Over the past couple months, I’ve started to explore the possibility of web3 for the building industry. We are still very much in the early days (and I am in the very very early days of my own exploration), but I wanted to share what I’ve learned and thought about thus far. 

(If you’re interested in these ideas, please reach out!)

First, I’m going to start with a conviction: I think new web3 models will revolutionize the building industry. This goes beyond the upside that a new cryptocurrency might bring, or the minting of NFTs for architectural design. Rather, I think there are massive opportunities for utility-generating inventions in buildings that will proliferate because of web3-based tools. 

The term “web3” today describes the growth of decentralized applications that run on technology like blockchain, from smart contracts to cryptocurrencies, to non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs). What’s new about this type of connected software is transparency and traceability; by exposing and streamlining the mechanism by which information is transferred, new opportunities become possible.

When we think about the building industry today-- also known as AECO, or architecture, engineering, construction, operations-- its most striking characteristic is the fragmentation of the field. [You can read more about that here.] This fragmentation leads to poor outcomes in building-based experiences (like in learning and public health), it facilitates slowdowns in construction, and it encourages pustules of resistance towards needed innovation-- like new technology to reduce carbon emissions or improve public health.

Things to be excited about

I’m confident that new web3-based tools will allow us to finally overcome issues in today’s building industry. In many ways, the decentralized nature of web3 is a better match for the field’s fragmentation than what has been possible with web2. The reason? With fragmentation comes compounding need for trust. A technology so trust-ful that it’s trust-less would reap many rewards, eliminating much of the traditional overhead that bogs things down. In addition, new perspectives and tools to realign incentives would do wonders for the space. Web3 brings with it a dynamism that spurs swift action; the presently inert building industry would be smart to capture and utilize even some of that momentum.

Here are 4 examples of web3-based building innovations I’m especially excited for:

Example 1: Equity for builders

One of the biggest challenges I see in the building space today is the slurry of misaligned incentives across the industry. The specialization of architects, engineers, construction teams, operators, and the myriad of subcontractors in between (not to mention the differences between landlord, tenant, and occupant) results in what economist Tyler Cowen describes as the incentive today is to build a brick, not to build the building. (Note: Cowen here is talking about specialization in general, not buildings in particular.) Each specialized team is only responsible for their scope of work-- less so for the overall operations, health, and evolution of a building’s 100 years. But it is the overall life of a building that has the most impact to society. So how do we align the incentives of builders toward the overall value of the building, for profitably not just in terms of rents, but in terms of the productivity of its occupants? Right now, AECO teams do not get a share in the upside of a building when it sells or “launches” (opens for occupancy), let alone any upside over the course of the building’s life. Tech startups, on the other hand, use employee equity to incentivize their builders to create quality products and services, at least until the fantasized exit event. At that point, whether IPO, acquisition, or something in between, incentives are realigned with new participants, new targets, and new timeframes joining in on the fun. But what is the exit event for a building? A building going public via a REIT realigns incentives for investors, but what about the builders? I'd argue that today's equity-granting tools don't match the needs of the building space. How can we incentivize builders by giving them equity for the overall productivity, maintainability, and evolvability of the structures they build? I suspect web3 mechanisms can help.

Example 2: Overcoming NIMBYism

In his post “Crypto Cities,” Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin writes of the opportunity for blockchain to overcome the “inevitable political tension between a home as a place to live and a home as an investment asset.” This tension is similar to the one of NIMBYism, or “Not in My Backyard”-ism, in which neighbors stall local construction projects because they think it will inconvenience them and hurt their investments. Buterin goes on to wonder, “But what if we could give people a way to save and create that economic alignment without flaws?” New web3 incentives like a neighborhood or city coin, structured to give wealth to residents for growth in their locality (rather than make them nervous their existing wealth will be hurt), could lead to massive gains for new and retrofit buildings and cities.

Example 3: Better physical / digital interactions

While not specific to web3, it is undeniable that the concept of the Metaverse has played a major role in its popularity. Decentralized applications offer a clear way to incentivize both builders and participants within new virtual worlds. I’m excited for what this means not just for our virtual experiences, but for our in-person physical experiences as well. As we see more real estate developers invest in virtual parcels and commission web3-based architects to design their virtual spaces, there’s an opportunity to connect the fantasy of the Metaverse with the realism of existing structures. What can we experiment and play with in surreal meta-form that we can then bring back with us IRL? And how might our interactions in person influence what we experience in the virtual? I think this wave will promote better physical / digital 2D interactions as well, but I’m especially excited for the spatial component of the virtual.

Example 4: Better Life Cycle Assessments

Whole building Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) are an important component for sustainability in the building industry. Understanding the environmental and emissions impact of one of the most durable goods (i.e. a building) is critical to addressing our climate health. (Buildings contribute 40% of global carbon dioxide emissions after all.) However, reliable data collection is a challenge for LCAs, especially given the number of contributions and parts that comprise a building. Blockchains can help address this by bringing more integrity to supply chain monitoring, facilitating device-to-device transactions, and monitoring real time use through locally installed IoT. Of course, the existence of blockchains alone won’t motivate the myriad of players necessary to participate in LCAs, but the possibility of tokens and realigned incentives could further support its success.

Each of these examples demonstrate value in utility, and I’m certain there will be upside as well.

What’s Next: Infrastructure

In Tim O’Reilly’s piece, Why it’s too early to get excited about Web3, he astutely shares the four stages of innovation cycles according to economist Carlota Perez:

Perez identifies four stages in each of these 50 - 60-year innovation cycles. In the first stage, there’s foundational investment in new technology. This gives way to speculative frenzy in which financial capital seeks continued outsized returns in a rapidly evolving market that is beginning to consolidate. After the speculative bubble pops, there’s a period of more-sustained consolidation and market correction (including regulation of excess market power), followed by a mature “golden age” of integration of the new technology into society. Eventually, the technology is sufficiently mature that capital moves elsewhere, funding the next nascent technology revolution, and the cycle repeats.

According to Perez, each new innovation cycle must be supported by infrastructure, and it’s the early speculative bubble that funds it: “The bubble provides the necessary asset inflation for investors to expect capital gains, even if there are no profits or dividends yet.”

Whether we’re currently in the bubble stage of web3 or not, we will need useful infrastructure to support its growth. So what is the infrastructure for web3-based buildings I’d want to see built now?

Infrastructure 1. Extended Equity 

ABOUT: New experiments in shifting value / equity to participatory stakeholders

EXAMPLES: Vitalik Buterin’s post on Crypto Cities, Reincent DAO (still in idea stage)

In the early 1960s, the founders of Fairchild Semiconductor experimented with the idea of granting employees equity in their startup company. This move had lasting impact on the tech industry, contributing to the attraction and retention of employees as well as motivating the creation of successful products and services. For web3, I’d want to see new experiments in this kind of innovative social infrastructure, new experiments of shifting value and equity to participatory stakeholders. For a building this could mean granting equity to the architecture, engineering, construction, and operating teams responsible for its design and maintenance. We’d need to be thoughtful to identify the right “exit event” though, as initial occupancy or an offering to public markets would only mark a single stage of a building’s life. We should be driving towards generating and delivering value over the extended lifetime of a building instead. Given the absence of a single exit event that matches desired value, perhaps the so-trust-ful-it’s-trust-less nature of web3 will prove useful for generating and tracking multiple exit events instead.

Infrastructure 2. Railroad across the Metaverse

ABOUT: Building out connections across siloed virtual worlds

EXAMPLES: Cryptovoxels

The expansion and improvement in new accessible virtual worlds will be a magnificent playground for new types of world-building, structures-oriented, and land-based explorations. First and foremost, virtual reality will (and already does) attract attention and talent for new ways to think about our 3D environments. Simply watch your parents use an Oculus Quest for the first time and you can easily imagine what new experiences might be unlocked with greater accessibility to such worlds. Building out the railways of the Metaverse will be an important infrastructural step because it implies accessibility and “globalization” across today’s proprietary and siloed virtual kingdoms. Just as the railroad brought new life to far-off depots across the continental United States, the railways of the Metaverse would connect different virtual lands, each with its own resources and culture. With rail lines laid, stations and supporting amenities like the saloon, the post office, and the pharmacy could also take root… a mixing pot for new amalgamated products and services. I’m excited to watch as this infrastructure unfolds.

Infrastructure 3. Ubiquitous Commissioning

ABOUT: Further advances in commissioning real world building sensors that map to the virtual

EXAMPLES: Imagine if Matterport began to simplify sensor commissioning for their digital twin 3D models

As our virtual models improve and become more accessible, and as sensors and IoT devices become cheaper, we’ll hopefully see a surge in demand for installed sensors that deliver value in both the operating and virtual economies. For this to be possible however, sensors will need to be massively easy to install, commission, and integrate into the various pipelines desired. Multiple sensor companies have tried methods to improve their own setup processes, but for truly expansive sensory experiences, we’ll need this commissioning process to be decentralized and ubiquitous, both at the enterprise and consumer level.

Infrastructure 4. Builtware (multidirectional sensory systems)

ABOUT: New experiments in sensory feedback

EXAMPLES: Dynamicland, teamLAB, Cedric Price’s Fun Palace

The vision of omnipresent physical and virtual interactions has been around for ages. I call this “builtware” because we should envision these technologies as part of our built environment, the walls and surfaces that surround us rather than simply hardware devices to exist as fleeting furniture. This is similar to the vision that Bret Victor puts forward with Dynamicland, where “the entire building becomes the computer,” a medium for more collaborative learning. The required infrastructure for this vision includes multidirectional sensory systems: colors and shapes that help you intuit the value of an algorithm, haptic feedback that allows a virtual partner to get your attention, or sensory ware that lets you smell the chocolate chip cookies you see listed on a virtual menu. For these ideas to scale, builtware infrastructure will be a requirement. 

Infrastructure 5. Blockchain-based Building Catalogs

ABOUT: Advances in blockchain-based building catalogs to influence ease of maintenance as well as embodied, operating, and end-of-life emissions

EXAMPLES: Research from Theo Dounas and the Construction Blockchain Consortium

While tools like Building Information Modeling (BIM) exist, they are computationally intensive, difficult to verify, and challenging to integrate into other workflows. New platforms like blockchain-based building catalogs (similar but not directly the same as BIM) would be a new successful infrastructure that could launch many new applications. For example, more robust catalogs could facilitate the transition away from carbon-intensive building materials, offer necessary data to prove ROI on new operational investments, and help to manage the end of life of building components. As researcher Theo Dounas and fellow authors write, a “cryptographically secured mechanism allows the generation of a representation of a building component, and the management of its lifecycle from birth to end of life, including all phases of the lifecycle of a building, from concept to decommission.” I’m excited for the new businesses that could leverage this type of plumbing. 

As you can see, there’s a lot to be excited about for the future of web3 and buildings, and we are still in the very early days. Now is the time to embed our plans into new infrastructure as it gets built.

Speaking of embedded plans, I often think of Gregory Bateson and his profound words in Steps to an Ecology of Mind:

Should the original planners put into the very fabric of their plan collateral incentives which will seduce those who come later into carrying out the plan for reasons quite different from those which inspired the plan?

Bateson here is wondering about intention-- does the success of a final outcome depend on the motivation of the actor? The fragmentation of our building industry necessarily means that each party will have different motivations and incentives. We should use these permutations to our advantage, but for shared benefit: physical and virtual structures that offer better experiences, allow us to be healthier and more productive, and are capable of evolving to match future needs. I believe new web3 tools will help facilitate this organized complexity, encouraging decentralized actions that still culminate into a complex whole-- the very fabric of our plans. I can’t wait to see what that will bring.

When I surveyed the landscape of Embodied, Operational, and End-of-Life emissions in the built environment last fall, it was clear that Operational was the cool kid at the party. In the United States there has been a growing interest over the past year to Electrify Everything, which– from a buildings perspective– primarily relates to reducing our operational emissions. From deploying renewable energy and storage in buildings, to retrofitting with more energy efficient products, to better managing energy demand response, there has been SO much exciting traction in the area. Don’t get me wrong, there is still much more work to do. But attention has entered the desired flight path.

This got me thinking… where in the built world is attention still lacking? My conclusion: Upfront embodied emissions (e.g. cement and steel manufacture) and End-of-Life emissions (e.g. refrigerant leakage, waste management). If we can bring attention to these sectors, we’ll have greater opportunity to meet our climate change goals.

But first, some definitions. The World Green Building Council defines these terms as follows:

• Embodied – Emissions associated with materials and construction processes throughout the whole lifecycle of a building or infrastructure, such as material extraction, transport to manufacturer, manufacturing, transport to site, construction, etc. 

  • Upfront – The emissions caused in the materials production and construction phases of the lifecycle before the building or infrastructure begins to be used. These emissions have already been released into the atmosphere before the building is occupied or the infrastructure begins operation.

• End-of-life – Emissions associated with deconstruction/demolition, transport from site, waste, processing and disposal phases of a building or infrastructure’s lifecycle which occur after its use.

So why focus on upfront embodied emissions first? If my goal is to spark a new wave of attention, the reality is that embodied emissions are more comprehensible. We create materials and move them around. They are convex rather than concave. Contrast this with end-of-life emissions, which our society–myself included– approaches with an “out of sight, out of mind” mentality. It’s a much harder story to tell.

Upfront embodied emissions in the built world are also a tremendous contributor in their own right– 11% of global CO2. This places it, in the popular game of “If This Sector Was A Country,” squarely between the United States (15%) and India (7%). And the sector is growing; global building stock (i.e. demand for construction materials) is on track to double its footprint by 2060.

Why focus on concrete / cement? 

What makes concrete and cement an important (and fun! sexy?) problem to solve?

Concrete–and by extension, cement–is all around us. It supports the buildings we live and work in. It structures the facilities we depend on, from the plants that treat our wastewater to the bridges that connect us. Concrete is surprisingly simple. Just mix water, aggregate (e.g. gravel, sand), and a binder (here’s where cement comes in) and voila: strength impenetrable.

Concrete is popular, a global star. That dependable friend everyone relies on (yet too often takes for granted). Concrete is timefull and timeless. It is ancient, contemporary, futuristic. Its impact will only continue to grow as we continue to build and repair more buildings and infrastructure around the world. And yet it is forgettable.

At 6% global carbon emissions, cement is worth our attention. (For context, aviation contributes 2.5% global CO2 emissions.) Cement is the lifesource of concrete, one of its key binding ingredients. The most popular type of cement, known as “Ordinary Portland Cement,” is also the most stealthy. To produce OPC, limestone (CaCO3) with heat results in lime (CaO) and carbon dioxide (CO2). This direct carbon emission packs a punch. Pair that with the indirect emissions of industrial heat and you can quickly see why cement is such a big carbon emitter.

We have many shots on goal. What’s so exciting is that rethinking cement and concrete affords us many pathways to reduce and even remove CO2. We don’t need to reduce our use of concrete / cement. We just need to rethink our recipes.

Aggregate

• Use recycled concrete

• Sequester CO2 into aggregate

Binder

• Alternative recipes to OPC

• Alternative fuels

• Carbon capture

Concrete

• Recycle for aggregate

• Sequester CO2 into mix

Excitingly, attention IS already starting to grow. Earlier this year, Bill Gates addressed our favorite binder head on as one of his key questions to ask about any climate change solution: “So what’s your plan for cement?” And today, Earth Day, the Biden Administration specifically called out their goal of “expanding carbon capture and green hydrogen to forge cleaner steel and cement” and acknowledged that “the government can use its procurement power to support early markets for these very low- and zero-carbon industrial goods.” (That’s a big deal, since the public sector purchases half of the cement produced in the United States.)

But we need more to join, especially to address the surrounding soft infrastructure. Addressing emissions from cement will take new research and development. It will take new policies and government procurement mandates. But it will also take soft infrastructure to really seal the deal– to address hidden frictions that slow the rate of acceptance and deployment. We saw this with the initial rollout of the COVID vaccine in the United States. At the start, much of the soft infrastructure was missing. This led to slower deployment times, and greater hesitancy among the public. I’m not discounting the benefits of learning through trial and error here. All successful projects start this way. But if we project this along the timeline for climate change, we just don’t have that long to figure it out. What other means can we use to stir more hearts and minds towards decarbonizing our cement industry? What other frictions can we predict and get started on, now?

Art by Juan Marin from Unsplash

Embedded agency is an organizing theme behind most, if not all, of our big curiosities. 

It seems like a central mystery underlying many concrete difficulties.

-- Embedded Agency

Scene I.

Z still had an hour to wait.

She scanned the cavernous lobby. The surrounding walls were like molten rivers standing still. Thick sheets of aloof concrete, protecting Z from the climate outside.

In the corner Z spotted the now familiar B Code, its shape—with its curves and simple lines—trying too hard to be considered art deco. The lobby-based B Code was substantial yet submissive, stationed quietly in the corner. Z remembered when they were a novelty a decade ago. Had it been that long?

The day they embedded the B Code into the concrete, everything changed.

A descendant of the bar code, and then the QR code, the B Code communicated a localized story. Narratives of the first pour. Specks of maintenance. Opportunities for renewal.

Once smartphones achieved enlightenment-- about a decade ago-- it was hard to dispute their usefulness. Quickly the sensors of disparate “phones” worked to prove themselves. They recorded imperfections in the below and sideways concrete, and they told stories of the quality of systems embedded within… much to the chagrin of the ultrasonic plumbing industry.

Smartphones were the early storytellers of the B Code.

But the B Code contained the story. 

The day it all changed, cement was just over 3% of global GHG emissions. GHG, greenhouse gas. It seemed small at first, but that was more than the global aviation industry on a gambling frenzy in Las Vegas. Or Macau. Cement was a hard 3%+. The kind that took more hand waves than purse strings to overcome.

The day they embedded the B Code, the government changed its approach. Some said it was geriatric. That switch from “I care too much about what people think of me” to “I don’t care at all! Let me throw scarves in the air and sing reflective songs at the top of my lungs!” 

A joke! of course. But Z knew that.

The real reason the government embedded the B Code was quite obvious. Doing so made THEIR jobs easier. It was much easier to procure and manage with the B Code in place than without it. So what was the harm in that?

Her heartbeat continued to pound. Thud. Thud. Thud. She still couldn’t believe why she was there.

Scene II.

Z had been one of the few to articulate the importance of concrete relative to climate change well over a decade ago. As an anthropologist primed to share the stories of the built environment she had narrowed in on concrete early on. Concrete was historical. Societal. Cultural.

It was also immensely carbon intensive.

Z brushed away at her goosebumps. A draft flowed through the open lobby with an empty, whirring stillness. Her thoughts turned to her past life studying low carbon concrete.

Not many people cared at first. Such a ubiquitous material, overlooked.

Even back then, education efforts had been underway for some time. Forums pulled voices together from architecture, engineering, and construction communities. Structural engineers debated the merits, reminding each other of their trade. Contractors spiraled in internal initiatives. Big concrete and cement companies joined in turn. But in those days, it was just more of the same. Using yesterday’s tools to address today’s problems.

What was the framework again? It wasn’t catchy per se, but the mnemonic helped. She knew it by heart once upon a time.

ABC x CRM 

Aggregate. Binder. Concrete x Capture. Reduce. Mineralize. 

Back then, Z had been accustomed to repeating the words over and over. Sang it as a song. A succinct mantra that reiterated the landscape to herself and to others. 

ABC: Aggregate, Binder, Concrete. First there were the aggregates. That crumbly filler. Crushed rock, gravel, sand. Next came the binder--cement and water--acting as a cohesive glue. Mixing brought it all together. Aggregates, meet Binder. Binder, meet Aggregates. Once it was poured, the right temperature, moisture, and time enabled the composite substance to cure and render itself concrete, full of strength and durability.

“Concretus,” to grow together.

In the early 1800s Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) stepped into the limelight, taking over as Premier Binder for Centuries. Made of limestone under heat of kiln and some added raw materials, the residual clinker was then ground into a fine powder. Limestone (CaCO3) with heat results in calcium oxide (CaO) and carbon dioxide (CO2). Ordinary PC was the perfect stage name for this pervasive powder. So ordinary a name that it fell behind the scenes-- wielding its immense power (and escaped emissions) over the globe in stealth.

In her old life, this was where Z came in. There were several opportunities to change concrete’s course as a significant emissions contributor.

Z visualized the matrix she used to describe the opportunity to those who inquired.

Each combination of the matrix had pros and cons. There were different levers to pull, in tradeoff of emissions, durability, strength, and workability. The choice of a solution in one stage impacted the outcomes of another.

Back to the mantra. 

CRM: Capture, Reduce, Mineralize. Carbon dioxide released during the production of clinker could be captured at the source, with prospects for further utilization. There were also opportunities to reduce emissions for both ingredients, the aggregate and the binder. For example, recycled concrete could be used as aggregate in place of freshly mined rocks. Alternative fuel sources could be used to heat the cement kilns. And supplementary sources to portland cement reduced or even avoided the direct impact of clinker emissions entirely.

Then there was mineralization.

That’s where things got exciting. Z cracked her knuckles. In addition to point source carbon capture and avoidance, concrete had the superpower to also sequester carbon dioxide within.

The first opportunity was embedding CO2 into building aggregate. It seemed almost too simple at the time, and perhaps it was. These new synthetic rocks were competing against literal dirt! Despite their underdog stature, mineralized aggregates were persistent little things— resolute chunks of former CO2 that could be tucked permanently away as they strengthened the world’s infrastructure.

The second opportunity was sequestering carbon dioxide into the composite itself, during either the concrete mixing or curing stages. Whether added directly to the mix or used to cure pre-cast units, injected streams of CO2 danced with the nubile concrete in full force. Each technology had its own preference for where best to introduce itself into the process.

Z had to remind herself of those early days. That was the time before direct air capture became so ubiquitous. For sequestration of ingredient or final product, most technologies back then relied on pure sources of CO2 for their mineralizing efforts. The purification required was just one more step; it constrained supply. It was even rumored that some of the biggest cement companies hustled with the likes of Coca Cola and AB InBev to get their hands on the purest batch.

Last but not least was the most surprising opportunity of them all-- carbon uptake over the life of the structure. Concrete accumulated CO2 over time, years after its first mix and pour. It certainly was the slowest option but researchers aimed to speed it up. It boggled the mind that just with time more atmospheric CO2 could be extracted.

Compounding always confused people.

In those early days, it wasn’t clear which new technology or set of solutions would win out. Or even which set of policies would.

Z had spent time with each of them. They weren’t just business models, technologies, or regulatory frameworks, no. There were people behind those things. She knew what made them tick. Their org structures, methods for decision making, the landscape into which each placed their tech and advocacy.

Low Carbon Concrete Companies

In the mid 2020s, it had become popular for yuppies and the like to back new technologies. Low carbon concrete was suddenly all the rage. Even though thrilled, Z never quite understood why. Maybe because its use, in a time of uncertainty, was so certain. Every growing city and country needed concrete. Global building stock was projected to double over the next forty years. The option to reduce and remove carbon emissions from so many angles made concrete so appealing. Diversified yet focused at the same time. (Plus, it didn’t require consumers to change their day to day behavior.)

This new wave of interest in low carbon concrete changed the game; attention and sense of identity expanded from industrial corporates to the consumer. It was like an orbital jump from the slower pace layers of infrastructure to the frenetic action of commerce and fashion. Everyone could buy a permanent slice. Carbon negative contributions became the status symbol people appended to their name, like the former squiggles of a PhD or MBA.

Demand had pulled them all forward. And it was exciting!

New R&D finally got funded. Promising technologies ramped up deployments. Contractors could get low carbon certified, their personalized certificates following them wherever they went. Eventual breakthroughs in direct air capture only accelerated progress.

Best yet: more people entered the field. Z started to have colleagues! 

Despite all of this, something was off. Collectively they had reduced costs for the first stage of deployment, but... Costs were still too high. Risk aversion, too concerning. And global lessons transfer remained too limiting.

What soft infrastructure was holding them back? It plagued Z.

And then the B Code changed all of that.

工

Please note: This series reflects my own learning of the industry and may contain incorrect information. I use this writing as a method to educate myself, set up frameworks, and highlight areas where my understanding can be improved. Which means, it’s perfect fodder to then discuss with the experts! I plan to update this series over time in hopes that the learning process is useful to my readers, too.

While we stay distanced, the bees cluster together. The natural hum of the colony a constant reminder of what it meant to be “in-person.” Those alley-way perches for impromptu hangouts. Those intimate rooms for deep discussion, intonating conversation over a shared meal after a hard day’s work.

Of course, beyond the social interaction, routines continue--  for both the bees and for us. Sharing chores to clean house. The daily flight to stretch one’s limbs and pick up food for the family. Complaining to each other when it’s “too hot” or “too cold.” Dancing around excitedly when we hear good news.

H installed a surveillance camera over the hive this week. You know, to engage with the bees at all hours. So now we can watch and talk to them in soothing voices whenever we want. 

Night vision is so cheap these days!

The beehive is a microcosm of structure and operations. Of collective prioritization, decision making, and coordination. The bees’ world is one of tradeoffs: capex vs. opex. Should precious energy be spent on structural, embodied efforts? Or, should effort instead be spent on operations?

We can learn a lot from the bees.

I.

Honeybees create their iconic structure, the honeycomb, in coordinated rhythm. Worker bees secrete beeswax-- in crude terms, digested honey-- from wax glands on their abdomens. These waxy flakes are then chewed up by the bees, rumbled and tumbled with the oils of pollen, and heated up for greater workability in construction. It may surprise you, but comb building is circular. The beauty of mathematics and the rule of minimal surfaces pulls these circular cells into the hexagonal beeswax structures we know. The comb is embodied honey.

In the human world, this ubiquitous structure resembles our own attachment to pervasive building materials, like concrete, steel, glass, and timber. Just as the honeycomb represents embodied honey, however, our building materials represent embodied carbon. 

The embodied nature of OUR structures represents the upfront carbon emissions from producing industrial building materials-- namely cement and steel. Together, these materials make up roughly 10% of global CO2 emissions.

We can take inspiration from the bees and the beauty of science to manufacture and deploy lower carbon cement and steel.

II.

As we’ve seen from the bees, structure also impacts operations. The hexagonal shape of honeycomb allows for maximum storage with minimum perimeter. In other words, more honey can be stored for a given area. Better design and implementation of the structure, better use through operations.

Think about the teams you’ve worked on; team structure impacts your operations, which in turn impacts your success. Same for the hive: hive structure impacts hive operations, which in turn impacts hive goals.

Honeybees build their brood-- i.e. they reproduce and grow their young-- with nectar and pollen. Bees convert nectar into honey, their critical staple for building society. (Eating pollen adds necessary protein, too.) Not only does honey help to build the hive’s structure, as we learned earlier, but it fuels the hive’s operations. Honey can be stored and used as needed to feed the colony.

For humans, the structure of our buildings also impacts operations. For example, structural design and materials impact thermal requirements within our homes. And heating and cooling are major contributors to greenhouse gases on their own. Cooling with refrigerants (e.g. air conditioning) is a stealthy contributor to climate change; the F-gases released during operations and equipment end of life can pack more global warming punch than CO2.

We can take inspiration from the cooling tactics of bees, like flow-mediated, decentralized fanning to cool the hive.

III.

There are plenty more lessons to explore here. But here’s one that’s top of mind—

H and I are beekeepers. Which means: we are property managers. 

(OK OK I’m taking WAY too much credit here… I’m just the landlord; H is the true beekeeper.)

In fact, this offers a good analogy for the real-life incentives of building structures. H is a property manager who believes in the operations and maintenance of the hive. He spends time and energy to make sure their infrastructure is set up for success. (He lines their porch with cut flowers from the neighbors’ garden, for goodness sake!) He even selected and sited the hive itself: its design, material, and other specifications.

(Yes, I’m lucky; H is a winner.)

I, on the other hand, am a ruthless landlord, less willing to invest in the bees’ maintenance. I just want my benefit of delicious honey and complexity-learning-- no questions asked. I never asked the queen nor her worker bees for THEIR thoughts on the situation. I didn’t care much about the implications of site and structure to ongoing hive life.

But these considerations within the jurisdiction of the landlord, like site and structure, DO have major impact on the operations of the tenants. Or of the bees in our case. So what’s going on here? How do our misaligned incentives, as property owner vs. property manager vs. facilities manager vs. tenant impact the ultimate health of the hive?

In this series, we’ll investigate these discrepancies together. Who benefits? Who loses? What does this mean for structural vs. operational solutions? And how can we actually build and maintain things together? 

🐝

Further reading on bees

• “Beeswax” in American Bee Journal

• “Influence of Social Environment on Group Behavior” at the Cook Lab

• Bee Health CoP with the Cooperative Extension Service

• “Bio-Inspired Engineering of Honeycomb Structure - Using Nature to Inspire Human Innovation” in Progress in Materials Science

• “Why Nature Loves Hexagons” from PBS

Cover photo by Daniel von Appen on Unsplash

🏢 🏠

Buildings are critical to address climate change and public health.

Rethinking new construction and retrofits for the built environment is critical to meet our collective climate goal-- to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, akin to net zero emissions by 2050.

Globally, buildings account for 40% annual global CO2 emissions. Out of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, buildings account for about one-third emissions. And the base is growing. Our global building stock is on track to double its footprint by 2060.

Buildings are also where we spend most of our time. It’s important to think of the “buildings industry” not just as the structures themselves, but as the setting for our day-to-day life. (And our day-to-day emissions.)

In short: Buildings have big impact. With benefit that extends beyond climate to opportunities for improved public health, learning, and collaboration as well.

Explore global building emissions

With their long life cycle— ~100 years— decisions made at the start of a building will continue through the lifetime of the product. Not only are there “embodied” emissions generated during material manufacture and construction, but design decisions made at the start (e.g. site selection, orientation, structure, insulation, etc) place constraints on future emissions as the building continues to operate.

The good news is that there is a lot we can do today. Many of the technologies we need to deploy are already available and in the process of sliding down the cost curve. (And with more deployment comes more lessons learned and thus more chances to reduce cost.)

Availability matters, because it means we can get started now. Given UNEP’s current projections: over two-thirds of global buildings in 2050 are already built, today. In North America, that figure is around 70% if not higher.

We have several options to improve the building sector.

We have many market and policy-driven opportunities to reduce and even remove GHG emissions within the global buildings industry. These solutions fit across three main emission phases of the building lifecycle—Embodied, Operational, End of Life—with options to reduce 🔽 and even remove ⏏️ associated emissions.

We need to tackle all three:

Embodied emissions (~11% global CO2)

Culprit: CO2 from materials that go into buildings, such as steel and cement

Solutions:

• Design/Build for simpler upgrades / retrofits to avoid future demolition waste 🔽

• Design/Build buildings with less material use 🔽

• Develop & Deploy reduced carbon materials (e.g. low-carbon steel or low-carbon cement— or alternative materials like mass timber) 🔽/⏏️

  • Example: LECCLA (enabled by OpenAir)

• Actively sequester carbon during manufacturing process / in new building materials ⏏️

  • Example: Opus 12

  • Example: CarbonCure, Blue Planet

• Facilitate transactions for reduction / removal of embodied emissions 🔽/⏏️

  • Example: Stripe Climate

Operational emissions (~28% global CO2)

Culprit: CO2 from energy to run buildings, whether direct (e.g. CO2 from combusting oil or gas for space heating) or indirect (e.g. CO2 electricity generation or district heating)

Solutions:

• Design/Build/Operate buildings for improved operational efficiency 🔽

  • Building management / operation systems

    • Example: 75F, smart thermostats

  • Elucidate data on environmental health in / around buildings

    • Example: Aclima

• Rethink buildings as integrated assets

  • Electrify buildings and make it easier to decarbonize generation & storage, affordably 🔽

    • Example: Station A, Swell

  • Enable microgrid / distributed energy resource transactions

    • Example: Leap, OhmConnect

• Develop & Deploy energy efficient appliances & control systems 🔽

  • For systems within the buildings themselves:

    • Example: BlocPower, Span

  • For systems that use buildings as a hub (e.g. electric vehicles / fleets):

    • Example: XL Fleet

• Actively sequester carbon during heating/cooling process ⏏️

  • Example: Carbon negative district heating

• Facilitate transactions for reduction / removal of operational emissions 🔽/⏏️

  • Example: Patch

End of Life emissions (Much harder to quantify)

Culprit: F-gasses from refrigerants used in air conditioning. Even HFCs, which have largely replaced CFCs & HCFCs, still have 1,000-10,000 greater global warming potential (GWP) than carbon dioxide. Did you know that 90% of refrigerant emissions happen during end of life disposal?

Solutions:

• Design/Build/Operate buildings for less additive cooling 🔽

• Manage leakages & end of life disposal for existing AC units 🔽

  • ❓I am curious about this field but haven’t come across companies in this space. Do you know of any?

• Develop & Deploy new types of ACs that use less F-gas 🔽

  • Example: Treau

  • Example: PARC

• Develop & Deploy F-gas alternatives 🔽

  • ❓I am curious about this field but haven’t come across companies in this space. Do you know of any? Especially given the recent American Manufacturing and Innovation (AIM) Act.

• Facilitate transactions for reduction / removal of end-of-life emissions 🔽/⏏️

However, incentives in the building industry are misaligned. Could this “misalignment cost” slow down our climate & public health goals?

Incentives in the building industry are misaligned. This occurs in the dichotomy between construction and operation (Developers & Building Contractors have different incentives than Occupants and Facilities Managers), in the split incentives between Landlords and Tenants (Landlords have different responsibilities / careabouts than Tenants do), and in the temporal distinction between now and 20 / 30 / 50 / 100 years from now.

This landscape is not specific to North America, these same dichotomies exist around the globe. And these challenges don’t just impact climate health— they impact our public and collaborative health, too.

My hypothesis is that this misalignment in the building industry does slow down our global climate, public health, and collaboration goals. But in what ways? And what do we do about it? What policies/programs/products can we enable and build?

This is my journey to answer those questions.

Stay tuned. 工

Follow along my research journey by checking out related resources & notes en route:

Build Incentive Graph on Roam

This project is intended to build over time, covering the embodied, operational, and end-of-life impact of buildings:

• Theme 1: Embodied emissions from heavy industry: Cement & Concrete

• Theme 2: New Web3-based incentives for buildings

• Theme 3: Only time will tell!

Curious about the origin story of this project? You can read some of my earlier ruminations here:

• Making Infrastructure Sexy

• Fragmentation in the Building Industry

• What can a Building Technologist do about Climate Change?