[MassHistPres] Sustainability vs. Demolitions

[annelusk at gmail.com]

Dear All,
     I shared the attached document with Jack LeMenager,  Sarah White, Jenn Doherty and am sharing it with you in the hopes that it helps address climate change.  I have also been corresponding with Sherry A. Frear, RLA Chief and Deputy Keeper, National Register of Historic Places about the concepts. 
     Northampton had a call for proposals that included historic preservation and sustainability. I applied and didn't get the job but had expanded beyond just studying the historic building.  We need to include the historic building site, transportation connections to the historic building, and new populations if we want historic preservation to benefit climate.  
       I left this as a word document if you want to cut and paste any of the text.
With appreciation for your work,
Anne
      
Anne Lusk, Ph.D. 
18 Hart Street, Brookline, MA 02445 
Boston University Metropolitan College Part-time Faculty
617-879-4887 h
617-872-9201 c


-----Original Message-----
From: MassHistPres <masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu> On Behalf Of swermiel--- via MassHistPres
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2023 2:23 PM
To: 'Jack LeMenager' <jlemen11 at icloud.com>; 'MHC MHC Listserve' <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Sustainability vs. Demolitions

Hi Jack,
Great idea!
What you are referring to is called life cycle assessment (or similar terms), meaning the toting up of the range of environmental impacts of a building (or product), from beginning to end.
The National Trust did a study some years ago to test the idea that existing buildings are the greenest; you can read their findings and get copies of the report here: 
https://forum.savingplaces.org/viewdocument/the-greenest-building-quantifying
Much has been done since, but this is a place to start.
To quote the NTHP study,
"Building reuse typically offers greater environmental savings than demolition and new construction. It can take between 10 to 80 years for a new energy efficient building to overcome, through efficient operations, the climate change impacts created by its construction. The study finds that the majority of building types in different climates will take between 20-30 years to compensate for the initial carbon impacts from construction."
Impacts of course will vary with the buildings, but saving a standing building, with its embodied carbon, should always be the first choice. It would be good if developers had to show the life cycle impacts of demolition and replacement on the environment over retaining a building before its demolished.
Best wishes,
Sara Wermiel

Historian of technology/historic preservation consulting 70A South St.
Jamaica Plain, MA  02130 USA
617 524-9483

-----Original Message-----
From: MassHistPres <masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu> On Behalf Of Jack LeMenager via MassHistPres
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2023 11:53 AM
To: MHC MHC Listserve <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
Subject: [MassHistPres] Sustainability vs. Demolitions

The Winchester Historical Commission is beginning a joint effort with Winchester’s Director of Sustainability to build a case against demolition from the standpoint of sustainability. To save us a lot of effort, I’m wondering if any of you have undertaken such studies.

A few words of explanation, in case this is a new topic for you. The demolition of a historic house — any house actually — results in a massive amount of waste destined for landfills. The subsequent creation of a new house creates demand for a lot of new building materials, further depleting resources: lumber, and the many other materials and products that go into the creation of a new home. In addition, there is the expenditure of energy in collecting, processing, manufacturing, and shipping those products. Conversely, renovating an existing historic home, while still requiring some new materials, is vastly preferable from a sustainability standpoint. 

Our ultimate goal in gathering research data is to create a cogent, persuasive argument against demolition, and then to present it to Winchester Town Meeting in the hope of expanding our Demolition Delay bylaw from a 12-month delay to an 18- or 24-month delay. It is our feeling that the longer delay would discourage developers, many of whom do not now seem troubled by our 12-month delay. 

As a side note, if any of your towns have 18- or 24-month delays, we’d appreciate learning how you successfully argued for the expansion before your Town Meeting. 

Thank you, in advance, for your help.

Jack LeMenager
Winchester Historical Commission, Chair

781.454.7611
jlemen11 at icloud.com



_______________________________________________
MassHistPres mailing list
MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
https://mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres

_______________________________________________
MassHistPres mailing list
MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
https://mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Anne Lusk Hist Pres as Carbon Steward 05 24 22.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 1141723 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20230429/4faf1a71/attachment-0001.docx>