The idea that time can become matter emerged during the conference Building with Time, held as part of the Circular Design Symposium in Vilnius, Lithuania, on March 20. More than a metaphor, it was framed as a paradigm shift for contemporary architecture.
Nicholas Duxbury Ransome, CEO of Lendager, argued that time is not external to architecture but intrinsic to it. From this perspective, buildings are no longer understood as static objects, but as evolving processes, open systems that interact with long-term ecological and social dynamics.
This approach resonates with the thinking of Paola Viganò, who advocates shifting from viewing territory as an object to understanding it as a subject. Within this framework, “life”, in its broadest sense becomes the central temporal scale of architectural practice.
Ransome illustrated this vision through concrete examples of projects that combine innovation with the reuse of materials that have already completed their life cycle. Beyond recycling, the focus is on positive transformation: materials are not only reused, but upgraded in value. Water management and biodiversity integration are also embedded as essential components of the design process.
Image source: Lendager, Høje-Taastrup Town Hall project
(https://lendager.com/project/hoje-taastrup-town-hall/)
Image source: Lendager, Resource Rows (Exploring brick circularity)
(https://lendager.com/project/resource-rows/)
From another angle, Kristiaan Borret, Urban Quality Supervisor in Amsterdam, opened his talk with a compelling reminder: before construction became standardized and industrialized, materials from demolished buildings were carefully sorted and given a second life. This was not an exception, it was simply how building was done.
Photo by Marite Guevara, taken at the conference “Building with Time”, March 2026
He went on to address the complex challenge of decarbonizing the construction sector, referencing the Decon report by the Institute for Reform, which explores how circular economy strategies can support national climate objectives.
While progress is being made, emerging policy frameworks highlight both ambition and limitation. For instance, the evolving Brussels Building Code introduces sustainability provisions that prioritize preservation, renovation, and material reuse. It requires that demolition be justified through a comprehensive balance of interests, including heritage value, structural viability, public interest, and urban context. For larger buildings, life-cycle assessments must compare the impacts of renovation versus demolition and new construction.
Yet the broader diagnosis remains clear: despite EU directives, significant structural gaps persist. There are no widely adopted standards for material reuse, nor robust systems for classification and certification. Selective demolition is not systematically implemented, and although a 70% recovery target exists, the necessary protocols and infrastructure are still lacking. Crucially, prevailing economic conditions continue to favor demolition, as virgin materials remain cheaper than reclaimed alternatives.
The scale of the challenge is substantial. The construction industry accounts for approximately 36–40% of global carbon emissions and up to 40% of total energy consumption. Its environmental footprint includes greenhouse gas emissions from materials such as steel and cement, habitat destruction, water pollution, large-scale waste generation, and soil degradation.
Finally, Kateryna Lopatiuk, a Ukrainian architect and spatial researcher, presented the project Circularity on the Edge. This initiative uses artificial intelligence to analyze drone imagery of bombed buildings in Ukraine in order to identify reusable materials.
Image source: Dezeen (project “Circularity on the Edge”, image courtesy of the authors) (https://www.dezeen.com/2025/07/07/circularity-on-the-edge-ai-ukraine/)
The project demonstrates how AI can accelerate and streamline the identification of recoverable resources in post-destruction contexts. Yet its significance goes beyond technical efficiency: materials are understood as testimonies- fragments that carry memory, document the passage of time, and can be reintroduced into new construction cycles while transmitting knowledge to future generations of practitioners.