Since the beginning of the preservation movement, restorers
have used old materials taken from one building to replace missing elements in
another. Countless historic structures now feature mantels or doors or stairs
taken from other buildings. Even floor boards and ordinary lumber, where a
two-by-four actually measures two inches by four inches, can be valuable. There
were cases where one old building was plundered to restore another, but most restorers
soon agreed that it was only responsible to remove materials from buildings
that were being demolished.
With the rise of increased environmental consciousness, this
idea of reusing building materials has spread beyond preservation. Now ‘deconstruction’—carefully
dismantling buildings, rather than demolishing them, so that as many materials as
possible can be reused—is promoted as a form of recycling. Like preservation,
deconstruction promotes reusing not only trim or other decorative elements, but
also such mundane items as floor boards and even two-by-fours.
As part
of an overall commitment to maximize recycling, the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) has convened a Materials Reuse Network whose goal
is to increase awareness of deconstruction and building materials reuse and to encourage
more trained workers and professionals in the industry of deconstruction. Members
of the network include professionals from the fields of deconstruction,
demolition, architecture, green building development, training and education,
community colleges, solid waste management, engineering, historic preservation,
and environmental activism.
From
its first meeting, in November 2008, the group recognized an obstacle: state law
governing demolition includes deconstruction, and any person involved in
building demolition or deconstruction must be registered with the Department of
Public Safety. According to the deconstruction industry, deconstruction is the selective dismantlement of building components,
specifically for reuse, recycling, or waste management. It differs from
demolition, in which a site is cleared of its building by the most expedient
means. The industry is suggesting ways to separate these activities in the
regulations.
The key issue for historic preservationists is that no
matter how desirable recycling may be, demolition and deconstruction both
result in the same thing: the loss of a building. From the preservation point
of view, the current demolition definition needs to be even more specific about what constitutes deconstruction or
demolition, including what is now called ‘soft stripping’—the removal of
windows, doors, and other trim—which currently doesn’t require a registered
demolition contractor.
The challenge for preservationists is to make sure that
encouraging reuse of materials is balanced by the accepted hierarchy of treatments
for historic buildings. From the most to the least desirable, the options are:
Restoration on-site for the original
use;
Restoration or rehabilitation on-site
for a new use;
Relocation;
Recording architectural and
historic features;
Salvaging key elements for recycling,
in other words, deconstruction;
Demolition
At
the very least, the historic preservation community needs to be assured that state
statutes and regulations not encourage selective dismantling of historic
buildings unless all alternatives to demolition have been evaluated.
The Connecticut Trust will continue to follow the proceedings
of the MRN/deconstruction group. In the meantime, local preservationists should
make sure that their historic building stock has been surveyed and, when
appropriate, listed on the State or National Register of Historic Places to discourage
selective dismantling.
