[MassHistPres] Sustainability vs. Demolitions

[RafaelRobertDelfin]

Hi Jack,

I also think that this is a great idea. In my town Dighton, countless old
houses have been demolished through the decades and we have a 6-month
demolition delay. Extending the delay to 18-24 months on the basis of
sustainability is something new to me and I will surely bring the idea up
for discussion during our next commission meeting on May 9. One of the
oldest houses in Dighton (circa 1700) is located in a national historic
district; it has been condemned for being unsafe and the bank that owns it
will demolish it and replace it with an ultra-modern housing complex whose
architecture and overall look does not conform to the overall historical
look of the area. I think extending the demolition delay will, although not
guaranteed, may encourage the developers to consult with the local
historical commission as far as designing and building a new house so that
it will reflect the history of the neighborhood.

Best,

Rafa Delfin
Vice-Chair & Clerk, Dighton Historical Commission

On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 10:51 AM swermiel--- via MassHistPres <
masshistpres at cs.umb.edu> wrote:

> 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
>


-- 
Rafa Delfin
774-766-2928
rafadello at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20230430/4897ae77/attachment.html>