Anyone care to respond? Please cc: JTR listserve:
<jtrnet@valley.rtpnc.epa.gov>
Gary Liss
916-652-7850
Fax: 916-652-0485
In a message dated 4/21/99 6:50:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, turley@xsite.net
writes:
<< Subj: Deconstruction
Date: 4/21/99 6:50:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: turley@xsite.net (Bill Turley)
Sender: jtrnet@valley.rtpnc.epa.gov
Reply-to: jtrnet@valley.rtpnc.epa.gov
To: jtrnet@valley.rtpnc.epa.gov (Multiple recipients of list)
I read with great interest Gary Liss's glowing report on how ILSR has
convinced the Clinton Administration that deconstruction of public housing
is a great thing. How the next big thing in recycling is deocnstruction.
How much money is going to be spent. Interesting. I was privileged to peer
review a report, probably the one he refernces, on the Hartford project,
and found the document to be riddled with errors, misstatements, and
misrepresentations, especially of the demolition industry. I sent in my
comments, per the request of its authors, Neil Seldman and Kivi Leroux, but
I wonder if my points were used in the final document. Why? Because the
document did not deal with reality, and I threw a reality rain on the
parade that was planned.
Don't get me wrong, reuse of building materials is a great thing. And so is
providing an opportunity to develop "businesses and a vocational cadre for
the development of new employmen and entrepreneurship opportunities in
America's inner cites and towns." Deconstruction should be done whenever it
is viable. And we have some members of our association who are into
deconstruction, including a Board of Director who is on this listserve. But
I recently interviewed a grizzled veteran of the demolition industry about
deconstruction. He was doing it before most of us were born. Space does not
permit me to reprint the entire article, but talking with him is a reality
check. Let's go over a few points:
* Deconstruction, the next big thing, has been around for many, many years,
but it was called hand wrecking and it was done by demolition contractors
for a profit. Many of them had their own yards where they sold what they
salvaged. However, with the rise of OSHA regulations, problems with
certification of the materials salvaged, and the changing nature of
building materials, it became unprofitable for them to do it anymore. The
skills to do it are still around in some old timers in the demolition
industry, so why is there a big push to develop all these "new" techniques?
I wonder;
* As the Hartford study showed, and as did an NAHBRC study on
deconstruction of some Baltimore units (that study was really well done),
and as indicated by the ILSR report, deconstruction for the most part does
not work economically without a big government grant. Otherwise, you would
see every demolition contractor doing it, because these guys are in
business to make a profit. If one could make money doing it, they would.
Yet everybody seems to gloss over the fact that most of the time this is
not an economically viable activity. So what if we train some people how to
take apart buildings? After the government money runs out, these people
will have to learn the different skills required to build a building,
because deconstruction jobs will dry up;
* Relatedly, according to the demolition contractor, a study was done by a
University of Berkely student in Oakland on deconstruction versus straight
demolition. The study showed that the net cost to deconstruct a common, old
two-flat in the inner city, of which hundreds will have to come down in
that area in the next decade or so, would be $16,000, not counting sewer
caps and the like. That includes the revenue received from the materials
saved. By contrast, a straight demolition job,including tipping fees for
the waste, was $8000. I wonder which one the building owner will take,
unless there is a government grant;
* The whole mileu deconstruction would operate in has changed from the hand
wrecking days. Back then, the contractor had some time to take apart the
building before the construction contractor needed the site. That is gone
now. Now the developer has a lot of money invested and is paying interest
on the loan. He wants that old building out of there as quickly as
possible, and deconstruction would cost him a lot of money. Unless he is
getting subsidized by a government grant, forget about salvage of most of
the building.
* Safety is a tremendous factor. It can be more dangerous to take apart a
building than it is to put it up. To put unskilled people in there, even
with training and trainers present, is something to be concerned about. For
example, at the Port of Oakland such a program as described by ILSR is
taking place. It's called Youth Employment Project, and is training
disadvantaged youths by having them take down old Navy warehouses. A main
concern of the director of the program is that nobody gets hurt. He
admitted they have been lucky so far. It's probably just a matter of time.
In the hand wrecking days, there usually was one old guy training a couple
of young ones how to do it. That level of training is difficult and
expensive to get, if you can get it.
There are a lot more points that could be made. Here's the bottom line:
Deconstruction is great on paper, sounds good until you hit reality. Yes,
support deconstruction. Support training of disadvantaged youth. But go
into it with your eyes open. I doubt if this dose of reality will be seen
by HUD. They only got the rose-colored-glass view. Fortunately, there is
one team bidding on the preliminary stage of the HUD program that knows the
pitfalls and hopefully will provide a dose of reality here.
If anyone would like a copy of the article I base these remarks on, please
feel free to contact me.
William M. Turley
Executive Director, Construction Materials Recycling Association
Editor/Publisher, Construction Materials Recycler
P.O. Box 644
Lisle, Ill. 60532
630/548-4510
fax 548-4511
turley@xsite.net >>
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
The Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) recently demonstrated how
deconstruction of public housing units can lead to high wage and benefit jobs
and resident owned
enterprises in Hartford, CT. Within two months of this demonstration
project's completion, the federal government reacted. In January l999,
ILSR made a presentation to Clinton Administration officials with
representatives of the Hartford Housing Authority and the private
contractor who sponsored the project. In February, President Clinton
added a request for $50 million for deconstruction and community
development to the HUD budget for 2000. In March, HUD's HOPE VI
program, which will spend $675 million this year for demolishing public
housing
units, announced that in this year's grants they are encouraging
proposals that contain deconstruction programs. ILSR had undertaken
the deconstruction project in Hartford after a meeting with HUD Secretary
Cuomo in which he asked ILSR to prove the concept.
We believe this influx of money into public housing deconstruction
could be the next big thing to hit recycling. It is a great way for
recycling activists to network with labor and low-income community development
organizers. Deconstruction is an extraordinary opportunity to use a
major industrial undertaking in the public domain (i.e., the take-down
of thousands of units of public and vacant housing) to develop
businesses and a vocational cadre for the development of new employment
and entrepreneurship opportunities in America's inner cities and towns.
Deconstruction is a gateway for important skills training and entry
into the construction trades. The Laborers International Union has already
made arrangements with community-based deconstruction entities. At the
national and regional levels, the LIU is convinced that successful
deconstruction training provides the basic work ethic, tool skills and
math computations needed for their full apprenticeship programs. The
LIU is considering an array of support for community-based deconstruction
programs. >>
--part1_eaca689b.244f85a1_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline
Return-Path: <jtrnet@valley.rtpnc.epa.gov>
Received: from rly-zd04.mx.aol.com (rly-zd04.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.228])
by air-zd04.mail.aol.com (v59.4) with SMTP; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:50:27
-0400
Received: from valley.rtpnc.epa.gov (valley.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.16])
by rly-zd04.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
with ESMTP id JAA06565;
Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:50:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from valley (valley.rtpnc.epa.gov [134.67.208.16]) by
valley.rtpnc.epa.gov (8.8.7/8.8.0) with SMTP id JAA05105; Wed, 21 Apr
1999 09:50:08 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:50:08 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <l03130301b342e3104595@[206.126.235.57]>
Errors-To: jwhitehe@erg.com
Reply-To: jtrnet@valley.rtpnc.epa.gov
Originator: jtrnet@unixmail.rtpnc.epa.gov
Sender: jtrnet@valley.rtpnc.epa.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: Bill Turley <turley@xsite.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <jtrnet@valley.rtpnc.epa.gov>
Subject: Deconstruction
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: EPA's "Jobs Through Recycling" Grants Network
I read with great interest Gary Liss's glowing report on how ILSR has
convinced the Clinton Administration that deconstruction of public housing
is a great thing. How the next big thing in recycling is deocnstruction.
How much money is going to be spent. Interesting. I was privileged to peer
review a report, probably the one he refernces, on the Hartford project,
and found the document to be riddled with errors, misstatements, and
misrepresentations, especially of the demolition industry. I sent in my
comments, per the request of its authors, Neil Seldman and Kivi Leroux, but
I wonder if my points were used in the final document. Why? Because the
document did not deal with reality, and I threw a reality rain on the
parade that was planned.
Don't get me wrong, reuse of building materials is a great thing. And so is
providing an opportunity to develop "businesses and a vocational cadre for
the development of new employmen and entrepreneurship opportunities in
America's inner cites and towns." Deconstruction should be done whenever it
is viable. And we have some members of our association who are into
deconstruction, including a Board of Director who is on this listserve. But
I recently interviewed a grizzled veteran of the demolition industry about
deconstruction. He was doing it before most of us were born. Space does not
permit me to reprint the entire article, but talking with him is a reality
check. Let's go over a few points:
* Deconstruction, the next big thing, has been around for many, many years,
but it was called hand wrecking and it was done by demolition contractors
for a profit. Many of them had their own yards where they sold what they
salvaged. However, with the rise of OSHA regulations, problems with
certification of the materials salvaged, and the changing nature of
building materials, it became unprofitable for them to do it anymore. The
skills to do it are still around in some old timers in the demolition
industry, so why is there a big push to develop all these "new" techniques?
I wonder;
* As the Hartford study showed, and as did an NAHBRC study on
deconstruction of some Baltimore units (that study was really well done),
and as indicated by the ILSR report, deconstruction for the most part does
not work economically without a big government grant. Otherwise, you would
see every demolition contractor doing it, because these guys are in
business to make a profit. If one could make money doing it, they would.
Yet everybody seems to gloss over the fact that most of the time this is
not an economically viable activity. So what if we train some people how to
take apart buildings? After the government money runs out, these people
will have to learn the different skills required to build a building,
because deconstruction jobs will dry up;
* Relatedly, according to the demolition contractor, a study was done by a
University of Berkely student in Oakland on deconstruction versus straight
demolition. The study showed that the net cost to deconstruct a common, old
two-flat in the inner city, of which hundreds will have to come down in
that area in the next decade or so, would be $16,000, not counting sewer
caps and the like. That includes the revenue received from the materials
saved. By contrast, a straight demolition job,including tipping fees for
the waste, was $8000. I wonder which one the building owner will take,
unless there is a government grant;
* The whole mileu deconstruction would operate in has changed from the hand
wrecking days. Back then, the contractor had some time to take apart the
building before the construction contractor needed the site. That is gone
now. Now the developer has a lot of money invested and is paying interest
on the loan. He wants that old building out of there as quickly as
possible, and deconstruction would cost him a lot of money. Unless he is
getting subsidized by a government grant, forget about salvage of most of
the building.
* Safety is a tremendous factor. It can be more dangerous to take apart a
building than it is to put it up. To put unskilled people in there, even
with training and trainers present, is something to be concerned about. For
example, at the Port of Oakland such a program as described by ILSR is
taking place. It's called Youth Employment Project, and is training
disadvantaged youths by having them take down old Navy warehouses. A main
concern of the director of the program is that nobody gets hurt. He
admitted they have been lucky so far. It's probably just a matter of time.
In the hand wrecking days, there usually was one old guy training a couple
of young ones how to do it. That level of training is difficult and
expensive to get, if you can get it.
There are a lot more points that could be made. Here's the bottom line:
Deconstruction is great on paper, sounds good until you hit reality. Yes,
support deconstruction. Support training of disadvantaged youth. But go
into it with your eyes open. I doubt if this dose of reality will be seen
by HUD. They only got the rose-colored-glass view. Fortunately, there is
one team bidding on the preliminary stage of the HUD program that knows the
pitfalls and hopefully will provide a dose of reality here.
If anyone would like a copy of the article I base these remarks on, please
feel free to contact me.
William M. Turley
Executive Director, Construction Materials Recycling Association
Editor/Publisher, Construction Materials Recycler
P.O. Box 644
Lisle, Ill. 60532
630/548-4510
fax 548-4511
turley@xsite.net
--part1_eaca689b.244f85a1_boundary--