When selecting materials for urban outdoor furniture, city planners and architects increasingly face a choice between traditional wood and modern recycled plastic lumber. This comparison examines how each material holds up under the demanding conditions of public spaces.
Recycled plastic lumber, made from post-consumer plastics like bottles and containers, offers exceptional durability. It is inherently resistant to moisture, insects, and rot—common foes of traditional wood. Unlike wood, it does not splinter, crack, or require sealing, staining, or painting. This translates to significantly lower long-term maintenance costs and less downtime for repairs in parks, plazas, and streetscapes. Its color is typically consistent throughout the material and resists fading, though it can be susceptible to thermal expansion in extreme temperatures.
Traditional wood, particularly hardwoods like teak or cedar, provides a classic aesthetic and natural feel that many find irreplaceable. However, in urban settings, it requires regular maintenance to prevent weathering, decay, and insect damage. Without consistent upkeep, wood furniture can quickly become unsightly, unsafe, or need replacement. Treatments with chemical sealants also raise environmental and maintenance concerns.
From a sustainability perspective, recycled plastic lumber gives a second life to waste plastic, diverting it from landfills. While wood is a renewable resource, the pressure on forests and the carbon footprint of treatment and transportation are important considerations. For urban projects prioritizing "set-and-forget" durability, minimal lifecycle cost, and a clear recycled content story, plastic lumber is a robust contender. For projects where natural aesthetics and initial cost are paramount, properly specified and maintained wood remains a viable option. The optimal choice depends on balancing upfront budget, long-term maintenance capacity, environmental goals, and the desired visual character for the public realm.