This diploma studio inscribes itself not only in the wide ambition of the DAUERHAFTIGKEIT as written out by the chair of Elli Mosayebi, but also in the wider ambition of our own chair regarding the ideas shared in the 333% -33,3%- 3,33%-studios, in which we are on the search of a critical evaluation of the RE-USE entitled RE-THINKING-RE. Not only a better understanding of the ECONOMY and ECOLOGY and ERGONOMY of RE-USE is the focus, moreover an alternative attitude is the ambition. The 3,33% and 33,3% and 333% idea could also be rephrased as re- and RE- and (P)RE-. Let’s explain the ideas one by one. As possible critical variants on the idea of RE-USE. The 33.3% or RE- is the first possible critical variant of 100% act. The idea that a CONTEXT can be APPROACHED rather by INTERVENTION—ECONOMY, ECOLOGY, ERGONOMY—and that this could be good enough as a new standard: To explore the possibilities of a more restrained, humble but precise action. This is in many ways an attitude of economy of means. Less energy of action, of course, means less economy and ecology, but it could also require changing the attitude of use effectively today. This could also make it a question of ergonomics: how to USE the given context differently and yet act less? The 333% or (P)RE- is the second possible critical variant of the 100% act. The idea that a CONTEXT can be CREATED that yet today takes into account a MULTIPLE MULTIFUNCTIONAL MULTIFLEXIBLE chance and that it would be better to take this as a new standard. To explore the possibilities of a more flexible, adaptable but pragmatic action. In many ways, this is an attitude of future planning. More possibilities could mean less action and therefore less economy and ecology needed later, but will require a change of attitude of use yet today. It could therefore also become a question of ergonomics: how to PREPARE the CONTEXT differently to better enable future RE-USE? The 3,33% or re- is the third and last possible critical variant of 100% act: To act immediately. This is an attitude of understanding the emergency. More immediate action could mean less action and therefore less economy and ecology, which are needed today. At the same time it could open up a debate that perhaps only a small change in attitude would be good enough. By that, it could also become a question of ergonomics: how to CHANGE the ATTITUDE IN USE?