“There is no waste in nature. When a leaf falls from a tree it feeds the forest. Waste is a human invention.”
Blank page, maybe a quote
Ellen MacArthur Foundation1
1. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, “Regenerate Nature,” Accessed May 10, 2025, https://www. ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/regenerate-nature.
Waste is the core motivator for this project. It is one of the most tangible and recognizable symbols of humanity’s degradation of the natural environment. The circular economy offers a holistic response to this issue, reducing waste while also bringing a myriad of other societal benefits.
To create truly sustainable cities, we need more than green technologies and infrastructure—we need a new mindset.
This project proposes a shift toward circular urbanism, an approach that draws on the circular economy to rethink waste as a resource, localize production and consumption, and regenerate nature in cities.
To demonstrate the potential for circular urbanism, the project applies circular economy principles to the proposed redevelopment of Acadia Park, a residential neighbourhood within the UBC Vancouver campus. As the area faces major densification in the coming decades, it presents a critical opportunity to reimagine how communities can grow in ways that are ecologically integrated and socially cohesive.
Grounded in research and site-analysis, the project proposes design goals for redevelopment based on five key themes: Buildings and Infrastructure, Material Lifecycles, Ecosystem Services, Food Networks, and Shared Systems. Special attention is given to Shared Systems to explore their spatial and social implications in greater depth.
While the project outlines specific themes and goals, its primary objective is to offer a case for circular urbanism as a transformative framework—and to provide a replicable methodology—for designing cities that thrive in balance with the natural world.
Fig 1. Material flow diagram process sketches.
INTRODUCTION
Abstract
Acknowledgements
Acadia Park: A Case Study
Conceptual Framework and Themes
BUILDINGS + INFRASTRUCTURE
Site Analysis
Design Goals
Narrative
MATERIAL
LIFECYCLES
Site Analysis
Design Goals
Narrative
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Site Analysis
Design Goals
Narrative
Site
Site
Design
Design
Fig 2. Children’s book process sketches.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was developed as part of the DES 403 design studio course at the University of British Columbia School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, between January and May 2025. I am thankful the course allowed me to pursue a topic of particular importance to me.
I am deeply grateful to have had the privilege over the past four years of my undergraduate degree to live, work, and learn as an uninvited guest on the ancestral, unceded, and continually stewarded territories of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh Nations, as well as other Indigenous peoples who have cared for these lands since time immemorial.
This project is inspired, in part, by indigenous ways of knowing and being, in harmony with natural systems. Practices such as taking only what is needed, giving back what is not, taking care of one another by sharing resources, and respecting, protecting, and connecting with the natural systems that sustain us, are foundational to the concept of circularity.2
Although my project is not explicitly focused on indigenous approaches to planning circular communities, future work on this topic would greatly benefit from indigenous perspectives.
I would also like to extend my sincere thanks to:
Bill, Ruijie, and Ida for their mentorship throughout the term.
My BDES peers for their continuous support and openness to exchange ideas.
Tamano for always contributing fresh and inventive ideas when I felt stuck.
My parents for financially supporting me through school and fostering my values and interests.
2. Anderson Assuah, “Examining the Impacts of Culture on Solid Waste Management in Two Canadian First Nations,” AlterNative 19, no. 2 (2023): 466–74, Accessed May 10, 2025, https://doi. org/10.1177/11771801231163635.
ACADIA PARK A CASE STUDY
PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT UNDER CAMPUS VISION 2050
Fig 3. Context map of Acadia Park.
UBC VANCOUVER CAMPUS
ACADIA PARK STUDY AREA
Acadia Park is a low-density residential area on the eastern side of the UBC Vancouver campus. It is home to childcare facilities and student housing, primarily for student families. The influence of this unique demographic distinguishes it from other areas on campus and fosters a distinct sense of community. The variety of architectural styles and eras—ranging from the late 1950s to the 2020s—along with remnants of past demolitions, ongoing renovations, and generous green spaces, creates a palimpsest of built form that reflects the diversity of the residents who call Acadia Park home.
Acadia Park is slated for major redevelopment over the next 25 years, with UBC’s Campus Vision 2050 proposing a nearly fivefold increase in population.3 As one of the last remaining areas on campus with significant unbuilt space, Acadia Park presents a unique opportunity to demonstrate the potential of circular urbanism as a model for creating sustainable, resilient, and socially cohesive communities.
3. UBC Campus + Community Planning, Campus Vision 2050 (2023), 61, Accessed May 10, 2025. https://planning.ubc.ca/sites/default/ files/2024-11/20241031_CV2050_Final-v23_ Dec2023.pdf. The almost fivefold increase in population is the author’s estimation, assuming a current population of 2000 residents. With an additional 3600 units, the population could easily climb to 9200 with an average household size of 2.0 like in Wesbrook Village.
Fig 4. Collage of present-day Acadia Park
A HOME FOR US
A STORY OF A COMMUNITY FACING CHANGE
Further research into the proposed redevelopment of Acadia Park revealed two opposing perspectives held by the university and residents. Although the redevelopment would bring much needed housing and income to the university, it would inevitably come at a cost of current residents’ way of life, potentially severing community ties, and losing treasured communal spaces.
To represent this tension, I created an interactive, pop-up children’s book, which presented both perspectives in an impartial way, suggesting that both could be accommodated through a different approach to redevelopment.
To view the full book and references I used to create it, please visit:
issuu.com/bencrthomas/docs/a_home_for_us
Fig 5. The front cover of the children’s book.
Fig 6. Flipping through the pages of the children’s book.
ANNUAL MATERIAL FLOWS IN ACADIA PARK
PRESENT, PROJECTED, AND POTENTIAL
Fig 7. Annual material flows of 3 alternative visions of Acadia Park.
I also analyzed the redevelopment from a quantitative perspective by mapping the annual material flows into and out of Acadia Park. Currently, about 60% of residential waste is sent to landfill.4 If no changes are made to how this material is managed, that amount is projected to increase fivefold along with the population—taking up as much physical space in the landfill as two fully built Vancouver Specials every year.
But what if there were another way? Imagine a system where 90% of all material inputs could be recovered on-site and reintroduced through reuse, repair, or recycling. This is the vision that circular urbanism aims to realize.
4. Metro Vancouver, Solid Waste Management Annual Summary 2023 (2025), 4, 6, Accessed May 10, 2025, https://metrovancouver.org/services/ solid-waste/Documents/solid-waste-managementannual-summary-2023.pdf. The flows and quantities in the diagram are speculative assumptions based on personal knowledge about UBC’s waste management system, and public Metro Vancouver waste data.
Fig 8. Word cloud and collage of a potential circular Acadia Park.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
KEY CONCEPTS
3 Core Principles of the Circular Economy5
• Eliminate waste and pollution
• Circulate products and materials
• Regenerate nature
INFLUENTIAL TEXTS
Source 1: Ellen MacArthur Foundation, “Circular Economy Introduction”
The Circularity Ladder (10 R’s)6
This resource outlines the circular economy as a design-driven framework for eliminating waste, circulating materials, and regenerating nature. It distinguishes between biological nutrients (which safely return to nature) and technical nutrients (which stay in continuous use). In a circular economy, buildings and products are modular, repairable, opensource, and disassemblable. This shift decouples economic activity from resource use, enabling cities and systems to mimic ecosystems and generate environmental, social, and economic value.
Source 4: Anderson Assuah, “The impacts of culture on solid waste management in two Canadian First Nations”.
This study examines how First Nations cultural values shape municipal solid waste management in indigenous communities. Based on interviews with the Peguis and Heiltsuk First Nations, the study identified five key cultural influences on waste practices:
• Minimizing waste by taking only what’s needed
• Sharing to reduce excess
• Protecting the land
• Respecting the land
• Maintaining a spiritual connection to place
Source 2: Kate Raworth, Donut Economics
This book proposes a shift from GDP-driven growth to a regenerative, distributive, systems-based economy. Her seven principles advocate meeting human needs within planetary limits, focusing on equity, regeneration, and circular design. She emphasizes collaboration, transparency, and modularity as critical to success.
Source 5: Arup and Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Circular Buildings Toolkit
This toolkit provides principles, strategies, and actions for advancing circularity in building construction and demolition. The principles include:
• Build nothing
• Build for long-term use
• Build efficiently
• Build with the right resources
Source 3: William McDonough and Michael Braungart, Cradle to Cradle
Chapter 3 of this book advocates for “ecoeffectiveness” over “eco-efficiency”—working on the right products, services, and systems, rather than just making the wrong things less bad. It emphasizes designing for abundance that benefits both people and nature, just like a cherry tree’s spring blossoms.
Source 6: Patrick Condon, 7 Rules for Sustainable Communities
While not explicitly about circularity, this book’s sustainable urban design principles—like density, walkability, mixed land use, and green infrastructure— enable circular practices. They foster sharing economies, local repair and reuse, and reconnect cities with natural systems, reducing environmental impacts and infrastructure costs.
Fig 9. The circularity ladder.
5 THEMES
To begin exploring how the circular economy could be applied to the built environment, I identified five themes, or focus areas, to guide the project. These focus areas were adapted from the City of Richmond’s Circular City Strategy—a local precedent that offers a holistic framework for advancing circularity at the municipal scale.7
The themes also served as lenses for site analysis, helping to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats within the context of Acadia Park. This analysis, combined with the literature review of various circular economy principles and strategies, informed the development of design goals for each theme. The following pages detail the site analysis and proposed design goals under each theme.
5. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, “Circular Economy Introduction,” Accessed May 10, 2025, https://www. ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/topics/circulareconomy-introduction/overview.
6. City of Richmond, Circular City Strategy: Advancing a Circular Economy in Richmond (2023), 8, Accessed May 10, 2025, https://www.richmond. ca/__shared/assets/circularcitystrategy202366556. pdf. The circularity ladder presents a clear hierarchy of preferred actions, prioritizing strategies like refusing and reducing, while positioning recycling and disposal as the least desirable options from a circularity standpoint.
7. City of Richmond, Circular City Strategy, 16.
BUILDINGS + INFRASTRUCTURE
The design, construction, and maintenance of the built environment to support durability, adaptability, and circular material use.
MATERIAL
LIFECYCLES
The production, consumption, and management of goods and materials to maximize use and reduce waste.
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
The function of natural systems within the built environment to support services such as climate regulation, stormwater management, and biodiversity.
The production, distribution, and consumption of food, with an emphasis on regenerative practices, low waste, and community access.
The communal use of spaces, infrastructure, and resources to minimize material consumption and strengthen social connections.
BUILDINGS + INFRASTRUCTURE
The design, construction, and maintenance of the built environment to support durability, adaptability, and circular material use.
8. Based on conversation with Acadia Park’s Building Services Manager, March 4, 2025.
9. Kiran Mahal, Acadia Park Community Needs Assessment Results (UBC Board of Governors, 2014), Accessed May 10, 2025, https://bog2.sites.olt.ubc.ca/ files/2014/01/4.7_2014.02_Acadia-Park-Report.pdf.
10. UBC Campus + Community Planning, Campus Vision 2050, 97.
11. UBC Campus + Community Planning, Residential Environmental Assessment Program Reference Guide Version 3.3 (2023), 59–69, Accessed May 10, 2025. https://planning.ubc.ca/sites/default/files/2023-07/ REAP%203.3%20Reference%20Manual%20-%20 July%2025%202023_0.pdf.
12. UBC Campus + Community Planning, Campus Vision 2050 and Housing Action Plan: Ten-Year Review (2022), “Zoom-In: Acadia,” Accessed May 10, 2025, https://planning.ubc.ca/sites/default/ files/2024-06/Campus-Vision-2050-and-HousingAction-Plan-Ten-Year-Review.pdf.
STRENGTHS
(Good things that are working well, supporting features)
• Robust concrete construction of Acadia Highrise requires minimal maintenance and can continue to be used for several more decades.8
• Some components have potential to be disassembled and reused (brick veneer, pavers, wooden shakes, windows, wooden lattice, metal railings, vinyl siding, dimensional lumber).
• Spaces and buildings are well-used and at full occupancy.
• Overall urban design and arrangement of units is successful at fostering social interactions and family-raising.9
WEAKNESSES
(Bad things that are working poorly, hindering features)
• Exterior components of townhouses require frequent replacement, with asphalt shingles, wood shakes, and frencing being replaced about every 12 years.8
• Most buildings are designed for residential use and would require significant alterations to adapt them to different uses.
• Townhouses are a relatively low density housing typology.
• Hardscapes and surfaces are functional, but deteriorating, with paved areas often uneven.
• SHCS is committed to ongoing maintenance and repair of built assets, supporting longevity.
• Strong resident attachment to existing spaces, suggesting support for continued repair or retention over replacement.9
• Aging buildings and planned densification offer opportunities to design new structures with circularity in mind.
• Parking lots and underused breezeways present potential for infill or repurposing.
• CV 2050 and current UBC policies (LEED/ REAP) encourage circular building design through adaptive reuse, retrofits, lifecycle assessments, responsible material sourcing, and C+D waste diversion requirements.10, 11
• Plans and massing presented in CV 2050 assume complete replacement over retrofitting, risking loss of usable structures, including existing medium-density housing stock.12
• Proposed tower developments increase structural and material demands, hindering circular design potential.
• Current demolition and renovation practices often overlook material reuse, with diverted C+D waste typically downcycled.
• Preference for conventional construction practices and high upfront costs pose barriers to adopting circular approaches.
Built in 1967, Acadia Highrise is one of the oldest remaining structures in Acadia Park.13 Its robust concrete construction and ongoing maintenance make it well-suited to support circularity through extended use and adaptability.
13. University of British Columbia Archives, “UBC Buildings Chronology,” Accessed May 10, 2025, https://archives.library.ubc.ca/buildings-grounds/ ubc-buildings-chronology/.
Fig 10. Acadia Highrise in 1970.
LEGEND
Fig 11. Buildings and Infrastructure site map.
DESIGN GOALS
• Retain, reuse, and repurpose existing buildings, especially newer and more robust ones, where possible.
• Extend the life of existing assets while minimizing maintenance requirements.
• Prioritize redeveloping underutilized or previously developed sites rather than demolishing existing buildings or expanding into undeveloped areas.
• When buildings must be removed, maximize deconstruction and reuse of components on-site in new developments.
• Prioritize mid-rise over high-rise construction to reduce structural and material demands.
• Design new buildings for long-term value, and use responsibly-sourced materials efficiently.
Fig 12. Visualization of Buildings and Infrastructure design goals.
15. UBC Campus + Community Planning, Zero Waste Action Plan (2023), 1, Accessed May 10, 2025, https://planning.ubc.ca/sites/default/ files/2023-08/230608_ZWAP.pdf.
STRENGTHS
(Good things that are working well, supporting features)
• Land use supports service-based economy and the production of knowledge, social capital, and food.
• Various programs on campus to promote mindful consumption (Mindful Move-Out Market, online marketplaces, thrift stores).
• Informal sharing of household goods among residents reduces unnecessary purchases.
• Residents have access to recycling infrastructure for common materials.
WEAKNESSES
(Bad things that are working poorly, hindering features)
• UBC relies entirely on external sources for supplying goods and materials, and for recycling and waste processing.
• Higher consumption per unit due to child-related purchases (diapers, formula, toys, clothes).
• Some mindful consumption resources and businesses are limited, seasonal, or inconvenient for families.
• Limited information, education, and incentives for recycling, leading to poor waste sorting and high contamination rates.
• Waste sorting areas are often inconvenient, uninviting, exposed, and not accessible, increasing contamination and attracting illicit dumping.
• Redevelopment could integrate small-scale consumer goods production, and provide sustainable consumption options for families.
• Children’s clothing and toys offer strong reuse and repair potential.
• Student families value affordability, making reducing and reusing attractive.
• CV 2050 intends to “provide infrastructure to enable circularity in food and waste systems”, including a new works yard, which could support on-site materials management.14
• UBC is committed to “Zero Waste 2030”, targetting a 50% waste reduction.15
• International residents may be unfamiliar with local recycling systems and face language barriers.
This is one of many waste enclosures scattered throughout the complex. Despite efforts to meet the recycling needs of today with additional sorting streams, the legacy infrastructure inherited from the late 1980’s hinders waste diversion efforts. A combination of factors makes these enclosures prone to poor sorting and dumping.
Fig 15. Waste sorting enclosures and litter in Acadia Park.
LEGEND
Fig 16. Material Lifecycles site map.
DESIGN GOALS
• Support knowledge production and community building as zero-waste forms of production.
• Enable low-impact production of material goods on-site.
• Develop on-campus composting, recycling, and residual waste facilities.
• Provide commercial spaces for businesses promoting circularity, including small-scale repair services, refill stations, and second-hand markets.
• Design highly visible, accessible, and user-friendly waste sorting areas to maximize diversion.
17. Visualization of Material Lifecycles design goals.
Fig
Fig 18. Narrative illustration showing a circular business.
Fig 19. Narrative illustration showing an on-site recycling facility.
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
The function of natural systems within the built environment to support services such as climate regulation, stormwater management, and biodiversity.
16. Diamond Head Consulting, UBC Campus Vision 2050 Ecological Baseline (UBC Campus + Community Planning, 2023), 20-30, Accessed May 10, 2025, https://planning.ubc.ca/sites/default/ files/2024-03/2023-09-21_UBC_Ecological_ Baseline_Report.pdf
17. Kiran Mahal, Acadia Park Community Needs Assessment Results 70–71.
18. UBC Campus + Community Planning, Campus Vision 2050, 77-85.
19. UBC Campus + Community Planning, Campus Vision 2050 and Housing Action Plan, “Zoom-In: Acadia.”
STRENGTHS
(Good things that are working well, supporting features)
• Green spaces are plentiful, diverse, and easily accessible to residents, fostering connections with nature.
• Large areas of vegetation allow for benefits such as rainwater infiltration, evapotranspiration, and biodiversity support.
• Tree canopy coverage is relatively high (40%).16
• Pockets of forest have moderate to high ecological value.16
• Forested areas and central greenspace provide significant cooling.16
WEAKNESSES
(Bad things that are working poorly, hindering features)
• Most vegetated areas are fragmented, disturbed, or developed resulting in low ecological value.16
• Residential areas have limited permeable surfaces and rely on catch basins for stormwater management.
• Some trees in paved areas are struggling due to poor soil and water access.
• Invasive species, litter, and human trampling reduce habitat, biodiversity, and forest health.
• Large grassy turf areas require extensive maintenance, resulting in financial costs and emissions from gas-powered equipment.
• Strong support from residents in preserving green spaces, especially for children.17
• Community programming often revolves around green space, fostering community values of environmental protection and sustainability.17
• Open grassy areas could be transformed into pollinator meadows or used for small-scale agriculture, enhancing ecological productivity.
• CV 2050 proposes a “diagonal connector”, running through Acadia Park and seems to preserve most areas with high ecological value.18
• CV 2050 and UBC policies support biodiversity, tree canopy expansion, Musqueam stewardship, and the use of natural systems for climate resilience, water management and education.18
• CV 2050 proposes development that would remove much of the central green space and many mature trees.19
• Increased population along with a reduction of green space will strain remaining areas and risk further ecological degradation.
• Loss of vegetation , increase in hard surfaces, and greater human activity will intensify urban heat island effects.
• More impervious surfaces will increase runoff, putting more demand on grey stormwater systems, and contribute to erosion and pollution downstream.
This photo shows Acadia’s park-like setting, with mature trees and open lawns. While visually appealing, the lawns are underused and maintenance-intensive. They have potential for more ecologically productive uses.
Fig 20. Lawn being maintained under mature trees.
LEGEND
TREE CANOPY HEIGHT
ECOLOGICAL CONDITION
REVITALIZATION OPPORTUNITIES
Fig 21. Ecosystem Services site map.
DESIGN GOALS
• Use campus-generated compost to improve soil health.
• Require all new developments to contribute to a net increase in tree canopy.
• Protect ecologically valuable forest pockets from trampling to encourage understory growth.
• Increase ecological value of grassy areas.
• Create opportunities for increased rainwater infiltration in existing and new development.
• Retain mature trees and preserve as much green space as possible.
Fig 22. Visualization of Ecosystem Services design goals.
• Keep extracted site resources onsite and integrate them into new development.
Fig 23. Narrative ilustration showing a thriving park.
Fig 24. Narrative illustration showing a wooden play structure.
FOOD NETWORKS
The production, distribution, and consumption of food, with an emphasis on regenerative practices, low waste, and community access.
23. UBC Campus + Community Planning, “Community Gardens,” Accessed May 10, 2025, https://planning.ubc.ca/planning-development/ policies-and-plans/public-realm-planning/ community-gardens.
24. Kushank Bajaj and Navin Ramankutty, Canada Food Flows (UBC Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, 2025), Accessed May 10, 2025, https://canadafoodflows.ca/.
STRENGTHS
(Good things that are working well, supporting features)
• Existing community garden is centrally located, attractive, and well-equipped, supporting sustainable food growing for residents.
• Residents have access to food relief through the AMS Food Bank, Acadia Food Hub, and informal community support.
• On the southwest side of campus, the UBC Farm produces and provides fresh, local produce through markets, u-picks, and a CSA program, serving as model for sustainable food systems.
• Several food service and food retail businesses are nearby.
• Residents with balconies and terraces can grow food at home with raised planters.
• CV 2050 and current UBC policies prioritize sustainable food systems, including expanding gardens, food hubs, and reducing emissions.20
• Residents value the community garden and express interest in unit-level access to gardening space, as well as more affordable food options, such as a co-op grocery store.21
• 30–40% of UBC students are food insecure, which may be aided by more on-site food production and affordable grocery access.22
• Temperate climate conditions supports yearround growing of hardy crops.
• Open green space and underutilized areas have potential for expanded gardens, planters, or small-scale agriculture.
WEAKNESSES
(Bad things that are working poorly, hindering features)
• No edible landscaping or foraging options on-site. All food grown on-site must be in the garden or within units.
• Nearest grocery store is expensive for student families. More affordable options are over 15 minutes away.
• Residential food scraps are often contaminated and are composted off-site, limiting their potential for local soil improvement.
• Community garden is insufficent to reduce reliance on outside food sources.
• Community gardens are regulated and require a permit. Larger food-growing efforts are limited to the UBC Farm and may be difficult to realize elsewhere.23
• Many residents are low-income and are more likely to be food insecure.
• Nationally, 60% of vegetables and 80% of fruits are imported, posing a barrier to creating a local food system.24
• Many types of commonly consumed crops cannot be grown without climate controls.
The Acadia Park Community Garden is a valued communal space, with raised plots, a toolshed, and arbours to support on-site food production. Expanding its facilities could improve access for more residents and increase overall productivity.
Fig 25. Crops growing in the community garden.
LEGEND
FOOD ORGANIZATIONS Acadia
AGRICULTURAL OPPORTUNITIES
Save-On-Foods
DESIGN GOALS
• Integrate food gardens into all new residential development.
• Retain and expand community garden, with additional facilities for year-round food production.
• Explore the expansion of UBC Farm, utilizing the sunniest areas for commercial and academic crop production.
• Establish foraging and harvesting opportunities with on-site vegetation.
• Provide an affordable, permanent grocery store or market within the redevelopment.
Fig 27. Visualization of Food Networks design goals.
Fig 28. Narrative illustration showing the expanded community garden.
• Resident desire for expanded and more convenient shared facilities (laundries, commonsblock).27
• UBC and SHCS aim to reduce waste by 50% through circular initiatives, including reuse.
• Strong informal culture of sharing (food, toys, childcare, time, knowledge).25
• CV 2050 proposes more community-oriented facilities such as child care and “third spaces”.28
• CV 2050 prioritizes sustainable transportation modes, intending to reduce the supply of parking with greater mobility choice.29
WEAKNESSES
(Bad things that are working poorly, hindering features)
• Limited childcare capacity with long waitlists.
• Units are unfurnished, requiring each family to source their own furniture. This leads to excessive waste and illicit dumping during move-out periods.
• Mobility sharing options are often inaccessible or unaffordable.
• “Donated” items are collected weekly and distributed outside the community, limiting onsite sharing.26
• Surface parking for private vehicles dominates valuable space.
• Formal borrowing or repair systems for common items does not exist.
• Financial burdens and lack of time may affect student families’ ability to participate in shared systems.
• Most families own their own car, valuing freedom of mobility and assurance in emergencies.26
• CV 2050 proposes redevelopment that would remove many valued shared spaces.
• Introduction of a new demographic unfamiliar with family-oriented communities may fragment community bonds and reduce engagement with shared systems.25
Fig 30. Communal laundry in the Acadia Park townhouses.
This communal laundry features several examples of shared systems: pay-per-use washers/dryers, a community bulletin board, and a giveaway basket.
LEGEND
Fig 31. Shared Systems site map.
Communal Laundry (Cluster access)
The Beanery (Campus access)
Community Garden (Community access)
Commonsblock (Community access)
Childcare (Campus access)
DESIGN GOALS
2
• Redevelop existing surface parking lots, while expanding car-share and bike-share programs.
• Retain and enhance communal urban design and architecture that facilitates sharing and interaction.
• Develop additional childcare facilities and integrate them into new developments.
• Provide basic furnishings for highturnover rental units that are easy to repair, replace, and recycle.
• Create and expand commonsblocks to provide more shared amenities.
• Expand donation infrastructure and keep donated items within the community.
• Preserve Acadia’s family-oriented character and keep student families together to prevent fragmentation and support shared systems.
Fig 32. Visualization of Shared Systems design goals.
PRECEDENTS
To begin to explore the spatial implications of some of the design goals, I decided to focus on the Shared Systems theme, as it appeared to be the most successful out of all 5 themes. Notably, Acadia Park’s communal urban design, coupled with the shared demographics of student families, has facilitated community bonding and informal sharing of resources among residents. Interventions should aim to retain and enhance these qualities.
The following precedents offer successful examples of how some of the Shared Systems design goals can be approached. For each precedent, the applicable goals are listed, along with a description of how they are realized in the project.
31. Perkins&Will, “University of British Columbia, Orchard Commons,” Accessed May 10, 2025, https://perkinswill.com/project/university-of-britishcolumbia-orchard-commons/.
Vauban is a compact, walkable, and sustainable neighborhood built on a former military base. Its communal design—shared green spaces, mixed housing, car-free streets, and local services—fosters social interaction and resource sharing. It supports families with abundant outdoor spaces, schools, childcare, and daily amenities within easy reach.30
Precedent 2: Orchard Commons
Vancouver, BC
Orchard Commons is a mixed-use student housing complex built on a former parking lot, home to residential, academic, childcare, and health care facilities. Social interaction is fostered with an intuitive system of nested shared spaces, from the shared bathroom used by just two residents, to the commonsblock used by over 1000 residents. Units come pre-furnished, reducing individual purchasing.31
Precedent
3: Windsong Cohousing
Langley, BC
Windsong is an intentional community of 34 private townhomes flanking a central atrium to encourage interaction. In the “common house” there are shared amenities like an industrial kitchen, play room, workshop, and a “free table” to giveaway and share items within the community. Its limited size and contained nature is advantageous for developing deeper connections with neighbours.32
Fig 35. Central atrium in Windsong Cohousing. Fig 34. Floor lounge in Orchard Commons. Fig 33. Limited-access street in Vauban.
ZONING STRATEGY
NESTED SYSTEMS OF SHARING
SCALE
USERS
EXAMPLES OF SHARED FACILITIES
• Patio
• Balcony
• Kitchen
• Bathroom
• Storage closet
• Common lounge
• Kitchen
• Waste sorting
• Bike storage
To ensure Acadia Park’s existing shared systems are not threatened in the wake of redevelopment, I propose a zoning strategy based on nested systems of sharing. In this framework, all residents will have access to shared facilities, but the types of facilities and the number of people sharing them, vary by scale. Using this strategy ensures that student families do not have to compete for resources and amenities, while also allowing some crossover for broader community interactions.
• Laundry rooms
• Study rooms
• Waste sorting
• Courtyards
• Play areas
• Parking
• Commonsblock
• Recreational spaces
• Event spaces
• Parking
• Schools
• Small parks
• Community garden
• Small businesses
• Grocery store
The following site map visualizes this zoning strategy for a potential future Acadia, where buildings and spaces are color-coded based on access scale. Clusters and communities are grouped together, with each cluster having a shared space and each community having a commonsblock. Some areas, like the new garden, are accessible to the entire neighborhood, while businesses and childcare services are available to the whole campus.
• Academic buildings
• Transit
• Mobility sharing
• Large businesses
• Large parks
• Library
• Childcare
• Regional parks
• Conference spaces
• Cultural institutions
Fig 36. Nested systems of sharing table.
LEGEND
Fig 37. Potential Shared Systems site map.
Communal Laundry (Cluster access)
New Garden (Neighbourhood access)
Businesses (Campus access)
Childcare (Campus access)
Commonsblock (Community access)
To reduce unnecessary purchasing and material waste, I also propose a formalized sharing and giving system within the nested systems framework. In this system, shared items are continuously available to a community for borrowing, while giveaway items are first placed in a cluster’s “Giving Garage,” then moved to the community’s “Giving Centre,” and eventually transferred to the neighbourhood thrift store.
Fig 38. Sharing/giving system diagram.
Fig 39. Narrative illustration showing a “giving garage”.
Fig 40. Narrative illustration showing a community potluck.
“It’s not the solution itself which is necessarily radical but the shift in perspective with which we begin.”
Michael Braungart and William McDonough33
33. William McDonough and Michael Braungart, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things (North Point Press, 2002), 84.
LOOKING AHEAD
Creating a circular economy is necessary if we are truly committed to climate action and ensuring our communities can support future generations. This report presented a site-specific approach to integrating circular principles into the built environment through five themes or focus areas, using the redevelopment of Acadia Park as a case study.
However, this project does not represent all the potential approaches to planning circular communities. Different themes could be selected, leading to entirely different design goals, and a much greater level of detail could also be explored.
Instead, this project offers a methodology for how planning for circularity could be approached, organized around key questions:
• Why are we doing this?
• What existing concepts and principles inform this project?
• What are the conditions, challenges, and opportunities on-site?
• How has this been done before?
• How can it be done here?
• How will the findings be shared?
It’s important to acknowledge that the density proposed for the Acadia area in Campus Vision 2050 and UBC’s Land Use Plan may not align with the design goals outlined in this project. However, I believe that creating a circular, family-friendly community will require an environment more similar to Acadia Park today than to a towering urban centre. Green spaces, low/mid-rise housing, and shared facilities are critical for building community and promoting circularity. Therefore, density targets should be treated as goals to guide planning, not as strict mandates. Further work on this topic would benefit from a more thorough investigation into proposed density and how it could most appropriately fit on-site.
A major limitation of this project is the absence of direct community engagement. Due to limited time and resources, my ideas draw heavily from the Acadia Park Needs Assessment, which provides insight into residents’ perspectives around redevelopment, but is not a substitute for genuine consultation. Future planning must involve meaningful collaboration with community stakeholders from the outset. Nothing about the community, without the community.
Despite these limitations, I hope that this project serves as a starting point for future discussions on the redevelopment of Acadia Park and on sustainable urban development more generally.
Thank you for reading!
FIGURES
1. Material flow diagram process sketches, Author, 2025.
2. Children’s book process sketches, Author, 2025.
3. Context map of Acadia Park, Author, 2025.
4. Collage of present-day Acadia Park, Author with images from various sources, 2025.
5. The front cover of the children’s book, Author, 2025.
6. Flipping through the pages of the children’s book, Author, 2025.
7. Annual material flows of 3 alternative visions of Acadia Park, Author with images from various sources, 2025.
8. Word cloud and collage of a potential circular Acadia Park, Author with images from various sources, 2025.
9. The circularity ladder, Author, adapted from the City of Richmond, 2025, 8, https:// www.richmond.ca/__shared/assets/ circularcitystrategy202366556.pdf.
10. Acadia Highrise in 1970, Author with source image from UBC Archives, 2025, https://dx.doi. org/10.14288/1.0157440.
11. Buildings and Infrastructure site map, Author with images from Google Maps, 2025.
12. Visualization of Buildings and Infrastructure design goals, Author, 2025.
30. Communal laundry in the Acadia Park townhouses, Author, 2025.
31. Shared Systems site map, Author, 2025.
32. Visualization of Shared Systems design goals, Author, 2025.
33. Limited-access street in Vauban, Tom Brehm via Flickr, 2010, https://flic.kr/p/7EMyrC.
34. Floor lounge in Orchard Commons, Perkins&Will, https://perkinswill.com/project/ university-of-british-columbia-orchardcommons/.
35. Central atrium in Windsong Cohousing, Windsong Cohousing Community, https:// windsong.bc.ca/.
36. Nested systems of sharing table, Author, 2025.
37. Potential Shared Systems site map, Author, 2025.
38. Sharing/giving system diagram, Author, 2025.
39. Narrative illustration showing a “giving garage”, Author, 2025.
40. Narrative illustration showing a community potluck, Author, 2025.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arup and Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Circular Buildings Toolkit. Accessed May 10, 2025. https:// ce-toolkit.dhub.arup.com/.
Assuah, Anderson. “‘A Lot of People Ignore Our Culture When It Comes to Waste Management’: Examining the Impacts of Culture on Solid Waste Management in Two Canadian First Nations.” AlterNative 19, no. 2 (2023): 466–74. Accessed May 10, 2025. https://doi. org/10.1177/11771801231163635.
Bajaj, Kushank and Navin Ramankutty. Canada Food Flows. UBC Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, 2025. Accessed May 10, 2025. https://canadafoodflows.ca/.
City of Richmond. Circular City Strategy: Advancing a Circular Economy in Richmond. 2023. Accessed May 10, 2025. https://www.richmond.ca/__ shared/assets/circularcitystrategy202366556. pdf.
Condon, Patrick. Seven Rules for Sustainable Communities: Design Strategies for the Post Carbon World. Island Press, 2010.
Diamond Head Consulting. UBC Campus Vision 2050 Ecological Baseline. UBC Campus + Community Planning, 2023. Accessed May 10, 2025. https://planning.ubc.ca/sites/default/ files/2024-03/2023-09-21_UBC_Ecological_ Baseline_Report.pdf
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. “Regenerate Nature.” Accessed May 10, 2025. https://www. ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/regeneratenature.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. “Circular Economy Introduction.” Accessed May 10, 2025. https:// www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/topics/ circular-economy-introduction/overview.
Kiran Mahal, Acadia Park Community Needs Assessment Results. UBC Board of Governors, 2014. Accessed May 10, 2025. https://bog2.sites. olt.ubc.ca/files/2014/01/4.7_2014.02_AcadiaPark-Report.pdf.
McDonough, William, and Michael Braungart. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. North Point Press, 2002.
Metro Vancouver. Solid Waste Management Annual Summary 2023. 2025. Accessed May 10, 2025. https://metrovancouver.org/services/solidwaste/Documents/solid-waste-managementannual-summary-2023.pdf.
Perkins&Will. “University of British Columbia, Orchard Commons.” Accessed May 10, 2025. https:// perkinswill.com/project/university-of-britishcolumbia-orchard-commons/.
Raworth, Kate. Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist. Chelsea Green Publishing, 2017.
Stadtteil Vauban. “Quartier Vauban.” Accessed May 10, 2025. https://stadtteil-vauban.de/en/quartiervauban-2/.
University of British Columbia Archives. “UBC Buildings Chronology.” Accessed May 10, 2025. https://archives.library.ubc.ca/buildingsgrounds/ubc-buildings-chronology/.
UBC Campus + Community Planning. Campus Vision 2050. 2023. Accessed May 10, 2025. https://planning.ubc.ca/sites/default/ files/2024-11/20241031_CV2050_Final-v23_ Dec2023.pdf.
UBC Campus + Community Planning. Campus Vision 2050 and Housing Action Plan: Ten-Year Review. 2022. Accessed May 10, 2025. https://planning. ubc.ca/sites/default/files/2024-06/CampusVision-2050-and-Housing-Action-Plan-Ten-YearReview.pdf.
UBC Campus + Community Planning. “Community Gardens.” Accessed May 10, 2025. https:// planning.ubc.ca/planning-development/ policies-and-plans/public-realm-planning/ community-gardens.
UBC Campus + Community Planning. Residential Environmental Assessment Program (REAP) Reference Guide Version 3.3. 2023. Accessed May 10, 2025. https://planning.ubc.ca/sites/default/ files/2023-07/REAP%203.3%20Reference%20 Manual%20-%20July%2025%202023_0.pdf.
UBC Campus + Community Planning. Zero Waste Action Plan. 2023. Accessed May 10, 2025. https://planning.ubc.ca/sites/default/ files/2023-08/230608_ZWAP.pdf.
UBC Food Hub. “Food Security.” Accessed May 10, 2025. https://foodhub.ubc.ca/food-security/.
