Is it Time to Push for a Culture Shift from One Obsessed with Certainty to One Willing to Wrestle with Complexity?

"Just reuse the old materials." It sounds obvious, doesn't it? The low-carbon silver bullet. Yet, on most sites, those same materials end up in skips, headed for downcycling or landfill. Timber beams with a century of life left in them. Bricks that have already outlasted multiple building owners. Steel sections still as strong as the day they were rolled. So why does reuse still feel like an uphill battle, and one paved not with reclaimed stone, but paperwork?

The problem isn’t technical, not really. It’s regulatory. In part, it’s the Construction Products Regulation (CPR). This set of rules is designed to ensure safety, consistency, and performance across Europe’s (and now the UK’s) construction materials. All very sensible until you realise the entire framework assumes one thing: that you’re starting with new products.

But what if you're not? What if your “product” is a salvaged beam with no CE mark, a pile of deconstructed brick with no test data, or a precast concrete lintel that’s still going strong after 50 years? That’s where the system starts to create friction against solutions that seem like common sense.

Reuse vs Regulation

Here’s the problem:

• Traceability is often non-existent. Who made it? What grade is it? Where’s the paperwork?

• Certification is impossible because CE or UKCA marks weren’t required (or invented) when the material was first produced.

• Performance data may be missing or incomplete.

• Design codes rely on assumed material behaviour, but reuse introduces additional variability and uncertainty.

• Insurance and liability concerns make designers, developers, and contractors wary of anything that falls outside the norm.

  
  

And so, despite all those materials sitting in plain sight—bricks, blocks, beams, and boards—we reach instead for virgin material. Shiny, certifiable, and regulation-friendly. It’s not laziness; it’s a logical response to a system that hates ambiguity.

Shifting the Frame: From Product to Process

When I helped write part of The Future of Structural Design, one theme kept surfacing in our discussions: the need to move away from deterministic, product-led thinking towards process-based, contextual design. This approach treats materials not as static commodities, but as elements within a living, adaptive, and often circular system.

Design with Uncertainty

Reused materials are inherently variable. That doesn’t make them unusable; it just means we need tools and mindsets to handle uncertainty. Rather than relying on perfect knowledge (which, let’s face it, we rarely have), we can:

• Use testing and verification strategies proportionate to risk.

• Apply conservative assumptions where necessary, but do so intelligently.

• Embrace probabilistic methods and system redundancy in design, especially for non-critical elements.

• Focus on performance-based design where outcomes matter.

  
  

Instead of trying to force reclaimed materials into a prescriptive mould, we adapt our approach to suit their realities. This is engineering after all.

Put Value Back Into What’s Already There

In the book, we also challenged the narrow way we tend to define “value.” It isn’t just strength, cost, or compliance. It’s embedded carbon, cultural resonance, and contextual fit. A reclaimed oak beam might not meet every clause in Eurocode 5. A reused clay brick might lack compressive strength test results. But they’ve proven their performance in situ over decades, sometimes centuries. That counts for something.

This shift is underway, but it needs to accelerate.

We need tools and metrics that reflect whole-life value: performance, carbon, procurement, social value, ethics, etc. Not just code compliance. The growing adoption of circular economy principles, the publishing of The Regenerative Structural Engineer, and standards like PAS 2080 suggest this shift is underway, but it needs to accelerate.

Engineers as Integrators and Enablers

One of our aims when writing The Future of Structural Design was to present the engineer as more than a compliance checker. We envisioned them as integrators of ideas, collaborators navigating complex and sometimes conflicting priorities. Reusing materials demands exactly this:

• Talking with demolition contractors about what can be saved.

• Coordinating with architects to expose and celebrate reclaimed elements.

• Finding fabricators willing to work with non-standard stock.

• Taking the client on the journey—not just to carbon savings, but to a better story.

  
  

It’s more work. But it’s also more fulfilling and more aligned with the challenges of our time.

What’s the Way Forward?

Let’s be clear: the CPR isn’t evil. It’s done a lot to improve building safety. But it wasn’t designed with material reuse in mind. So, rather than waiting for full regulatory reform, we can:

• Work within existing frameworks using engineered judgement.

• Push for project-specific approvals that blend testing with known history.

• Promote early-stage design with reuse in mind, perhaps where layouts can flex.

• Support industry initiatives that build reuse-friendly supply chains and data protocols.

  
  

Above all, we can push for a culture shift from one obsessed with certainties to one willing to wrestle with complexity.

Reuse is a Design Opportunity

Material reuse isn’t a constraint; it’s an opportunity. It invites us to think harder, collaborate more, and get closer to the materials we work with. To design in dialogue with the past, not in opposition to it.

If contributing to The Future of Structural Design taught me anything, it’s that the future of our profession lies in embracing uncertainty, prioritising value over compliance, and expanding our role far beyond the confines of the Eurocodes. And maybe it lies in that pile of old timber joists, weathered stone, or slightly rusty steel. And in the clients, architects, and engineers willing to give them another life.

Embracing the Challenge

As we navigate this complex landscape, we must remember that change takes time. It requires patience, persistence, and a willingness to engage in difficult conversations. We must advocate for a mindset that values creativity and innovation over rigid adherence to outdated norms.

The Role of Education

Education plays a crucial role in this cultural shift. We need to equip future architects and engineers with the skills to think critically about material reuse. This means integrating sustainability into the curriculum and fostering a mindset that embraces uncertainty.

Conclusion: A Collective Journey

In conclusion, the journey towards a more sustainable future in construction is a collective one. It requires collaboration among architects, engineers, and clients. Together, we can challenge the status quo and create a built environment that honours the past while paving the way for a more sustainable future.

Let’s embrace the complexity, celebrate the potential of reclaimed materials, and work towards a construction industry that values creativity, sustainability, and innovation. After all, the future is not just built; it is crafted with intention and care.