The Times on Deconstruction
Teardowns are as much a problem in non-landmarked Brooklyn areas as they are in other parts of the country (even a couple of “green” condo projects stand in lots once occupied by humble, wood-framed homes). So perhaps we can learn a lesson from Brad Guy, a deconstructionist — and we don’t mean that in an…
Teardowns are as much a problem in non-landmarked Brooklyn areas as they are in other parts of the country (even a couple of “green” condo projects stand in lots once occupied by humble, wood-framed homes). So perhaps we can learn a lesson from Brad Guy, a deconstructionist — and we don’t mean that in an academic way — who is trained in the fine art of advanced salvage, and profiled in the NY Times Magazine this weekend. Deconstruction, dismantling and reusing building materials rather than just junking them, is becoming more popular. “The demolition industry has identified 14 recyclable building materials, but it only recycles three in any real volume: concrete, metal and wood,” they write. But it has some drawbacks: Deconstruction can be cheaper than demolition, but it can never be faster. “It takes two weeks and a dozen wage earners to do what a piece of hydraulic machinery accomplishes before lunch,” they write, but it does provide jobs, not to mention lightening the carbon footprint of the building industry, which produces more pollution and consumes more energy than any other business sector, according to Architecture 2030. We know a couple of demo projects that might be a good fit (see above).
This Old Recyclable House [NY Times]
Decon2. Photo by horseycraze.
‘That sounds less like “critical analysis” to me and more like critical puffery.’….wish I’d said that!
I too don’t understand benson’s attack against the “salvage industry,” using the term as a pejorative. Deconstruction and salvage would not exist if the market was not supportive (a command-and-control approach is never possible here, and rules like Austin’s happen not because of ethical and responsible considerations but only because the industry has been convinced of their economic benefits, however small.)
And the complaint about no upward mobility…well for one thing you could say the same thing about millions of job-holders, from fast-food burger flippers to taxi drivers. What does that have to do with anything? It’s a job, and, if and when the worker decides to move, laterally or upward, it’s no reflection on the “industry.” For that matter, even the salvage industry probably has *some* hierarchy for movement, and, since they are working in concert with benson’s more lauded construction industry, a salvage worker may have the latter’s opportunities available as a side-effect.
Finally, comparing the construction industry’s worker education and other plans (flawed or otherwise) to their lack in the salvage industry is disingenuous. The former has been around for centuries, and is orders of magnitude larger; the latter, just a few years.
“What I am against is arguments that have a certain shrillness to them, and that is why I take Lisa to task. If a salvage industry develops that can make a buck, salvage some resources and provide a decent living, well then, bully for them!!! What I won’t stand for, however, are articles that proclaim “green-ness” as the only factor to be considered.
Believe it or not, I am the environmental movements’ best friend. In what way? Simple – I provide critical analysis, something that Lisa certainly does not do.”
Obviously the salvage industry can make a buck and is doing so. They aren’t trying to be the construction industry so why compare them? They each have a part to play but somehow you feel all defensive.You’re overreacting- like they’re advocating the dismantling of the entire construction industry and not simply highlighting an aspect of approaches to building. That sounds less like “critical analysis” to me and more like critical puffery.
I was actually surprised that Bloomberg’s NYC2030 didn’t REQUIRE building materials, or at least a certain percentage, to be recycled.
In Austin, Texas ALL demolition materials MUST be sorted and recycled.
And you know what? It saves money. Instead of paying people to haul off your dumpsters and pay them to landfill it, you get PAID for the debris buy a company that sorts it out and recycles pretty much ALL of it in one manner or another.
Homeowner makes $$.
Business makes $$.
Jobs are created.
Environment benefits.
Maybe the only downside is the added time it would take to demo in a slightly more thoughtful manner. But when it comes to single family homes, the This Old House episode that showed the demo and sorting made it seem as if you can just jumble it all together as you typically would and then it’s sorted on the recycling center site.
After all, they’re trained to do that work so they’ll be more efficient at it. Also, it’s a better use of space to sort it out 20 miles out of town instead of in the middle of the city. And sorting it elsewhere allows for faster demo.
Now, could this be applied to larger buildings here in NYC? Not sure. But many are not just knocked down with backhoes — after all, neighbors are too close. A lot are carefull dismantled piece by piece.
Peter
http://www.FlashlightWorthy.com
Recommending books so good, they’ll keep you up past your bedtime. 😉
Bxgrl;
I was going to give up on the debate with you, thinking that we had just reached an end to it. However, I think there are a few more points worth making (PS: Montrose, this is for your too).
I certainly agree with some of your criticisms of the construction industry – it is far from perfect in these regards. However, having said that, I would ask: using your criteria,how does the salvage industry stand up? The results speak for themselves, as DIBS pointed out. The construction industry has been a huge draw for immigration into this country as these folks see an opportunity to improve their lives. Can the same be said for the salvage industry? I think not.
Finally,let me make the most important point: I am not against the idea of “going green” or the growth of a salvage industry. What I am against is arguments that have a certain shrillness to them, and that is why I take Lisa to task. If a salvage industry develops that can make a buck, salvage some resources and provide a decent living, well then, bully for them!!! What I won’t stand for, however, are articles that proclaim “green-ness” as the only factor to be considered.
Believe it or not, I am the environmental movements’ best friend. In what way? Simple – I provide critical analysis, something that Lisa certainly does not do. As my father once put it in his colorful way: “Only your friend tells you that you have snot hanging from your nose”.
Have a good day!
stipends? He must be referring to the entrails and greens slave owners allowed their slaves to eat.
Next time poley, figure out the difference between an indentured servant and a slave. There’s a world of it.
“but you’d be surprised how many in history were given stipends as a means of motivation.”
It’s like shooting fish in a barrel with you, Polemicist. Where is your evidence of the veracity of this statement? Again, like many of the posters here, you attempt to present your opinion as fact without any supportive, third-party evidence.
Folks;
Just to be clear: when I used the term “slave-like wages”, I meant it as a metaphor for very poor working conditions. I did not intend to claim that there was an equivalence between actual slavery and these jobs.
Basically, I agree with what Montrose just said.
Pole, and I suppose the Holocaust was a nice way for the Jews to get out and enjoy the countryside on their way to the concentration camps.
Polemicist, please don’t try to turn this into a defense of slavery. Slavery is one of the greatest evils in the history of the world, no matter how you spin it. No human being should own another, period. I don’t care if some were treated better than others, or some could get a stipend, or buy their freedom. When you do not even own yourself….I can’t even go on. It is a far cry from being a wage slave, and being a real one, so while the analogy may seem relevent, it really isn’t.