Wood seems to be the material of the moment in building construction. While the 20th century can perhaps be described as the century of concrete, at the beginning of the 21st century a revived interest in timber as a building material can be observed worldwide. While this renaissance springs from a number of broadly technical reasons, it also raises cultural questions and shifts pre-conceived ideas.  

The development of reinforced concrete represents the culmination of a long crescendo of ever more efficient building materials from wood to stone, to steel and finally to a variety of cement-based composites. Wood - as a weak primary material - has kept up in this race only on account of the development of cross-laminated timber. However, the surprising popularity of wood at the moment is not due to its performance but to the climate-related shift in use, processing and disposal of building materials, that - in turn - is a reflection of the ecological revolution (or should we say: counter-revolution) in general.

Just as modern architecture at the turn of the last century reacted to the phenomena of its time, we now have to respond to today’s needs of a drastically densified planet. 

Whether or not timber will play a decisive role in overcoming this crisis depends on several factors. The Institute for Climate Impact Research in Potsdam, however, has opened up at least the prospect that the maximum sequestration of CO2 in timber constructions and the associated intensification of sustainable forestry could, purely theoretically, either restore the climate or at least significantly alleviate the crisis. Regardless of whether this promise can actually be fulfilled, it is undisputed that one can hardly avoid timber when looking for alternatives to the climate-damaging building practices of our status quo, since it has (potentially) the smallest footprint of all building materials.

When looking for an appropriate architectural reflection of this new approach to natural and renewable materials in Europe, we instinctively refer back to timber buildings that for centuries have formed part of a vernacular idiom typical for rural - and often alpine - communities. 

In fact there are not so many precedents among modern architects (in Europe). Only some found inspiration in this material to express themselves in a quasi-archaic fundamentalism. Wood was primitive, technologically and culturally backward and as well, at least in Germany, associated with a vernacular style that, by the end of the Second World War, was politically suspect and so rather frowned upon. 

Wood seemed to be second choice, with mineral construction materials being seen as superior. Timber buildings were considered to present the less durable and seemingly less valuable option, especially also because its visible weathering when it is exposed to the elements.  Historically speaking this building material has of course always suffered from its bad reputation regarding fire protection. 

Considering wood as architectural material, however, we live with a cultural paradox since classical European architecture as narrated from the Renaissance onwards was not only associated with timber in its origins, but its classical language developed quite literally from the translation of typical carpentry details into mineral material. What Gottfried Semper called “Stoffwechsel” or Karl Boetticher the transition from “Kernform” to “Kunstform”, resulted probably as much from a desire for stability and protection as from an intention of symbolic nobilisation. After all, the aesthetic canon of classical, or neo-classical, architecture is based on the evidence of the remains of antiquity, which have survived the test of time only because it was made of stone. The semantics of Christian-inspired European architecture in modern times moved away from wood as a material. Stone in itself carried a message of value, which in turn led to the fact that in some wooded regions, architects tried to imitate stone buildings using timber as it was the convenient material available. This is where we go full-circle, so to speak: an attempt is made to use wood to simulate stone architecture, which originally drew its language from the use of wood.

Despite its obvious insufficiencies, maybe timber teaches us a new interpretation of what it means to be modern. Perhaps one can speak of a weak modernity. Functionality and pragmatism, flexibility, easy adaptability, appropriateness of material and construction and, last but not least, beauty - all this can be combined with an optimally low CO2 footprint. Further, continuous improvements in timber technology and enhanced preventive fire protection allow a wider scope for the use of the material also in dense, urban contexts. While the urge for ever greater efficiency can still be adequately met, we learn that progress in building today lies in the ability to integrate interventions of whatever kind into the natural and built environment; future-proofing in terms of use and recyclability of construction and material are the keywords with which this weak building material lends strength to contemporary architecture. Criticism of classical modernism, however, does not necessarily have to lead to a revision of all its laudable approaches. Making the complexities of the present work in the city is a motto that has lost none of its topicality. Timber is not only up to this task, but with its natural aura it brings great sensual charisma that supports and enriches the efforts of the ecological movement in the struggle to preserve a livable or even lovable future in every respect. 

Abridged text of the presentation at the International Wood Construction Conference, Innsbruck, 30 November 2022