Glass. Aluminium. Repeat. Why it’s time to question the default.

There’s a system underpinning most commercial office fitouts that has become almost invisible. Not because it’s simple, but because it works so reliably.

Aluminium internal glazed partitions have become a kind of default language. Clean lines, modular systems, predictable outcomes. No one really questions it. It works.

Until you start asking a very simple question: What’s the carbon footprint of the frame itself?

We tried to answer that. Not in a theoretical way, just a straightforward comparison. Take a typical internal aluminium glazed partition, quantify the embodied carbon, and compare materials. The kind of exercise that should be routine by now.

But when it comes to aluminium partition systems, the data isn’t easy to find. Not at the level where decisions are actually made. There’s good information on aluminium as a material. There are detailed studies on façades and window systems. But internal glazing frames - the systems used across almost every commercial fitout - tend to sit outside that level of scrutiny.

So we had a crack at it ourselves, using real data where we could, and filling the gaps carefully where we couldn’t. What we found was far more significant than we expected.

Let’s run the numbers.

Per kilogram of material, primary aluminium typically sits around 16 kg CO₂-e . That figure reflects the “mine-to-metal” process, not the extrusion or any subsequent shaping into finished profiles. By comparison, an engineered timber like ours sits closer to 0.5 kg CO₂-e per kilogram, based on our current product footprint. That’s not a marginal difference. It’s a completely different starting point.

We could stop there and call it a day; it certainly makes timber look good!

But framing systems aren’t made from equal masses of material. Aluminium sections are extruded and optimised to be lightweight. They are hollow whilst timber profiles are typically solid. But even when accounting for the fact that aluminium uses significantly less material per metre, the embodied carbon remains an order of magnitude higher.

Using published weights from common Australian partition systems (eg. systems from Alspec), aluminium framing profiles often fall in the order of ~1.5 to 2.5 kg per metre, depending on the section and configuration. An equivalent hardwood timber profile would sit at around ~3 to 4kg per metre. So even if timber uses roughly twice the material, aluminium still comes in at around 15 times the carbon per metre.

Aluminium is a remarkable material. No one is disputing that. But it also comes with a very specific carbon profile. It requires a chain of extraction and processing that is fundamentally energy-intensive. By the time it reaches a building site, most of its embodied carbon is already locked in. Sure, we can try and refine at the margins, choosing “better” aluminium.

But the more powerful move? Questioning whether it needs to be the default in this application at all.

It was never about the material.

Let’s be honest, the dominance of aluminium in internal glazing isn’t really about the material. It’s about the system.

Aluminium didn’t win because people love it. It won because it enabled a way of building that made sense: modular components, repeatable junctions, fast installation, and predictable outcomes. It reduced risk. It standardised a complex process. That’s what the industry adopted; not aluminium for its own sake, but the reliability of the system it supports. So any alternative has to meet that same expectation.

The question isn’t whether another material can replace aluminium in isolation. It’s whether it can operate within the same system logic; the same rhythms of design, documentation, and construction. That’s where the opportunity sits.

If a material like engineered timber can be produced in consistent sections, integrated into standard partition layouts, and installed using familiar methods, then the barrier to change becomes much smaller. It’s no longer a redesign of the system, it’s a shift in what that system is made from.

And once that shift is viable, the carbon difference becomes difficult to ignore.

Beyond what we can measure.

There’s also a secondary effect that’s harder to quantify, but equally visible.

Most office interiors today share a common visual language. Aluminium and glass create spaces that are precise and efficient, but often feel interchangeable. Timber introduces something else. Not softness or nostalgia, but variation. Texture. A sense that the material has origin and depth.

Importantly, it does this without disrupting the underlying system. The geometry remains disciplined. The detailing remains clean. The difference is in how the space is experienced.

Which brings the conversation back to where it started.

Internal glazing isn’t going anywhere. It’s too useful, too embedded, too effective as a spatial tool. But the material that defines it has largely gone unquestioned. As embodied carbon becomes a more immediate constraint on design, those defaults start to matter more. Not just in large, structural elements, but in the repeatable systems that make up the majority of a fitout.

Aluminium partitions solved a problem. Now we have the opportunity to solve the next one.

ReFramed is our attempt to do exactly that.

This is what happens when you stop accepting the default.

ReFramed is our take on a modular timber glazing system for commercial interiors. It comes from spending a lot of time looking at what works about aluminium, and asking whether the material itself could be reconsidered without losing that logic.

If you’re curious to see how it all comes together, have a look at the ReFramed brochure.
We also shared the thinking and the journey with Australian Design Review here.

And if you’re working on a project or just exploring options, we’re always up for a conversation. No hard sell, just a chance to talk it through.