« Scarano Faces Two Lawsuits Sales Begin at The Steelworks Loft »

September 29, 2008

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 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.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/6451

Comments

This was a fascinating article. It seems like it's going to a be an uphill battle getting most developers on board. I hope, over time, this becomes more and more standard.

Posted by: lowintheheights at September 29, 2008 9:43 AM

Lisa;

Another day, another lesson for us. Your articles are increasingly taking on a sermonizing tone. In trying to send out these sermons on an almost daily basis, I wonder if you take the time to think through the implications. Some of the statements are astounding just on the face of it, such as this one:

"It takes two weeks and a dozen wage earners to do what a piece of hydraulic machinery accomplishes before lunch,"

What is being advocated here is that very basic building materials are more valuable than human labor. This is a profoundly pessimistic statement that comes close to a doomsday statement of scarcity and devolution. Rather than employ modern machinery that requires high human capital in engineering, manufacturing and quality control, we are advocating sending 12 guys out to search for scrap of non-valuable material!!!!!

Do you think these "wage earners" will be bringing in a decent wage? What are the odds that they are illegal immigrants making slave-like wages? I think that anyone who is advocating for this scheme should be required to go out and recruit the workers. I would LOVE to hear the recruiting pitch. Is this what environmentalism has come down to?

Please stop the sermonizing and take a minute to reflect on the implications of what you are advocating.

Posted by: benson at September 29, 2008 10:06 AM

Hey Benson, you dope, that was a quote from the article!

Posted by: This Aint No Disco at September 29, 2008 10:13 AM

Spoken like a true blue capitalist, benson. Yes, you're right on the numbers you quote, but wrong on the underlying (dare I say ethical/moral/environmenatal) issues.

Would you say the same thing about a fine watchmaker repairing an 18h century timepiece...what a waste of time (;)), get a throw-away Swatch instead.

Or a Shakespearean scholar spending his entire life on the meanings of esoteric phrases written 400 years ago? Why can't he invent a cure for cancer instead?

Or are those are "acceptable" occupations, unlike deconstruction, and therefore OK?

Not everything is quantifiable.

And, yet, the irony of your comments on the value of labor vs. matériel is that, since the jury is still out on the whole issue of what constitutes "lifetime cost", "systemic effect" etc. (externalities), we might indeed some day find that the latter is higher than the former.

Posted by: cmu at September 29, 2008 10:19 AM

This ain't no disco;

Thanks for that really valuable comment. I hadn't realized it!! I was wondering why there were quotation marks around the statement......

To get serious about the matter: what is the point of her article? To apply an exclamation point to the Times' pious sermons on the absolute importance of being green, to the exclusion of any other economic and societal considerations? Where is some critical analysis? Look at her own words: "So perhaps we can learn a lesson" and "even a couple of "green" condo projects stand in lots once occupied by humble, wood-framed homes". Is this serious analysis?

I can read the Times as well as the next guy. What is the point of Lisa's article? To provide a link and a hallelujah?

Posted by: benson at September 29, 2008 10:22 AM

"It takes two weeks and a dozen wage earners to do what a piece of hydraulic machinery accomplishes before lunch,"

Reads like a pretty objective comparison to me. If you're looking for a fight, you can usually find one.

Posted by: altervoce at September 29, 2008 10:24 AM

So, Benson...

I would posit the notion that the folks hired to *deconstruct* a building are the same folks that are hired to *build* the new structure. Is manual labor bad thing? Do you think that manual labor is magically no longer part of the construction business??!!

The fact of the matter is that "non-valuable material" is not the case! If it were truly non-valuable then there wouldn't even be near a economic incentive to deconstruct instead of demolish... BUT there is a CLEAR incentive to recycle and reuse these materials!

Posted by: tybur6 at September 29, 2008 10:25 AM

Benson,
The point of the post, like most of the articles that get re-blogged, is to highlight it for people who missed it and to provide a jumping-off point for discussion.

Posted by: brownstoner at September 29, 2008 10:28 AM

I also found the article interesting. I thought it made the case on an environmental, and for me, aesthetic level, for the reuse of building materials, specifically anything from before 1940. Any good builder will tell you that the lumber used then was better and stronger than most of what we have now. Standards of measurement were better - a 2x4 was actually 2" by 4", not the shaved off approximations we have now. That makes a difference, cumulatively, in the strength and resiliancy of construction. As the article states, much of a good building can be reused, and that doesn't even include the decorative elements.

Like most of us, I do what I can, environmentally, but probably not nearly enough as I could. As in our general economic and energy policies, Americans need to realize that our resources are not unlimited, and we've come to the time in our history that we are going to have to change how we use everything. Now, not later. In the case of tear downs, and there is a lot of tearing down going on everywhere, the need for thoughtful and careful demolition and salvage is more important than ever.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at September 29, 2008 10:29 AM

CMU;

We are not talking about fine 18th-century Swiss watches or Shakesperean prose here. If you read the article, we are talking about guys spending time taking nails out of baseboards and salvaging gypsum, one of the most plentiful materials on earth.

You dodge my basic question: what kind of wages could be paid to workers who perform these tasks? This kind of work would only be valuable in an economy of scarcity, and that is the premise of the article. As I said, it is a profoundly pessimistic view, that I doubt many people will buy into.

I would have more respect for those who advocate for this approach if they signed up for this work. Until then, I believe that is these advocates who are on the moral low ground. I would prefer that people be educated so that they can be the engineers, quality control specialists and operators of hydraulic machinery, rather than junkyard workers.

Posted by: benson at September 29, 2008 10:33 AM

Benson, Lord knows I want people to be educated, and rise above minimum wage grunt labor. But the fact remains that until we get robots to do it, people are going to have to. I'd rather a worker was earning an honest wage pulling nails out of baseboards, than hanging out on the street doing nothing. Work has value beyond a paycheck.

Of course I would rather anyone be trained for higher skilled work. That still leaves the task to be done. Of course I would want those unskilled workers to make a living wage, and be equipped and trained with high safety standards and equipment.

In the meantime, and even with all that, the job still remains to be done. Skipping all that and moving to the bulldozer denies workers the chance to work, albeit at unskilled labor, and adds tons of useful material in landfill piles, while we pollute the air and cut down the forests for replacement materials.

I don't see what's not to like here, unless the bottom line of cost efficiency is all that matters.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at September 29, 2008 10:43 AM

Benson says, "I would prefer that people be educated so that they can be the engineers, quality control specialists and operators of hydraulic machinery, rather than junkyard workers."

Wow... and what would the QC specialists be overseeing? And the hydraulic machinery operators... what happens when the machine has completed its work? What are the engineers engineering?? Just for fun or are there workers realizing these plans? There is always manual laborers. They are part and parcel an important part of EVERY construction/demolition project. What is wrong will using this labor to do something beneficial to the earth - and I dare say - beneficial to the bottom line of the developer.

If you haven't done manual labor, you don't know how hard it is... that is your argument??!! I don't even know where to go with this line of thinking. Basically you're saying manual laborers are slaves and are treated that way... and there is no reason manual labor exists other than to pad the pockets of rich folks with uncalloused hands.

The simple fact is that we cannot tear down a 15 story building and toss it into a landfill (or create artificial mountains and islands). It's nice that you highlighted gypsum... give me a break. The issue is concrete, steel, copper, wood, stone, etc etc. These are VALUABLE materials that can be recycled (metals) and reused (stone, wood, etc). These are commodities that are bought and sold. And, guess what, they ARE bought an sold. Not because someone told them to, but because folks make a PROFIT doing so.

Why should these resources be tossed into a hole in the ground (which still requires lots of labor) instead of collected, sorted and recycled??!!

Posted by: tybur6 at September 29, 2008 10:47 AM

Tyburg;

So far, you've been the only one to make a realistic point here, and so it deserves a serious response.

Yes, there is still manual labor involved in construction, no doubt about it. However, there is a key difference between the two industries.

As opposed to deconstruction, there is also alot of higher-value-added positons in construction: operators of hydraulic machines, welders, riggers, carpenters, electricians, etc. Those who start at the bottom can have a future. These bottom positions serve as a stepping stone. The construction industry has a well-developed apprenticeship and certification process for human resource development.

What future is there in a scrap operation? Foreman of the scrap workers?

I think we have lost a sense of balance with this extreme environmentalism and worship of old things.

Posted by: benson at September 29, 2008 10:50 AM

benson- if you don't get it, you just don't get it. Perhaps if we weren't so ready to trash everything and go for new, the environment would be healthier, and economy would be more diverse (you may not believe this but even "junkyard workers" can hold jobs and be productive, contributing members of society).

"To apply an exclamation point to the Times' pious sermons on the absolute importance of being green, to the exclusion of any other economic and societal considerations?" Where do you get this stuff from? If the environment goes, economic and social considerations will be moot. Your ilk has reiterated this point over and over again and the result is still the same- the environment is getting worse. You really just don't get it.

And you really need to get off of Lisa's back. she's just doing her job. This is brownstoner's blog- not yours. You don't get to tell them what they can and can't post.and you're free not to read or post here. The rest of us aren't having that problem.

Posted by: bxgrl at September 29, 2008 10:50 AM

Montrose Morris -- You said, "I don't see what's not to like here, unless the bottom line of cost efficiency is all that matters."

The fact is (and I'm agreeing with your here, but clarifying)... recycling and reusing can actually HELP the bottom line. All of these materials can be SOLD. You PAY to have materials put in a landfill.

Of course, it depends on the project. But as with everything, the bigger the project the more cost-effective recycling and reusing activities can be.

And guess what... When you rent dumpsters and PAY for the demolition materials to be carted away, the refuse company uses manual laborers to sort through your trash to find treasure. Do you think they are stupid enough to simply toss the valuable materials into the ground?!

If the builder did this up front... much more material could be salvaged and sold. Throwing materials into a dumpster causes damage so the refuse company may not be able to salvage and sell many items (wood, stone, etc.)

Posted by: tybur6 at September 29, 2008 10:55 AM

"As opposed to deconstruction, there is also alot of higher-value-added positons in construction: operators of hydraulic machines, welders, riggers, carpenters, electricians, etc." and

"What future is there in a scrap operation? Foreman of the scrap workers?

I think we have lost a sense of balance with this extreme environmentalism and worship of old things. "

So let me get this straight- only so-called higher value-added positions are worthy? I think the only one who has lost a sense of balance is you- since when does anyone have the right to look down on someone who does an honest day's work? I think you've invented a new concept- work snobbery. but I did enjoy how you attempted to make it sound as though you did care about the poor, uneducated, illegal junkyard workers. No one disagrees education and training gives people access to better jobs. The reality is many can't afford it and not every job needs an engineer.

So unless you're willing to fund a worker education program (and I see no evidence that you do), all your blather about high value-added jobs is just that. In the meantime, there are people who need a roof overhead, food and clothing. And they want to work for it. If you're that worried about the wages they get paid, put your industry behind it and demand they get better pay. then maybe they can even afford the education they need to get better jobs.

But until then, get a grip.

tyburg6- thanks for the great detailed breakdown of how recycling salvage really works and why it works. Perhaps that's benson's real fear.

Posted by: bxgrl at September 29, 2008 11:15 AM

Bxgrl;

Once again, in your zeal to argue with me, you mis-stated my position.

I am not demeaning entry-level jobs. For your information, my father and his brothers started in the construction industry, at the bottom, and worked their way up. This latter statement is the point you are missing. NO ONE wants to stay at the bottom in a dead-end low-paying position, even if they start out there. Everyone wants to move up in this life, and my point was that the construction industry provides this path, whereas the scrap industry does not. As to the funding of the workers, you again missed my point: the construction industry has an extensive worker education and certification program, that is funded by the industry itself. Go to the Mercantile library on 44th Street in Manhattan and look at the courses offered to the trades, paid for by a consortium of the industry and its unions. Show me an equivalent for the salvage industry.

If you think that tybur6' analysis was spot-on, then you apparently have little experience with the industry. He completely misses the time value of money. Again returning to the statement I referenced, this advocate states that it takes 2 weeks to accomplish what can be done in 1/2 day with machinery. Putting aside the issue of labor costs that I've already discussed, is there any consideration of the cost of stalling a project for two weeks. The construction industry lives off of borrowed money. Is there any accounting for the interst costs.

Posted by: benson at September 29, 2008 11:27 AM

actually benson- I didn't miss a thing. You communicated your point poorly. I would also point out I am hardly the only one zealous to engage you on your comments. Although your complaining is quite funny since in the past you have done this many times to me and without provocation, so don't whine now.

I certainly agree no one wants to stay at the bottom of the ladder but in your book jobs should only go to engineers, hydraulic lift operators, etc. You entirely miss the point of the salvage industry. It isn't to replace the construction industry. It has a different market and fills a different niche. And yes, the construction industry does have all these lovely programs but no. 1- they aren't good with outreach; no. 2 in those industries there is a more than fair amount of nepotism; no.3- there are a limited number of jobs, no.4- not every lower income person can afford to go through the process, no.5- not every business can afford to hire them once they have gone through the apprenticeship system, no. 6- I don't see them reaching out to immigrants to help them get green cards or a leg up. And isn't that shortsighted? these guys would be legal and pay taxes and social security. If they want to do the work, why not give them a chance? There's room for all approaches here- but slash and burn construction serves no real purpose in the long run, doesn't help the environment, and has limited positions available.

The other issue with construction- how much of it can we do? We've more new construction in this country than we have buyers for it. NYC may be an exception, but especially now, the construction industry is going to feel a big big pinch. Everyone will feel it. And like back in the 70's and 80's, there will be a lot of skilled construction people out of work.

Yes- the article did say it takes 2 weeks as opposed to half a day. But at the end of that half day all you have is one or two guys working, and a big pile of trash. At the end of 2 weeks, you have a bunch of people working, recyclable materials and salvage for other businesses to also make money on. It's broader and covers more ground. And as MM points out, much of that salvage is better quality than what's produced today.

Posted by: bxgrl at September 29, 2008 12:03 PM

I know for a fact that many of these demolition businesses use illegal immigrants. I know someone who worked for them and he told me how many of the crew were illegal. Oftentimes its one of the first types of jobs they get until they make connections to get something better. The conditions are extremely hazerdous and all they usually get are those cheap paper masks.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 29, 2008 12:03 PM

"slave-like wages"

SLAVES don't earn wages. That's why they're slaves.

Posted by: East New York at September 29, 2008 12:20 PM

East New York:

Actually, the conditions of slaves varied markedly in history. Some certainly were treated like beasts of burden, but you'd be surprised how many in history were given stipends as a means of motivation. The carrot and the stick approach has almost always been used, and rarely has it been just the stick - especially considering slaves historically were not exactly cheap.

Most slave-based societies also allowed for slaves to purchase their freedom. This was even possible to varying degrees in the United States until the importation of slaves was banned and their individual value increased commensurately.

Anyway, the issue of motivating people to work is a complex one. We may have outlawed slavery well over a century ago, but we are all slaves to a degree - especially when you consider almost everyone who is not rich works a substantial portion of their lives (about 2 months a year) to pay interest, whether personal or governmental. In these days of $700,000,000,000 bailouts, it is important to highlight the degrees of slavery.

Posted by: Polemicist at September 29, 2008 12:35 PM

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.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at September 29, 2008 1:20 PM

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.

Posted by: Biff Champion at September 29, 2008 1:24 PM

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.

Posted by: benson at September 29, 2008 1:26 PM

"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.

Posted by: East New York at September 29, 2008 1:33 PM

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.

Posted by: bxgrl at September 29, 2008 1:51 PM

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!

Posted by: benson at September 29, 2008 2:01 PM

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. ;)

Posted by: PeterSteinberg at September 29, 2008 3:23 PM

"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.

Posted by: bxgrl at September 29, 2008 3:29 PM

'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.

Posted by: cmu at September 29, 2008 5:15 PM

« Scarano Faces Two Lawsuits Sales Begin at The Steelworks Loft »

September 29, 2008

The Times on Deconstruction

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions