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.
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??!!
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.
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.
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 2×4 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.
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.
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!
“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.
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?
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.