What if we imagined buildings as living systems, designed for assembly and disassembly with minimal impact? A form of open, modular, and adaptable architecture designed to evolve with its surroundings, responding to seasonal changes and on-demand needs instead of remaining static. At first glance, the idea seems paradoxical, as many buildings were constructed to last, designed to endure, resist the effects of time, and avoid demolition. Because of this, reversing or undoing could be seen as a setback. But what if that way of thinking no longer fits every scenario?
Reversible architecture refers to a design and construction approach in which the structures and components of a building can be easily assembled, disassembled, modified, or reconfigured with minimal waste. It assumes that nothing will be lost: units are not conceived as permanent elements but are designed for reuse or relocation once their intended function or operational cycle is complete.
The Crystal Palace, designed by Joseph Paxton in 1851, could be considered an early historical precedent. Built for the Great Exhibition, this temporary structure placed temporality at the core of its design, making reversibility a pragmatic and almost instinctive response to economic and time constraints. Unlike contemporary approaches, which align with circular models, this case was driven primarily by industrial and functional motivations. Its prefabricated modular structure of cast iron and glass enabled rapid assembly within the event’s deadlines. It later allowed for easy disassembly and relocation to South London, where it remained until a fire destroyed it.
More than a century later, Stewart Brand proposed a relevant theoretical framework in his book “How Buildings Learn”, introducing the concept of “Shearing Layers.” Brand explains that a building consists of different layers—ranging from the structure to interior systems and equipment—that evolve at varying rates. This perspective helps us recognize that not all elements share the same lifespan or function, and designing with this understanding fosters buildings that are more adaptable and resilient.
From this perspective, and in contrast to the proposals of soft architecture, which emphasize functional flexibility and continuous responsiveness to the environment, reversible architecture adopts a more technical and material approach. It recognizes the specific role of each building layer—not only the structural level but also material components, products, and systems such as mechanical, hydraulic, or electrical—and reconsiders them based on their potential for disassembly, replacement, or relocation, where even every brick has a future.
Reversible Thinking: Prefabrication, Dry Construction, and Modular Design Under One Roof
Decision-making in building design and construction encompasses not only form and function but also time, materials, products, and construction systems. Therefore, under a vision of reversible architecture, it makes sense to combine strategies that, even separately, have already proven their effectiveness, such as modularity, dry construction, or prefabrication, and understand them as part of a joint and deeper approach. This circular logic encourages designing buildings as open cycles—able to adapt, be disassembled, or transform without losing coherence. It’s not just about using different construction strategies but about changing the way we build: creating without closing the cycle and designing without depleting the site.
This approach is often perceived as being confined to pavilions, ephemeral events, or seasonal structures installed in summer and dismantled in winter, thus reinforcing its association with temporary or flexible uses. Added to this is the perception of fragility sometimes attributed to these designs, which could lead to questioning their viability as a medium-term building strategy. However, these are not fragile structures but rather relatively lightweight and precise systems that minimize excess. This logic enables the development of adaptable buildings that can respond fluidly to contextual rhythms and accommodate situations where they may need to move.
By rethinking materials or even incorporating unconventional ones, such as corrugated cardboard, scaffolding, metal profiles, or slender wooden ribs, this architecture not only challenges traditional standards but also invites us to rethink how we build and inhabit, recognizing that not everything must be permanent to be valuable. So, what other strategies or technologies might help expand its possibilities and lead to even more resilient and responsible ways of building?
Zero-Bonding Systems Expanding the Boundaries of Design Logic
While dry construction eliminates the use of wet mixes and traditional adhesives to facilitate assembly and disassembly, zero-bonding systems offer a new approach that redefines how building elements are connected. Unlike dry construction, which can still rely on mechanical fasteners or partial joints, these systems dispense entirely with any permanent bonding, whether adhesive or mechanical.
The reference point is the Japanese wood-joining technique known as kigumi. This traditional method employs precise, reversible assemblies without nails, demonstrating how to construct solid yet flexible structures while respecting the natural properties of wood. By scaling up this logic and applying it to other materials, we can create modular, reversible buildings that adapt and transform over time, offering sustainable solutions that minimize environmental impact.
Components can be assembled and disassembled without causing waste, damage, or wear, greatly enhancing their potential for reuse and reconfiguration across different contexts. This approach not only reduces environmental impact but also supports a more sustainable lifecycle for each element. Furthermore, the system fosters a more natural and intuitive interaction between modules, where assembly depends on the precise fit and inherent strength of the forms themselves, rather than relying on external materials or adhesives that limit reversibility and adaptability. This method promotes flexibility, allowing for easy modification, upgrade, or repair of structures over time while maintaining their integrity.
Although zero-bonding systems still have a long way to go before widespread adoption, it is clear that we are facing a paradigm shift. In recent decades, our consumption habits and production methods have undergone notable transitions, often influenced by movements that advocate for slower, more deliberate approaches to living, making, and consuming, such as the Slow Food, Slow Fashion, and Slow Space movements. It is time for architecture to embrace this intelligent pause, building not only for today but also to dismantle, transform, and reuse tomorrow.
This article is part of the ArchDaily Topics: Rethinking Materials: Techniques, Applications and Lifecycle, proudly presented by Sto.
Sto sponsors this topic to emphasize the importance of digitized materials in architectural design. As demonstrated in a case study with the London-based architecture firm You+Pea, its high-quality PBR-files provide architects with precise tools for confident decision-making from concept to execution. This approach bridges virtual and physical realms, supporting more accurate and efficient design.
Every month we explore a topic in-depth through articles, interviews, news, and architecture projects. We invite you to learn more about our ArchDaily Topics. And, as always, at ArchDaily we welcome the contributions of our readers; if you want to submit an article or project, contact us.
