Closing the Loops in Textile Architecture …
273
to the textile sector specificities, and identifying the basis for a simplified evaluation
tool, useful for textile companies. The EU COST Action 628 tried to define the best
available technology (BAT) of textile processing and eventually suggested criteria
for ISO (Type III) Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) standards (Kalliala and
Talvenmaa 2000). In the field of textile architecture, the authors, as leaders of the
Sustainability and LCA working group of a European project focused on the sustainability improvement of structural textiles (COST Action TU1303 2017), are working
on the development of EPDs of membranes and foils, as well as defining their data
quality requirements, transferable into Product Category Rules (PCR) documents.
Furthermore, a significant eco-design approach for textile architecture can pass from
the definition of brief design principles for weight reduction and the efficient of formstructure membrane skins (Monticelli and Zanelli 2019). The TAN group’s authors
collaborated with EU-funded EASEE project, assessing the environmental impacts
of various textile finishing layers for inner walls, considering to cover an area of 3 m
2
as functional unit (Masera et al. 2017). A wide range of textile-based wallpapers and
other less flexible finishing solution was then analyzed. Basing on this documented
comparison between nature-based and fossil-based textiles (Table 4), the complexity
of the LCA approach clearly tends to increase if we do not only look at the production of a new bio-textile—compared to a fossil-based one—but we want to measure
its eco-efficiency throughout its service time and final disposal. This comparative
LCA needs to: (a) identify key parameters and phases in the whole life cycle aiming
to an improvement of the ecological efficiency of the product; (b) optimize the life
cycle stage in relation to various disposal scenarios (recycling, incineration, landfill); and (c) carry out an life cycle costing (LCC) evaluation to identify the main cost
contributions of the new bio-based textiles and find ways to optimize them.
6 Conclusion
The essay started from the methodological assumption that today it is relevant more
than ever for designers to experiment with the matter—and its performance—of the
architecture, from the early stages of the creative process. Possible knowledge gaps
and innovation lacks that limit the spread of bio-based materials and sustainable circular processes in textiles architecture might be urgently overcome. In this specific
building segment, due to the peculiarity of its short and effective from design-toconstruction value chain—novel concepts of green products and processes would
involve as much as designers, producers, and manufacturers, which should work in
parallel, with an high level of exchange of information and cross-verification along
the whole iterative process. The presumption that the environmental benefit of a specific material may simply be associated with its natural origin is especially dangerous
in the textile architecture field, where textile-based composites and polymeric fabrics
are still predominant. This is why the authors stated the need of overlapping quantitative and qualitative tools for assessing the environmental sustainability, referring
to life cycle assessment methodology. Eventually, the TH Lab research-integrated
273
to the textile sector specificities, and identifying the basis for a simplified evaluation
tool, useful for textile companies. The EU COST Action 628 tried to define the best
available technology (BAT) of textile processing and eventually suggested criteria
for ISO (Type III) Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) standards (Kalliala and
Talvenmaa 2000). In the field of textile architecture, the authors, as leaders of the
Sustainability and LCA working group of a European project focused on the sustainability improvement of structural textiles (COST Action TU1303 2017), are working
on the development of EPDs of membranes and foils, as well as defining their data
quality requirements, transferable into Product Category Rules (PCR) documents.
Furthermore, a significant eco-design approach for textile architecture can pass from
the definition of brief design principles for weight reduction and the efficient of formstructure membrane skins (Monticelli and Zanelli 2019). The TAN group’s authors
collaborated with EU-funded EASEE project, assessing the environmental impacts
of various textile finishing layers for inner walls, considering to cover an area of 3 m
2
as functional unit (Masera et al. 2017). A wide range of textile-based wallpapers and
other less flexible finishing solution was then analyzed. Basing on this documented
comparison between nature-based and fossil-based textiles (Table 4), the complexity
of the LCA approach clearly tends to increase if we do not only look at the production of a new bio-textile—compared to a fossil-based one—but we want to measure
its eco-efficiency throughout its service time and final disposal. This comparative
LCA needs to: (a) identify key parameters and phases in the whole life cycle aiming
to an improvement of the ecological efficiency of the product; (b) optimize the life
cycle stage in relation to various disposal scenarios (recycling, incineration, landfill); and (c) carry out an life cycle costing (LCC) evaluation to identify the main cost
contributions of the new bio-based textiles and find ways to optimize them.
6 Conclusion
The essay started from the methodological assumption that today it is relevant more
than ever for designers to experiment with the matter—and its performance—of the
architecture, from the early stages of the creative process. Possible knowledge gaps
and innovation lacks that limit the spread of bio-based materials and sustainable circular processes in textiles architecture might be urgently overcome. In this specific
building segment, due to the peculiarity of its short and effective from design-toconstruction value chain—novel concepts of green products and processes would
involve as much as designers, producers, and manufacturers, which should work in
parallel, with an high level of exchange of information and cross-verification along
the whole iterative process. The presumption that the environmental benefit of a specific material may simply be associated with its natural origin is especially dangerous
in the textile architecture field, where textile-based composites and polymeric fabrics
are still predominant. This is why the authors stated the need of overlapping quantitative and qualitative tools for assessing the environmental sustainability, referring
to life cycle assessment methodology. Eventually, the TH Lab research-integrated