Sustainable implant is an urban typology that acts as a decentralized infrastructure provision hub on the neighborhood or district scale. Sustainable implants provide integrated infrastructure services that maintain cycles of energy, water and material, as well as provides social and economic returns. The concept originates from Arjan van Timmeren's research, Autonomy & Heteronomy (2006), as an answer to the problem of scale versus innovation in infrastructure; wherein infrastructure benefits from increasing returns to scale but suffer from extremely slow rate of change and turnover.Tarr, J. A., 1984. The Evolution of Urban Infrastructure in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Journal of Urban History. To answer this problem, the sustainable implant is an instrument for mid-scale facilitation of alternative system innovation. The sustainable implant is a synthesis of techniques for sustainable processing of urban flows within an ecological processing device. The objective of a sustainable implant is to generate qualitative and quantitative improvements for utility service provision.Timmeren, A. v., 2006. Autonomy & Heteronomy. TU Delft.
A sustainable implant cannot be regarded as a fixed design that can be repeated. The device comprises a guiding principle for a sustainable solution to the mainly non-sustainable flows in new or existing neighborhoods making use of E. F. Schumacher's appropriate technology, matching technology to need. The sustainable implant facilitates the joint performance of the community as a cognitive agent within transition processes into sustainable development. On a neighborhood or district level, the Sustainable Implant entails the design of a more sustainable main structure for the transportation of water, wastewater, nutrients, energy, materials and/or waste.
The sustainable implant is matched to the social culture, the micro-climate, and the client's ambitions. The technical morphology the Sustainable Implant is formulated by comparing relevant alternatives against the conventional approach. The maintenance of clean urban cycles (via the sustainable implant's integrated infrastructure approach) is analyzed to prove the fulfillment of the sustainability ambition. Beyond technocracy, the Sustainable Implant is to be socially calibrated and economically profitable.
Development of the sustainable implant concept The sustainable implant originated from the desire to find harmony between autarky and returns to scale in the field of infrastructure by means of decentralization of utility provision on an appropriate scale such that a more sustainable urban development can be achieved. In contrast to sustainable architecture, the sustainable implant is related to the flow of materials and energy through the built environment. A sustainable implant will often use decentralized sanitation and reuse for enhanced reuse of water, energy and nutrients, and waste.
In his research, Arjan van Timmeren formulated the following five questions: To what extent are the current technical (infra)structures decisive for the possibilities and impossibilities of sustainable development? Can the central or decentralized solution of the essential flows generate further processes of preservation at a higher scale level? Is there an optimal scale for self-sufficiency per flow, and, if there is, what is this optimal scale? To what extent can user participation and involvement increase by solving sustainability issues? Should the various techniques for the optimization of the flows be combined in one device and can this be done, or should they be integrated separately into existing (infra)structures or buildings?
It is of importance to recognize the need for connection or interconnection with networks at higher scale levels. In fact, the pursuit of full closure or "autarky" even counteracts the principle of the "external economies of scale". By contrast, the arrangement of the cluster within the larger network can respond to a wish for self-sufficiency, creating some sort of a "quasi-autarky", with as a direct advantage the use as a fall-back scenario of the increasing dependence on other areas, countries or even continents.
Such an alternative network principle can also help breaking through the historical relations between the internal organization within the organizations themselves, and the connections to each other and to the more general social structures in the specific localities.Nohria and Eccles. 1992. Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action. Harvard Business School Press.
Criteria for sustainable implants There are three groups of sustainable implant criteria: environmental, spatial, and user-related.
Category Criteria Description Environmental Maintains cycles as much as possible Maximizes the reuse of flows of material, energy and nutrients. The desired effect is to limit the amount of inputs from outside the system and reduce the amount of non-reusable refuse exiting the system. Security and consistency of supply Infrastructure services are free from maintenance and disturbances, with back-up systems where necessary. Minimum added raw materials Infrastructure processes use minimum chemicals and additives from outside. The construction of the physical infrastructure is wise in choice of materials. Minimum pollution of soil, air, ground area and surface water Infrastructures and processes do not emit pollutants nor do they leak pollutants. Maximum guarantee of hygiene and safety The Sustainable Implant is free from risks and threats to physical safety, clean and hygienic facility, and no perceived risks by society. Minimum energy use and maximum renewable energy generation Collection, transportation and processing of Sustainable Implant components uses minimum energy while energy harvest is maximized. Resilience to sabotage/incorrect use Systems are robust and designed for apathetic and malignant users. Future value The sustainable implant has the capacity to evolve by remaining flexible in order to not become obsolete. Spatial Optimizes collection and transport Collection and transport of flows in the neighborhood (water, wastewater, solid refuse, &c.) is maximized regarding space, energy and material. Spatial consequences are determined by transportation techniques and clustering of processes. Minimizes / optimizes use of materials Building materials are demountable and the Sustainable Implant structure is flexible and easy to manipulate. Adaptation and extension The Sustainable Implant can add/remove processes and expand/shrink capacity of processes. Screening off against sabotage and vandalism The Sustainable Implant as well as the connections between the Implant and the neighborhood are impenetrable to sabotage, while remaining visible. Optimized land use The footprint of the building is minimized. Systems dependent upon sunlight are appropriately positioned. Loading docks, access space, and nuisance zones are optimized. Fitting into the living environment Health, safety, noise nuisance, vibrations, visual nuisance, and odor risks are eliminated such that the Sustainable Implant fits into an urban setting. Accessibility of parties involved The Sustainable Implant is permeable by control groups, managers, maintenance staff, and educational tours. Processes are tangible from a distance while being out-of-reach by unauthorized persons. Aesthetic quality Beauty is a criterion for a building's lasting success. User-related Equal or more comfort The infrastructure and connections within homes are odor-free, robust, easy-to-use, quiet, and unimposing. Similar costs The return on investment, maintenance, and management costs of the Sustainable Implant are equal to or less than with conventional infrastructure, inclusive of costs related to developing buildings connected to the Sustainable Implant. Equal or greater ease of use Users must be confronted with an equally easy or easier specific use of their home installations as well as maintenance rituals. Independence of specialized institutions and obligatory networks The users are shareholders in the Sustainable Implant and independent of larger cooperations which they cannot control, thus inhabitants have personal development possibilities and a hand in their own futures. Image and transparency Sense-ability, monitoring, feedback, and visual recognition of the Sustainable Implant and the processes are maximized; this leads to a rational and efficient use of resources and enhances the joyousness and usability of otherwise invisible infrastructure.
Examples of Sustainable Implants EVA Lanxmeer A Sustainable Implant was designed (but not yet realized) for the EVA Lanxmeer site. The Sustainable Implant in that case featured biogassification of organic waste, community composting, and parking facilities. Programmatically and physically, the Sustainable Implant connected to a hotel and spa, which utilized the rest warmth.
Flintenbreite, Lubeck
The Flintenbreite neighborhood is a market-driven project emphasizing innovative infrastructure services for energy efficiency. In 1999, a portion of the dwellings (for 111 inhabitants) and a technical building with a community center were constructed. Eleven years later, the remaining planned buildings for a total of 350 inhabitants have still not been built due to the poor housing market. The site is on a greenfield on the periphery of Lübeck with good public transportation access and a local primary school.OtterWasser GmbH (2009). Ecological housing estate, Flintenbreite, Lübeck, Germany - Draft. Case study of sustainable sanitation projects. Sustainable Sanitation Alliance (SuSanA)Oldenburg, M., Albold, A., Wendland, C., Otterpohl, R. (2008). Erfahrungen aus dem Betrieb eines neuen Sanitaerkonzepts ueber einen Zeitraum von acht Jahren (in German) - Experiences with the operation of a novel sanitation concept over a period of eight years.
Notable elements in Flintenbreite are separation of blackwater, greywater, and stormwater; vacuum sewer and anaerobic digestion of organic refuse; and a local integrated infrastructure provision company. The local infrastructure company provides electricity, heat, water and wastewater service from one technical building. The technical building is the hub of infrastructure provision. All of the machines are hidden in the basement and in the back of the ground level. The rest of the ground level is the community center, consisting of a large room, an alcove with a kitchenette, an outdoor patio, and bathrooms. The inhabitants have adapted the center for their needs over time.
The infrastructure is supplied to the rows of dwellings in a compact concrete connection (1.5 meters by 0.3 meters), including the hot water, hot water return, vacuum sewer (63 mm pipe diameter), drinking water, electricity, and telecom.
Construction and operation
The investment for neighborhood infrastructure and the technical building with a community space was made by the integrated infrastructure provider, the independent company Infranova GmbH & Co KG. The building construction was done by one developer (Schutt) and the vacuum system was built by Roediger Vacuum GmbH, who also supplied the vacuum toilets. The neighborhood was built without any government subsidies, except for a planning subsidy given to OtterWasser GmbH for designing the separated water system. The homes are available at market price, and may even be slightly lower than market price, given the amount of green space surrounding and location adjacent to a primary school.
Impressively, Infranova GmbH is able to provide service for 20% less than conventional suppliers. This is attributed to the integration of the infrastructure provision. The economic success as well as the ecological success of the project is a positive case study for the Sustainable Implant and the Erasmusveld Energy BV.