Very much agree @claremiflin!
Circularity when applied to built environment should value building less but does not seem to go far enough - often focuses on recycling and reuse, and low carbon materials. Whereas most carbon and resources can be saved by not building at all or building less.
Right now am examining ‘Circular City Actions Framework’ IICLEI) which, while making right noises (mentions Rethink, Regerate, Reduce), also seems to fall short.
I previously conducted research with Arup on adapting CE to built environment, focus was reuse of building components as a service via cloud platform.
Now I am seeking to go further i.e. Rethink, Reduce - talk to recent Vancouver CLF event.
Am still engaged with Arup and a green building organisation on research to rethink benchmarks & metrics for carbon footprints in built environment - and again agree that metrics must be changed from current kgCO2-e per m2, which is an intensity based metric, and to reward building less.
And sure, we do need to adjust fee criteria. I have been wondering how Lacaton & Vassal manage to profit from advising clients to built less?
Look forward much to discuss more. David Ness Home Page, University of South Australia