[MassHistPres] MassHistPres Digest, Vol 64, Issue 21

[Pam Howland]

Re: Sustainability vs. Demolition

Study by Place Economics for reusing buildings and building materials.

The study was published in February 2021 for the City of San Antonio.  A
direct link can be found
https://www.sanantonio.gov/Portals/0/Files/HistoricPreservation/Deconstruction/Treasure%20in%20the%20Walls.pdf?ver=2021-04-25-115830-417

Information about deconstruction vs. demolition is available at
www.buildreuse.org.

Pam Howland
Cummington
(413) 552-9255



On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 12:00 PM <masshistpres-request at cs.umb.edu> wrote:

> Send MassHistPres mailing list submissions to
>         masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         masshistpres-request at cs.umb.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         masshistpres-owner at cs.umb.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of MassHistPres digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Sustainability vs. Demolitions (swermiel at verizon.net)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:22:48 -0400
> From: <swermiel at verizon.net>
> To: "'Jack LeMenager'" <jlemen11 at icloud.com>, "'MHC MHC Listserve'"
>         <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
> Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Sustainability vs. Demolitions
> Message-ID: <001e01d979fe$6ff87bf0$4fe973d0$@verizon.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="utf-8"
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> MassHistPres mailing list
> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
> https://mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of MassHistPres Digest, Vol 64, Issue 21
> ********************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20230429/1f4c4b23/attachment-0001.html>