Silicate Ontology

Proposal for the Estonian Pavilion at the 2025 Venice Architecture Biennale

Confronted with ecological crises and resource scarcities, architects are discovering renewed hope in old materials. Principles of the circular economy are gaining traction, and both buildings and materials are being reused in search of site-specific responses to global challenges. Such approaches, however, often stem from a technocratic global imaginary in which material is seen as a neutral element — an abstract and interchangeable resource — disregarding the rich cultural baggage embedded within it.

In Estonia, construction practice has demonstrated that the implementation of circular thinking is hindered not merely by technical limitations but, to a significant extent, by semiotic complexities and culturally embedded value systems — factors that are often obscured by the dominant technological narratives of the architectural discourse. Material reuse demands a foundational assumption: that a resource is worth a new life cycle. But what constitutes value? What happens when the technical potential of a material is overshadowed by a deep-rooted social stigma passed down through generations? In seeking answers, we turn our attention to one of Estonia’s most common and contested materials: the silicate brick.

To reduce carbon emissions, it is pertinent to engage with materials that are locally abundant, widely available, and readily reusable. Yet this knowledge is confronted by a practical dilemma: the materials most sought after for reuse do not often align with those most discarded. In shaping a popular Nordic aesthetic, natural stones — imbued with national undertones and a dignified image — readily find renewed life. By contrast, the artificial stones of the 20th century, which constitute a significant portion of Estonia’s built environment and demolition waste, remain haunted by the stigma of the Soviet occupation. The reputation of silicate brick has deteriorated to such an extent that, even in heritage contexts, it is regarded as ‘extremely mundane, ordinary, and therefore devoid of value’ (Mändel, 2019).

Nevertheless, silicate offers considerable potential. Beyond the reuse of existing silicate bricks, their reproduction demands fewer raw materials than that of clay bricks. Moreover, through a reversal process involving temperature, lime, and steam, it is possible to autoclave silicate bricks anew from old ones — resulting in lower energy use and reduced carbon emissions when compared to clay or concrete bricks (Emley, 1917). Until as recently as 2021, Estonia still maintained a locally based silicate production and supply chain dating back over a century (AS Silikaat, 2021).

Silicate thus exemplifies a material with high technical potential but low social value — a discrepancy rooted in historical stigma. Its story sheds light on the more obscured aspects of material circulation that are rarely foregrounded in Western design discourse. The biennale installation juxtaposes the material itself with the evolution of its reputation — offering a kaleidoscopic view in which narratives from material science, Estonian architectural history, and cultural anthropology interweave to unpack the discredited status and future possibilities of silicate. The display invites both international and local audiences to reflect on whether — and how — a material burdened with the legacy of occupation might be reborn anew.

Location

Date

Status