Scarcity Contra Austerity

 The idea of scarcity contra austerity was difficult for me to grasp and I am not sure that I fully do now. My basic understanding of Austerity is that it is an ideology. It is defined as an imposed reduction of public services and social benefits. This is in response to the physical condition of scarcity. There are limitations on what we can and can't do based on what materials are deemed scarce. Scarcity, a physical condition, is defined as the measurable dwindling of finite resources. I don't think this is a new idea. Builders have used what they had to create all along. The exciting part of architecture to me is the creativity in constraints. Jeremy Till argues that "the focus of designers needs to shift away from simply using less, as under the rule of austerity, to understanding the constitution of scarcity -- where and why and how resources are lacking -- and grappling with this in a creative manner." Is it more noble to use what we have or what is pre-existing to build what is needed now? The question I was trying to propose in the discussion was whether a new building built out of all new materials, that has all the green design implemented, is ultimately more wasteful than repurposing an old building? Taking the wood that is already milled or the steel that is already formed, in an old structure, to serve a new purpose.