I recently read an article that described the green-building practices employed on a large commercial project in Los Angeles as though those practices were groundbreaking and unusual.
What startled me about this article, and other similar ones I’ve read recently, is that the writer seemed to have been asleep for the past 30 years. I’m reminded of Washington Irving’s Rip Van Winkle, the Dutch-American colonialist who, after imbibing strong drink, awakes 20 years later, unaware that the American Revolution has happened.
Considering demolition and the recycling of construction materials environmentally newsworthy and calling it “deconstruction” is not just journalistically wrong. To me, it’s inexcusable.
The United States Green Building Council (USGBC) was founded in 1993 by a senior manufacturing executive, a real estate developer, and an environmental lawyer. Shortly after formation, USGBC created an environmental building standard widely known as Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design, or LEED. As of this year, over 195,000 buildings have been built or remodeled to LEED standards.
Articles sometimes label owners, developers, and contractors as green because they recycle concrete and steel. Okay, that’s a positive, but these materials are often recycled not because doing so is environmentally beneficial, but because it is cheaper than throwing them in the local landfill. In fact, not all landfills accept concrete. Those that do charge over 100 dollars per ton, while in Los Angeles, concrete recyclers charge between 45 to 65 dollars per ton, then easily make up the difference by selling the resulting granulated materials.
I can understand old Rip’s amazement at the changes that happened during his 20-year nap, but what’s the excuse for writers, editors, construction executives, and architects not knowing the environmental changes in building design that have happened in the last 30 years, especially in this age of instant media?
Then there’s the misuse of the word "deconstruction." Deconstruction is not a synonym for demolition. To deconstruct something means to reduce it to its constituent parts. And the reason we deconstruct buildings, rather than demolish them, is so that their constituent parts (doors, windows, cabinets, steel beams, lumber, washing machines, refrigerators) can be reused—just as they are.
Although some components of a building may be recycled, recycling breaks things down in order to recast or remold them into something new, which requires additional expenditures of energy. Demolition destroys buildings. Whether their destiny is the landfill or the recycler, the value of the building’s components is destroyed.
Deconstruction preserves that value best when it leads directly to reuse.