[MassHistPres] Sustainability vs. Demolitions

[annelusk at gmail.com]

Jean and All,
     The tool is excellent, but it still only addresses the historic
building. To demonstrate the full climate change contribution of historic
buildings, we also need to credit the lawn, soils, and trees around the
historic building.  
    To explain, the building is a one-time carbon sink (cutting of lumber,
energy use for milling, taking lumber to site, etc.) while the land, soils,
lawn, and trees around the historic building continue to draw in and store
ever increasing amounts of carbon.  In contrast, construction of a new
building often involves cutting mature trees, excavating deeply, removing
the deep-rooted and microbe-rich lawn, leaving rubble in place of topsoil,
and constructing a much larger building on the land. 
     The 'greenest building is the one that is already built' cannot measure
up the ever-present energy-efficiency-hype of new buildings. 
     The greenest property is the one that keeps the carbon-drawdown lawn,
soils, and trees and the carbon-storing building. 
Anne

-----Original Message-----
From: Jean Carroon <Jean.Carroon at goodyclancy.com> 
Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 8:21 AM
To: annelusk at gmail.com; swermiel at verizon.net; 'Jack LeMenager'
<jlemen11 at icloud.com>; 'MHC MHC Listserve' <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
Subject: RE: [MassHistPres] Sustainability vs. Demolitions

Hi All,
There is a new free very easy to use tool http://www.caretool.org/ that
compares the carbon impacts of reuse vs. new construction.

Jean Carroon, FAIA, LEED Fellow
Principal - Design, Preservation and Sustainability Goody Clancy
direct: 617 850 6651



Building reuse is climate action! - Lori Ferriss

-----Original Message-----
From: MassHistPres <masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu> On Behalf Of Anne Lusk
via MassHistPres
Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2023 8:12 PM
To: swermiel at verizon.net; 'Jack LeMenager' <jlemen11 at icloud.com>; 'MHC MHC
Listserve' <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Sustainability vs. Demolitions

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-quantifyin
g
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