You both work under the Rotor studio, yet each of you is in a different part of the organisation. What are your roles?

T: For the past four years, I have been a project manager at Rotor Non-Profit, which focuses on research, consulting, design and education in the field of building materials reuse. We help architects and building owners integrate the reuse principle into their projects. Sometimes we also work on smaller design commissions, but we are not a classic architectural studio—we focus more on interiors and scenography.

V: I work in another part of the studio, Rotor Deconstruction. We specialise in the dismantling, sale and distribution of salvaged building components. Rotor DC used to be seen as the younger sister of Rotor Non-Profit, but we've grown up a lot in recent years. When I joined in 2019, there were four of us. Today we number about 20. New people have come on board in the warehouse, the shop and the workshops.

Rotor DC can thus be seen as a form of second-hand shop. What materials are most popular with customers right now?

V: We have a broad portfolio—from doors and light fittings to furniture and tiles. However, cement and ceramic tiles are probably the most popular right now. There's a cultural dimension to it, too, as many of them were made right here in Belgium. Yet dismantling them has grown more difficult: tiles from 1970s and 1980s buildings come out easily, but in newer constructions they’re bonded with stronger adhesives. In practice, this means that they need a lot more work. We've got whole pallets in the warehouse right now waiting to be cleaned.

When you mentioned adhesives, is that mortar and cement?

V: Yes, in different combinations. Previously, such residues were removed manually—using a hammer and chisel, tile by tile—though in practice the tiles tended to break rather than the mortar being detached. We therefore recently developed our own machine. The way it works is that two people hold the tiles and then the blade of the machine cuts away the mortar to clean the surface. The result is a flat, reusable piece of material.

Who are your most frequent customers—industry professionals or dedicated hobbyists?

V: It's about half and half. Our clients include architects and designers, as well as people who simply want to live more sustainably. What we find most exciting are the big jobs, like schools or public buildings, where they use hundreds of square metres of our material. Assembling it is demanding, but when successful, the outcome tends to be highly impressive.

That initial process, the dismantling of materials—how do you find those opportunities?

V: Sometimes architects write to us, at other times contractors or homeowners. We employ three methods to recover such materials: we carry out the dismantling ourselves, or the suppliers themselves deliver the material directly to our warehouse, for which they receive a share of the eventual sales price. And then we have agreements with companies that dispose of surpluses—for example when tile or terrazzo collections are changed. We are happy to take over such ‘overstock’ and offer it to someone else.

You can't save everything from buildings. The reason is not only their usability. There are also legislative and economic standards that need to be met. What are the most common barriers you encounter to reuse?

T: There are many barriers. They are cultural, legal and practical—for example, when a door is too narrow and the staircase you want to reuse simply won’t fit through. And there are demand barriers too, because most traders stick to pre-war materials they claim ‘just work’. There is more uncertainty with the post-war ones.

Right now, the whole system is set up in favour of new products—mass, one-way production. Is it a problem for you to get some materials to market?

T: Yes. Mainly because certification and testing are only worthwhile for large batches. Another problem is energy standards: old windows, insulation and lighting are difficult to reuse because today’s buildings have much stricter requirements. We work with small and varied batches, and it’s not possible to place the same demands on them. That’s why we are working to reduce VAT on used building materials, similar to how it already applies to bicycle or furniture repairs. Another problem is economic: labour is expensive, materials are cheap. It is cheaper to import new stone from India than to pay a local worker to dismantle and clean it. What’s needed here is a real system change.

And how do you fight prejudice in society? People often think that new is more trustworthy than used...

V: We don't really discuss this much with clients, as most of them already know why reuse makes sense. Yet it helps a lot if you give the material a story. We note the origin of every batch. When people know that a tile came from a hospital or a historic building, they relate to it. And they often discover that even ordinary material from an ‘ugly’ building can be beautiful in a new context.

T: In my view, people generally do not oppose reuse per se; rather, they are apprehensive about potential complications. They think it's going to be more difficult. That’s why we try to make reuse as simple as possible, providing a technical sheet, a warranty and all the necessary information with the material. So that they know what they are buying and can relax.

Do you think reuse could ever be extended to everyday materials from today’s regular production?

T: Unfortunately, no. Today's materials are often designed only for short-term use—they are thinner, layered and coated with plastics. They can't be fixed. In a few decades, when the current stock of quality materials from the 1960s to 1980s runs out, reuse will become much more difficult. What are we going to do with all the PVC and chipboard that we now fill our houses with?

How should the reuse continue to evolve? What is your primary focus at Rotor now?

T: The circular economy is inherently local because it depends on the proximity of materials and labour. Cities can help a lot, for example by setting aside space for storing materials and by supporting local businesses. We started out with the clear aim of promoting reuse, but now many other initiatives are emerging, so we are thinking more about our specific role.

We want to emphasise two things: expanding reuse through digital tools, and reminding people that reuse was historically a common practice. Sometimes simple steps are enough, such as setting aside city space for a materials warehouse.

The imbalance between cheap materials and expensive labour also remains a problem. Reuse requires people who know how to work with materials physically, and Europe is losing them. That is why we now focus on research, digital tools and education—because reuse is not just a technique, but a way to reassess our relationship to material culture.

Listen to a recording of the lecture by representatives of the Rotor collective at CAMP: