As a notable Front Runner to emerge from the Regenerative Architecture Index, we spoke to Studio Bark about bioregionalism, material sourcing, and integrating the work of ecologists and arboriculturalists among others into the studio’s practice.
Studio Bark. (Credit: Tom Joy)
How does bioregionalism inform your design process, and what benefits have you seen from mapping and sourcing local materials?
A building has a duty to its place and we view the building and landscape together as a unity. This begins by understanding the ecological state of a site and exploring interventions that can simultaneously supply construction materials and enhance biodiversity, empowering clients to become true stewards of the land.
Do you have an example of this in practice?
One example is a recent project where we collaborated with local foresters to identify trees that needed to be felled for the health of the forest. Instead of discarding timber typically unsuitable for standard construction, we incorporated it into a structural system that celebrated the character and history of the site as the centre of a 19th-century woodworking trade. This approach enabled us to showcase the potential of site-won materials, which are often overlooked in conventional construction.
By mapping locally available materials and crafts early in the project, the building becomes more than just an object in the landscape — it evolves as a part of it. This practice fosters connections to the local economy, minimises the carbon footprint, and results in buildings that resonate more deeply with their surroundings.
Working with students from the University of East London, Studio Bark, created Spindles, a roof-supporting column crafted from otherwise unusable timber felled as part of the woodland management plan for an ancient English woodland. (Photo credits: Millie Naylor and Shannon Childs).
What are some of the challenges you’ve faced when balancing local sourcing with the need for specialized materials in projects like Thatch House?
Time and expertise are often the primary, and sometimes conflicting, challenges in balancing local sourcing with specialised materials. Traditional crafts like thatching have evolved over millennia, and we must avoid oversimplifying them in our specifications. This requires time and deep, nuanced conversations to understand the socio-political, environmental, and craft context — often at odds with the pressure of an architect’s timesheet and the need to stay on schedule.
For Thatch House, we addressed this by consulting a series of local master thatchers early in the project. This allowed us not only to map local material availability but also gauge the accessibility of skilled labour and craft knowledge in the region. Engaging with these experts ensured we respected and integrated their expertise, ultimately enriching the project.
A rendering of Thatch House.
How do you prioritise materials in your sourcing hierarchy? And what factors might lead you to source from further afield?
Our material sourcing hierarchy places local materials at the forefront, but we recognise that achieving a low-impact home sometimes requires sourcing certain materials from further afield. For instance, we may bring in PV panels and heat pumps to lower operational energy requirements, or use screw piles to minimise the building’s impact on the land.
This approach is integrated into our lifecycle analysis, allowing us to compare the carbon cost of transporting materials with the operational carbon savings they bring. By quantifying this trade-off, we gain a clearer picture of the carbon balance across the building’s lifecycle.
However, designing with a regenerative system mindset often calls for judgment beyond carbon accounting alone. For the long-term stewardship of the site, it can be beneficial to prioritise ecological gains that may not easily translate into numbers — elements like biodiversity enhancement, soil health, or even community value, which is where consultants and local input are hugely helpful. In these cases, we try to consider the broader ecological context, aiming to balance sustainability with sensitivity to the landscape and its future.
How do you integrate the knowledge of ecologists, arboriculturalists, and other land specialists into your design process?
The majority of our projects involve these specialists from the start of Stage 2, allowing us to incorporate their insights as early as possible without risking client costs. Often, we delay certain design work until we have ecologists, arboriculturalists, and other specialists on board so we can collaborate proactively and iteratively. We regularly invite them to design charrettes, client meetings, and even planning or design review presentations, as their expertise often becomes a central theme of the project.
We seek consultants who go beyond ‘box-ticking’ for surveys and planning, prioritising those who can engage in open, meaningful discussions about the project’s direction. With the welcome introduction of mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain, we’re finding it increasingly challenging to source consultants who can dedicate the time needed to actively participate in the design process, as many ecologists are now in extremely high demand.
U-Build in action. (Credit: Andy Billman)
How has the U-Build system evolved since its inception, and what adaptations have you made to make it more accessible for self-builders?
U-Build is constantly evolving. Originally created by us (Studio Bark), a significant adaptation has been establishing U-Build as a not-for-profit organisation in its own right. This transition allows other architects to specify the U-Build system more freely, transforming it into a standalone product and consultancy.
From the start, U-Build has been designed with self-builders in mind — even six-year-olds have successfully built with it! Over the years, we’ve focused on streamlining the process by introducing structural ceiling and floor components with simplified junctions, along with an easily removable cladding system. We now CNC-cut the pieces in-house, which helps us manage production costs and keep the system accessible.
Can you share an example of a project where the adaptability of the U-Build system influenced a design?
The first house built with U-Build — Box House in 2017 — was designed with adaptability in mind, allowing for a future extension to add a third bedroom as the client’s needs or budget evolved.
This potential expansion influenced the house’s initial form, incorporating a ground floor outrigger that could later support an upper-level bedroom. In 2017, we laid the foundations to accommodate this future addition, even including a concealed door in the upstairs external wall, ready to connect to the new bedroom.
This adaptability was recently put to the test, as we completed the extension this month, building it on-site with the client and a group of students from the University of East London. This collaborative build highlights the flexibility of the U-Build system and its capacity to grow alongside its users. We even reused the existing roof insulation – only moving it up a floor!
What is the process of calculating the carbon draw-down potential on rural sites?
To achieve a net zero carbon scheme we often propose an onsite offsetting strategy, which relies on the carbon drawdown effect of trees. This is usually based upon a landscape scheme that proposes additional tree planting in an equal mix of fast, medium and slow-growing species. The impact calculation is based upon available data for carbon sequestration of trees and their survival factor, starting with a larger proportion of saplings to account for this.
Visit the Regenerative Architecture Network to read responses from all of the 68 practices who participated in the Regenerative Architecture Index.
Source: Architecture Today
