or not you see opportunities to transform a material. A very simplified example could be a door: you can reuse an existing door, or you can see the possibility of transformation and instead use it as a tabletop. It is about using a material as it was intended to be used, versus transforming the object’s original function into something new,” he explains.

In the Raamland case study, Daniel Norell and Einar Rodhe took on the role of collectors, partly through this kind of transformation. Starting from the materials themselves, they designed a park environment with a pavilion and outdoor furniture based on used building components and materials collected locally from reuse markets, recycling centres and second-hand storage facilities.

Creating value beyond the obvious

A central aspect of the research is also the boundary between what is valuable and what is worthless, resource and waste, and where and when a valuation takes place. Ideally, valuable building components would automatically go to reuse, while those without value would go to recycling. However, the case study showed that the market is more random, with materials that have genuine value nevertheless being sent for recycling or otherwise lost. Here, Daniel Norell argues that the architect can take on an additional role:

“By identifying a possible use where the material’s appearance and properties contribute a quality, its value can change. In this way, architects can create value by seeing the potential in something for which the market has not found a use,” says Daniel Norell. “Taking something that initially appears dated or worthless and turning it into something beautiful and meaningful.”

This is also at the heart of the image of the architect as collector: finding materials that are at risk of being lost and seeing possibilities that are not immediately obvious.

An infrastructure that is not yet in place

For this changed role of the architect to become possible, however, more is required than new working methods among individual architects. The researchers point to the need for a functioning infrastructure for reuse – with places where materials can be collected, made visible, stored and made available, something that lies beyond the scope of the current study. Daniel Norell believes that the ambition is probably there, but that implementation does not always get it right, referring to the EU’s “Construction & Demolition Waste Management Protocol”.

“The guidelines stipulate that 70 per cent of all construction materials should be recycled or reused. But at present, less than one per cent of all materials are reused. A lot is recycled, but this often involves taking crushed concrete, brick fragments and other lower-value materials and using them as fill material – a very low form of recycling that comes close to simply sending it to landfill.”

Daniel Norell sees this as an example of the discrepancy between what guidelines advocate and what actually happens, which he also argues is one reason why legislators and society should push for greater reuse and create structures that make materials accessible.

Background:

The article “Architecture and gathering: on spatiality, conception and revaluation in material reuse practice” is published in Archnet-IJAR:
https://doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-02-2026-0143

Raamland, the project underpinning the practice-based research presented in the article, was commissioned by the Art and Architecture Triennial in Bruges, with support from the Royal Academy of Fine Arts and the Swedish Arts Grants Committee.

Daniel Norell is a Senior Lecturer at the Division of Architectural Theory and Methods, Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering.