University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Deconstruction: a tool for sustainable conservation

(USC Thesis Other)

Deconstruction: a tool for sustainable conservation

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

DECONSTRUCTION:
A TOOL FOR SUSTAINABLE CONSERVATION

by

J. Guadalupe Flores

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF HERITAGE CONSERVATION

August 2022

Copyright 2022 J. Guadalupe Flores

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many thanks to my advisor, Trudi Sandmeier, for her support and contributions. Her patience
and gentle nudging were essential as I struggled with writing the words for this thesis. I greatly
appreciate all the many conversations we had about my topic and heritage conservation. I
especially enjoyed our off-topic discussions.

I am indebted to my committee members, Peyton Hall and Jay Platt. Peyton, from our first
interactions at the City of Pasadena, little did I know that our friendship would take us on this
scholarly journey. Jay, your last-minute save is very much appreciated. Thank you both for your
advice and criticism. Your knowledge and expertise proved to be invaluable.

A special thank you to Steve Pallrand with Home Front Builders who allowed me to be a part of
his deconstruction project in its pursuit of the LA2050 Challenge. My brief involvement with the
project provided a great experience. There is no substitute for obtaining first-hand knowledge.
To Derek Ryder with Home Front Builders and Charlie Markowitz, my thanks to you as well.

I must note an emphatic thank you to the people who dedicated their time to answer my
questions, shared their information (both knowledge and materials) and were just willing to
discuss my thesis: Jean Carroon, Jeff Chusid, Stephanie Compton, Bradley Guy, Timonie Hood,
Tina McCarthy, Jennifer Minner, Stephanie Phillips, Dante Swinton, M. Katherine Trontell, and
Shawn Wood.

And finally, I dedicate this thesis to my wife Katherine and my sons, Alexander and Baxter. If
not for their encouragement and support throughout graduate school, this personal endeavor
would not have been possible.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ ii
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... vi
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. vii
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
Sustainability, Sustainable Development, and Heritage Conservation ............................... 2
CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................... 8
Pre-1960s ............................................................................................................................ 8
1960s ................................................................................................................................. 10
1970s ................................................................................................................................. 12
1980s ................................................................................................................................. 16
1990s ................................................................................................................................. 19
2000s ................................................................................................................................. 24
2010s ................................................................................................................................. 28
CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................................. 33
Types of Deconstruction ................................................................................................... 34
Deconstruction: A Brief History ....................................................................................... 37
Deconstruction = Spolia .................................................................................................... 38
Deconstruction: Benefits and Challenges ......................................................................... 40
Deconstruction and the Standards ..................................................................................... 42
The Standards.................................................................................................................... 42
Preservation....................................................................................................................... 43
Rehabilitation .................................................................................................................... 44
Restoration ........................................................................................................................ 44
Reconstruction .................................................................................................................. 45
Deconstruction .................................................................................................................. 45
CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................................. 48
The Project ........................................................................................................................ 48
What Actually Happened .................................................................................................. 57

iv

What Next? ....................................................................................................................... 62
CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................................. 65
Heritage Value and Material Reuse .................................................................................. 65
Deconstruction, Waste and Circular Economy ................................................................. 68
Deconstruction Policy ....................................................................................................... 70
Standards Reform.............................................................................................................. 73
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 75
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................... 79
APPENDIX A: Home Front Build – LA2050 Application Responses-Final ............................... 94
APPENDIX B: Home Front Build – Toward a Carbon Neutral House ..................................... 102
APPENDIX C: Derek Ryder’s Memo – Deocumentation of salvaging of materials ................. 105
APPENDIX D: Derek Ryder’s Memo – Outline of the proposed research project.................... 108
APPENDIX E: 748 Hartford Ave. – Derek Ryder’s Site Notes ................................................. 113
APPENDIX F: 748 Hartford Ave. – Deconstruction Log: Materials ......................................... 127
APPENDIX G: 748 Hartford Ave. – Deconstruction Log: Labor .............................................. 134
APPENDIX H: City of Los Angeles Miscellaneous Information .............................................. 142
APPENDIX I: LCA results for Carbon Neutral House .............................................................. 147
APPENDIX J: 748 Hartford Ave. – Project Photos ................................................................... 169

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Deconstruction Types ..................................................................................................... 37
Table 2. Phase 1A Tasks ............................................................................................................... 53
Table 3. Phase 1B Tasks ............................................................................................................... 54
Table 4. Phase 2A Tasks ............................................................................................................... 55
Table 5. Phase 2B Tasks ............................................................................................................... 55
Table 6. Labor ............................................................................................................................... 59
Table 7. Wood, salvaged ............................................................................................................... 60
Table 8. Miscellaneous materials .................................................................................................. 60
Table 9. Demolition Waste ........................................................................................................... 60
Table 10. Municipal Deconstruction Policies ............................................................................... 71

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Three Pillars of Sustainability. ........................................................................................ 4
Figure 2. NTHP Preservation Week poster................................................................................... 18
Figure 3. A Timeline. .................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 4. 748 Hartford Ave. - Aerial view.................................................................................... 56
Figure 5. 748 Hartford Ave. – Front. ............................................................................................ 56
Figure 6. 748 Hartford Ave. - Floor plans. ................................................................................... 57
Figure 7. Deconstruction work days. ............................................................................................ 58
Figure 8. 1359 Killarney Avenue.................................................................................................. 62
Figure 9. Traditional linear material flow. .................................................................................... 68
Figure 10. Circular economy. ....................................................................................................... 70

vii

ABSTRACT

There is an inherent relationship between heritage conservation and sustainability. As concepts,
both movements have deep roots, but in the last sixty years, they have flourished. By examining
their histories in tandem, it is possible to understand their interrelationship. The thesis examines
the intersection of the two fields through the lens of deconstruction- the manual disassembling of
a building for the purpose of salvaging building materials with the primary objective of their
reuse. The overall concept of deconstruction, including a brief history, serves to provide
background information and context in relationship to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Properties. A case-study provides further insight by highlighting a
deconstruction project of a non-contributing 1907 house in Los Angeles in pursuit of a LA2050
Challenge grant to mitigate climate change. This thesis also reveals how heritage conservation
and deconstruction intersect, exploring the complexities of material value through heritage value
and material reuse, deconstruction policies at the municipal level, deconstruction’s link to the
circular economy, and reform of the current treatments. With the demise of a building,
deconstruction can provide a meaningful alternative to demolition; one that simultaneously
promotes both heritage conservation and sustainability.

1

INTRODUCTION
HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABILITY

Much of the world has begun to recognize the interrelationship and the
interdependency between sustainable development and heritage conservation.
Much of the world, but much less so in the Unites States.
Donovan Rypkema, Economics, Sustainability, and Historic Preservation
1

Even as buildings account for 29% of carbon emissions each year in the United States, some are
looking to downplay the effects of global warming.
2
Despite that, the last few decades are
witness to a heightened concern about climate change and the environmental impacts on our
surroundings. This rise has seen changes in attitude that have increased our responsibility for the
environment and its resources. In testament, government policies and the collaboration of many
organizations have developed and promoted strategies to protect the environment. The result is a
greater awareness of our natural surroundings. Indeed, architect Carl Elefante marks this rise as
the “advent of the fifth industrial revolution, where human enterprise is retooled to achieve its
economic and social goals without unwanted environmental consequences.”
3
Here, Elefante
alludes to sustainability and a new attitude about the natural world. However, sustainability is not
just about the natural environment but the built environment as well. As buildings consume a
larger share of the available resources through construction and operation, we must consider the
impacts that they have on the planet. As we look to the concept of sustainability to address these
impacts, it is worth noting that heritage conservation has always been a sustainable practice and
continues to contribute today.

Heritage conservation and sustainability share an interconnected relationship, both striving for a
common goal: conservation. The former intends to conserve older and historic structures to
create a link between people and their past; while, the latter aims to conserve natural resources

1
Donovan Rypkema, “Economics, Sustainability, and Historic Preservation,” last modified October 30, 2017,
http://www.sohosandiego.org/reflections/2006-2/economics.htm/.
2
Jessica Leung, Decarbonizing U.S. Buildings, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (July, 2018): 1.
https://www.c2es.org/document/decarbonizing-u-s-buildings/.
3
Carl Elefante, “Historic Preservation & Sustainable Development: Lots to Learn, Lots to Teach,” ATP Bulletin:
The Journal of Preservation Technology 36, no. 4 (July, 2005): 53.

2

(and protect the environment). Therefore, it is essential to demonstrate that heritage conservation
contributes to sustainability by espousing its social, environmental, and economic tenets.

Sustainability, Sustainable Development, and Heritage Conservation

Sustainability has been the focus of an ongoing public discourse on the environment for some
time and the last two decades have seen a rise in publications. Today, it is not difficult to find
references to sustainability in countless publications, proponent’s pamphlets, corporate websites,
manufacturer’s literature, and so on. Sustainable development, sustainable growth, sustainable
communities, and other variants all stem from this widely accepted concept. However,
sustainability and sustainable development have become possibly the most extensively used eco-
centric buzzwords. The terms have become commonplace in business, non-profits, architecture,
energy, agriculture, and manufacturing; with each organization redefining the term to suit its
purpose.
4
As a result, there are over 500 definitions, including those “spawned by various
governments, professional bodies, institutions, and organizations.”
5
These numerous definitions
can be a cause for ambiguity, leading many to think that sustainability and sustainable
development are one and the same. This unintended interchangeability of terms further obscures
any differences; but there are important distinctions between the two.

Sustainability: its meaning can be challenging to convey, especially since it is not just about the
environment. From the simple to the profound, numerous definitions abound among the
countless attempts to articulate the concept. Intellectually, sustainability is “a dynamic
equilibrium in the process of interaction between a population and the carrying capacity of its
environment such that the population develops to express its full potential without producing
irreversible, adverse effects on the carrying capacity of the environment upon which it

4
John Morelli writes that “… meanings for this concept of sustainability have been evolving as individual
professions have attempted to develop definitions that make sense in the context of their respective areas of
expertise and contribution.” “Environmental Sustainability: A Definition for Environmental Professionals”,
Journal of Environmental Sustainability vol. 1, issue 1, article 2 (2011): 5.
5
L.C. Havinga, “Relating sustainability indicators to the refurbishment of the existing building stock,” 30th
International PLEA Conference Sustainable Habitat for Developing Societies, P.1-9. Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India:
CEPT University Press, 2014.

3

depends.”
6
This profound definition offers meaningful insight; yet, the concept of sustainability
can be rather straightforward. Simply, it’s about harmony and conservation. Sustainability is the
striving for people to live in harmony with nature and endeavors to “create and maintain
conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit
fulfilling the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations.”
7
This
is a fundamental principle of sustainability, one which conventional wisdom makes self-evident.
This simple principle also states that the natural world provides everything for the existence and
wellbeing of people. And when the needs of nature and the needs of society are in harmony (or
balance), sustainability promotes a high quality of life, and it can maintain a sense of wellbeing
for an extended length of time, even indefinitely.
8
Lastly, a society requires resource
management to sustain its existence. It’s in society’s best interest to “wisely to use, protect,
preserve, and renew the natural resources of the earth.”
9
Conservation, as a sustainable strategy,
can provide management and protection of the planet’s natural resources.
10
As such,
sustainability seeks to conserve resources and recognize their full value “by appreciating them as
finite and irreplaceable.”
11
Therefore, it is through conservation that society ensures the
longevity of these critical resources and its survival.

Additionally, there are three interconnected, albeit distinct, tenets that further define
sustainability: social sustainability, economic sustainability, and environmental sustainability.
12

Social sustainability focuses on society (people) and balancing the needs of the individual with
the needs of society. It endeavors to promote the betterment of society by embodying health and
quality of life. It also requires that a society achieve social well-being indefinitely.

6
Michael Ben-Eli, Sustainability: Definition and Five Core Principles (New York: The Cybertec Consulting Group,
2005).
7
Environmental Protection Agency, Sustainability Primer, May 2015,
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-05/documents/sustainability_primer_v9.pdf/.
8
The National Research Council, Sustainability and the US EPA (Washington, D.C.: The National Academies
Press, 2011), 21.
9
The National Research Council, Sustainability and the US EPA (Washington, D.C.: The National Academies
Press, 2011), 17.
10
Natural resources include: water, air, soil, phosphorus, forests and wood, oil, minerals, iron, natural gas, and coal.
11
Carl Elefante, “Historic Preservation & Sustainable Development: Lots to Learn, Lots to Teach,” APT Bulletin:
The Journal of Preservation Technology 36, no. 4 (2005): 53.
12
Another way to consider this is through the concept of the “Triple Bottom Line: People, Planet, and Profit.” John
Elkington presented this concept in his article “Towards the Sustainable Corporation: Win-Win-Win Business
Strategies for Sustainable Development.”

4

Environmental sustainability is living within the carrying capacity of our ecosystem, thus
ensuring the ability of the environment (planet) to continue to sustain human life indefinitely. It
also looks to maintain manageable “rates of renewable resource harvesting, the creation of
pollution, and the depletion of non-renewable resources to preserve biodiversity and overall
ecosystem functionality.”
13
Additionally, this tenet promotes decisions and activities that reduce
our impact on the natural resources. Economic sustainability is the ability to support a defined
level of production of goods and services on a continuing basis.
14
It comprises producing
economic value (profit) from decisions that are fair, ethical, and financially responsible. It also
requires the efficient and prudent use of resources to ultimately operate production in a
sustainable manner. Only when all three tenets are in balance is true sustainability achieved.
Together, there is wide recognition of these tenets as the “Three Pillars of Sustainability.” A
Venn diagram comprised of three intersecting circles, with sustainability at the intersection of all
three, often represents this concept. This representation has become a ubiquitous visual tool for
understanding sustainability.

If sustainability is the objective, then sustainable development is the way. Sustainable
development provides a course of action by establishing a set of guiding principles and goals. As
a result, it has experienced world-wide recognition as a policy goal and is a stated policy

13
“Sustainability,” accessed June 6, 2019, http://thwink.org/sustain/glossary/Sustainability.htm/.
14
Ibid.
Figure 1: Three Pillars of Sustainability.

5

objective for many nations.
15
Before going further, it is necessary to first define sustainable
development. As with sustainability, it too suffers from multiple definitions.
16
The most accepted
is the one set forth by the United Nations World Commission on the Environment and
Development in its report, Our Common Future. Better known as the Brundtland Report, the
document is a response to the negative impact of large-scale development and it looks to
highlight the “effort to link the issues of economic development and environmental stability.”
17
It
further aims to connect “environmental issues to the need for global development and the
reduction of poverty.”
18
The second chapter of Our Common Future defines sustainable
development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
19
It is worth noting that the report does not
actually define “sustainability;” yet many writers reference this definition of “sustainable
development” to do just that. This interchangeability of the two concepts occurs quite frequently
which has caused some to consider ‘sustainable development’ as solely an environmental
concept.
20
Again, differentiating between sustainability and sustainable development is an
important objective. For certain, the ultimate goal of sustainable development is the continued
balance of economic development and environment stability. Sustainable development provides
the path for achieving the development goals of society while ensuring the continued ability of
the planet to provide the natural resources and the necessary ecosystem services.
21
It also
acknowledges the bond between humans, the natural environment, and natural resources; and,
advocates for policies that promote balance and equality between them.
22
Finally, sustainable

15
Sylvie Faucheux, “Summary Principles of Sustainable Development,” Principles of Sustainable Development vol.
III (n.d.): 2.
16
The Circular Ecology website states that there are over 200 different definitions. “Sustainability and Sustainable
Development,” accessed February 25, 2015, http://www.circularecology.com/sustainability-and-sustainable-
development.html/.
17
Rachel Emas, “The Concept of Sustainable Development: Definition and Defining Principles,” UN Global
Sustainable Development Report 2015, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5839GSDR
2015_SD_concept_definiton_rev.pdf/.
18
Søren Steen Olsen, “Concepts of Sustainability,” Issues 2: This Way, Please, (April, 2012):17.
19
Gro Harlem Brundtland. Report of the World Commission on environment and development: "Our Common
Future." (New York: United Nations, 1987), 41.
20
“Sustainable Development vs. Sustainability,” accessed December 6, 2018, http://i2ud.org/2012/06/sustainable-
development-vs-sustainability/.
21
Syed Jeelani Basha. “Sustainable Developments Environmental Protection and Control.” Last modified March 19,
2017. https://www.slideshare.net/jeelani899/unit-6-environmental-protection-and-control/.
22
“Sustainable Development vs. Sustainability,” accessed December 6, 2018, http://i2ud.org/2012/06/sustainable-
development-vs-sustainability/.

6

development is the course of action for attaining sustainability in terms of the three, separate but
interconnected, dimensions- economic, social, and environmental.

Just like sustainable development, heritage conservation is also an approach for attaining
sustainability. It contributes to sustainability in relation to its social, environmental, and
economic tenets. In fact, it goes further than this- engaging in a mutual relationship, a
partnership. Singularly, and together, these disciplines have received increased awareness,
marking them as social movements. And, the process of deconstruction just happens to
contribute to both.

This thesis explores the merits of deconstruction for both heritage conservation and
sustainability. The methodology of this exploration was to conduct a literature survey of various
theses, available publications, and the published proceeding of international conferences. The
survey also included the information found on relevant websites as well as published case
studies. Drawing from previous works written on the subject of material salvage and reuse, the
goal is to develop a thesis that looks at the overall relationship between these two fields, with a
focus on deconstruction as a significant tool for use by both. Building on the recognition that
there is an extensive body of work on this subject, an additional goal is to highlight the growing
interest and viability of this alternative to demolition.

First, a couple of points of clarification. When considering historic buildings, it is important to
differentiate between two types. One is historic (with an “H”) and refers to buildings that are
“designated and contributing.” The other is historic (with an “h”) and refers to older buildings
that are not “designated or contributing.” It is equally important to not conflate the two,
especially when an Historic building is facing end-of-life. Deconstruction of a Historic building
should never be the first strategy employed but rather the last resort.

In the United States, practitioners refer to the conservation of historic resources by the term
“historic preservation.” Globally, the term is “heritage conservation.” This thesis will use the
term “heritage conservation,” and the concise terms “heritage” or “conservation,” throughout.

7

However, the thesis will not substitute the terms “historic preservation,” or “preservation,” when
in a quote or title.

8

CHAPTER 1
HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABILITY: A PARTNERSHIP

The social awareness of the 1960s gave rise to the movements of sustainability and heritage
conservation. As a cause, these modern movements have been around for only the last sixty
years. However, the concept of sustainability first appeared over three hundred years ago, and
heritage conservation, as a conscious endeavor in the United States, emerged over two hundred
years ago. Although both have been the subject of many written works to date, it is worthwhile
to examine their broad origins to better understand their similarities and interrelationship.

Pre-1960s

The concept of sustainability had its introduction in Sylvicultura oeconomica, a handbook of
forestry published in 1713 and written by Hanns Carl von Carlowitz (1645-1714). In the book,
von Carlowitz calls attention to the diminishing forest resources across Europe.
23
In response, he
put forth the notion of sustainable (sustained) yield- “never harvesting more than the forest yields
in new growth.”
24
It is here that von Carlowitz first originated the term “Nachhaltigkeit,” the
German word for sustainability, to define this idea of stewardship. For the remainder of the
eighteenth century, and well into the early twentieth century, other disciplines weighed in on the
concept of sustainability. In particular were economists who, during the industrial revolution,
“recognized the inherent trade-offs between wealth generation and social justice” and questioned
the “limits of both economic and demographic growth.”
25
Others, such as natural scientists and
ecologists, also “help precipitate the schism between the anthropocentric conservationists on one
hand, prescribing conservation of natural resources for sustainable consumption, and the bio-
centric preservationists, who call for preservation of nature due to its inherent worth.”
26

23
Ben Purvis, et al., “Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins,” Sustainability Science 14,
(May, 2019): 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5/.
24
Tom Kuhlman and John Farrington, “What is Sustainability?” Sustainability 2, no. 11 (November, 2010): 3437.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su2113436/.
25
Ben Purvis, et al., “Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins,” Sustainability Science 14,
(May, 2019): 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5/.
26
Ibid., 2.

9

However, the concept of sustainability we know today did not come about until late in the
twentieth century.

A century following the publication of Sylvicultura oeconomica, a noteworthy act of
conservation in America occurred in the City of Philadelphia. When the state government moved
its seat to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania legislators considered Independence Hall and surrounding
green space for redevelopment. Slated for demolition, the legislators hoped that “architectural
salvage from the demolished building and multiple lots sold ‘to the highest and best bidders’
would raise money to build a grand statehouse in the new capital.”
27
[emphasis mine] Local
leaders saw it differently, and the city purchased Independence Hall in 1818. The defining
moment for conservation came in 1858 with the saving of Mount Vernon from ruin. At the time,
George Washington’s home was in extreme disrepair and struggling financially. With the
purchase of the house by a private women’s group, the Mount Vernon Ladies Association,
heritage conservation was born. Later, the Association for the Preservation of Virginia
Antiquities became America’s first state heritage conservation group in 1889. The 1900s saw an
increased interest in heritage conservation. The Antiquities Act of 1906 was the first law to
protect archeological sites on public lands. The Act required federal agencies in charge of public
lands to “preserve for present and future generations the historic, scientific, commemorative, and
cultural values of the archaeological and historic sites and structures on these lands.”
28
The
1930s saw state and federal governments enact heritage conservation laws. The City of
Charleston, South Carolina created the first heritage conservation ordinance in 1931 with the
help of the architectural firm of Simons and Lapham.
29
Next, the federal government enacted the
first crucial legislation for the protection of cultural resources. The 1935 Historic Sites Act
“declared that it is a national policy to preserve for public use historic sites, buildings, and
objects of national significance for the inspiration and benefit of the people of the United
States.”
30
The Act was significant as it established heritage conservation as a government charge.

27
Whitney Martinko, “Two Centuries Ago, Pennsylvania Almost Razed Independence Hall to Make Way for
Private Development,” last updated December 11, 2017, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/amazon-or-
independence-hall-development-v-preservation-city-philadelphia-180967463/.
28
“Antiquities Act of 1906,” accessed February 26,2020, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/legal/american-antiquities-
act-of-1906.htm/.
29
Robert P. Stockton, et al, Information for Guides of Historic Charleston, Charleston, South Carolina: City of
Charleston, 1985.
30
Historic Sites Act of 1935, 54 U.S.C. 3201 et. seq., 1023 et. seq. (1935).

10

Moreover, it fulfilled the claim of heritage conservation alluded to by the 1906 Antiquities Act.
Congress built on its obligation by then chartering the National Trust for Historic Preservation in
1949. This created “a charitable, educational, and nonprofit corporation” to facilitate public
participation in heritage conservation.
31

1960s

Sustainability and heritage conservation become full-fledged movements in the 1960s. It started
with the environmentalists espousing sustainability’s focus on the environment and its non-
renewable resources. During this time, America experienced an increased consideration for the
environment. This awakening came about following the 1962 publication of the controversial
book, Silent Spring. Written by Rachel Carson, it brought to light the severe impacts modern
synthetic insecticides had on the environment.
32
In the book, she describes the chemicals as
“elixirs of death” and puts forth a radical message: “that, at times, technological progress is so
fundamentally at odds with natural processes that it must be curtailed.”
33
A visionary book, many
consider it as the catalyst for the modern American environmental movement and
environmentalism.

Several years later, the United States government passed the eco-friendly National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Enacted in 1969, this policy was a “revolutionary piece of
legislation” that “established for the first time national policies and goals for the protection of the
environment.”
34
The policy mandated all federal government agencies file environmental impact
statements on public projects to ensure those agencies “consider the environmental impacts of
their actions and decisions.”
35
It also created the Council on Environmental Quality, tasking it
with implementing the policy’s requirements and preparing an annual report on the condition of
the environment. Other eco-friendly legislation would follow in the years to come. The end of

31
National Trust for Historic Preservation, 54 U.S.C. 3121 et. Seq. (1949).
32
Rachel Carson, Silent Springs (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962). She was referring in particular to the pesticide
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) which became available to the public in 1945.
33
“The Story of Silent Springs.” Last updated August 13, 2015, https://www.nrdc.org/stories/story-silent-spring/.
34
West's Encyclopedia of American Law. s.v., “National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,” accessed February 17,
2020, https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/National+Environmental+Policy+Act+of+1969.
35
“National Environmental Policy Act,” accessed February 17, 2020, https://www.gsa.gov/real-
estate/environmental-programs/national-environmental-policy-act/.

11

the decade saw environmentalism connected with sustainability. However, it is worth noting
again that environmentalism is not sustainability but a fundamental component of it.

An increase in American’s social conscience of during the 1960s saw attitudes change for the
natural environment and the built environment. This social awakening brought a “growing
awareness of the past and of community identity” that would foster a sentiment for
conservation.
36
Until then, any notion of conservation was mostly nonexistent, especially given
mid-century Modern’s ethic for “new.” In 1960, the federal government continued its
commitment to heritage conservation through the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act.
This legislation expanded the Historic Sites Act of 1935 by providing for the “preservation of
historical and archeological data (including relics and specimens) which might otherwise be
irreparably lost or destroyed.”
37
Unfortunately, the 1960s were still seeing the demolition of
many government-owned historic buildings following their abandonment by the General
Services Administration (GSA). First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy noticed this federal destruction
and took the “unprecedented step in 1962 of intervening with the GSA to stop the
demolition[s].”
38
Lady Bird Johnson also shared “concerns over the threats to national
heritage.”
39
So, President Lyndon B. Johnson formed a special committee, headed by Albert
Rains, to study the current state of heritage conservation in America in 1965. The Special
Committee on Historic Preservation’s report, With Heritage So Rich, provided Congress with a
bleak account of the effects of development on America’s historic and cultural sites.
40
The report
would also be a call to arms for the conservation movement. In an effort to protect the nation’s
heritage from the ravages of urban renewal, Congress passed the National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA) in 1966. At the time, the Act was significant in that it acknowledged conservation
achievements to date and was the first legislation to provide a federal charge for conservation:
(7) although the major burdens of historic preservation have been borne and major
efforts initiated by private agencies and individuals, and both should continue to

36
“National Historic Preservation Act - Historic Preservation (U.S. National Park Service),” last updated December
2, 2018, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/historicpreservation/national-historic-preservation-act.htm/.
37
Archeological and Historical Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. 3125 et. seq., Pub. L. No. 86-523 and Pub. L. No. 93-
291 (1960).
38
“The National Historic Preservation Act: A 40th Anniversary Appraisal,” last updated December 9, 2015,
https://forum.savingplaces.org/viewdocument/the-national-histori/.
39
Ibid.
40
“National Historic Preservation Act - Historic Preservation (U.S. National Park Service),” last updated December
2, 2018, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/historicpreservation/national-historic-preservation-act.htm/.

12

play a vital role, it is nevertheless necessary and appropriate for the Federal
Government to accelerate its historic preservation programs and activities, to give
maximum encouragement to agencies and individuals undertaking preservation by
private means, and to assist State and local governments and the National Trust
for Historic Preservation in the United States to expand and accelerate their
historic preservation programs and activities…
41

Furthermore, it would begin a new era of “leadership in the preservation of the pre-historic and
historic resources of the United States and of the international community of nations and in the
administration of the national preservation program.”
42
The NHPA also created the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the first independent federal agency established to
address “matters relating to historic preservation;” and the National Register of Historic Places, a
formal list “composed of districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects significant in American
history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture.”
43
With its passage, the Act
authorized “permanent institutions and created a clearly defined process for historic preservation
in the United States.”
44
This legislation was instrumental in establishing conservation as a formal
and professional practice in America.
45
Finally, the NEPA also contributed to heritage
conservation. As it established protections for the environment, it provided for the conservation
of “important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage.”
46
Through the
NEPA, we began to appreciate that sustainability and heritage conservation coincide. In the years
to come, the evolution of these two movements would see the overlap of common goals.

1970s

There was an increasing cause for concern about the scarcity of the planet’s natural resources in
the 1970’s. Social discourse shifted to the limited availability of those resources and marked the
decade with a focus on conservation. Still during this period, the term “sustainable” became
associated with sustainability, and society’s attention turned to energy conservation. For

41
National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. 100101, Pub. L. No. 89-665, as amended by Pub. L. No. 96-515
(1966).
42
National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. 300101 (1966).
43
Ibid.
44
“National Historic Preservation Act - Historic Preservation (U.S. National Park Service),” last updated December
2, 2018, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/historicpreservation/national-historic-preservation-act.htm/.
45
Ibid.
46
National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4331a (1969).

13

sustainability, a watershed moment was in March 1972 when the think-tank Club of Rome
published its groundbreaking report Limits of Growth, written by a team of multi-national
scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology under the directorship of Dr. Dennis
Meadows.
47
The report provides an analysis of the “predicament of mankind” and delivers the
sobering conclusion “which predicted that many natural resources crucial to our survival would
be exhausted within one or two generations.”
48
The report was also instrumental introducing the
term “sustainable” into the public policy discussion by describing the desirable “sustainable state
of global equilibrium”:
We are searching for a model output that represents a world system that is:
1. sustainable without sudden and uncontrolled collapse; and,
2. capable of satisfying the basic material requirements of all of its people.
49

An earlier publication that year also focused on a “sustainable society.” The January issue of The
Ecologist featured ‘A Blueprint for Survival’ by Edward Goldsmith and Robert Allen. The
publication, which referenced the forthcoming publication Limits of Growth, warned of the
“breakdown of society and irreversible disruption of life-supporting systems on this planet.”
50

However, as they believed that an increasing number of people wished to create a society that
did not tax future generations, as such, they presented their “proposals for creating a sustainable
society.”
51

Finally, in June 1972, the United Nations held its Conference on the Human Environment in
Stockholm. The conference centered on the Limits of Growth (as the focus of the environmental
discourse) and economic development (the precursor to sustainable development) and led to the
adoption of the Stockholm Declaration on the Environment.
52
The Declaration put forth twenty-
six principles and over one hundred recommendations to “inspire and guide the peoples of the
world in the preservation and enhancement of the human environment.”
53
The conference also

47
The MIT Project Team consisted of scientists from many countries, including: United States, Turkey, Iran,
Germany, India, and Norway.
48
Tom Kuhlman and John Farrington, “What is Sustainability?” Sustainability 2, no. 11 (November, 2010): 3437.
49
Donella Meadows, Limits of Growth (New York: Universe, 1979), 158.
50
Edward Goldsmith, et al, “A Blueprint for Survival,” The Ecologist 2, no. 1 (January, 1972): 1.
51
Ibid., 2.
52
Hemant More, “Stockholm Declaration,” last updated April 9, 2019,
https://thefactfactor.com/facts/law/civil_law/environmental_laws/stockholm-declaration/871/.
53
The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Report of the United Nations Conference on the
Human Environment, Stockholm, 5-16 June 1972, (New York: United Nations, 1973), 1.

14

created multiple environmental protection agencies and the United Nations Environment
Programme.

In 1973, Limits of Growth hit home when America experienced an oil shortage and subsequent
energy crisis.
54
This crisis spurred awareness of sustainability and focused on the conservation of
scarce resources, as well as the limits-to-growth discourse. Again in 1974, the term “sustainable”
became the focus of another world organization. That year, the World Council of Churches
(WCC) held a world conference on ‘Science and Technology for Human Development.’ It was
here that the WCC “discussed a new ‘socio-ethical guideline’ and replaced the ‘responsible
society’ with the new term ‘just and sustainable society.’”
55

The topic of sustainability featured prominently in political declarations and published writings
during the next five years. The Ecology Party UK issued their Manifesto for a Sustainable
Society (1975) and books included, The sustainable society: ethics and economic growth (Robert
L. Stivers, 1976), Alternatives to growth - I: a search for sustainable futures (Dennis L.
Meadows, 1977), The sustainable society: implications for limited growth (Dennis C. Pirages,
1977), The management of sustainable growth (Harlan Cleveland, 1979), and Quest for a
sustainable society (James C. Coomer, 1979).
56

Heritage conservation began the 1970s with the President of the United States issuing Executive
Order 11593, known as the Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, in May,
1971. This order required the federal government to “provide leadership in preserving, restoring
and maintaining the historic and cultural environment of the Nation.”
57
Following the oil crisis of
1973, conservationists sought to link energy efficiency and historic buildings. As sustainability
focused on the conservation of limited resources, heritage conservation also looked to the
invested energy found in buildings and not just the conservation of the entire building. A

54
The 1973 oil crisis caused a concern for America’s energy consumption, the result of the rise of the Organization
of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and the oil embargo.
55
Ulrich Grober, “Deep Roots - A conceptual history of ‘sustainable development’ (Nachhaltigkeit),” WZB Discuss.
Papers, Presidential Department, P 2007-002 (2007): 6. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-110771.
56
Ben Purvis, et al. “Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins.” Sustainability Science 14,
(May, 2019): 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5.
57
Richard Nixon, Executive Order, “Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, Executive Order
11593 of May 13, 1971,” Federal Register, 36 FR 8921, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp. (May 15, 1971): 559.

15

significant achievement occurred in 1976 when the partnership of Richard Stein Associates
(architects) and the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign released their report Energy Use
for Building Construction. The report established energy values for several building materials
and included the embodied energy values for various building types.
58
Additionally, the report
served to provide the necessary tool for conservationists to argue that older and Historic
buildings possessed quantifiable value in the form of energy stored in the materials. Richard G.
Stein, FAIA, continued his study of energy conservation in architecture and followed up the
1976 report with the publication of his book, Architecture and Energy, in 1977.
59

The last two years of the decade found conservationists (at the national level) acknowledging
energy conservation as a critical issue. In 1978, the National Park Service (NPS) published
Preservation Brief 3 – Conserving Energy in Historic Buildings, was “developed to assist those
persons attempting energy conservation measures… to achieve the greatest energy savings with
the least alteration to the historic buildings.”
60
In the brief, author Baird M. Smith, FAIA,
discusses the “inherent energy saving characteristics of historic buildings,” because those
buildings maximized the “natural sources of heating, lighting, and ventilation.”
61
The brief also
cautions against inappropriate alterations that can do severe damage to building materials.
62
The
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) followed up the NPS brief with the report,
Assessing the Energy Conservation Benefits of Historic Preservation: Methods and Examples.
The 1979 study by Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc., based on Stein’s pioneering work, focused on
the “energy conservation benefits of preservation” and aimed to provide the ACHP with “another
tool for determining the total worth of historic structures,” and “the total worth of threatened

58
Energy Use for Building Construction – Supplement defines embodied energy as “the amount of energy necessary
to produce most major building products, from extraction of the raw materials through the complete
manufacturing and fabrication of the product…[including] energy necessary to bring it to the job site… expressed
in Btu per unit characteristic of that building product.” The discussion of embodied energy has evolved and the
focus is now on carbon and emissions.
59
In 1980, the Office of Buildings and Community Systems of the U.S. Department of Energy and Richard Stein
published the Handbook of Energy Use for Building Construction, another book on energy conservation and
architecture.
60
Baird M. Smith, Preservation Brief 3 – Conserving Energy in Historic Buildings” (Washington D.C.: National
Park Service, Cultural Resources, Heritage Preservation Services, 1978). With consideration to the sustainability
and green building movement, the National Park Service revised the 1978 brief and published Preservation Briefs
3 – Improving Energy Efficiency in Historic Buildings in December 2011. The 2011 brief provides expanded and
updated information on energy conservation measures.
61
Ibid.
62
Ibid.

16

properties, and, in particular cases, whether retention and continued use are in the public
interest.”
63

Furthermore, it contained the formulas to “measure the energy needed to restore and rehabilitate
existing buildings and that needed to demolish and replace them with comparable new
construction.”
64
Like the 1976 publication, the study provided a methodology for measuring the
embodied energy of materials and expanded to include demolition energy and annual operational
energy. In all, the study was a response to the current public concern about energy conservation
and provided an analytical tool for conservationists.

1980s

In the following decade, the focus shifted from ‘sustainability’ to ‘sustainable development.’
This had the unintended consequence that many would use sustainable development to define
sustainability. In 1980, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources (IUCN) published its World Conservation Strategy, which introduced the term
‘sustainable development’:
The aim of the World Conservation Strategy is to help advance the
achievement of sustainable development through the conservation of
living resources. The Strategy:
1. explains the contribution of living resource conservation to human
survival and to sustainable development;
2. identifies the priority conservation issues and the main requirements
for dealing with them;
3. proposes effective ways for achieving the Strategy's aim.
65

This report was the first to publicize this broad concept of sustainable development universally.
66

From then, it would become a central issue of the discussion on the environment and

63
The United States Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Assessing the Energy Conservation Benefits of
Historic Preservation: Methods and Examples (Washington, D.C.: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
1979), 3.
64
Ibid., 3.
65
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, World Conservation Strategy (Gland,
Switzerland: IUCN, 1980), IV. The IUCN prepared the report in cooperation with United Nations Environmental
Programme (UNEP), the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO), and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Culture Organization (UNESCO).
66
John Pezzey, Sustainable Development Concepts – An Economic Analysis (Washington, D.C.: The World Bank,
1992), 1.

17

development. The next milestone was not until 1987. In April of that year, the United Nations’
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) published their report, Our
Common Future.
67
This report “sought to address the problem of conflicts between environment
and development goals;” and, at the same time, define ‘sustainable development.’
68
Four months
later, the Development Committee of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund
published their report, Environment, Growth and Development. The pamphlet acknowledged the
earlier publication from the UN World Commission, noting that the “framing of environmental
strategies for sustainable development has become one of the most important challenges of our
time.”
69
Although the global community was starting to focus on the severity of the issue, this
pamphlet did not experience the same prominence as the report published earlier. It was the
Brundtland Report that fully adopted the concept of sustainable development and brought it into
the mainstream.

The year following the Brundtland Report’s release, the United Nations Environment
Programme and the World Meteorological Organization established the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC), a consortium to promote climate change understanding through
technical, scientific, and socio-economic studies. The IPCC provides “regular assessments of the
scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and
mitigation.”
70
These assessment reports provide “governments at all levels with scientific
information that they can use to develop climate policies.”
71
Future reports covered temperature
increase; human effect on the Earth’s climate; global warming as the consequence of greenhouse
gases; climate change due to greenhouse gases; and, the science of climate change.

67
The United Nations General Assembly convened the commission in December 1983. Chairperson Ms. Gro
Harlem Brundtland, Prime Minister of Norway, and twenty-two members of the commission worked for the next
three years to produce their report. The commission presented the report to the UN General Assembly in October
1987.
68
Jonathan M. Harris, Sustainability and Sustainable Development (Boston: ISEE, 2003), 1.
69
Jeremy J. Warford, Environment, Growth and Development (Washington D.C.: Joint Ministerial Committee of the
Boards of Governors of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund on the Transfer of Real Resources
to Developing Countries (Development Committee), 1987): preface.
70
“About the IPCC,” accessed October 6, 2020, https://www.ipcc.ch/about/.
71
Ibid.

18

America experienced an increased sentiment about conservation during the 1970’s.
Sustainability provided the focus on the conservation of the world’s limited resources. Moreover,
America’s attitude about conservation changed following the oil crises of the last decade. As a
result, the conservation of fossil fuels, and thus energy, became a national imperative. This new
attitude presented the National Trust for Historic
Preservation (NTHP) with an opportunity to connect
heritage conservation and resource conservation. In
response, the NTHP looked to promote the link between
conservation and energy conservation with a series of
publications. For Preservation Week (May 11-17) in 1980,
the NTHP issued a poster featuring the image of a gas can
resembling an old building. The poster highlighted the
energy conservation benefits of old historic buildings and
stressed that “reusing old buildings saves the energy
required to demolish and replace them with new
buildings.”
72
The poster also served as a reminder that
conservation and reuse are like “reusing America’s
energy.”
73

In further response, the NTHP published New Energy from Old Buildings in 1981 when “only a
few would have predicted that a relationship would develop between conservation and energy
conservation.”
74
The book compiled essays from a national symposium on the interrelationship
of energy conservation and heritage conservation. It summarized those studies and offered “new
directions that the nation can take both to cut energy and retain tangible elements of its rich
heritage."
75
The book also looked to further the notion of embodied energy, noting the “existing
buildings… represent more than dollars and cents; they also are repositories of embodied
energy.”
76
William I. Whiddon furthers this notion in the essay, The Concept of Embodied

72
The National Trust for Historic Preservation, “Preservation: Reusing America’s Energy” (Washington, D.C.:
NTHP, 1980).
73
Ibid.
74
Diane Maddex, ed., New Energy from Old Buildings (Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press, 1981), 16.
75
Ibid., 16.
76
Ibid., 35.
Figure 2. NTHP Preservation
Week poster.

19

Energy, by providing a definition of the concept and elaborating on the three progressively more
detailed methods developed by Booz, Allen & Hamilton to estimate the energy value of existing
buildings. In his essay, Calvin W. Carter champions the Assessing the Energy Conservation
Benefits of Historic Preservation: Methods and Examples report stating that “this study should
profoundly influence the preservation movement and perhaps revolutionize the way effects on
the built environment are evaluated.”
77
The book is an excellent effort of conservation
leadership. Within its pages, heritage conservationists championed the energy conservation
benefits of conservation by providing insight into historic buildings’ inherent energy value and
presenting embodied energy as an argument to assist heritage professionals with their
conservation challenges. This book served the conservation movement well as it headed into the
next decade. Sustainability steward and conservationist Jean Carron, FAIA recognizes it as “a
definitive text for understanding the economics of preservation and material resources
conservation.”
78

1990s

The 1990s witnessed the changes set in motion by the Brundtland report. Sustainability turned
“green” and sustainable development continued to be its focus. In 1991, the American Institute
of Architects (AIA) formed the Committee on the Environment (COTE) in response to the
impact of human-made surroundings on the natural environment. Per the AIA website, the
Committee works to “advance, disseminate, and advocate design practices that integrate built
and natural systems and enhance both the design quality and environmental performance of the
built environment.”
79
The next year in Brazil, the Rio Earth Summit, formally known as the
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), brought together
people from around the world, including government officials, United Nations delegates,
representatives of nongovernmental organizations (NGO), and journalists. The conference made
it clear “that we can no longer think of environment and economic and social development as
isolated fields;” and looked to address the issues of global climate change, biological diversity,

77
Diane Maddex, ed., New Energy from Old Buildings (Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press, 1981), 103.
78
Jean Carron, Sustainable Preservation: Greening Existing Building (Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 2013), 68.
79
“Committee on the Environment,” accessed February 22, 2020, https://network.aia.org/communities/community-
home?CommunityKey=3b790506-aca5-4eff-aaf6-8a7b553dc0ef/.

20

deforestation, and desertification.
80
The Summit’s outcome was the adoption of the Statement of
Principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests and the Rio Declaration on Environment
and Development (a short document with twenty-seven guiding principles for sustainable
development around the world) by over 178 governments. Additionally, the Summit adopted
Agenda 21- a comprehensive action plan to address the “pressing problems of today and
[prepare] the world for the challenges of the next century.”
81
Agenda 21 provided the format for
dealing with, specifically, resource consumption and deterioration of the ecosystems. It also
included measures, and their associated goals, to link sustainable economic development and
sound environmental policies. The Rio Earth Summit would establish the framework for
sustainability in the decades to come and in to the twenty-first century.

With an awareness of the environmental impacts from the design and construction industry, three
forward-looking members from the AIA’s Committee on the Environment formed the United
States Green Building Council (USGBC) in 1993.
82
Rick Fedrizzi, David Gottfried, and Mike
Italiano established the USGBC with a mission to “transform the way buildings and communities
are designed, built and operated, enabling an environmentally and socially responsible, healthy,
and prosperous environment that improves the quality of life.”
83
Accordingly, the organization
looked to promote [the tenets of] sustainability by pursuing sustainable building and
development practices. This effort led to the incentives for construction of “green” buildings- a
building in its “design, construction or operation, reduces or eliminates negative impacts, and can
create positive impacts, on our climate and natural environment…[and] preserve precious
natural resources…”
84
[emphasis mine] It also led to the establishment of measuring standards
for “green” buildings.

80
Michael Keating, “The Earth Summit's Agenda for Change,” Earth Summit Times, (September, 1992),
introduction.
81
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Agenda 21: Programme of action for
sustainable development; Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (New York: United Nations Dept. of
Public Information, 1993): preamble, 1.3.
82
WorldGBC officially formed in 2002 with Green Building Councils from the following countries: Australia,
Brazil, Canada, India, Japan, Mexico, Spain, and USA. “About us,” accessed August 25, 2020,
https://www.worldgbc.org/our-story/.
83
“Mission and vision,” accessed August 25, 2020, https://www.usgbc.org/about/brand/.
84
“About Green Building,” accessed September 3, 220, https://www.worldgbc.org/what-green-building/.

21

A principal outcome of the USGBC was the green building certification program- LEED
(Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). The program provides the building industry
with a standard to quantify a building’s level of sustainability achievement. The program is a
voluntary, consensus-based rating system to “evaluate environmental performance from a whole
building perspective over a building’s life cycle, providing a definitive standard for what
constitutes a green building in design, construction, and operation.”
85
Finally, LEED looks to
“deliver the triple bottom line returns of people, planet, and profit” by focusing on efficiency and
leadership.
86
Following its founding, the USGBC began generating more interest and became a
worldwide proponent of sustainability. Today, many consider the formation of the USGBC as
the beginning of the green building movement in the United States.

Also in 1993, the National Park Service (NPS) published the Guiding Principles of Sustainable
Design to promote sustainability within the National Parks and global communities. The purpose
of this publication was to “provide a basis for achieving sustainability in facility planning and
design, emphasize the importance of biodiversity, and encourage responsible development
decisions in parks and other conservation areas.”
87
The book supported its purpose by presenting
an explanation of the idea of sustainability. In the Introduction, the “Concept of Sustainability”
section referred to sustainability as sustainable design and explained as “a concept that
recognizes that human civilization is an integral part of the natural world and that nature must be
preserved and perpetuated if the human community is to sustain itself indefinitely.”
88
The book’s
Introduction also listed the principles necessary for sustainability. In this section, the NPS
outlined nine principles- exemplified by the “Hanover Principles” of design for sustainability
prepared by William McDonough Architects and Dr. Michael Braungart for Expo 2000 in the
City of Hanover, Germany. These principles championed sustainability by promoting “the
philosophy that human development should exemplify the principles of conservation, and
encourage the application of those principles in our daily lives.”
89
Furthermore, it stated that
sustainability “does not require a loss in the quality of life, but does require a change in mind-set,

85
United States Green Building Council, LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations (Washington,
D.C.: USGBC, 2009), xi.
86
“LEED v4.1,” accessed September 4, 2020, https://www.usgbc.org/leed/v41/.
87
National Park Service, Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design (Denver, CO: NPS, 1993), introduction.
88
Ibid., 4.
89
Ibid., 4.

22

a change in values toward less consumptive lifestyles [and] these changes must embrace global
interdependence, environmental stewardship, social responsibility, and economic viability.”
90

With the Guiding Principles, the NPS took a leading role in advancing sustainability. The book
covers nine major topics, including interpretation, natural resources, cultural resources, site
design, building design, energy management, water supply, waste prevention, and facility
maintenance and operations. These topics present an interpretation of sustainability and focus on
educating the reader about the environment. For each, the book provides recommendations or
measures- using charts and tables. Ultimately, it summed up what is truly important: “sustainable
design, sustainable development, design with nature, environmentally sensitive design, holistic
resource management – regardless of what it's called, ‘sustainability,’ the capability of natural
and cultural systems to maintain themselves over time, is key.”
91
As a result, the website
BuildingGreen.com considers it “one of the most important books to have appeared on the issues
of environmentally sustainable design and construction.”
92

An element of sustainable development aims to lessen the environmental impacts of
construction. From extraction, manufacture, transportation, and installation of building materials
to their final disposal, construction- and any eventual demolition- must become an
environmentally responsible activity. This effort further looks to reuse/recycle wherever
possible, thus minimizing construction and demolition waste. Another sustainable goal of
construction is the practice of disassembly of buildings. Today, the term “deconstruction” also
describes disassembly, due in part to the Used Building Materials Association (UBMA). The
organization promoted building disassembly as an alternative to demolition. At a meeting in
1996, UBMA introduced the term ‘deconstruction’ to “place an emphasis on disassembly and
salvage for reuse- contrast to demolition which traditionally places emphasis simply on building

90
National Park Service, Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design (Denver, CO: NPS, 1993), 5.
91
Ibid., 4.
92
“Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design, BuildingGreen,” accessed September 12, 2020,
https://www.buildinggreen.com/newsbrief/guiding-principles-sustainable-design. According to their website,
BuildingGreen, Inc. is an “independent, mission-based consultancy and publisher that has been the trusted source
on healthy and sustainable design and construction strategies, and supports and facilitates peer networks for
sustainability leaders.”

23

removal.”
93
When used instead of the wrecking ball, deconstruction not only salvages materials
for reuse but diverts demolition waste from landfills. Additionally, it can provide comparable, if
not exact, building materials from disassembled older/historic buildings to replace missing or
damaged materials in extant buildings, thus maintaining the structure’s historic fabric. In the
coming years, it will become apparent that the practice of deconstruction can contribute to both
sustainable development and heritage conservation.

Following up the Rio Earth Summit conference was the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1997. The UN convention in Kyoto, Japan met to address
reducing global warming and “preventing ‘dangerous’ human interference with the climate
system.”
94
The result was the Kyoto Protocol, an international binding agreement that
“operationalizes the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change by committing
industrialized countries to limit and reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions in accordance
with agreed individual targets.”
95
The goal of the agreement was to reduce worldwide
greenhouse gas emissions to 5.2% below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012 by lowering the
overall emissions from six greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur
hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs.
96
After ratification by Russia in November 2004, the agreement
took effect on February 16, 2005. It is worth noting that the United States did sign the agreement
in 1998 but did not ratify it. Instead, the U.S. put forth its own initiatives to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions.

The momentum of the heritage conservation movement from the preceding decades carried well
into the 1990s. As such, the movement thrived and experienced strong activism through many
organizations and government support on multiple levels. In response this momentum and
increased awareness on sustainability, the National Park Service published Guiding Principles of
Sustainable Design. Although primarily about sustainability, Guiding Principles also focused on

93
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, Deconstruction Services for Connecticut,
(Hartford, CT: Connecticut DEEP, 2013), 1.
94
“What is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,” accessed September 5, 2020,
https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-convention/what-is-the-united-nations-framework-convention-on-
climate-change/.
95
“What is the Kyoto Protocol?” accessed September 5, 2020, https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/.
96
Ibid.

24

the interrelationship between sustainability and heritage conservation. The book devoted an
entire chapter to Cultural Resources- “those tangible and intangible aspects of cultural systems,
both past and present, that are valued by or representative of a given culture, or that contain
information about a culture.”
97
And, just as important was the book’s acknowledgement that
heritage conservation and sustainability are complementary.
98
The Cultural Resources chapter
reinforced this, stating:
[historic] preservation intrinsically is a form of sustainable conservation.
The built environment represents the embodied energy of past
civilizations. Where resources can have a viable continued use,
preservation is conservation in every sense of the word.
99

With the guidelines, the NPS promoted awareness on the environment and highlighted the link
between heritage conservation and sustainability.

2000s

The United Nations held its World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in
Johannesburg, South Africa. (Others also referred to it as “Earth Summit 2002” and “Rio +10.”)
The Summit was an event to reaffirm a commitment to sustainable development.
100
At the
meeting in 2002, the World Summit adopted the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable
Development, thus expanding on the declarations from two previous conferences- the UN
Conference on the Human Environment at Stockholm in 1972 and the Earth Summit in 1992.
The Declaration recognizes that social partnerships are crucial to promoting “regional
cooperation, improved international cooperation and sustainable development.”
101
Furthermore,
that in order to achieve their sustainable development goals, “multilateralism is the future.”
102

Moreover, the Declaration acknowledges the three pillars of sustainable development,
emphasizing for a “collective responsibility to advance and strengthen the interdependent and
mutually reinforcing pillars of sustainable development economic development, social

97
National Park Service, Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design (Denver, CO: NPS, 1993), 27.
98
Ibid., 28.
99
Ibid., 30.
100
The United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development, Report of the World Summit on Sustainable
Development: Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August-4 September 2002 (Washington, D.C.: United Nations,
2002), 1.
101
Ibid., 4.
102
Ibid., 4.

25

development and environmental protection at the local, national, regional and global levels.”
103

Finally, the World Summit confirmed that its goal for a global partnership to further the vision of
sustainable development had made significant progress.
104

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its Fourth Assessment Report in
2007. The report concluded that “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures
since the mid-twentieth century is very likely (>90% probability) due to the observed increase in
anthropogenic GHG concentrations.”
105
It further stated that “it is likely (>66% probability) that
there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each
continent (except Antarctica).”
106
The report also focused on sustainable development and its
interrelationship with climate change (Topic 4).
107
It promoted addressing climate change
policies by “integrating them within the broader framework of sustainable development
strategies.”
108
The report provided a somber assessment of humanity’s impact on the
environment and further highlighted the importance sustainability.

With the ideal that “stewardship of irreplaceable resources is the shared ethic of both
sustainability and preservation,” the Association for Preservation Technology International
(APT) established the Technical Committee on Sustainable Preservation (TC-SP) in 2004.
109

Further acknowledging this link, this APT committee endeavors to promote the interrelationship
between heritage conservation and sustainability by creating a resource center to disseminate
information. Through this forum, the TC-SP addresses such sustainability issues as construction
and demolition waste management, life cycle management, and embodied energy. It also serves
as “network to other preservation and green building stakeholders.”
110
Additionally, the TC-SP

103
The United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development, Report of the World Summit on Sustainable
Development: Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August-4 September 2002 (Washington, D.C.: United Nations,
2002), 1.
104
Ibid., 2.
105
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report (Geneva, Switzerland:
IPCC, 2008), 5-39.
106
Ibid., 5-39.
107
Ibid., v.
108
Asian Development Bank, World Sustainable Development Timeline (Manila, Philippines: 2012), 9.
109
The Association for Preservation Technology International, Technical Committee on Sustainable Preservation,
(Springfield, IL: APTI, 2015), 1.
110
“Sustainable Preservation Technical Committee,” accessed October 20, 2020, https://www.apti.org/sustainable-
preservation/.

26

reviews various topics and interests through subcommittees, including education and research,
climate change, zero net carbon collaboration.
111
The committee also focuses on the role of
heritage conservation in sustainable cultures and communities.
112
A fundamental committee
objective is to provide a collaborative outlet for conservation, sustainability, and green building
stakeholders to exchange information. As part of its outreach to APT members and practicing
professionals, the TC-SP has held a several symposia.
113
These have “attracted leaders in the
sustainable conservation field where they collaborated to sharpen the vision, clarify the mission
and advance the techniques of sustainable heritage conservation.”
114
The success of these events
has led to their other ideal- “collaboration among sustainability and conservation advocates is
imperative.”
115

How to address the integration of the green building guidelines and heritage conservation was of
concern to green building and conservation movements. Consequently, experts of both groups
gathered for the Greening of Historic Properties National Summit in Pittsburg, PA. The 2006
summit participants met to consider the challenges between heritage conservation standards and
green building guidelines. Also, the development of “common goals and guidelines for the
greening of historic properties” was a further consideration.
116
Roundtable discussions led the
summit to identify four key areas of concern- building envelope, lighting, HVAC systems, and
materials.
117
The summit acknowledged additional key areas between the green building and
heritage conservation movements, including: “embodied energy and reuse of existing resources,
conservation of resources, preservation of regional and natural cultural heritage, conservation
stimulates local and state economies, and adapting historic structures to current societal

111
The APTI TC-SP Poster states: “the Zero Net Carbon Collaboration for Existing and Historic Buildings (ZNCC)
is a strategic alliance of inter-sectoral partnerships committed to the goal of responsibly bringing historic places
to Zero Net Carbon,” accessed February 5, 2022, https://apt.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/180711_TC-
SP_poster_-_FINAL.pdf/.
112
“Sustainable Preservation Technical Committee,” accessed October 20, 2020, https://www.apti.org/sustainable-
preservation/.
113
The 2005 Annual Conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia, the 2008 Annual Conference in Montreal, Quebec, the
2011 Annual Conference in Victoria, British Columbia, and the 2015 Annual Conference in Kansas City.
114
The Association for Preservation Technology International, Technical Committee on Sustainable Preservation,
(Springfield, IL: APTI, 2015), 1.
115
Ibid.,1.
116
Pittsburg History & Landmarks Foundation, The Greening of Historic Properties: National Summit (Pittsburg,
PA: PH&LF and GBA, 2006), 4.
117
Ibid., 4.

27

needs.”
118
The summit also discussed the mutual challenges shared between the green and
heritage conservation movements, challenges to the LEED standards used to rate green building
projects, and the issues with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.
119
Finally, the summit
emphasized a necessary partnership between both groups and to “develop flexible policies and
creative approaches to new technology integration, materials use, retention of existing materials,
integration of new design techniques and the development of innovative protocols.”
120
[emphasis
mine] The outcome of this meeting was a “groundbreaking” white paper that detailed the results
and recommendations of the meeting. The paper went on to circulate through the NTHP,
USGBC, and the American Institute of Architects (AIA). This resulted in “an increased focus on
sustainability by the Association for Preservation Technology International and USGBC’s
interest in applying its LEED® Rating System to historic properties.”
121
Many professionals
consider the gathering a milestone for both sustainability and heritage conservation.

The 2007 journal of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Forum Journal, included the
Viewpoint article “The Greenest Building Is…One That Is Already Built” written by Carl
Elefante, FAIA.
122
The title of this influential essay spawned a popular catchphrase that captured
the sentiment of the conservation movement. In the article, Elefante was critical of the green
building movement for overlooking “its most troubling truth: [that] we cannot build our way to
sustainability.”
123
This oversight was due to the movement’s popular notion that if we built all
subsequent buildings using sustainable design guidelines then we would achieve sustainability.
However, he considered this a fallacy as this approach would still not achieve sustainability. He
pointed out that proponents failed to “account for the overwhelming vastness of the existing
building stock.”
124
For Elefante, the accumulated building stock was the apparent problem, one
ignored by the green building movement. Furthermore, he believed that it was up to
conservationists to bring attention to this problem by making a “much more methodical effort to

118
Pittsburg History & Landmarks Foundation, The Greening of Historic Properties: National Summit (Pittsburg,
PA: PH&LF and GBA, 2006), 6.
119
Ibid., 7-10.
120
Ibid., 12.
121
Tristian Roberts, “Historic Preservation and Green Building: A Lasting Relationship,” last updated January 2,
2007, https://www.buildinggreen.com/feature/historic-preservation-and-green-building-lasting-relationship/.
122
Architect Carl Elefante is principal emeritus for Quinn Evans Architects and a past present of the American
Institute of Architects.
123
Carl Elefante, “The Greenest Building Is…One That Is Already Built,” forum journal 21, no. 4 (2007), 26-27.
124
Ibid., 27.

28

measure, document, and report the effectiveness of preservation as a green building strategy
based on the work [that] we have accomplished with these core elements of the historic building
stock.”
125
. He stressed that “we cannot build our way to sustainability; we must conserve our
way to it.”
126
Ultimately, Elefante’s essay serves to highlight that “preservation will become
more relevant to sustainability by expanding the scope of the buildings we conserve.”
127

To promote the inherent connections of conservation and sustainability, the National Trust
established the Preservation Green Lab in 2009 to “advance research that explores the value that
older buildings bring to their communities, and pioneers policy solutions that make it easier to
reuse and green older and historic buildings.”
128
It also works to provide innovative solutions to
“minimize carbon impacts from the built environment through direct emissions reductions from
older building retrofits and reuse” and to ”support the conservation and reuse of older and
historic buildings.”
129
Through research reports (e.g., “The Greenest Building”), the Green Lab
illustrates the environmental benefits of heritage conservation. In 2018, the National Trust
renamed the Green Lab as the Research & Policy Lab.

2010s

Twenty years after the 1992 Earth Summit, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable
Development (“Rio +20”) again met in Rio de Janeiro. This Conference looked to reassert
support for the Rio Principles and previous action plans.
130
In advancing sustainable
development, the third Rio conference focused on two themes: “a green economy in the context
of sustainable development and poverty eradication, and the institutional framework for
sustainable development.”
131
Acknowledging the need for sustainable development goals,

125
Carl Elefante, “The Greenest Building Is…One That Is Already Built,” forum journal 21, No. 4 (2007), 28.
126
Ibid., 27.
127
Ibid., 28.
128
Preservation Green Lab, The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value of Building Reuse
(Washington D.C.: NTHP, 2011), iii.
129
Preservation Green Lab, The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value of Building Reuse
(Washington D.C.: NTHP, 2011) iii; Jim Lindberg, “The Preservation Green Lab is Now the Research & Policy
Lab,” last updated June 28, 2028, https://forum.savingplaces.org/blogs/jim-lindberg/2018/06/28/preservation-
green-lab-now-research-policy-lab/.
130
The United Nations, The future we want, (New York: United Nations, 2012), 3.
131
Ibid., 2.

29

Conference members decided to “establish an inclusive and transparent intergovernmental
process with a view to developing global sustainable development goals to be agreed by the
General Assembly.”
132
Following its meeting, the conference released its final outcome
document The future we want- “a focused political outcome document which contains clear and
practical measure for implementing sustainable development.”
133
Finally, conference members
decided to establish a process to create a set of sustainable development goals and would see the
UN adopt seventeen interconnected goals as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development in 2015.

The IPCC released the Fifth Assessment Report in 2013. The report provides “a comprehensive
up-to-date compilation of assessments dealing with climate change, based on the most recent
scientific, technical and socio-economic” literature.
134
This report would layout the course for
carbon emissions reductions at the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris in 2015. The Paris
Agreement was the result of this conference. The Agreement built upon the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and brought “all nations into a common cause to
undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change.”
135
Furthermore, the Agreement provided
assistance to developing nations in their efforts to meet their goals.

The Preservation Green Lab published its report, The Greenest Building: Qualifying the
Environmental Value of Building Reuse, in 2011. The research study “provides the most
comprehensive analysis to date of the potential environmental impact reductions associated with
building reuse.”
136
Using Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), the study examines the following
indicators:
…four environmental impact categories, including climate change, human health,
ecosystem quality, and resource depletion;

132
The United Nations, The future we want, (New York: United Nations, 2012), 46.
133
“United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio+20,” accessed October 21, 2020,
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/rio20/.
134
International Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC,
2014), vii.
135
Sustainable Development Timeline, Library and Information Centre (New Delhi, India: The Energy and Resource
Institute, n.d.), 6.
136
Preservation Green Lab, The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value of Building Reuse (Seattle,
Wash.; NTHP, 2011), vi.

30

…six building typologies, including a single-family home, multifamily building,
commercial office, urban village mixed-use building, elementary school, and
warehouse conversion;
…building types across four U.S. cities, each representing a different climate
zone, i.e., Portland, Phoenix, Chicago, and Atlanta.
137

The key finding was that “building reuse almost always yields fewer environmental impacts than
new construction when comparing buildings of similar size and functionality” and further
reinforces the intuitiveness of Carl Elefante’s words- the greenest building is…one that is
already built.
138
Moreover, the report “concludes that building reuse almost always offers
environmental savings over demolition and new construction.”
139
This groundbreaking study
helps to illustrate that heritage conservation contributes to sustainability and adds to the
conservationist’s toolkit.

There are concerns by cities that demolition is claiming too many of its older residential
buildings, resulting in generation of excessive waste and materials going to landfills. As part of
their sustainable community and heritage conservation goals, municipalities are considering
demolition requirements for their older and Historic structures. To this end, municipalities are
looking to deconstruction as policy tool to remediate these concerns. The codification of
deconstruction came in 2014 with the Green Demolition By-law enacted by the City of
Vancouver, Canada. Considered the first ordinance of its kind, the by-law establishes
requirements for reuse and recycling of salvaged building materials.
140
Moreover, a key
component of the by-law was a consideration for heritage conservation. It includes a heritage
component that focuses on the city’s pre-1940’s character buildings and requires that their
removal “be subject to character demolition.”
141
Other cities soon followed Vancouver’s lead,
including: Portland, OR in 2016, Milwaukee, WI in 2018, and Palo Alto, CA in 2019.
Furthermore, these municipalities included a date threshold (heritage component) in their

137
Preservation Green Lab, The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value of Building Reuse (Seattle,
Wash.; NTHP, 2011), vi.
138
Ibid., vi.
139
Ibid., vi.
140
Vancouver, Canada, Green Demolition By-Law, 11023 (2014).
141
The by-law provides the following definitions: “character building” means a building determined to be a
character building by the Director of Planning in accordance with the Potential Character or Heritage Review;
“character demolition” demolition of a character building, resulting in the reuse or recycling of not less than 90%
of all building materials, by weight, excluding hazardous materials. Vancouver, Canada, Green Demolition By-
Law, 11023 (2014).

31

ordinance, which differs for each. For Portland – it is1940 and for Milwaukee,1929.
Unfortunately, Palo Alto does not have a heritage component. To date, many municipalities
either are considering or have pending deconstruction policies, e.g., executive orders, ordinances,
or incentives.

The contextual background of sustainability and heritage conservation provided illustrates the
inherent connections between the two. Furthermore, chronicling the histories of both fields
serves to highlight their similarities. As it is increasingly difficult to argue against climate change
nowadays, it is obvious that heritage conservation has numerous sustainable qualities that
reinforce its interconnection to sustainability. It will only be through forward-looking leadership
and innovative conservation strategies, essential to both fields, that we can mitigate any further
impacts to our natural resources.

32

Figure 3. A Timeline.
(Original list by Erika Leigh Hasenfus, expanded by author.)

33

CHAPTER 2
DECONSTRUCTION

Up until World War II, the reuse of building structures and their components was
commonplace.
142
However, attitudes dramatically changed following the end of the war. Notable
were new design attitudes “that emphasized the new building forms and the application of
technology over traditional building types and craft.”
143
Furthermore, the early twentieth century
architectural theory and practice called for the use of newer materials and the rejection of the
past. As a result, people were quickly discarding everything deemed old. With abundant landfill
space and cheap raw materials, postwar America became a disposable society. From disposable
tissues to diapers to plates, few products last a lifetime. Unfortunately, this attitude also applied
to our existing building stock. A surging economy and changes in aesthetic preferences, as well
as health and welfare components of modern zoning and urban renewal, impacted the
construction boom that followed the end of the war. As a result, America tore down many old
buildings to make way for new, modern buildings- a trend that continues today. It is no longer
uncommon to knock down massive structures that are barely thirty years old.
144
Preservation
Economist Donovan Rypkema asserts that "most buildings being built today won't last even 40
years."
145
Over the past twenty-five years, attitudes have shifted yet again. Landfill space is at a
premium and material costs have skyrocketed. Furthermore, the conservation movement has
gained ground in its push to save our built heritage, in particular through adaptive use. The
design and construction industry now accepts the green building movement and its eco-friendly
construction practices. The conservation and green building movements have caused a re-
evaluation of our attitude towards the existing built environment.

Current practice calls for an environmentally, economically, and socially responsible strategy to
deal with the demolition of buildings that no longer serve their purpose. Demolition creates
excessive material waste, much of it hauled to landfills. As a sustainable alternative to traditional

142
Bob Falk, “Wood-Framed Building Deconstruction: A Source of Lumber for Construction?” Forest Products
Journal 52, no. 3 (March, 2002): 8.
143
Carl Elefante, “The Greenest Building Is…One That Is Already Built,” forum journal 21, no. 4 (2007), 29.
144
John A. Manuel, “Unbuilding for the Environment,” Environmental Health Perspectives 111, no. 16 (2003):
A881.
145
Keenan Hughes, “Reuse Vs. Tear Down,” Planning 74, no. 1 (January, 2008): 41.

34

building demolition, “deconstruction” diverts building materials from the waste stream through
the practice of selective disassembly of a building with the intent of salvaging the materials and
components for reuse. Highest priority is for direct reuse in new construction or incorporation in
existing structures, giving materials a second life. This "grave-to-cradle" practice thus extends
the useful life of building materials.
146
Any material not directly reused gets recycled,
downcycled, or upcycled.
147
Unfortunately, anything leftover will make its way to the landfill.
Contractors can use deconstruction in varying levels and can take place before demolition,
incorporated into the demolition process, or replace demolition altogether.
148
And while
conventional demolition primarily involves mechanical means to clear a site quickly,
deconstruction can employ various combinations of manual and mechanical methods. As a
result, this “hands on” approach makes deconstruction labor intensive and time-consuming, but
more environmentally friendly than conventional demolition - resulting in the salvage of scarce
material resources and the diversion of substantial building materials from landfills.

Types of Deconstruction

The process of deconstruction can be as simple as removing a few doors or as complex as the
manual disassembly of an entire building.
149
Depending on the salvage goals, there are two main
deconstruction activities: non-structural and structural. Non-structural activities require minimal
specialized training, allowing for greater inclusion of workers with varying skill levels. In urban
settings, the time constraints imposed by development pressures generally affect the degree of
deconstruction. Structural activities would require only minimal additional training for skilled
structural workers. Whereas a demolition crew can tear down a structure in a few days,
deconstruction can take several days or weeks. Non-structural deconstruction is the least affected

146
“Deconstruction,” last modified February 27, 2013,
http://www.ct.gov/Deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2714&q=469620&deepNav_/.
147
Author Jennifer L. Languell provides the following examples to define above terms: “recycling materials would
consist of turning scrap steel into new steel rebar or beams; downcycling would be turning a concrete slab into
road base; upcycling would consist of salvaging lumber and creating custom cabinetry or other value-added
products.”
148
The Environmental Building News (EBN) reported “the term deconstruction took hold at the first Used Building
Materials Association meeting in Canada in 1996.” EBN further states the association invented the term to place
an emphasis on disassembly and salvage for reuse- in contrast to demolition which traditionally places emphasis
simply on building removal.
149
Or, the dismantling of decommissioned military bases.

35

by project time constraints, and is the more commonplace activity prior to the mechanical
demolition of a structure.
150
It consists of the removal “for salvage or reuse of any building
components or contents that are not a part of or whose removal is not dependent on the structural
integrity of the building.”
151
Items typically removed during this activity may include
plumbing/electrical fixtures, appliances, doors, windows, flooring, cabinets and finish or trim
materials - basically, anything that is quick and easy to remove. These items generally are
higher-value salvage materials and will find their way to architectural salvage retailers. Even
within this activity, a more common practice is to “cherry pick” - strip out recyclable, reusable or
historic materials that are easily obtainable.
152
This activity creates very little trash or other
reusable materials during the deconstruction process, as the intent is to remove only those items
that have a resale value. Another practice is to target certain building components, i.e., rafters or
floor joists; however, these must be of lumber size and length that make them suitable for reuse.
A deconstruction crew with a few hand tools, and with typical job-site safety, can accomplish
most non-structural projects, usually in a matter of hours or several days. Also, key is that this
activity can be independent of any mechanical demolition activities; and, in some cases, even
before the start of demolition. Finally, non-structural deconstruction is a well-established
industry that provides used building materials to architectural salvage markets throughout the
United States.

When complete deconstruction of a structure is feasible, the preferred salvage activity is
structural deconstruction. However, time constraints more adversely affect this activity; making
it less likely in most standard mechanized demolition projects. Furthermore, it is more dependent
on the demolition activities than non-structural and will most likely be supplemental to
demolition. Structural deconstruction is the process of “dismantling the structural components of
a building; removing the entire building down to or including the foundation.”
153
It involves
mostly simple hand tools, some mechanized equipment, and higher attention to job safety.

150
Other terms for “non-structural deconstruction” include: “soft-strip,” “hand demo,” “high grading,” or “unbuild.”
151
National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), A Report on the Feasibility of Deconstruction: An Investigation
of Deconstruction Activity in Four Cities (Washington D.C.; U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development,
2001), 6.
152
Jennifer L. Languell, Implementing Deconstruction in Florida: Materials Reuse Issues, Disassembly Techniques,
Economics and Policy (Gainesville: Center for Construction and Environment, 2000) 1.
153
“Deconstruction,” last modified February 27, 2013,
http://www.ct.gov/Deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2714&q=469620&deepNav_/.

36

Structural deconstruction is at times only restricted to the salvage of used bricks; however, it may
target selective building assemblies for removal in advance of demolition.
154
These include roof
rafters, floor/ceiling joists, dimensional framing lumber, and sheathing materials that are of
useful size, material, and condition to justify salvaging. Other high-value salvageable materials
include rare woods, such as Douglas Fir, Southern Yellow Pine, Cedar, and other hardwoods that
are not as available now as in the past. It is worth noting that complete structural deconstruction
is most profitable and sustainable when the majority of the salvaged building materials and
components have the greatest possibility of resale and reuse. It is also a complex operation that
requires extensive pre-planning, including: “a) a thorough inventory of all materials identifying
those for salvage, recycling, or disposal; b) a careful analysis of existing markets or outlets for
materials to be sold; c) sufficient storage space for materials; d) specific contract language which
clearly identifies the intended end-use of the building's various components; e) careful
scheduling to ensure adequate time for disassembly.”
155
Due to limited retail markets and reach,
structural deconstruction is currently only an emerging industry. However, the use of either type
of deconstruction, in conjunction with some demolition, has the potential to reduce waste,
preserve our limited resources, and provide for an environmentally sound solution to whole
building removal. Furthermore, job-site safety training is always a big consideration, much like
construction, that involves working in filthy (and, at times unsafe) conditions, and with
hazardous materials.

154
Some building assemblies are more readily available for dismantling.
155
NAHB Research Center, Inc., A Guide to Deconstruction (Washington, D.C., U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban
Development, 2000), 8.

37

Table 1. Deconstruction Types
(Source: Adapted from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development - 2000, 2001.)

Deconstruction: A Brief History

Although it has gained attention in recent years, deconstruction and the salvage of building
materials for reuse is nothing new. Deconstruction is the modern concept for an old practice,
revived by the green building movement and the awareness in sustainable development, going
back to ancient times. Throughout history and the world, it was commonplace to salvage
materials from older structures and reuse them to renovate existing buildings or construct new.
Type Description Characteristics
Types of Salvaged
Materials
Non-Structural The removal for
reuse of any building
contents that do not
affect the structural
integrity of the
building.
• Requires less planning
and coordination than
structural deconstruction;
• Materials are visible and
removable without much
destructive access;
• Uses few tools, and
removal of materials is
relatively easily with
minimum safety
concerns;
• Does not have a
significant effect on
project schedule.
Finish flooring
Appliances
Cabinetry
Windows and doors
Trim
HVAC equipment
Fixtures/hardware
Fireplace mantels
Structural The removal, for
reuse, of building
components that are
an integral part of the
building, or
contribute to the
structural integrity of
the building.

• Involves a range of tools
and mechanization;
• Heightened safety
consideration, and longer
time-frame;
• Materials removed are
typically large, rough
products reused as
building materials or
remanufactured into
value-added products
such as chairs, tables, and
surface coverings.
Framing
Sheathing
Roof systems
Brick/masonry
Wood timbers/beams
Wood rafters
Floor joist system
Ceiling joist system

38

Many ancient civilizations built new dwellings, buildings, and monuments with materials from
existing structures and the ruins of others. After all, “why go to the effort of sourcing, cutting and
transporting new building materials when they are available locally?”
156
As such, any vacant,
derelict, neglected, or unwanted structures became an easy source for materials. This was the
practice for centuries. More recently, building disassembly (in particular, wood-framed
structures) was quite common in the United States up until World War II as labor was
comparatively inexpensive, materials were rather expensive, and heavy equipment was less
common.
157
Following the war, the construction industry progressively moved away from
construction operations primarily by manual labor and hand tools to a more mechanized
workforce. Therefore, for the next sixty to seventy years, the use of heavy equipment, such as
backhoes and bulldozers, made the mechanical demolition of buildings the norm.
158
During these
same years, the means and methods of building construction went through significant changes.
This period of transformation also included building materials, which provided a modern palette
for architects and builders. The trend, along with increased labor costs, with its focus on
expedient building and site clearing, and stringent labor laws for worker protection, created a
disincentive to salvage material for reuse.
159

Deconstruction = Spolia

In the long history of building material salvage and reuse, “deconstruction” is but one of many
terms describing this practice. “Deconstruction” is the term for our modern concept of material
salvage and reuse. Its history further traced back to when man first erected buildings.
“Spoliation” is the ancient concept of “deconstruction.”
160
The arcane term is from the scholars
of archaeology and art history, who have studied the ancient practice for centuries. “Spolia” is

156
Heinrich Hall, “Spolia – Recycling the Past” last modified August 26, 2013,
http://www.petersommer.com/blog/archaeology-history/spolia/.
157
Bob Falk, “Wood-Framed Building Deconstruction: A Source of Lumber for Construction?” Forest Products
Journal 52, no. 3 (March, 2002): 8.
158
Plentiful landfill space and cheap raw materials are also contributing factors.
159
Bob Falk, “Wood-Framed Building Deconstruction: A Source of Lumber for Construction?” Forest Products
Journal 52, no. 3 (March, 2002): 8.
160
Heinrich Hall writes that spolia is an “alien” concept for contemporary man because we consider the despoliation
of older structures more or less a sacrilege; after all, we strive to protect our culture heritage. Not so for our
ancestors, who took a more practical approach and did not draw the line between a virtually untouchable static
“heritage” and a dynamic present.

39

the term from around the sixteenth century, “when lacking a pre-existing term for them- the
artist-antiquarians who were discovering reused antiquities borrowed the word from the semantic
field of war.”
161
It is from the Latin word “spolium” (plural: “spolia”), meaning “removed hide
of an animal” or “spoils” (as in “spoils of war”). Architecturally speaking, spolia refers to
salvaged and reused building materials taken from standing or demolished buildings- “a
building, therefore, to remain with the hunter's terminology, stripped of its hide.”
162
As people
construct new or renovate, they need building materials. When these materials are scarce or
obtained through great effort, they are more likely to reuse or recycle them.
163
The Roman
Empire recycled to such a surprising extent that during that period, they made spoliation a
common and far-reaching practice.
164
The Romans first used it extensively around the third
century to build new structures by reusing the architectural building components of old or ruined
buildings. Some of the earliest structures constructed with considerable amount of spolia are
from the time of Emperor Constantine.
165
By the fifth century, the use of spolia was a wide-
spread custom. Builders practiced “despoliation” in medieval architecture throughout the
Middle-Ages which peaked “during those high tides of interest in classical culture- the
Carolingian period and twelfth century.”
166
There was a belief that by “reusing a classical
column and capital [it] would ennoble the new construction, especially when it represented lost
craft techniques.”
167
There was a decline in the use of spolia during the Italian Renaissance due
to the “classical tradition resurrecting as a vital form of literary and artistic practice.”
168

However, the practice of spoliation would continue. The Industrial Revolution saw yet another

161
Dale Kinney, “Spolia. Damnatio and Renovatio Memoriae,” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 42,
(1997), 119.
162
Beat Brenk, “Spolia from Constantine to Charlemagne: Aesthetics versus Ideology." Dumbarton Oaks Papers 41
(1987): 103. On separate note, some writers limit the definition to include only Greek or Roman architectural
sculpture or elements of the classical colonnade; column shaft, base, capital, and entablature (Dale Kinney); and
yet, others deal with the concept of spolia as a collection and display of the antique material in new buildings.
(Bilge AR).
163
As opposed to discarding materials.
164
Author Dale Kinney states that in Rome there were multiple forms of recycling, ranging from metamorphosis or
consumption to intact reinstallations.
165
Scholars regard the Arch of Constantine, the Lateran Basilica, and St. Peter’s in Rome as the most important
examples of that era.
166
Dale Kinney, “Roman Architectural Spolia.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 145, no. 2
(2001): 139.
167
Jeff Chusid, email message to author, October 20, 2017.
168
Ibid., 139.

40

decline. This time, it was due to the preference to use new materials.
169
Even up until the
twentieth century, builders never discontinued the practice of material salvage and reuse.

Deconstruction: Benefits and Challenges

As sustainability becomes more critical to our everyday lives, the efficient use of resources
becomes a fundamental necessity for sustainable development. Therefore, deconstruction is the
best response when the final option is building removal. Manual deconstruction offers social,
economic, environmental, and historical benefits over mechanical demolition. Deconstructing a
building is a labor-intensive activity that provides the social benefits of creating more
employment opportunities and training for unskilled/semi-skilled workers in the use of basic
tools and construction techniques that they can apply within the building industry.
170
There are
notable economic benefits from deconstruction resulting from the sale of salvaged materials. The
supply and sale of salvaged building materials creates additional revenue within a community.
This supply stream of quality, low-cost materials also creates value-added retail markets (and
products made from these materials) and has the potential to save on project costs by avoiding
waste disposal fees, the purchase of new materials, possible revenue from the sale of salvaged
materials, and claiming it as a tax-deductible charitable donation to gain tax breaks.
171
As an
economic development tool, deconstruction can foster the creation and expansion of small
businesses to handle the salvaged materials from deconstruction projects.
172
Deconstruction can
have the greatest impact with its many potential environmental benefits. Construction and
demolition (C&D) waste is one of the largest contributors to municipal landfills. One of the key
environmental benefits of deconstruction is the diversion of C&D waste from those landfills.
173

Furthermore, diverting and reusing building materials can reduce gas emissions that contribute to
global warming; ease the need for new landfills and associated support systems; and, reduce the

169
Jose Mendoza Milara et al, “Deconstruction + Reuse = NØ Waste,” (presentation, 30
th
International PLEA
Conference, Ahmedabad, December 16-18, 2014).
170
Jennifer L. Languell, Implementing Deconstruction in Florida: Materials Reuse Issues, Disassembly Techniques,
Economics and Policy (Gainesville: Center for Construction and Environment, 2000), 22.
171
“Deconstruction,” accessed June 19, 2015,
http://greenmanual.rutgers.edu/newresidential/strategies/deconstruction.pdf/, 3.
172
NAHB, Report on the Feasibility of Deconstruction: An Investigation of Deconstruction Activity in Four Cities
(Washington D.C.; U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, 2001), forward.
173
It also has the added benefit of extending the life of landfills.

41

“carbon footprint” of a project by avoiding the manufacture and transport of new materials.
174

The NTHP is one of many organizations that recognize the environmental benefit of
deconstruction to reduce the impact on landfills.
175
The deconstruction of a structure can produce
valuable building, architectural, and historic materials. Older and Historic buildings consistently
contain craftsmanship, detailing, and materials that are no longer readily available, thus having
significant historical value that is potentially useful when restoring or rehabilitating Historic
structures. Again, the NTHP “supports the reuse of older and historic building materials and
architectural details” and recognizes “that deconstruction can provide a source of materials for
rehabilitating other buildings in a historic neighborhood, and this may serve to help protect
community character.”
176
In the end, it is obvious that deconstruction has the potential to
conserve the historic fabric of communities by salvaging the unique materials inherently found in
older buildings.

Even though the practice of material recycling has a long history, deconstruction today still faces
some challenges. The barriers vary depending on the type of deconstruction activity; however,
proponents of deconstruction agree that time constraints are the primary limiting factor.
Furthermore, deconstruction is a labor-intensive activity with the work being filthy and
demanding, which makes maintaining a committed workforce a challenge. This intensity also
adds to the overall cost of labor and associated materials management (e.g., the inventory and
storage of salvaged items).
177
Finally, current development practices further provide a
disincentive for deconstruction. Redevelopment pressures are a major barrier to deconstruction,
with interest-based financing rewarding contractors that meet or exceed the project schedule.
Other challenges include: “existing buildings have not been designed for dismantling; building
components have not been designed for disassembly; building codes and materials standards
often do not address the reuse of building components; unknown cost factors in the
deconstruction process; lack of a broad industry identity with commensurate standardized

174
“Deconstruction,” last modified February 27, 2013,
http://www.ct.gov/Deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2714&q=469620&deepNav_/.
175
U.S. National Trust for Historic Preservation, Position on Deconstruction, accessed April 7, 2015,
http://www.preservationnation.org/information-center/sustainable-communities/additional-
resources/Deconstruction-Position-Paper-NTHP.pdf/.
176
Ibid.
177
Any reduction of disposal fees and addition of revenues from the sale of materials has the potential to mitigate
the higher costs associated with deconstruction.

42

practices; buildings built before the mid-1970’s with lead-based paint and asbestos containing
materials.”
178
Deconstruction faces significant challenges; however, it can provide social,
economic, environmental, and historical benefits if changes in design and policy occur.
179

Deconstruction and the Standards

Currently, conservation practices in the United States use four treatment approaches:
preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. Together, these four concepts
provide key strategies for dealing with historic structures. Moreover, these concepts form the
basis for the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The
Standards are a series of strategies for dealing with structures that also include Guidelines in the
application of the Standards. With these Standards and Guidelines, conservationist can apply the
strategies to maintain, repair, or make alterations to historic structures. The Standards even
provide the option of replacing historic material; however, only after careful examination and
determining it to be unavoidable. When considering material replacement, there is a strict
hierarchy within the Standards. The strictest treatment is Preservation and the least is
Reconstruction. The former allows only the minimal use of new materials and the latter allows
the use of all new materials. Given that replacement is sometimes necessary, a better alternative
would be to use salvaged materials. Therefore, this chapter will explore the significant role of
salvaged materials (and as a result, deconstruction) as an alternative to the use of new materials
in the conservation efforts of historic structures.

The Standards

The U.S. Department of the Interior’s National Park Service published the Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties, a series of illustrated guides on preserving and maintaining
Historic structures. The Standards provide technical guidance on the efforts for the preservation,

178
Abdol Chini and Stuart F. Beuning, “Deconstruction and materials reuse in the United States,” The Future of
Sustainable Construction (May, 2003), 2.
179
Abdol R. Chini ed., Deconstruction and Materials Reuse (Gainesville: International Council for Research and
Innovation in Building Construction, 2003), preface.

43

rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction of Historic structures. In Preservation Brief: 17,
architect Lee H. Nelson states that the Standards have two key objectives:
1. The preservation of historic materials; and,
2. The preservation of a building's distinguishing character.
180

Of these two objectives, the former is of particular importance to the subject of deconstruction.
The objective stresses the maintenance and care of historic materials and, therefore, limits their
replacement. However, replacement is the only option for deteriorated, damaged, or missing
historic materials. But such appropriate new materials may not be available. This would often
lead to the use of readily obtainable materials, that more often than not, lacked compatibility
with extant materials, durability or similar physical traits. Fortunately, guidance is available
through the Standards and Guidelines. The following are brief descriptions of the four treatments
with a particular focus on material replacement and its appropriateness.

Preservation

The Preservation treatment strives to “sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an
historic property”
181
through ongoing efforts to protect, stabilize, maintain and repair materials.
As previously stated, it is the strictest of the Standards as it requires the “retention of the greatest
amount of historic fabric along with the building’s historic form.”
182
When the condition of
materials warrants replacement, “the greatest level of intervention in this treatment is the limited
replacement in kind of extensively deteriorated or missing components… and requires the
replacement material must match the old, both physically and visually.”
183
It is worth noting that
“substitute materials are not appropriated in the treatment Preservation”.
184
Any replacement
material should be distinguishable as a replacement and extensively documented to provide

180
Lee H. Nelson, Architectural Character: Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to
Preserving Their Character (Washington D.C.: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural
Resources, Heritage Preservation Services, 1988), 1.
181
Anne Grimmer, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with
Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Washington D.C.:
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, 2017), 2.
182
Ibid., 2.
183
Ibid., 30.
184
Ibid., 30.

44

evidence for future research. Furthermore, should prominent features be missing, “a
Rehabilitation or Restoration treatment may be more appropriate.”
185

Rehabilitation

The aim of the Rehabilitation treatment is to promote “the act or process of making possible a
compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those
portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.”
186
This is the
most widely used of the four conservation treatments. It allows the most latitude with material
replacement, thus providing the greatest flexibility, by “acknowledging the need to alter or add to
a historic property to meet continuing or changing uses while retaining the property’s historic
character.”
187
Like the treatment of Preservation, material replacement will occur only when
there is severe deterioration and replacement materials will match the extant historic fabric; and,
the replacement materials must be distinguishable and extensively documented. It is worth
noting that the Standards provide conservationists with “direction in making appropriate choices
in planning the repairs, alterations, and additions that may be part of a rehabilitation project.”
188

Restoration

The goal of Restoration is to “replicate the appearance of the historic building at a particular
time” in its history by isolating and featuring that significant period of time.
189
To accomplish
this, the treatment calls for the removal of all traces of other periods that fall after the significant
period. It also requires the documentation of features or materials removed prior to any
undertaking. The treatment allows the replacement of entire features; however, the materials

185
Anne Grimmer, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with
Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Washington D.C.:
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, 2017), 30.
186
Ibid., 75.
187
WBDG Historic Preservation Subcommittee, “Historic Preservation,” accessed May 16, 2018,
https://www.wbdg.org/design-objectives/historic-preservation/.
188
“Applying the Standards for Rehabilitation,” accessed May 16, 2018,
https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/applying-rehabilitation.htm/.
189
Anne Grimmer, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with
Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Washington D.C.:
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, 2017), 166.

45

must be beyond repair and all replacements patterned after the historic feature. Although the
treatment allows for the reconstruction of missing features and compatible substitute materials,
the use of similar replacement materials is always preferable. Salvaged materials can play an
important role by providing similar, if not identical, materials.

Reconstruction

Reconstruction is unlike the other three treatments. This treatment typically deals with “often no
visible historic materials.”
190
Yet, like Restoration, it strives to recreate a historic structure, or a
prominent portion, in its original location and at a significant period in its history. To accomplish
this, it relies on construction with mostly new materials due to the availability of extant
materials. The Standards prefer authentic materials whenever possible as well as incorporating
any surviving historic materials but allow substitute materials. However, they must faithfully
replicate the historic fabric in appearance, including color, finish, and material. Furthermore, the
recreation depends on the availability of valid historical documentation to ensure the accuracy of
the [recreation] material selections. The treatment is less strict when it comes to non-visible
features, such as interior structural systems, and allows the use of “contemporary materials and
technology.”
191
Notably, this treatment is the least used because documentation is often not
available and there is a potential for error. Due to the possibility of available extant materials,
this treatment would greatly benefit from salvaged materials.

Deconstruction

The National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) considers appropriate “the practice of
deconstruction of older and historic buildings but only as a last resort when the continued use or
adaptive use of the older or historic building is not possible.”
192
Any consideration for

190
Anne Grimmer, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with
Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Washington D.C.:
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, 2017), 227.
191
Ibid., 228.
192
U.S. National Trust for Historic Preservation. Position on Deconstruction. Available at:
http://www.preservationnation.org/information-center/sustainable-communities/additional-
resources/Deconstruction-Position-Paper-NTHP.pdf/. Accessed: 4/7/2015.

46

deconstruction should be only after identifying, evaluating, and finding that other alternatives are
infeasible.
193
When an older or Historic building has reached its end of life, the priorities for the
NTHP are reuse, followed by relocation, and finally, deconstruction. In their Position on
Deconstruction paper, the NTHP provides the following three options for dealing with these
buildings. First, the NTHP encourages the continual use of the building in situ, either through
repairs or adaptive reuse, because this is often more sustainable and environmentally friendly in
that it “recycles the entire building” rather than only materials and building components.
Furthermore, the reuse of an older or Historic building may contribute to the architectural or
historical value, stability, and livability of a neighborhood or community. Also, older and
Historic buildings have the benefits of high-quality materials, constructed to be in harmony with
nature, and built to last. Second: relocation of a listed building, or eligible for listing (at the either
the local, state, and federal level), to a new site is the appropriate solution. Third: deconstruction
of the building and salvage of materials; however, only if there is no feasible alternative. It is
worth noting that the NTHP does not support the use of deconstruction “as a means to demolish
a building” or “as a means to replace historic and older homes with houses that are insensitive to
their context.”
194

Material selection is very important in the conservation field. With the Standards and Guidelines,
the NTHP offers guidance in the use of replacement materials. The four treatments outline the
different levels of replacement, from the strictest to the lenient. Preservation stresses
maintenance and repair over replacement and therefore allows replacement in the most extreme
cases. Through primarily adaptive reuse, Rehabilitation acknowledges the need for change. This
provides for the ability for replacement, but only following extensive documentation.
Rehabilitation addresses the majority of conservation projects, and therefore, is the most
commonly used treatment. Restoration allows the removal of non-character defining features. As
a result, replacement material may be necessary. As Reconstruction deals with little or no
historic materials, its attempt to recreate historic character becomes more challenging (given that

193
Sustainability and Historic Federal Buildings (Washington D.C.: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
2011), 22.
194
The National Trust for Historic Preservation, Position on Deconstruction, accessed April 7, 2015,
http://www.preservationnation.org/information-center/sustainable-communities/additional-
resources/Deconstruction-Position-Paper-NTHP.pdf/.

47

something is no longer there). Unless there is sound documentation, even salvaged materials may
prove difficult to incorporate into the project. All four treatments deal with replacement
differently. However, the goal for all four is always to match the existing historic fabric in style,
craftsmanship, quality, durability, color, texture, finish, and material. When considering
replacement materials, the availability of materials salvaged from old and historic buildings has
the potential to provide matching, if not the identical, materials.

48

CHAPTER 3
THE PROJECT HOUSE

The Project

As buildings consume a larger share of available resources, we must draw our attention to their
impact on the environment. The construction and operation of buildings is responsible for
emitting greenhouse gases and contributing to climate change. Buildings have two primary
emissions sources- embodied carbon and operational carbon. The CO2 released during the
construction process is embodied carbon; and includes the extraction of raw material,
transportation, manufacture, and installation of finished products. Operational carbon is the CO2
emitted in the process of building use. For the next ten years, embodied carbon will be
responsible for 74% of CO2 emissions of new buildings.
195
During the same period, operational
carbon will account for around 26% of all CO2 emissions.
196
For a metropolitan city like Los
Angeles, the implications are dire. Within its nearly 500 square miles, there are 880,000
parcels.
197
The parcels have buildings of all sizes, made of diverse materials, and various ages.
These numbers should be a cause of great concern.

The life expectancy of a building is not what it once was. There was a time when builders “built
to last.” The attitude was especially evident up until World War II. Before then, builders used
higher quality materials and a higher level of craftsmanship. These two standards led to the
longevity of many buildings. A 2013 Getty Conservation Institute colloquium supported this,
stating that most conventional (wood/brick) buildings could have a life expectancy of about one
hundred twenty years.
198
Indeed, the lifespan of structures built using old-growth wood and brick
masonry with lime mortar can last several hundred years. By contrast, the lifespan of most

195
“Architecture’s Carbon Problem – Blueprint for Better,” American Institute of Architects, accessed January 24,
2021, https://blueprintforbetter.org/articles/architectures-carbon-problem/.
196
Ibid.
197
“Historic Resources Surveys,” Historic Resources Surveys | Los Angeles City Planning, accessed February 3,
2021, https://planning.lacity.org/preservation-design/historic-resources-survey/.
198
“A Colloquium to Advance the Practice of Conserving Modern Architecture.” Getty Conservation Institute,
accessed February 3, 2021,
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/our_projects/field_projects/cmai/cmai_colloquium.html/.

49

modern (e.g., concrete and glass office building) structures is about half- sixty years.
199

Moreover, the life expectancy of a big box retail building is even less- maybe twenty years! With
such short life expectancies, many buildings will face demolition. However, demolishing them
and building anew will only contribute additional carbon emissions, both embodied and
operational. A building has a significant impact on the natural world. So, the shorter a building’s
lifespan, the less sustainable. For Los Angeles, it is especially critical because the scale is
enormous.

A metropolitan city like Los Angeles faces many challenges: traffic congestion, homelessness,
air pollution, sprawl, and climate change, to name a few. These challenges impact every
inhabitant, and any solution should benefit all. To that end, the Goldhirsh Foundation created
“LA2050,” a grant program to engage citizens in community participation and the development
of a strategic plan for the future of Los Angeles. The Foundation established this “community-
guided” program in 2011 to provide “financial, human, and social capital to drive progress…
toward a shared vision for the future of Los Angeles.”
200
The program has five categories or
goals: Learn, Create, Play, Connect, and Live. To achieve these goals, it established specific
metrics that “describe where we want to be across more than sixty measures of life in Los
Angeles.”
201
Through its “My LA2050 Grants Challenge,” (LA2050) the program makes
financial investments to support the efforts of individuals and organizations. LA2050 is open to
all ideas that would positively impact the future of Los Angeles, and participants can submit in
any category. The program looks to engage citizens, organizations, stakeholders, and
policymakers to create a shared vision for Los Angeles.
202

Owner Stephen Pallrand of Home Front Build, a design-build construction company specializing
in green and historical construction, was looking to do his part to help mitigate climate change
and promote sustainability. He noticed that of the numerous residential homes demolished every
day throughout Los Angeles, much of the material, particularly wood, from those demolitions

199
“A Colloquium to Advance the Practice of Conserving Modern Architecture.” Getty Conservation Institute,
accessed February 3, 2021,
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/our_projects/field_projects/cmai/cmai_colloquium.html/.
200
“About,” accessed January 15, 2021, https://la2050.org/about/.
201
Ibid.
202
Ibid.

50

found its way to landfills. Mr. Pallrand considered this a lost opportunity- especially one of not
salvaging the lumber and finished woodwork for reuse; and, more importantly, reuse in new
construction. As a home builder, he was keenly aware that many of the existing older buildings
have wood products milled from old-growth forests that are no longer available. Generally
considered to be of higher quality, this material reuse also benefits the environment by
decreasing the CO2 emissions associated with the overall construction process. Mr. Pallrand felt
that he needed to bring awareness to this issue. He, therefore, looked to LA2050.

In 2014, Mr. Pallrand conceived of the “Toward a Carbon Neutral House” research project to
submit to the LA2050 grant program. The intent of the case study was to gather detailed
information from the process of deconstruction so that future projects throughout the city could
extrapolate from the results. The goal of the project was to improve Los Angeles’ climate future
by reducing the CO2 emissions that contribute to global warming. As part of the LA2050
requirements, the project looked to establish the basis for three “Live” metrics (the other four
categories were not considered): (1) exposure to air toxins (Air Quality); (2) percent of imported
water (Water-use Efficiency); and (3) percentage of Los Angeles communities that are resilient
(Resilient Communities).
203
Mr. Pallrand was confident that the project would achieve these
metrics, albeit in a subsequent phase and not within the scope and schedule of the LA2050
grant.
204
Although LA2050 would use the previous metrics to determine grant funding, he
considered project evaluation by three other metrics. For him, the success of the project would
depend on: (1) was it technically rigorous; (2) did it communicate to key stakeholders and
policymakers; and (3) did we connect the technical and regulatory goals to the environmental
and health benefits to the community?
205
With the insights provided by the project, Mr. Pallrand
expected it would contribute to mitigating climate change and, as a result, he believed that Los
Angeles would be a healthier place to live in 2050.

To further reduce CO2 emissions, the “Toward a Carbon Neutral House” project would explore
the benefits of the salvage and reuse of building/construction materials. The goal of this

203
LA2050 App Responses-Final (Appendix A).
204
Ibid.
205
Ibid.

51

exploration was twofold: (1) illustrate the significant reductions in CO2 emissions resulting from
material reuse; and (2) aid in reforming building codes and standards (i.e., California Building
Code CalGreen, Los Angeles Green Building Code, and LEED for Homes).
206
Through a case
study, the project intended to argue the feasibility of how reusing salvaged materials can reduce
carbon emissions. The investigation expected to acquire materials by dismantling, or
deconstructing, an older wood-framed residential building that has reached the end of its life.
The homebuilder would then use the salvaged materials to construct a new house at a site within
the Los Angeles city limits. During the deconstruction process, the crew planned to collect labor
and materials data. With the data, the project anticipated preparing a life cycle assessment (LCA)
to establish an “energy budget” for the new house. The energy budget aimed to provide further
analysis and comparison of the project with other case studies with mitigation goals. Ultimately,
it would only be through the success of the “Toward a Carbon Neutral House” project that Mr.
Pallrand hoped to demonstrate a significant reduction of CO2 emissions from reusing materials.
Furthermore, this success would also allow Mr. Pallrand to advocate for reforming the building
codes and standards to permit using salvaged lumber. This reform would be sought-after since
the California Building Code restricts the reuse of salvaged framing lumber as “new” framing
lumber, and the LEED for Homes (and other similar green building standards) do not consider
the use of salvaged materials in their point system.

The project proposed to execute the study in two main phases (each with two parts) over a two-
year period. Phase 1 looked to focus on the older house at 748 Hartford Avenue, Los Angeles,
CA 90017, while Phase 2 on the new house at 1359 Killarney Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90065
(a private residence). As a construction company, Home Front Build would perform the older
house’s deconstruction and build the new house. The project looked to enlist partners from
various sectors, including the manufacturing sector, the architecture/engineering professional
community and academia, to supplement those manual labor tasks.
207
These contributors would
provide technical assistance and complete some of the more complex tasks and, along with
Home Front Build members, would form the project team. Architect Derek Ryder, LEED AP,
would lead the project team and manage the project. As a Home Front Build member, he would

206
LA2050 App Responses-Final (Appendix A).
207
Derek Ryder Memo (Appendix D).

52

serve as the sustainability professional and direct the data collection, information dissemination
and project management activities.
208
Outside the company, engineering firm Buro Happold
International would provide strategic oversight of the data collection, life-cycle assessment
documentation, peer support, and review of the results of this research.
209
Furthermore, Burro
Happold have “interested international parties and contacts, specifically in the UK, that are
conducting industrial research in this area and who would be able to share their expertise.”
210

From the USC School of Architecture, Dr. Douglas Noble, Chair of the Ph.D. Program and
Discipline Head of the Building Science Department, and Karen M. Kensek, Associate
Professor, would “provide supervision and direction to a graduate-level thesis project analyzing
the data collected by the project.”
211

Phase 1A would thoroughly catalog the type and quantity of construction materials removed as
part of the project, including salvaged, recycled and construction waste. Furthermore, this phase
will calculate the embodied energy of the salvaged materials. Finally, Phase 1A would document
the labor and cost associated with the deconstruction process and the transport of all materials off
site. The following table outlines the tasks associated with this phase:

208
LA2050 App Responses-Final (Appendix A).
209
Ibid.
210
Ibid.
211
Ibid.

53

Table 2. Phase 1A Tasks
Task Description
Rough as-built drawings for
crosschecking quantities
• Rough floor plans with simple W x L x H dimensions
• Description of construction type & finishes in each room &
exterior
Quantity estimates of
salvage, recycled, & waste
materials
• Wood: board feet, type (framing/rough or finish), &
condition
• Masonry & concrete: weight & condition
• Metal: weight, type, & condition
• Construction and demolition (C&D) waste: weight
Document transportation
miles driven & hours of
power equipment used
• How many hours of heavy equipment & generator use
• How many miles of truck transport
Calculate embodied energy
for salvaged materials
• Translate the above quantities and carbon dioxide emissions
into embodied energy per unit of salvaged material
• Using these embodied energy amounts, generate an “energy
budget”
Document labor required
• By salvage material unit (e.g., “finish 1x6 base”) and by
total labor (incl. for salvage & non-salvage materials)
• Labor hours: offsite labor to process, transport, & store
salvage materials
• Cost of labor: broken down by salvage material unit (e.g.,
“finish 1x6 base”) and by total labor (incl. for salvage &
non-salvage materials)
(Source: Derek Ryder, Appendix D.)
After the deconstruction of the Hartford house, Phase 1B would establish a Baseline Case for
comparison based on the minimum code requirements for a hypothetical project of a similar
type.
212
A comparison of the new house’ expected energy budget (per the above analysis of the
salvaged materials and the construction documents) versus that of the Baseline Case.
213

Following the establishment of the baseline, the project team would issue a preliminary report on
the results.

212
Derek Ryder Memo (Appendix D).
213
Ibid.

54

Table 3. Phase 1B Tasks
Task Description
Diversion savings vs.
conventional house
demolition
• In conventional demo, how much of the waste goes to
recyclers and what is the carbon consequence (per unit and
per average house size)
• In conventional demo, how much heavy equipment &
transportation is necessary and what is the carbon dioxide
equivalent (per unit and per average house size.
Salvage vs. conventional
lumber comparison
• For conventional lumber (non-FSC certified) used in an
average sized house, how much heavy equipment &
transportation is necessary and what is the carbon dioxide
equivalent
• For conventional lumber (non-FSC certified) used in an
average sized house, what is the carbon dioxide sink loss by
cutting & milling the timber versus leaving it standing
Areas of analysis
• Net carbon reduction of conventional vs. salvage lumber:
1. Reduction excluding timber production
2. Reduction including timber production
• Lumber as a percentage of total carbon use of an average
house using conventional construction techniques, and the
percentage reduction offered by salvaged lumber
(Source: Derek Ryder, Appendix D.)
In between Phase 1 and Phase 2, Home Front Build expected to construct a house on the
Killarney site. Furthermore, the house construction looked to incorporate the materials salvaged
from the Hartford site, especially the dimensional lumber (lumber cut to standard sizes and
specified in inches) and bricks.

Following the completion of the new house, Phase 2A would look at the post-occupancy
observation of the operational performance of the new house. During this sub-phase, the project
team would “establish a case study showing the actual performance of the LEED for Homes
Gold project for the purpose of establishing an energy budget with which to evaluate the relative
benefit of the carbon emissions savings from the reuse of salvaged materials versus conventional
lumber.”
214

214
LA2050 App Responses-Final (Appendix A).

55

Table 4. Phase 2A Tasks
Task Description
Document & analyze energy
profile of new house
• Compile and analyze gas and electric bills and usage for
the first year of occupancy
• Document thermal performance of HVAC system and
envelope
Analyze data
• Establish an energy budget for the new house across an
expected life span (e.g., 50 years) broken down by
operational versus embodied energy.
(Source: Derek Ryder, Appendix D.)
Lastly, Phase 2B would provide the complete analysis of the data and issue a final report. The
project team would prepare the final Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). For this sub-phase, technical
volunteers who are experts in the preparation of LCA documents would determine the specific
tasks.

Table 5. Phase 2B Tasks
Task Description
Final analysis
• Prepare Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) document using the
Killarney House construction data and post-occupancy
data.
Report • Issue report
(Source: Derek Ryder, Appendix D.)
The Hartford property is in the Westlake District of Central Los Angeles. The neighborhood is
primarily residential and characterized by older single-family houses, multi-family apartment
buildings, and new multi-family developments. Once considered an upscale neighborhood with
its numerous mansions, it no longer resembles its past. Time and neglect have shuttered many of
the older dwellings, including the project house. The property is at the head of the T-intersection
of Hartford Avenue and Linwood Avenue and, according to Los Angeles County Assessor, the
lot contains approximately 12,480 square feet. The exceptional size of the property is due to the
consolidation of the lot on its northern border. The consolidated property is vacant, its dwelling
long since demolished. Immediately to its north is an older house (740 Hartford Avenue) of
similar size and age, while to its south is a contemporary apartment building (752 Hartford

56

Avenue). To the east is a tall retaining wall with a surface parking lot on the other side. Large
apartment blocks are on both sides of the parking lot, long ago replacing the dwellings once
found on these lots.

The main structure is a wood-framed house built in 1907
as a single-family residence. A smaller accessory
structure (storage) is also on the site. The style of the
house is American Foursquare, prevalent throughout the
country around this time. The house’s overall footprint is
rectangular, measuring 40’-0” wide by 41’-8” deep (36’-
7” at the second floor) and 30’-0” at its highest point.
With a totaling of 2,832 square feet, the house is two
stories with 1,440 square feet at the first floor and 1,392
square feet at the second floor. The hipped roof is high
Figure 4. 748 Hartford Ave. - Aerial view.
(Source: Google Maps, 2014.)
Figure 5. 748 Hartford Ave. – Front.
(Source: Google Street View, 2014.)
748
740
752
North
Storage

57

with large overhanging eaves and a large central dormer window. A porch (enclosed long ago)
with wide stairs is across its front. The house’s primary construction material is wood, including
framing, clapboard and shake siding, doors, and sash windows. Other materials include brick for
the foundation and chimney, concrete for porch steps, and asphalt shingles for the roof. The
interior finish is plaster over wood lath. From city permits, the house saw some alterations, one
in 1923 (adding a storage shed, 8 feet x11 feet, to the first floor) and in 1958 (subdividing the
house into a two-family dwelling).

What Actually Happened

Phase 1A began with Mr. Ryder documenting the Hartford house with photographs, freehand
sketches, and measured drawings (which would provide the basis for CAD drawings). These
measured drawings provided simple floor plans for identifying rooms and overall square
footages. Following this documentation, a five-person crew arrived on August 23, 2014, to begin
Figure 6. 748 Hartford Ave. - Floor plans.
(Source: Derek Ryder, updated by author.)

58

the deconstruction task. On the first day, the crew worked on the second-floor walls. Thereafter,
they proceeded to dismantle the roof and work on the first-floor walls. On the third day, they
continued their work on the roof and the second floor. The crew followed the previous day’s
work with the removal of the second-floor exterior walls. The fifth day saw the crew spend their
time denailing the lumber and, on the following day, transporting a load of lumber to the
Killarney site. The second week started again with a five-member crew working on the first
floor. Over the next two days, the crew completed the deconstruction of the house above the
foundation. For the remainder of the week, the crew performed denailing, clean up, and
transporting three loads. On the third week, the crew deconstructed the foundation, transported
the remaining materials to the Killarney site, and did the final clean up. Throughout the process,
the crew documented the labor and cost associated with the deconstruction process and transport
of all materials off-site. The deconstruction of the Hartford site lasted a total of nineteen days,
708 hours, and cost $13,018.97.

Figure 7. Deconstruction work days.
(Source: Home Front Build, Appendix G.)

59

Table 6. Labor
Staff
Brick
Foundation
First Floor
Second
Floor
Roof
Denailing
Transport
Clean up
Total
Hours
Total Cost
Crew 24.0 80.0 140.0 40.0 80.0 200.0 84.0 648.0 $10,918.97
Supervisor 15.0 35.0 6.0 4.0 60.0 $2,100.00
Totals 24.0 95.0 175.0 46.0 80.0 200.0 88.0 708.0 $13,018.97
Note: the deconstruction crew was from one (1) to five (5) members on any given day and
composed of Home Front Build employees and subcontractors. Missing from the above labor
data is the labor for the off-site processing and storing the salvaged materials. (Source: Home
Front Build, Appendix G.)

Over almost three weeks, the crew carefully disassembled the project house. During the
disassembly, they sorted and inventoried all the materials on-site and collected detailed data of
the quantity and type of construction material. For the project, the crew sorted the materials into
four categories: wood, masonry, metal, and construction and demolition (C&D) waste. The data
collected for wood and metal included quantity (board feet for wood and pounds for metal). For
masonry/concrete, it was quantity (units for brick and pounds for concrete) and type. And for
C&D, the various types of waste. The deconstruction of the Hartford house produced the
following materials and quantities:

60

Table 7. Wood, salvaged

Rough-sawn Douglas Fir, sizes

<1x 1x 2x 4x 6x
Total
(bd. ft.)
Lumber 2,456.67 14,734.0 1,632.0 252.0 19,074.67
Flooring – 7/8” 1,125.83 1,125.83
Siding – 1/2” 183.33 183.33
Totals (bd. ft.) 1,309.16 2,456.67 14,734.0 1,632.0 252.0 20,383.83
Note: board foot (bd. ft) = 12”x12”x1” Douglas Fir: 2.85#/bd. ft. Flooring: oak;
Siding: redwood. (Source: Home Front Build, Appendix F.)

Table 8. Miscellaneous materials
Material Description Quantity Weight (lbs.)
Metal Miscellaneous - 4,570.00
Masonry
Brick (9”x4”x2.5”) 7,400 pcs ≈44,400.00
Concrete (broken, various sizes) 20 pcs 9,000.00
Total ≈57,970.00
(Source: Home Front Build, Appendix F.)
Table 9. Demolition Waste
Weight (Tons) per Bin Size Total
Weight
(Tons)
No.
of
Bins
Description 3 Cu. Yd. 10 Cu. Yd. 40 Cu. Yd.
Wood, non-salvaged 20.95 20.95 6
Plaster 0.532 7.63 8.162 3
Roofing Material 0.282 1.70 1.982 2
Masonry 4.50 4.50 1
Mixed Trash 7.33 11.77 19.10 4
Totals 0.814 9.33 37.22 54.694 16
(Source: Home Front Build, Appendix F.)

61

The crew transported the salvaged wood/lumber to the Killarney site, where they stored the
materials on makeshift racks. They also transported the salvaged bricks to the site. As shown on
the timeline above, the crew transported materials on ten (10) separate days. The travel distance
from the Hartford property to the Killarney site is 6.7 miles, one way. The total truck transport
miles for Phase 1A were 67 miles. Information for the number of hours for heavy equipment and
generator use is not available.

Also, as part of Phase 1A the project anticipated creating an “energy budget” with the overall
embodied energy calculated from the salvaged materials and CO2 emissions (from the truck
transport of materials to the Killarney site). Unfortunately, the project would not see this task
completed. The technical advisor, an engineer from Burro Happold, decided not to participate in
the project.
215

The above descriptions outline the known results of Phase 1A. The results of Phase 1B and
Phase 2 tasks are unknown. The information available did not include any data or reports as to
the completion of those tasks. Furthermore, the builder did not respond to emails requesting
information for Phase 1B and Phase 2.

215
Derek Ryder informed the author during a telephone conservation that the engineer from Buro Happold decided
to not participate in the project. Telephone call with author, 3/30/2021.

62

What Next?

Sometime after the disassembly of the Hartford house, Home Front Build started the construction
of the Killarney house in January 2016 and lasted approximately two years. The design of the
house called for a two-story, single-family dwelling (2,390 S.F.) with a partial subterranean
garage (465 S.F.). The builder
constructed the house using wood as the
primary building material, including:
structural lumber (framing lumber that is
large than 2-inches thick and 4-inches
wide), parallel strand lumber (PSL,
engineered lumber made from strands
bonded together), and structural
plywood. According to Mr. Pallrand, the
construction used salvaged Douglas Fir
lumber as framing members, but he did
not provide the quantity of salvaged
wood used.
216

With regards to the project’s life cycle analysis (LCA) report, Mr. Pallrand stated that he enlisted
the help of Dr. Tanja Srebotnjak, the Director of the Hixon Center for Sustainable Environmental
Design at Harvey Mudd College.
217
At the college, she created a class project using information
about the Killarney house and the Impact Estimator for Buildings, a software tool used to
evaluate and analyze whole buildings. The software provides an analytical tool to compare the
relative environmental effects of a building design using available life cycle data. The students
generated an LCA report but did not include operating energy results as that information was not
available (see Appendix I).

216
In an email from Steve Pallrand, he stated that the new house used salvaged Douglas Fir framing and Douglas Fir
flooring; however, he did not provide quantities. Email message to author, 7/12/2021.
217
Dr. Srebotnjak is currently the Director of the Zilkha Center for Environmental Initiatives at Williams College,
Williamstown, Massachusetts. “Staff and Interns,” accessed June 11, 2021,
https://sustainability.williams.edu/zilkha-center-2/staff/.
Figure 8. 1359 Killarney Avenue.
(Source: Google Street View, 2021.)

63

The “Toward a Carbon Neutral House” aimed to address the impact of greenhouse gases on Los
Angeles by considering the city’s older building stock, and its available materials for reuse, as a
resource to mitigate carbon emissions. Additionally, it hoped to encourage building code reform
to allow the reuse of salvaged/reclaimed lumber in new construction. Through a series of phases
and data gathering tasks, the builder expected to obtain information with which to make its case.
With the Hartford property, the research project had a great candidate for deconstruction and
material salvage. As an older, pre-Midcentury house, it possessed materials not readily available
today. In particular, the wood found in the house was old-growth lumber. Reusing this salvaged
lumber allows the mitigation of carbon emissions by eliminating the need to harvest, produce,
and transport new lumber. Furthermore, the reuse of materials meant there was a reduction of
waste associated with demolition. This reduction had the added benefit of minimizing the
amount of material sent to the landfill.

It is unclear if the builder pursued any building code reform as information about other phases
was not available. As mentioned above, Mr. Pallrand’s stated that the “California Building Code
currently restricts the re-use of framing lumber as framing lumber.”
218
However, the building
code at the time, the 2013 California Residential Code, allowed for salvaged building material
reuse when approved by code officials.
219
In fact, all building codes based on the International
Residential Code have this provision. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the Washington
Building Code has explicit support for the use of reclaimed lumber for structural proposes. And,
the Oregon Residential Building Code provides for “Lumber Reuse without Regrading.” It is
perhaps this restriction that Mr. Pallrand looked to update. (Advocating for a deconstruction
ordinance with the City of Los Angeles may have been a better strategy.)

The “Toward a Carbon Neutral House” was an ambitious research project. Unfortunately, it is
difficult to determine the success of this project. Although Mr. Pallrand submitted to LA2050,
the Goldhirsh Foundation did not approve the grant application.
220
It is not known if Home Front

218
LA2050 App Responses-Final (Appendix A).
219
2013 California Residential Code: California code of regulations, Title 24, Part 2.5, Chapter 1, Section
R104.9.1.
220
Derek Ryder, telephone call with author, 3/30/2021.

64

Build completed all the phases and tasks. What is known is that the builder completed most of
Phase 1A tasks. However, information about subsequent phases was not readily available to the
author.

65

CHAPTER 4
DECONSTRUCTION IN CONTEXT

In brief, most preservationists recognize the environmental benefit of
deconstruction when all other means of saving an older structure are exhausted.
Donovan Rypkema, Preservation Leadership Forum
221

The environmental impacts of the construction industry require a reexamination of its building
processes, especially at a building’s demise. Demolition waste is a critical environmental
concern. Deconstruction can contribute to mitigating the impact of building removal. Since it
first appeared in 1993, the concept of deconstruction has expanded beyond its niche, touching on
disciplines over and above the construction industry. Disciplines involving environmental
sciences, cultural studies, and industrial ecology are now recognizing deconstruction in the
context of the greater materials reuse argument. The increased attention is resulting in notable
scholarship and policy. Recent studies in heritage literature have introduced critical insights on
deconstruction and built heritage. These studies look to explore questions and ideas arising from
the discourse of heritage, demolition waste, deconstruction, and material reuse. Additionally, this
exploration considers the complexity of material value, vis-à-vis heritage conservation. The first
section below deals with heritage value and material value. The following sections look at the
circular economy and deconstruction and then the need for deconstruction policy. Finally, the
last section discusses consideration for reform of the current available treatments. These
discussions serve to reveal the extent and depth of how heritage conservation and deconstruction
(together with material salvage and reuse) intersect.

Heritage Value and Material Reuse

In the context of sustainability, heritage practitioners have long accepted building reuse.
However, demolition waste, deconstruction and material reuse are perspectives that practitioners
have been slow to consider.
222
Even when the discourse is conservation and sustainability,

221
Donovan Rypkema, “Preservationists aren’t who we’re made out to be,” Forum Connect Digest for May 18,
2021, NTHP Preservation Leadership Forum.
222
Susan Ross and Victoria Angel, “Guest Editorial,” Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable
Development 10, no. 1 (2020), 1.

66

discussions tend to overlook these three. So, how does the heritage field deal with a historic
structure facing demolition after conservationists have exhausted all conservation efforts? The
truth is that heritage practices do not provide guidance for those buildings. Within the field, there
are conventional conservation attitudes with a bias toward the whole building and not the
components that comprise the building. In this case, the adage “the whole is greater than the sum
of the parts” applies. But the converse can apply to buildings that have reached end of their
lifecycle. It is at this time that the building materials obtain value in their own right; when, there
is a transfer of value from buildings to the materials. However, “traditional definitions of
heritage have failed to draw distinctions between value-bearing elements of the built
environment and elements of no-value.”
223
So, how does the field define heritage value? There is
an understanding today that heritage is the result of “social processes specific to time and space,”
with values influencing these processes.
224
This thinking further considers heritage as a cultural
process and not a product.
225
Moreover, it is a process that creates “something new out of
fragments.”
226
And, it is within this process that conservation looks to “conserve places and
objects whose fabric is not inherently valuable, but rather valued for its associations.”
227
Despite
the importance of value to the heritage field, it can be difficult to characterize. However,
scholarly works from the Getty Conservation Institute look to provide a clear definition. The
authors of Heritage Values and Challenges of Conservation Planning define value as the
“characteristics of objects and the qualities of the places we refer to as heritage.”
228

Assigning (heritage) value is a fundamental part of the heritage process. Current heritage
practices mostly apply value to whole buildings. But what of the materials that comprise those

223
Susan Ross and Victoria Angel, “Guest Editorial,” Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable
Development 10, no. 1 (2020), 1.
224
Erica Avrami, et al., Values and Heritage Conservation (Los Angeles, The Getty Conservation Institute, 2000),
6.
225
Dacia Viejo-Rose and Marie Louise Stig Sørensen, “Cultural Heritage and Armed Conflict: New Questions for
an Old Relationship,” The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Heritage Research, ed. Emma Waterton and
Steve Watson (Boston. Mass.: Palgrave MacMillan, 2015), 282.
226
Rodney Harrison, “Heritage and Globalization,” Palgrave Handbook, The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary
Heritage Research, ed. Emma Waterton and Steve Watson (Boston. Mass.: Palgrave MacMillan, 2015), 308.
227
Arlotta, Allison, “Locating heritage value in building material reuse,” Journal of Cultural Heritage Management
and Sustainable Development 10, no. 1 (2020), 8.
228
Randall Mason and Erica Avrami, “Heritage Values and Challenges of Conservation Planning,” Management
Planning for Archaeological Sites: An International Workshop Organized by the Getty Conservation Institute
and Loyola Marymount University, May 2000, edited by Teutonico, J.M. and Palumbo, G., 13-26 (Los Angeles,
CA: The Getty Conservation Institute, 2000), 15.

67

buildings? As previously stated, the heritage field does not give materials similar consideration.
This lack of concern for a building’s materials is “deeply cultural, relating to the fabric-based
principle of minimal intervention, the definition of heritage as property, as well as values
surrounding disposability and the concept of trash.”
229
Additionally, heritage practices use a “set
of value judgements that render materials into distinct categories of ‘artefact’ and ‘waste.’”
230

Therefore, materials (waste) that heritage processes do not “value, claim, reuse or transform” end
up in the landfill.
231

Heritage and waste share connected values and the profession can gain a new understanding
from viewing them together. Materials, the result of deconstruction and reuse, can sustain and
generate associative values.
232
However, material reuse and deconstruction pose a challenge to
conventional heritage practices that tend to fixate on intact buildings. Both concepts do not
conform to the value assignment model of existing heritage processes, “designed to promote the
stabilizing of heritage, and thus do not necessarily have the flexibility required to recognize
material flows,” i.e., the movement of materials across the built environment - from building to
building.
233
Nevertheless, these concepts may fit into the broader understanding of what
constitutes heritage, addressing mutability of heritage objects and equity in heritage processes.
234

The challenge is finding the balance between building reuse and material reuse. Scores of
research papers have made the case for building reuse- consider the universally accepted claim
that the “greenest building is the one already built.” Currently, there is scant heritage literature
on material reuse, and for that matter, waste and deconstruction. Even with this limited research,
scholars commonly acknowledge that materials have always been a part of the built environment.
Spolia and the histories of building materials have shown that societies have always practiced

229
Tina M. McCarthy and Eleni E. Glekas, “Deconstructing heritage: enabling a dynamic materials practice,”
Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 10, no. 1 (2020), 18.
230
Caitlin DeSilvey, “Observed Decay: Telling Stories with Mutable Things,” Journal of Material Culture 11, no. 3
(2006), 320.
231
Tina M. McCarthy, “Heritage and Waste: Values, Circular Economy and Deconstruction,” Webinar from
October 16, 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTC8rCJumRE/.
232
Ross, Susan and Victoria Angel, “Guest Editors,” Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable
Development 10, no. 1 (2020), 2.
233
Allison Arlotta, “Locating heritage value in building material reuse,” Journal of Cultural Heritage Management
and Sustainable Development 10, no. 1 (2020), 11.
234
Tina M. McCarthy and Eleni E. Glekas, “Deconstructing heritage: enabling a dynamic materials practice,”
Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 10, no. 1 (2020), 17.

68

material reuse when building and rebuilding. It is only during the last few decades that the
custom has fallen out of favor. And when there is consideration for materials, practices limit
salvage to highly valued pieces- for spolia or collections. However, the heritage field needs to
consider and extend value to the materials and components that compose a building. Heritage
practitioners need to realize that material reuse “provides a vital connection to the past.”
235

Finally, as Tampere University professor Satu Huuhka states “when all things material are
valuable and almost nothing is let waste, as is the case in circular economy, we need not spend
time debating what should be conserved and how… We could instead focus on the meanings
people give to the materials.”
236

Deconstruction, Waste and Circular Economy

As buildings actually have a finite lifespan, what happens when a building has reached the end of
their useful life? For too long, the most typical outcome is demolition, with the debris hauled off
to the landfill. This end result is counter to sustainability goals. This is
the construction industry’s current model; a very linear economy that
focuses on “take-make-dispose.” This system has materials
extracted/harvested, manufactured into products, transported to the job
site, installed and, finally, discarded as waste materials when no longer
useful. To compound this inefficiency, it requires the continual
production and sale of goods, all awhile eschewing the concepts of reuse
or recycle. Consequently, a linear economy is unsustainable and
achieving sustainability will require a shift away from this system.

Transitioning to a circular economy will address the traditional linear model within the
construction industry. A circular economy is “a model of production and consumption, which
involves sharing, leasing, reusing, repairing, refurbishing and recycling existing materials and

235
Tina M. McCarthy and Eleni E. Glekas, “Deconstructing heritage: enabling a dynamic materials practice,”
Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 10, no. 1 (2020), 25.
236
Satu Huuhka, “Heritage and Waste: Values, Circular Economy and Deconstruction,” Webinar from October 16,
2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTC8rCJumRE/.
237
Adapted from the EPA Lifecycle Construction Resource Guide, 46.
237

Figure 9. Traditional
linear material flow.

69

products as long as possible.”
238
By maximizing the life cycle of materials, this closed-loop
system provides environmental benefits that 1) extend the life of raw materials sources; 2) lower
the cost of materials; and 3) reduce the embodied energy and carbon emissions of the
construction industry.
239
Furthermore, the system takes the waste materials from building
demolitions and makes it available as “new” materials for new structures.
240
Given all of this, the
system is arguably more sustainable than the current linear economy. And, it is within this
system that the process of deconstruction plays a key role in a circular economy by providing the
“feeder” materials for reuse, diverting materials from the landfill, and preserving the material’s
embodied energy/carbon.

238
“Circular economy: definition, importance and benefits,” accessed October 28, 2021,
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/economy/20151201STO05603/circular-economy-definition-
importance-and-benefits/.
239
Fernanda Cruz Rios, et al., “Design for Disassembly and Deconstruction – Challenges and Opportunities,”
Procedia Engineering 118 (2015): 1298.
240
Ibid., 1298.

70

Deconstruction Policy

How a municipality deals with its demolition waste depends on its sustainability goals. Through
permitted demolitions, landfills are receiving literally tons of waste. Clearly, this is not
sustainable; and, it further perpetuates a linear economy. For some time, municipalities
throughout the country have been fostering sustainability, in one way or another. As a result,
some are realizing the need to reconsider their demolition waste policy. These same
municipalities are also recognizing the sustainability benefits of deconstruction over demolition.
Therefore, local governments are looking to enact deconstruction policies, that may also include
a heritage component. These policies can then become a municipality’s tool to promote
Figure 10. Circular economy.
(Source: www.europarl.europa.eu/portal/en/.)

71

sustainability, a circular economy, and the heritage field. The table below provides a snapshot of
the current deconstruction policies in North America.

Table 10. Municipal Deconstruction Policies
Municipality
Policy
(Date)
Primary
Focus
Secondary
Focus
Building
Type
Year
Built
Heritage
Component
Baltimore, MD
Ordinance
(Pending)
Deconstruction - Residential ≤1970 Yes
Boise, ID
Ordinance
(May 4, 2021)
Deconstruction -
Residential/
Commercial
None None
Cook County, IL
Ordinance
(Nov. 2012)
C&D*,
Diversion
Deconstruction
Residential/
Commercial
None None
Hennepin Co, MN
Incentive
(Nov. 19, 2019)
Deconstruction - Residential ≤1950 None
Ithaca, NY
Ordinance
(Pending)
Deconstruction - Unknown Unknown Yes
King County, WA
Ordinance
(Nov. 25, 2015)
C&D* Reuse, Recycle
Residential/
Commercial
None None
Lee County, FL
Ordinance
(Jan. 2008)
C&D*, Recycle Deconstruction
Residential/
Commercial
None None
Milwaukee, WI
Ordinance
(Jan. 1, 2018)
Deconstruction - Residential ≤1929 Yes
Oakland, CA
Ordinance
(June 27, 2008)
C&D*, Waste
Reduction
Recycle, Reuse
Salvage
Residential None None
Palo Alto, CA
Ordinance
(June 24, 2019)
Deconstruction -
Residential/
Commercial
None None
Pittsburgh, Pa
Executive Order
(Apr. 21, 2021)
Deconstruction -
Residential/
Commercial
None None
Portland, OR
Ordinance
(Oct. 31, 2016)
Deconstruction - Residential ≤1940 Yes
San Antonio, TX
Ordinance
(Pending)
Deconstruction - Unknown Unknown Yes
San Francisco, CA
Ordinance
(July 1, 2006)
C&D* Recovery Reuse, Recycle
Residential/
Commercial
None None
San Mateo, CA
Ordinance
(June 19, 2006)
C&D*
Deconstruction,
Salvage
Residential/
Commercial
None None
San Mateo Co, CA
Ordinance
(Feb. 26, 2002)
C&D*, Recycle,
Diversion
Recycle, Reuse,
Salvage (Decon)
Residential/
Commercial
None None
Seattle, WA
Ordinance
(Jan. 2009)
Demolition
Recycle, Reuse
Salvage
Residential None None
Vancouver, BC
By-law
(Sept. 1, 2014)
Deconstruction - Residential ≤1950 Yes
Victoria, BC
By-law
(Pending 2022)
Deconstruction - Residential Unknown Unknown
*Construction & Demolition Waste/Debris.
(Original municipality list by Shawn Wood, expanded by author.)

As the result of development pressures, many older and historic residential buildings face
demolition. For example, the city of Portland realized through analysis that a high percentage of
the permitted demolitions of residential buildings were pre-World War II or are a designated

72

historic resource.
241
To mitigate the loss of historic resources, cities are incorporating a heritage
component into their deconstruction ordinances. These cities are acknowledging the value of
heritage materials and affirming that “the oldest and historic buildings are the richest source for
valuable materials.”
242
(As previously stated, structures built before World War II usually have
higher quality building materials and distinctive architectural features.) Moreover, these cities
are also looking to salvage “valuable building materials, especially old-growth structural
lumber.”
243
Others are looking to “maximize the salvage of valuable building materials”
(Portland) to “increase the availability of high quality and affordable salvaged materials.” (San
Antonio) Yet, others are requiring demolition by means of deconstruction for any heritage listed
buildings or those found within heritage districts.
244
Some cities are also including strict heritage
requirements in their deconstruction ordinances. While most cities have established an age
threshold at the mid-century mark or before, the pending ordinance for the City of Baltimore sets
the threshold at 1970 thus capturing more residential buildings.
245
Additionally, cities are setting
a minimum for the salvage of materials. The City of Vancouver requires the following:
1) ≤ 1950 - resulting in the reuse or recycling of not less than seventy-five percent of
all building materials, by weight
2) ≤ 1950-character residential building - resulting in the reuse or recycling of not
less than ninety percent of all building materials, by weight
3) ≤ 1910 residential building or ≤ 1950 heritage listed residential building -
resulting in the salvage of three tons of wood.
246

Ultimately, deconstruction initiatives and ordinances have the potential to “spur creative and
socially-minded business and nonprofit models that benefit preservation, local economies,
workforce training, and the environment.”
247

241
Portland, Ore., Deconstruction of Buildings Law, §17.106 (2016).
242
Ibid.
243
Milwaukee, Wis., A Substitute Ordinance Relating to Deconstruction of Residential Buildings, §200-19 (2018).
244
Vancouver, Canada, Green Demolition By-Law, 11023 (2014).
245
Dante Swinton, “The REcovering Baltimore’s Underutilized Inventory of Lots and Dwellings (REBUILD) Act,”
Energy Justice Network, email to author from Stephanie Compton, September 24, 2021.
246
Vancouver, Canada, Green Demolition By-Law, 11023 (2014).
247
“Deconstruction & Social Enterprise,” accessed October 14, 2021, https://www.hs-intl.com/deconstruction-
social-enterprise/.

73

Standards Reform

Authors Tina McCarthy and Eleni E. Glekas have put forward that there is a “gap in heritage
practices that offer no treatment for a building entering the end of its lifecycle.”
248
What if
demolition must occur, despite conservation efforts? Currently, the existing federal system does
not address the demise of a building. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and associated
Guidelines offer only four treatments- preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and
reconstruction. Through these treatments, the Standards detail how to retain building/character
integrity.
249
While the Guidelines do acknowledge sustainability (i.e., “Guidelines on
Sustainability”), they do not address demolition (in particular, of older and historic buildings)
nor the resulting waste. And, this demolition waste presents a crucial environmental concern;
thus, waste reduction is vital to achieving sustainability goals. As it happens, deconstruction
provides a sustainable means to building removal if demolition must occur. Recently, scholars
have proposed adding a deconstruction treatment approach to the Standards, thus offering
heritage practitioners an alternative to demolition. In “Adapting national preservation standards
to climate change,” Sara Bronin, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation chair, calls for
reform of the Standards “to better harmonize preservation and environmental goals” by adding a
sixth treatment- deconstruction (the fifth is relocation).
250
She states that including
deconstruction as a new treatment would ensure the reuse of salvaged heritage materials and the
elimination of demolition debris entering the waste stream.
251
Furthermore, this new treatment
could “provide the policy framework necessary to engage preservation expertise, enabling cross-
disciplinary collaboration with the deconstruction industry.”
252
Finally, all conservationists
should emphasize that the Standards would stress the use of the deconstruction treatment only
when all conservation efforts have failed.

248
Tina M. McCarthy and Eleni E. Glekas, “Deconstructing heritage: enabling a dynamic materials practice,”
Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 10, no. 1 (2020), 16.
249
National Park Service, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with
Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, & Reconstructing Historic Buildings, (Washington, DC:
US Department of the Interior, 2017).
250
Sara C. Bronin, “Adapting National Preservation Standards to Climate Change.” Toward Sustainability and
Equity: Envisioning Preservation Policy Reform, Columbia University Press, Erica Avrami, ed. (2021), 13.
251
Ibid.
252
Tina M. McCarthy and Eleni E. Glekas, “Deconstructing heritage: enabling a dynamic materials practice,”
Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 10, no. 1 (2020), 25.

74

Conclusion

Heritage conservation has the ability to play an active role in the shift to a circular economy. The
field just needs to move beyond its whole-building attitude. Material reuse and deconstruction
offer an alternative to whole building removal. Both also have the added benefit of providing
heritage practitioners an opportunity to obtain insight into building material conservation.
Furthermore, the field should consider new ideas about heritage value, sustainability, material
reuse and deconstruction. As conservationist Tina McCarthy states, material reuse and
deconstruction “provides a compelling vision of heritage actively employing the past in the
present to create a more equitable future.”
253

253
Tina M. McCarthy, “Heritage and Waste: Values, Circular Economy and Deconstruction,” Webinar from
October 16, 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTC8rCJumRE/.

75

CONCLUSION

This thesis has emphasized the interrelationship of heritage conservation and sustainability. It
also revealed that, as movements of the 1960s, both evolved in tandem. This was evident with
the passing of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969. Both laws “reflect the link between environmental preservation and heritage
protection.”
254
Heritage conservation’s response to the 1970s energy crises resulted in the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Assessing the Energy Conservation Benefits of
Historic Preservation: Methods and Examples in 1979 and the National Trust for Historic
Preservation New Energy from Old Buildings in 1981. Both look at heritage conservation from
the embodied energy perspective and the 1979 report became a “reflective argument utilized to
advocate for the retention of historic structures over new construction.”
255
Then, the field’s
response to the sustainability goals of the 1990s and 2000s was the Preservation Green Lab’s
groundbreaking report, The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value of Building
Reuse. The report served to further the model of life cycle assessment and the environmental
avoided impacts approach to building reuse. As Jean Carroon states in her book, “their
interwoven history serves as a reminder of the relationship and interdependency between the two
social movements…”
256

As presented, deconstruction is a profoundly vital component of sustainability and heritage
conservation. Deconstruction provides a sustainable strategy to address the environmental
concern of the excessive waste generated by construction and demolition.
257
As an alternative to
demolition, deconstruction salvages and diverts building materials from the waste stream. The
resultant is a second life for materials, making them available for reuse either in new

254
Jean Carroon, Sustainable Preservation: Greening Existing Buildings (Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 2013), 67.
255
Erika L. Hasenfus, “Measuring the Capital Energy Value in Historic Structures” (Master’s thesis, University of
Pennsylvania, 2013), 23. http://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/224/.
256
Jean Carroon, Sustainable Preservation: Greening Existing Buildings (Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 2013), 63.
257
The Environmental Protection Agency’s “Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2018 Fact Sheet”
estimates that America generated over 600 million tons of construction and demolition (C&D) waste in 2018. Of
that, construction demolition represented over ninety-four percent (with new construction accounting for the
remainder). EPA, “Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2018 Fact Sheet” (Washington, D.C.: EPA,
2020). https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-11/documents/2018_ff_fact_sheet.pdf/.

76

construction, rehabilitation, or replacement of extant materials. It also has the benefit of
extending the life of landfills. Additionally, the salvaged materials save the inherent embodied
energy/carbon and preserve the high-quality older/historic materials (further reducing the need
for new materials). Lastly, the deconstruction of a building makes available salvaged materials
for potential use in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment
of Historic Properties.

The heritage conservation field should consider deconstruction an appropriate treatment in
response to the replacement, or loss due to demolition, of historic fabric. Clearly, deconstruction
can play a significant role in conservation practices. The materials salvaged through the
deconstruction process can benefit all conservation treatments. These materials are optimal
replacements for rehabilitation projects as this treatment is the most tolerant when it comes to
material replacement. As previously noted, the extant material’s condition must be beyond repair
or missing to justify replacement. Moreover, the salvaging of America’s historic fabric through
the deconstruction process, while not in keeping with current heritage conservation practices, can
further promote sustainability.

The concept of deconstruction challenges the field’s narrow focus on intact buildings. By
emphasizing the building’s components, deconstruction looks to change the conservationist’s
attitude about a building’s demise. Deconstruction offers an alternative to demolition. By
reframing the perception of building materials, the role of deconstruction will become clearer.
First, heritage practitioners should move away from the negative perception of deconstruction
(often considering it a “dirty word”) and should see it more as a tool for saving irreplaceable
historic fabric that can create a connection between people and their past. It can also serve the
field’s commitment to preserving embodied energy/carbon thus reinforcing the field’s
contribution to sustainability. Second, municipalities like Vancouver, Portland, Milwaukee, and
Palo Alto, are trailblazing by enacting deconstruction ordinances thus showing their important
role at the local level. These policies can ensure the salvage and reuse of historic materials and
eliminate demolition waste going to landfills. Moreover, this can translate to the federal level
with the Standards incorporating a new deconstruction treatment, which would provide the
necessary policy to encourage the engagement of conservationists. Incoming Chair Sara Bronin

77

(ACHP) has herself advocated for such a treatment, stating “if demolition must occur, the most
sustainable way to do it is to deconstruct historic places.” Third, the practice of deconstruction
has received increased attention over the last several years. Although there are studies showing
that the practice of deconstruction links heritage conservation to the social, economic, and
environmental goals of sustainability, the topic of deconstruction warrants additional research.
An in-depth investigation into deconstruction ordinances and policies would go a long way to
provide policymakers with the necessary information to codify the practice, thus ensuring its
success. The studies done by Professor Satu Huuhka, Tina McCarthy, Eleni Glekas, and Allison
Arlotta are only just the start. The relationship between heritage conservation and circular
economy has received scant attention. There is a need for deep and explicit studies to further the
discourse of these two disciplines. Other topics worthy of investigation include: what is
deconstruction’s role in a circular economy and heritage value? what about waste and heritage
value? and, what is the heritage value and benefit of lumber salvaged through deconstruction?

“Toward a Carbon Neutral House” was an ambitious research project. Unfortunately, it is
difficult to determine its success and it raised more questions than it answered. The quantity of
salvaged material used in the new house is not known. How much of the salvaged lumber did the
builder use to build the new house? What about the doors, windows, and trim/finish materials?
Were these incorporated into the new house or sold to an architectural salvage retailer?
Additionally, the builder inventoried the door hardware but did not provide information about
what happened to it.

Finally, it is unclear if the builder pursued any building code reform as this information was not
available. As previously mentioned, Mr. Pallrand’s stated that the “California Building Code
currently restricts the re-use of framing lumber as framing lumber.” However, the building code
at the time, the 2013 California Residential Code, allowed for salvaged building material reuse
when approved by code officials.
258
In fact, all building codes based on the International
Residential Code have this provision. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the Washington
Building Code has explicit support for the use of reclaimed lumber for structural proposes. And,

258
2013 California Residential Code: California code of regulations, Title 24, Part 2.5, Chapter 1, Section
R104.9.1.

78

the Oregon Residential Building Code provides for “Lumber Reuse without Regrading.”
Advocating Los Angeles for a deconstruction ordinance may have been a viable consideration.

Clearly, the “Toward a Carbon Neutral House” was an interesting project, albeit with many
unanswered questions. This was more than likely due to it not going according to plan.
Additionally, the methodology employed could have benefitted by following the example of
other well-published case studies, including: Fort Ord Deconstruction Project, The Twin Cities
Army Ammunition Plant, Riverdale Village Apartments, Presidio Building #901, and Port of
Oakland Building #733.
259
Although the project did not go as planned, it is still a worthwhile
research project that can serve as a value template for future research. Moreover, a more
complete and robust case study focusing on the older building stock of Los Angeles will help to
quantify and qualify the process of deconstruction and further its acceptance within the heritage
field.

Due to its interconnected relationship, the role of heritage conservation within sustainability will
continue to evolve and adapt as sustainable strategies and goals change. As conservation
stewards, heritage practitioners must constantly be aware of the trends that impact both the built
and natural environments. Their role will prove critical in the transition to a circular economy,
the development of public policy, the promotion of green buildings, and the mitigation of climate
change. As the concept of deconstruction touches on many disciplines, heritage practitioners
should partner with other disciplines, including architecture, construction, and waste
management. This partnership presents an opportunity for involvement in the past, present and
future at the same time.

259
Fort Ord Deconstruction Project: https://www.fora.org/Reports/1997-Sep_FORA-Pilot-Decon-Proj-InProgress-
StatusRpt.pdf/;
The Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant: https://www.iip.kit.edu/downloads/CIB_Publication_266.pdf/;
Riverdale Village Apartments: https://www.iip.kit.edu/downloads/CIB_Publication_266.pdf/;
http://www.lifecyclebuilding.org/docs/Riverdale%20Case%20Study.pdf/;
Presidio Building #901: https://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB1287.pdf/;
Port of Oakland Building #733:
https://www.academia.edu/es/19473092/Implementing_Deconstruction_in_Florida_Materials_Reuse_Issues_Dis
assembly_Techniques_Economics_and_Policy/.

79

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AIA Blueprint for Better (website). “Architecture’s Carbon Problem – Blueprint for Better.”.
Accessed January 24, 2021. https://blueprintforbetter.org/articles/architectures-carbon-
problem/.

The American Institute of Architects. “Committee on the Environment.” Accessed February 22,
2020. https://network.aia.org/communities/community-home?CommunityKey=3b790506-
aca5-4eff-aaf6-8a7b553dc0ef/.

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act. 54 U.S.C. 3125 et. seq. (1960).

Arlotta, Allison. “Locating heritage value in building material reuse.” Journal of Cultural
Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 10, no. 1 (2020): 6-15. DOI
10.1108/JCHMSD-06-2019-0076.

Asian Development Bank (website). World Sustainable Development Timeline. Manila,
Philippines: 2012. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/29664/world-
sustainable-development-timeline.pdf/.

Avrami, Erica, Randall Mason, and Marta de la Torre. Values and Heritage Conservation. Los
Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 2000.

Association for Preservation Technology International, Technical Committee on Sustainable
Preservation. Springfield, IL: APTI, 2015.
https://apt.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/APT%20TC-SP%20Brochure_10262015.pdf/.

Association for Preservation Technology International. “Sustainable Preservation Technical
Committee.” Accessed October 20, 2020. https://www.apti.org/sustainable-preservation/
(site discontinued).

80

Basha, Syed Jeelani. “Sustainable Developments Environmental Protection and Control.” Last
modified March 19, 2017. https://www.slideshare.net/jeelani899/unit-6-environmental-
protection-and-control/.

Ben-Eli, Michael. Sustainability: Definition and Five Core Principles. New York: The Cybertec
Consulting Group, 2005.

Blevins, Ernest E. Documentation of the Architecture of the Architecture of Samuel Lapham and
the Firm of Simons & Lapham. Masters of Fine Arts in Historic Preservation Thesis,
Savannah College of Art & Design, 2001.

Brenk, Beat. "Spolia from Constantine to Charlemagne: Aesthetics versus Ideology." Dumbarton
Oaks Papers 41 (1987): 103-09. DOI:10.2307/1291549.

Britton, Frances L. The Source of Sustainability: Inherent Energy Saving Features of Historic
Buildings. Master’s thesis. University of Georgia, 2004.

Bronin, Sara C. “Adapting National Preservation Standards to Climate Change.” Toward
Sustainability and Equity: Envisioning Preservation Policy Reform, Columbia University
Press, Erica Avrami, ed. (2021): 1-26. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3626043/.

Brundtland, Gro Harlem. Report of the World Commission on environment and development:
"Our Common Future." New York: United Nations, 1987.

BuildingGreen (website). “Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design, BuildingGreen.” Accessed
September 12, 2020. https://www.buildinggreen.com/newsbrief/guiding-principles-
sustainable-design/.

81

California Building Standards Commission and the International Code Council. 2013 California
Residential Code: California code of regulations, Title 24, Part 2.5. Sacramento, CA:
California Building Standards Commission, 2013-2015.

Carroon, Jean. Sustainable Preservation: Greening Existing Buildings. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley,
2013.

Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962.

Chini, Abdol R. ed. Deconstruction and Materials Reuse. Gainesville: International Council for
Research and Innovation in Building Construction, 2003.

Chini, Abdol R. and Stuart F. Breuning. “Deconstruction and Materials Reuse in the United
States.” The Future of Sustainable Construction (May, 2003), 1-23.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228759250/.

Circular Ecology. “Sustainability and Sustainable Development.” Accessed February 25, 2015.
http://www.circularecology.com/sustainability-and-sustainable-development.html/.

Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. “Deconstruction.” Last
modified May 19, 2021. https://portal.ct.gov/DEEP/Reduce-Reuse-Recycle/Construction-
and-Demolition/Deconstruction/.

Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. Deconstruction Services for
Connecticut. Hartford, CT: Connecticut DEEP, 2013. https://portal.ct.gov/-
/media/DEEP/reduce_reuse_recycle/brochures/DeconstructionServicesBrochurepdf.pdf/.

Cruz Rios, Fernanda, Wai K. Chong and David Grau. “Design for Disassembly and
Deconstruction – Challenges and Opportunities.” Procedia Engineering 118 (2015), 1296-
1304. DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.08.485.

82

DeSilvey, Caitlin. “Observed Decay: Telling Stories with Mutable Things.” Journal of Material
Culture 11, no. 3 (2006), 318-339. DOI: 10.1177/1359183506068808.

Elefante, Carl. “The Greenest Building Is…One That Is Already Built.” forum journal 21, no. 4
(2007), 26-38.

Elefante, Carl. “Historic Preservation & Sustainable Development: Lots to Learn, Lots to
Teach,” ATP Bulletin: The Journal of Preservation Technology 36, no. 4 (July, 2005).
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40003164/.

Elkington, John. “Towards the Sustainable Corporation: Win-Win-Win Business Strategies for
Sustainable Development.” California Management Review vol. 36, no. 2 (1994): 90-100.

Emas, Rachel. “The Concept of Sustainable Development: Definition and Defining Principles.”
UN Global Sustainable Development Report (2015). https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org
/content/documents/5839GSDR%202015_SD_concept_definiton_rev.pdf/.

European Parliament. “Circular economy: definition, importance and benefits.” Accessed
October 28, 2021,
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/economy/20151201STO05603/circular-
economy-definition-importance-and-benefits/.

Falk, Bob. “Wood-Framed Building Deconstruction: A Source of Lumber for Construction?”
Forest Products Journal 52, no. 3 (March, 2002): 8-15.

Faucheux, Sylvie. “Summary Principles for Sustainable Development.” Principles of Sustainable
Development vol. III (n.d.): 1-16. http://www.eolss.net/Eolss-sampleAllChapter.aspx/.

Goldsmith, Edward, Robert Allen, Michael Allaby, John Davoll, Sam Lawrence. “A Blueprint
for Survival.” The Ecologist 2, no. 1 (January, 1972): 1-43.

83

Grimmer, Anne. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing
Historic Buildings. Washington D.C.: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service,
Technical Preservation Services, 2017.

Grober, Ulrich. “Deep Roots - A conceptual history of ‘sustainable development’
(Nachhaltigkeit).” WZB Discuss. Papers, Presidential Department, P 2007-002 (2007): 1-
33. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-110771.

Guy, Bradley. A Guide to Deconstruction. Sarasota: Deconstruction Institute, 2003.

Hall, Heinrich. “Spolia – Recycling the Past” last modified August 26, 2013.
http://www.petersommer.com/blog/archaeology-history/spolia/.

Harris, Jonathan M. Sustainability and Sustainable Development. Boston: International Society
for Ecological Economics, 2003.

Hannon, Bruce M., Richard G. Stein, B. Z. Segal, P. F. Deibert, M. Buckley, and D. Nathan.
Energy Use for Building Construction – Supplement. Washington, D.C.: Energy Research
and Development Administration, 1977.

Harrison, Rodney. “Heritage and Globalization.” The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary
Heritage Research, ed. Emma Waterton and Steve Watson. Boston. Mass.: Palgrave
MacMillan, 2015.

Hasenfus, Erika L. “Measuring the Capital Energy Value in Historic Structures.” Master’s thesis.
University of Pennsylvania, 2013. http://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/224/.

Havinga, L.C. “Relating sustainability indicators to the refurbishment of the existing building
stock,” 30th International PLEA Conference Sustainable Habitat for Developing Societies,
P.1-9. Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India: CEPT University Press, 2014.

84

Heritage Strategies International. “Deconstruction & Social Enterprise.” Accessed October 14,
2021. https://www.hs-intl.com/deconstruction-social-enterprise/.

Historic Sites Act of 1935, 54 U.S.C. 3201 et. seq., 1023 et. seq. (1935).

Hughes, Keenan. "Reuse Vs. Tear Down." Planning 74, no. 1 (January, 2008): 40-42.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/206710462?accountid=14749/.

Huuhka, Satu. “Heritage and Waste: Values, Circular Economy and Deconstruction.” Webinar
from October 16, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTC8rCJumRE/.

Institute for International Urban Development. “Sustainable Development vs. Sustainability.”
Accessed December 6, 2018. http://i2ud.org/2012/06/sustainable-development-vs-
sustainability/.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “About the IPCC.” Accessed October 6, 2020.
https://www.ipcc.ch/about/.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Geneva,
Switzerland: IPCC, 2008.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Geneva,
Switzerland: IPCC, 2014.

International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. World Conservation
Strategy. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 1980.

Keating, Michael. “The Earth Summit's Agenda for Change,” Earth Summit Times, (September,
1992): 1-19. http://awsassets.wwfindia.org/downloads/rio_declaration_2.pdf/.

85

Kinney, Dale. “Spolia. Damnatio and Renovatio Memoriae,” Memoirs of the American Academy
in Rome 42 (1997): 117-148.

Kinney, Dale. "Roman Architectural Spolia." Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society
145, no. 2 (2001): 138-61. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1558268/.

Kuhlman, Tom and John Farrington. “What is Sustainability?” Sustainability 2, no. 11
(November, 2010): 3436-3448. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2113436/.

LA2050 (website). “About.” Accessed January 15, 2021. https://la2050.org/about/.

Languell, Jennifer. L. Implementing Deconstruction in Florida: Materials Reuse Issues,
Disassembly Techniques, Economics and Policy. Gainesville: Center for Construction and
Environment, 2000.

Leung, Jessica. Decarbonizing U.S. Buildings. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (July
2018). https://www.c2es.org/document/decarbonizing-u-s-buildings/.

Lindberg, Jim. “The Preservation Green Lab is Now the Research & Policy Lab.” Last updated
June 28, 2028. https://forum.savingplaces.org/blogs/jim-lindberg/2018/06/28/preservation-
green-lab-now-research-policy-lab/.

Los Angeles City Planning. “Historic Resources Surveys.”. Accessed February 3, 2021.
https://planning.lacity.org/preservation-design/historic-resources-survey/.

Maddex, Diane, ed. New Energy from Old Buildings. Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press,
1981.

Manuel, John S. “Unbuilding for the Environment.” Environmental Health Perspectives 111, no.
16 (2003): A880-AA887.

86

Martinko, Whitney. “Two Centuries Ago, Pennsylvania Almost Razed Independence Hall to
Make Way for Private Development.” Last updated December 11, 2017.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/amazon-or-independence-hall-development-v-
preservation-city-philadelphia-180967463/.

Mason, Randall and Erica Avrami. “Heritage values and challenges of conservation planning.”
Management Planning for Archaeological Sites: An International Workshop Organized by
the Getty Conservation Institute and Loyola Marymount University, May 2000, edited by
Teutonico, J.M. and Palumbo, G., 13-26. Los Angeles, CA: The Getty Conservation
Institute, 2000.

McCarthy, Tina M. and Eleni E. Glekas. “Deconstructing heritage: enabling a dynamic materials
practice.” Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 10, no.
1 (2020): 16-28. DOI 10.1108/JCHMSD-06-2019-0084.

McCarthy, Tina M. “Heritage and Waste: Values, Circular Economy and Deconstruction.”
Webinar from October 16, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTC8rCJumRE/.

Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III. Limits
of Growth. New York: Universe, 1972.

Milara, Jose Mendoza, María López de Asiaín and Gabriel Gomez Azpeitia. “Deconstruction +
Reuse = NØ Waste.” Presentation at the 30th International PLEA Conference, Ahmedabad,
December 16-18, 2014.

Milwaukee, Wis., A Substitute Ordinance Relating to Deconstruction of Residential Buildings,
§200-19 (2018).

More, Hemant. “Stockholm Declaration.” Last updated April 9, 2019.
https://thefactfactor.com/facts/law/civil_law/environmental_laws/stockholm-
declaration/871/.

87

Morelli, John. “Environmental Sustainability: A Definition for Environmental Professionals.”
Journal of Environmental Sustainability vol. 1, issue1, article 2 (2011).
DOI:10.14448/jes.01.0002. http://scholarworks.rit.edu/jes/vol1/iss1/2/.

NAHB Research Center, Inc. A Guide to Deconstruction. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of
Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, 2000.

NAHB Research Center, Inc. A Report on the Feasibility of Deconstruction: An Investigation of
Deconstruction Activity in Four Cities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Housing and
Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, 2001.

National Environmental Policy Act. 42 U.S.C. 4321 and 43314335 (1969).

Environmental Protection Agency. Sustainability Primer.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
05/documents/sustainability_primer_v9.pdf/.

National Historic Preservation Act. 54 U.S.C. 300101 (1966).

National Park Service. “Antiquities Act of 1906.” Accessed February 26,2020.
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/legal/american-antiquities-act-of-1906.htm/.

National Park Services. “Applying the Standards for Rehabilitation.” Accessed May 16, 2018.
https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/applying-rehabilitation.htm/.

National Park Service. Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design. Denver, Co.: NPS, 1993.

National Park Service. “National Historic Preservation Act - Historic Preservation (U.S. National
Park Service).” Lasted updated December 2, 2018.
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/historicpreservation/national-historic-preservation-act.htm/.

88

National Park Service. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, & Reconstructing
Historic Buildings. Washington, DC: US Department of the Interior, 2017.

The National Research Council. Sustainability and the US EPA. Washington, D.C.: The National
Academies Press, 2011. https://doi.org/10.17226/13152.

Natural Resource Defense Council. “Story of Silent Spring.” Accessed August 13, 2015.
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/story-silent-spring/.

National Trust for Historic Preservation. 54 U.S.C. 3121 et. seq. (1949).

National Trust for Historic Preservation. “Position on Deconstruction.” Washington, D.C.:
National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2009.
http://www.preservationnation.org/information-center/sustainable-communities/additional-
resources/Deconstruction-Position-Paper-NTHP.pdf/. Accessed: 4/7/2015.

National Trust for Historic Preservation. “Preservation: Reusing America’s Energy.”
Washington, D.C.: NTHP, 1980.

Nelson, Lee H. Architectural Character: Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as
an Aid to Preserving Their Character. Washington D.C.: U.S. Dept. of the Interior,
National Park Service, Cultural Resources, Heritage Preservation Services, 1988.
https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/17-architectural-character.htm/.

New Jersey Green Building Manual. “Deconstruction.” Accessed June 19, 2015.
http://greenmanual.rutgers.edu/newresidential/strategies/deconstruction.pdf/ (page
discontinued).

89

Nixon, Richard. Executive Order. “Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment,
Executive Order 11593 of May 13, 1971.” Federal Register, 36 FR 8921, 3 CFR, 1971-
1975 Comp. (May 15, 1971): 559.

Normandin, Kyle C. and Susan MacDonald. A Colloquium to Advance the Practice of
Conserving Modern Architecture: March 6-7, 2013: Meeting Report. Los Angeles: Getty
Conservation Institute, 2013.

Olsen, Søren Steen. “Concepts of Sustainability,” Issues 2: This Way, Please. (April, 2012):17-
18. http://houseoffutures.dk/downloads/ISSUESarticles/ISSUES_Concepts-of.pdf/.

Park, Sharon C. “The Use of Substitute Materials on Historic Building Exteriors.” Washington
D.C.: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources, Heritage
Preservation Services, 1.

Pezzey, John. Sustainable Development Concepts – An Economic Analysis. Washington, D.C.:
The World Bank, 1992.

Pittsburg History & Landmarks Foundation and Green Building Alliance. The Greening of
Historic Properties: National Summit. Pittsburg, PA: PH&LF and GBA, 2006.
https://corcom-inc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/PHLF-Final-WP-document.pdf/.

Portland, Ore., Deconstruction of Buildings Law, §17.106 (2016).

Preservation Green Lab. The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value of
Building Reuse. Washington D.C.: NTHP, 2011.
https://forum.savingplaces.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?Docum
entFileKey=5119e24d-ae4c-3402-7c8e-38a11a4fca12&forceDialog=0/.

90

Preservation Leadership Forum. “The National Historic Preservation Act: A 40th Anniversary
Appraisal.” Last updated December 9, 2015.
https://forum.savingplaces.org/viewdocument/the-national-histori/.

Purvis, Ben, Yong Mao, and Darren Robinson. “Three pillars of sustainability: in search of
conceptual origins.” Sustainability Science 14, (May, 2019). 681–695.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5/.

Repovich, Sheri E. “Architectural Salvage: Its Use and Validity Within the Preservation Field.”
Master’s thesis. Ball State University, 2009.

Roberts, Tristian. “Historic Preservation and Green Building: A Lasting Relationship.” Last
updated January 2, 2007. https://www.buildinggreen.com/feature/historic-preservation-and-
green-building-lasting-relationship.

Ross, Susan and Victoria Angel. “Guest editorial.” Journal of Cultural Heritage Management
and Sustainable Development 10, no. 1 (2020): 1-5. DOI 10.1108/JCHMSD-02-2020-116.

Rypkema, Donovan. “Economics, Sustainability, and Historic Preservation.” Last modified
October 30, 2017. http://www.sohosandiego.org/reflections/2006-2/economics.htm/.

Rypkema, Donovan. “Preservationist aren’t who we’re made out to be.” Forum Connect Digest
for May 18, 2021. NTHP Preservation Leadership Forum.

Smith, Baird M. Preservation Brief 3 – Conserving Energy in Historic Buildings. Washington
D.C.: National Park Service, Cultural Resources, Heritage Preservation Services, 1978.

Stockton, Robert P., Elizabeth H Alston, Mary Martha Blalock. Information for Guides of
Historic Charleston. Charleston, South Carolina: City of Charleston, 1985.

91

Sustainable Development Timeline, Library and Information Centre (New Delhi, India: The
Energy and Resource Institute, n.d.).

Sustainability and Historic Federal Buildings. Washington, D.C: Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, 2011. https://www.achp.gov/digital-library-section-106-
landing/sustainability-and-historic-federal-buildings/.

Swinton, Dante. “The REcovering Baltimore’s Underutilized Inventory of Lots and Dwellings
(REBUILD) Act.” Energy Justice Network. Email to author from Stephanie Compton,
September 24, 2021.

Thwink (website). “Sustainability.” Accessed June 6, 2019.
http://thwink.org/sustain/glossary/Sustainability.htm/.

United Nations. The future we want. New York: United Nations, 2012.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/futurewewant.html/.

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Agenda 21: Programme of action
for sustainable development; Rio Declaration on Environment and Development;
Statement of Forest Principles: the final text of agreements negotiated by governments at
the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), 3-14 June
1992, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. New York: United Nations Dept. of Public Information, 1993.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf/.

United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. Report of the United Nations
Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, 5-16 June 1972. New York: United
Nations, 1973.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. “What is the Kyoto Protocol?”
Accessed September 5, 2020, https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/.

92

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. “What is the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change.” Accessed September 5, 2020.
https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-convention/what-is-the-united-nations-
framework-convention-on-climate-change/.

United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development. Report of the World Summit on
Sustainable Development: Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August-4 September 2002.
Washington, D.C.: United Nations, 2002.

United States Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Assessing the Energy Conservation
Benefits of Historic Preservation: Methods and Examples. Washington, D.C.: Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation, 1979.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Advancing Sustainable Materials Management:
2018 Fact Sheet. Washington, D.C.: EPA, 2020.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-11/documents/2018_ff_fact_sheet.pdf/.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Lifecycle Construction Resource Guide.
Atlanta, GA: EPA, 2008.

United States General Services Administration. “National Environment Policy Act.” Last
accessed February 17, 2020. https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/environmental-
programs/national-environmental-policy-act/.

United States Green Building Council. LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major
Renovations. Washington, D.C.: USGBC, 2009.

United States Green Building Council. “LEED v4.1.” Accessed September 4, 2020.
https://www.usgbc.org/leed/v41/.

93

United States Green Building Council. “Mission and vision.” Accessed August 25, 2020.
https://www.usgbc.org/about/brand/.

Vancouver, Canada, Green Demolition By-Law, 11023 (2014).

Viejo-Rose, Dacia and Marie Louise Stig Sørensen. “Cultural Heritage and Armed Conflict: New
Questions for an Old Relationship.” The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Heritage
Research, ed. Emma Waterton and Steve Watson. Boston. Mass.: Palgrave MacMillan,
2015.

Warford, Jeremy J. Environment, Growth and Development. Washington D.C.: Joint Ministerial
Committee of the Boards of Governors of the World Bank and the International Monetary
Fund on the Transfer of Real Resources to Developing Countries (Development
Committee), 1987.

WBDG Historic Preservation Subcommittee. “Historic Preservation.” Accessed May 16, 2018.
https://www.wbdg.org/design-objectives/historic-preservation/.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law. s.v. "National Environmental Policy Act of 1969." 2
nd

edition. Accessed February 17, 2020. https://legal-
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/National+Environmental+Policy+Act+of+1969.

World Green Building Council. “About Green Building.” Accessed September 3, 2020.
https://www.worldgbc.org/what-green-building/.

World Green Building Council. “About us.” Accessed August 25, 2020.
https://www.worldgbc.org/our-story/.

94

APPENDIX A
Home Front Build - LA2050 Application Responses-Final

95

Toward a Carbon Neutral House
Application for LA2050

Title:

1) Toward a Carbon Neutral House in Los Angeles: how building homes from salvaged homes
can help save the environment

Handle:

1) carbonneutralhouse

Sample Tweet (130):

What if instead of clear-cutting forests for our new buildings we simply harvested the old growth
lumber that is already here in our community instead of throwing it all away?

Describe what your organization does:

Home Front Build is a design/build firm that specializes in green and historic construction.

One sentence descriptor (140):

The project will assess the benefits of using salvaged materials in the construction of new homes
to minimize climate change in Los Angeles.

What is your idea in more detail (750):

When a home is demolished to make way for a new home in Los Angeles today, what is the
opportunity cost of not salvaging these materials for the new home? One of the greatest costs is
increased carbon dioxide (CO
2
) emissions which through increased climate change threatens our
environment both globally and locally here in Los Angeles.

CO
2
emissions comes from many sources along the supply chain for construction materials
which we believe could be avoided through the use of salvaged materials available to us in the
numerous houses demolished every day in Los Angeles. The goal of our project is to
demonstrate how locally sourced salvaged materials can be utilized to reduce our carbon
footprint and advance our concept of sustainability.

What will you do to implement this project (2500):

To implement the “Toward a Carbon Neutral House” project we propose to demonstrate the
relative benefit of using salvaged materials based on a case study of the deconstruction of an
existing house and the construction of a new house using salvaged materials from the former.
The case study will include a cataloging of inputs and outputs of materials for salvage and

96

disposal at each of the two house sites in Los Angeles for the purposes of a Life-Cycle
Assessment (“LCA”). This LCA will establish an “energy budget” for the new house based on:
1) a calculation of the embodied energy of these materials; and, 2) a calculation of the projected
operational energy use for the new house over its life-cycle.

This total energy budget of the new house will allow us to further analyze and compare the case
study with other cases such as a Baseline Case which meets minimum code requirements.
Additionally, we will be able to find the associated CO
2
emissions of each element of the new
house, and add other external emissions to the Baseline Case such as from the landfill disposal of
a typical demolition. This will allow a more complete picture of the performance of the new
house not just in terms of its energy use, but its carbon footprint.

If, through this case study, we are able to demonstrate there is a significant amount of reduced
CO
2
emissions from using salvaged materials to build a new home, then we would propose to
use this assessment to advocate for the reform of the applicable codes and standards (e.g., Los
Angeles Green Building Code and LEED for Homes). To accomplish this goal, we propose to
organize and disseminate the results of our work for use by the relevant stakeholders and policy
makers. We will use a variety of media and formats for communicating our results including a
short video to be used online and at screenings for educational and advocacy purposes.

The LA2050 grant will allow us to carry out a complete and thorough cataloging of the inputs
and outputs of the deconstructed house and new house, and to conduct a Life-Cycle Assessment
which will help quantify the CO
2
emissions of salvaged materials in new home construction.
With the proper funding of the “Toward a Carbon Neutral House” project, we hope to carry out
this case study in a
manner that will serve a range of stakeholders and policy makers, but in the end serve the greater
community of Los Angeles through reduced carbon emissions and helping to create a more
resilient city.

How will your idea make LA the healthiest place to live today/in 2050? (2500):

The “Toward a Carbon Neutral House” project will help make Los Angeles the healthiest place
to live by serving as a launch pad for reforming the codes and regulations which shape the homes
we live in, and therefore drive how we as a city produce CO
2
emissions and contribute to climate
change. In the Los Angeles region, we have both the blessing of beautiful landscapes and a
history of environmental damage in the smog and pollutants we have produced, and the wildfires
and droughts we have precipitated due to climate change. To mitigate this damage and make Los
Angeles a more resilient city and region will not happen overnight, nor in a year, but if we take
incremental steps like reforming the codes, we can achieve a steady progress toward a healthy
environment in which to live over the long term.

In the next year, we believe the “Toward a Carbon Neutral House” project will demonstrate the
relative benefits of using salvaged materials in new homes, and we will begin to reform the
necessary codes and regulations for all of Los Angeles and the region to be able to take
advantage of this smart CO
2
emissions reduction measure. In the long term (and definitely in
2050) the construction industry will, we believe, have embraced the use of salvaged materials as

97

a standard practice, and the benefits of reduced CO
2
emissions and minimized climate change
will be enjoyed by all Angelenos.

What this will mean for Angelenos is a more resilient city and region where the extreme
outcomes of increasing climate change such as wildfires, droughts and rising sea level will be
minimized. Like a firefighter taking the fuel away from the fire, these natural events will
hopefully be minimized in their severity and frequency if we are able to minimize climate
change. Similarly, the severity of smog and levels of air toxins in the Los Angeles region will
hopefully be reduced if we minimize climate change due to the reduced CO
2
levels and
temperatures which contribute to particulates collecting in the atmosphere even.

In 2050, Los Angeles will be a healthy place to live for all Angelenos due in part, we hope, to the
early efforts of the “Toward a Carbon Neutral House” project to serve as a launch pad for the
necessary documentation, advocacy and reforms to the codes and standards which shape the way
we live.

Whom will your project benefit, specifically (2500):

The “Toward a Carbon Neutral House” project is intended to benefit all of Los Angeles's
communitites from the improved environmental quality associated with reduced CO
2
emissions.
To accomplish this goal the project proposes to first lay the groundwork for reforms to the codes
and standards which shape the homes we live in, and how they treat the use of salvaged
materials. Therefore, the project will at first be a documentation and advocacy tool for
stakeholders and policy makers who work in the residential construction market in the Los
Angeles region.

The specific stakeholders we are targeting include general contractors, sub-contractors, building
materials suppliers, architecture and engineering professionals, sustainability consultants, and
environmental and community groups. The specific policy makers include researchers, building
officials at the municipal and state level, officials at the Los Angeles County Sanitation
Department, and USGBC technical committee members. The benefits of this research will
hopefully be to provide a foundation for future research, help to build a consensus on the issue of
salvaged materials within both the private and public sector, and hopefully lead to real reforms of
the applicable codes and standards such as the Los Angeles Green Building Code and LEED for
Homes.

The goal of the “Toward a Carbon Neutral House” project is to demonstrate how locally-sourced
salvaged materials can be used to reduce our carbon footprint, and thereby improve the
environmental quality of the world we all live in. The benefits of a reduced carbon footprint
extend well beyond the city limits of Los Angeles, and will require the participation of many
more communities to be effective, but that is the nature of environmental issues. Pollution,
climate change, and other environmental challenges do not tend to respect borders, and
consequently require a global response, but acting locally is always the first step.

Identify any partners or collaborators, their added benefit (2500):

98

The “Toward a Carbon Neutral House” project will be lead internally at Home Front Build by
Derek Ryder, a licensed architect and LEED AP, who will serve as the sustainability professional
and project coordinator leading the data collection, dissemination and project management
activities with the project team. Derek comes to Home Front Build with 13+ years of experience
in residential and religious architecture, and received his Master of Architecture degree from the
Yale School of Architecture in 1999.

The USC School of Architecture is a confirmed partner. Faculty members Douglas Noble, Chair
of the Ph.D Program and Discipline Head of the Building Science Department, and Karen M.
Kensek, Associate Professor, will provide supervision and direction to a graduate level thesis
project analyzing the data collected by the project.

BurroHappold International engineering firm is a confirmed partner. They will provide strategic
over-sight of the process including the data collection and life-cycle assessment. They will assist
directing the graduate student work and provide peer support and review of the results of this
research. Further, they have interested international parties and contacts, specifically in the UK,
that are conducing industrial research in this area and who would be able to share their expertise
and be able to build on it.

Veracity Productions will operate as a subcontractor to Home Front Build in the making of a
documentary for educational and advocacy purposes. public dissemination:
www.veracityproductions.com.

Elaborate on how your project will impact the metrics: (2500)

In the next year, the “Toward a Carbon Neutral House” project will impact the level of
knowledge and connectivity of stakeholders and policy makers related to the residential
construction market in the Los Angeles region. Serving as a launch pad for reforms to the
applicable codes and standards, the project would seek to raise the level of knowledge of specific
stakeholders such as general contractors and code officials, and it would seek to increase the
connectivity of these parties in order to build a consensus on the issue of salvaged materials.

In the medium term, we would hope to lay the ground work for potential impacts in several of
the “LIVE” metrics in the next several years, notably in: 1) Exposure to air toxins; 2) Percent of
imported water; and, 3) Percentage of Los Angeles communities that are resilient. Through the
use of salvaged materials in residential construction, the “Toward a Carbon Neutral House”
project will seek to reduce the toxins levels and related smog Angelenos are exposed to through a
reduction of CO
2
emissions.

Similarly, the project will seek to reduce the percent of imported water to the region through
minimizing climate change and thereby reducing frequencies of drought and associated loss of
water capacity from melting snow cap, evaporation, etc. And finally, the project will seek to
increase the percentage of Los Angeles communities that are resilient through minimizing
climate change and thereby reducing the susceptibility of communities to extreme weather events
such as drought, wildfire and rising sea levels.

99

The “Toward a Carbon Neutral House” project would hopefully achieve these three “LIVE”
metrics goals in a subsequent phase of the project over the next several years, and not in the
scope and schedule of the LA2050 grant. Consequently, we would not evaluate the project based
on these metrics in the term, but instead use the project evaluation discussed below.

Explain how you will evaluate your project (2500):

We will evaluate the “Toward a Carbon Neutral House” project by three main metrics: 1) was it
technically rigorous; 2) did it communicate to key stakeholders and policy makers; and, 3) did
we connect the technical and regulatory goals to the environmental and health benefits to the
community. The project should be technically rigorous in order to be useful for other researchers
and policy makers to draw upon it as a basis for pursuing additional research or making policy
decisions. To meet this criteria, the project should follow accepted standards for documentation
and assessment of CO
2
emissions, and should establish a thorough yet practical protocol for team
members to follow.

The project should be able to communicate to key stakeholders and policy makers in order to
have an effect on the construction sector in Los Angeles with the intent of reforming its
practices, and, by extension, hopefully reducing CO
2
emissions. To meet this criteria, the project
should produce documents formatted and organized for use by the following groups: 1)
researchers; 2) building officials; and, 3) building contractors. Through a focused campaign of
reaching the above groups, we will attempt to build a consensus on this issue which could lead to
reforms that would encourage the use of salvaged materials.

Finally, the project should connect the technical and regulatory goals to the environmental and
health benefits to the community. These benefits were outlined above and would include: 1)
Exposure to air toxins; 2) Percent of imported water; and, 3) Percentage of Los Angeles
communities that are resilient. While these metrics goals would not be achieved, the reforms
which will hopefully be achieved should be oriented toward achieving them in the future. For
example, if a reform to a green building standard is proposed which would encourage the use of
salvaged materials, it should not do so at the cost of other CO
2
emissions goals such as reduced
transportation distances (i.e. salvaged materials should be locally-sourced).

What two lessons have informed your solution or project (2500):

The first lesson which informed our solution concerned the way we as a community view the
existing houses in our neighborhoods. We look at our historic structures as architectural and
design monuments and overlook the value of the component materials themselves. Our work
with the existing building stock in Los Angeles has exposed us to lumber and building products
that could only be produced today if you harvested in a National Park. The redwood and
Douglas fir trees that was milled from the late 18
th
century until the mills in the Western Sierra’s
were closed in the late 30’s were old growth trees that for the most part only exist today in
protected areas such as National parks.

When those trees were milled it was a different time, lumber was plentiful and the ethos of the
time was to mill this lumber was to emulate the beauty and grandeur of the old growth forests.

100

So why are we throwing this valuable lumber away? It lead us to appreciate not only this lumber
but all building products not as consumable resources but to look at them as resources that can
become sustainable. By saving this lumber we are saving what is left to us of the old growth
forests.

The second lesson which informed our solution concerned the way the applicable codes and
standards viewed the use of salvaged materials. When we first looked at the possibility of using
salvaged materials for the predecessor to the “Toward a Carbon Neutral House” project, we did a
code review of the Los Angeles Green Building Standard, the LEED for Homes standard, and
the Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation's construction and demolition recycling requirements.
After our review, we concluded that these codes and standards provided reasonable incentives
for the downstream recycling of demolition waste, but provided little if any allowance for the use
of salvaged materials in the construction of new homes.

This emphasis on downstream recycling on the part of these agencies and organizations was, we
believed, overlooking an area of great potential benefit in the cause of CO
2
emissions reduction.
With this lesson, we conceived of the “Toward a Carbon Neutral House” project as a way to
reform these codes and standards.

Explain how implementing your project within the next 12 months is an achievable goal
(2500):

The salvage of an existing single family dwelling originally constructed in 1905 will take place
during late summer 2014. The salvage operation will take approximately two weeks. The
salvage process will be documented daily and materials will be transported during this time
frame leaving the lot clear at the end of this period.

Compilation of the salvage data and dissemination of this data to the partners will commence in
fall of 2014. Analysis of the embodied energy in the salvaged materials and “Life Cycle
Analysis” will begin at this time and be completed by spring 2015. This analysis will take place
simultaneously with the
reuse of the salvage material.

Construction of the new single family dwelling will begin in Late Fall 2014 and end in the
summer of 2015. Follow up analysis of the new structure and quantification of materials reused
and analysis will occur in late summer to early fall 2015.

Please list at least two major barriers/challenges you anticipate. What is your strategy for
ensuring a successful implementation (2500):

We anticipate two main barriers to the “Toward a Carbon Neutral House” project coming largely
from
the regulatory process surrounding the use of salvaged materials. These barriers are: 1) the
California Building Code (“CBC”) currently restricts the re-use of framing lumber as framing
lumber; and 2) the California Green Building Code (“CalGreen”) and LEED for Homes (and

101

similar green building standards) do not weight their point systems in favor of the use of
salvaged materials.

The restrictions of the CBC are based on understandable concerns about, specifically, the
integrity of re-used lumber and how it will perform as a structural member given the potential
nail holes and non-standardized dimensions. We believe there are reasonable protocols which
can be written into the build code which both respect the life safety of occupants and property,
and are not overly burdensome to apply given the example of other jurisdictions which have
addressed these concerns and allowed for its use (e.g. the State of New York).

Regarding the green building code and standards, we believe that through the necessary
documentation and advocacy, they can be reformed to better reflect the value of salvaged
materials for CO
2
emissions reduction. This may take some time and effort given the process of
amendment to the LEED system at the USGBC given that the organization is a consensus-based
one, and there is always an interest in maintaining the status quo. With the benefit of the
documentation, assessment, and dissemination of the results of the project, we believe progress
can be made at reforming the LEED for Homes system.

Are there other organizations doing similar work (whether complementary or
competitive)? How is your project unique from what already exists? (2500):

In general, the most active organizations in the area of green building research are the ones
dedicated to administering the standards or code (e.g. USGBC with LEED for Homes, and the
California State... with CalGreen Code). These organizations' approach has been to accept the
industry's standard practices as a baseline and simply tweak it in a green direction. The “Toward
a Carbon Neutral House” project and the resulting research would hopefully lead to revisions to
the local codes and regulations, and eventually to the national and international standards.

(Note: the text above is a direct copy from the original document provided to the author. No
corrections or modifications made.)

102

APPENDIX B
Home Front Build - Toward a Carbon Neutral House

103

Toward a Carbon Neutral House

The project will assess the benefits of using salvaged materials in the construction of new
homes to minimize climate change in Los Angeles.

The goal of our project is to demonstrate how locally sourced salvaged materials can be utilized
to reduce our carbon footprint and advance our concept of sustainability.

To implement the “Toward a Carbon Neutral House” project we propose to demonstrate the
relative benefit of using salvaged materials based on a case study of the deconstruction of an
existing house and the construction of a new house using salvaged materials from the former.
The case study will include a cataloging of inputs and outputs of materials for salvage and
disposal at each of the two house sites in Los Angeles for the purposes of a Life-Cycle
Assessment (“LCA”). This LCA will establish an “energy budget” for the new house based on: 1)
a calculation of the embodied energy of these materials;

The first lesson which informed our solution concerned the way we as a community view the
existing houses in our neighborhoods. We look at our historic structures as architectural and
design monuments and overlook the value of the component materials themselves. Our work
with the existing building stock in Los Angeles has exposed us to lumber and building products
that could only be produced today if you harvested in a National Park. The redwood and
Douglas fir trees that was milled from the late 18th century until the mills in the Western Sierra’s
were closed in the late 30’s were old growth trees that for the most part only exist today in
protected areas such as National parks.

When those trees were milled it was a different time, lumber was plentiful and the ethos of the
time was to mill this lumber was to emulate the beauty and grandeur of the old growth forests.
So why are we throwing this valuable lumber away? It leads us to appreciate not only this
lumber but all building products not as consumable resources but to look at them as resources
that can become sustainable. By saving this lumber we are saving what is left to us of the old
growth forests.

Here is a list of specific tasks required:
1. Rough as-built drawings for crosschecking quantities:
a. Rough floor plans with simple W x L x H dimensions; and,
b. Description of construction type & finishes in each room & exterior.

2. Quantity estimates of salvage, recycled, & waste materials:
a. Wood: board feet, type (framing or finish), & condition;
b. Masonry & concrete: weight & condition; and,
c. Metal: weight, type, & condition;
d. Construction waste: weight;

3. Document transportation miles driven & hours of power equipment used:
a. How many hours of heavy equipment & generator use;
b. How many miles of truck transport.

104

4. Calculate embodied energy for salvaged materials:
a. Translate the above quantities and carbon dioxide emissions into embodied
energy per unit of salvaged materials;
b. Using these embodied energy amounts, generate an “energy budget” for the new
house which includes both embodied and operational energy use for use in a
subsequent LCA;

5. Document labor required:
a. Labor hours: broken down by salvage material unit (e.g. “finish 1x6 base”) and by
total labor (incl. for salvage & non-salvage materials);
b. Labor hours: offsite labor to process, transport, & store salvage materials; and,
c. Cost of labor: broken down by salvage material unit (e.g. “finish 1x6 base”) and
by total labor (incl. for salvage & non-salvage materials).

(Note: the text above is a direct copy from the original document provided to the author.
No corrections or modifications made.)

105

APPENDIX C
Derek Ryder’s Memo - Documentation of
salvaging of materials from 748 Hartford Ave.

106

MEMO

FROM: Derek Ryder, Derek Ryder Architect
TO: Steve Pallrand, HomeFront Design Build
RE: Documentation of salvaging of materials from 748 Hartford Ave., Los
Angeles, CA
DATE: June 30, 2014

Per our site visit to 748 Hartford Ave. on June 17
th
, I have drafted a scope of work for the
documentation of the salvaging materials from this house for the purposes of justifying the
carbon reductions provided by the use of salvaged materials. The documentation would involve
multiple parties in order to be completed so I have also listed responsible parties next to each
item in parenthesis.

1. Rough as-built drawings: (HomeFront - “HF”)
a) Rough floor plans with simple W x L x H dimensions; and,
b) Description of construction type & finishes in each room & exterior.
2. Quantity estimates of salvage materials: (HF)
a) Wood: board feet & condition of framing & finish; and,
b) Masonry & concrete: weight & condition.
3. Labor required: (HF)
a) Broken down by salvage material unit (e.g. board feet) and by total labor (incl. for
salvage & non-salvage materials); and,
b) Offsite labor to process, transport, & store.
4. Carbon use: (HF & sustainability consultant - “SC”)
a) How many hours of heavy equipment & generator use, and the carbon dioxide
equivalent;
b) How many hours of truck transport, and the carbon dioxide equivalent; and,
c) Provide quantity per unit of salvage material and total for the project.
5. Diversion savings vs. typical house demolition: (SC)
a) In typical demo, how much of the waste goes to recyclers and what is the carbon

107

consequence (per unit and per average house size); and,
b) In typical demo, how much heavy equipment & transportation is required and what
is the carbon dioxide equivalent (per unit and per average house size).

6. Salvage vs. conventional lumber comparison: (SC and/or university researcher - “UR”)
a) For conventional lumber (non-FSC certified) used in an average sized house, how
much heavy equipment & transportation is required and what is the carbon dioxide
equivalent; and,
b) For conventional lumber (non-FSC certified) used in an average sized house, what is
the carbon dioxide sink loss by cutting & milling the timber versus leaving it standing.
7. Areas of analysis: (UR)
a) Net carbon reduction of conventional vs. salvage lumber:
1. Reduction excluding timber production;
2. Reduction including timber production;
b) Lumber as a percentage of total carbon use of an average house using
conventional construction techniques, and the percentage reduction offered by
salvaged lumber.
cost of construction comparison that would help to persuade other builders to consider salvage
lumber as an option.

(Note: the text above is a direct copy from the original document provided. No corrections or
modifications made.)

108

APPENDIX D
Derek Ryder’s Memo - Outline of the
proposed research project

109

MEMO

FROM: Derek Ryder, Derek Ryder Architect, on behalf of HomeFront Design Build
TO: Prospective research partners for the “Toward a Carbon Neutral House”
project
RE: Outline of the proposed research project
DATE: August 17, 2014

As part of HomeFront Design Build's “Toward a Carbon Neutral House” project, our team will
assess the benefits of using salvaged materials in the construction of a new home to reduce
carbon dioxide emissions from the extraction, production and delivery of lumber and thereby
help minimize climate change. As a home builder, HomeFront's main task will be to carry out the
work necessary for the salvage of an existing house, and the construction of a new one.
Alongside its work as a home builder, HomeFront is seeking to collaborate with research partners
from the manufacturing sector, the A/E professional community, and academia.

This document is intended as a draft outline of the proposed research project, its scope and
schedule, for reference by interested researchers. The project will be broken up into two main
phases over the course of the next two years:
Phase 1a: documentation & preliminary analysis:
2 mo.'s (8/25/14 – 10/30/14);
Phase 1b: Baseline Case analysis & issue preliminary report;
2 mo.'s (11/1/14 – 12/31/14);
Phase 2a: post-occupancy observation of operational performance:
12 mo.'s (8/1/15 – 8/1/16);
Phase 2b: final analysis of data & issuing of report:
2 mo.'s (8/1/15 – 10/1/15).

110

Phase 1a – document the salvage of 748 Hartford Ave. & calculate embodied energy of
salvaged materials:
The primary responsibility of the researcher will be to work with the demolition sub-contractors
and HomeFront's in-house staff in order to thoroughly catalog the type and quantity of
construction material which is removed from the site including salvaged material, recycled
material, and construction waste. The researcher would then calculate the embodied energy of
the salvaged materials to be used in the new house for use in a Life Cycle Assessment (“LCA”)
which will be done in a subsequent phase. In addition, he or she will document the associated
labor and cost for the removal and transport of all material removed from the site for making an
economic case for the use of salvaged materials.
Here is a list of specific tasks required:
8. Rough as-built drawings for crosschecking quantities:
a) Rough floor plans with simple W x L x H dimensions; and,
b) Description of construction type & finishes in each room & exterior.
9. Quantity estimates of salvage, recycled, & waste materials:
a) Wood: board feet, type (framing or finish), & condition;
b) Masonry & concrete: weight & condition; and,
c) Metal: weight, type, & condition;
d) Construction waste: weight;
10. Document transportation miles driven & hours of power equipment used:
a) How many hours of heavy equipment & generator use;
b) How many miles of truck transport.
11. Calculate embodied energy for salvaged materials:
a) Translate the above quantities and carbon dioxide emissions into embodied energy
per unit of salvaged materials;
b) Using these embodied energy amounts, generate an “energy budget” for the new
house which includes both embodied and operational energy use for use in a
subsequent LCA;
12. Document labor required:
a) Labor hours: broken down by salvage material unit (e.g. “finish 1x6 base”) and by
total labor (incl. for salvage & non-salvage materials);
b) Labor hours: offsite labor to process, transport, & store salvage materials; and,

111

c) Cost of labor: broken down by salvage material unit (e.g. “finish 1x6 base”) and by
total labor (incl. for salvage & non-salvage materials).

Phase 1b: – establish a Baseline Case for comparison & issue a preliminary report:
The primary responsibility of the researcher would be to establish a Baseline Case for comparison
based on the code-minimum requirements for a hypothetical project of similar type and scale.
He or she would then make a comparison of the new house's expected energy budget (per the
above analysis of the salvaged materials and the construction documents) versus that of the
Baseline Case. The researcher should then issue a preliminary report on these calculations and
analysis which can form the basis for the LCA in Phase 2. Here is a list of the specific tasks
required:
1. Diversion savings vs. conventional house demolition:
a) In conventional demo, how much of the waste goes to recyclers and what is the
carbon consequence (per unit and per average house size); and,
b) In conventional demo, how much heavy equipment & transportation is required and
what is the carbon dioxide equivalent (per unit and per average house size).
2. Salvage vs. conventional lumber comparison:
a) For conventional lumber (non-FSC certified) used in an average sized house, how
much heavy equipment & transportation is required and what is the carbon dioxide
equivalent; and,
b) For conventional lumber (non-FSC certified) used in an average sized house, what is
the carbon dioxide sink loss by cutting & milling the timber versus leaving it standing.
3. Areas of analysis:
a) Net carbon reduction of conventional vs. salvage lumber:
1. Reduction excluding timber production;
2. Reduction including timber production;
b) Lumber as a percentage of total carbon use of an average house using
conventional construction techniques, and the percentage reduction offered by
salvaged lumber.

Phase 2a: – post-occupancy observation of the operational performance of the new house:

112

The primary responsibility of the researcher would be the documentation of the post-occupancy
of the new house in order to establish a case study showing the actual performance of a LEED
for Homes Gold project for the purpose of establishing an energy budget with which to evaluate
the relative benefit of the carbon emissions savings from the use of salvaged materials versus
conventional lumber. Here is a list of the specific tasks required:
1. Document & analyze energy profile of new house:
a) Compile and analyze gas and electric bills and usage for the first year of occupancy;
and,
b) Document thermal performance of HVAC system and envelope;
2. Analyze data:
a) Establish an energy budget for the new house across an expected life span (e.g. 50
years) broken down by operational versus embodied energy.

Phase 2b: – final analysis of data & issuing of report:
The primary responsibility of the team will be to carry out the final Life Cycle Assessment (“LCA”)
using both the construction data and post-occupancy data. The specific tasks are TBD based
on technical experts in the field of LCA.
(Note: the text above is a direct copy from the original document provided. No corrections or
modifications made.)

113

APPENDIX E
748 Hartford Ave. – Derek Ryder’s Site Notes

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

APPENDIX F
748 Hartford Ave. – Deconstruction Log: Materials

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

APPENDIX G
748 Hartford Ave. – Deconstruction log: Labor

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

APPENDIX H
City of Los Angeles Miscellaneous Information

143

144

145

146

748 Hartford Ave.

147

APPENDIX I
LCA results for Carbon Neutral House

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

APPENDIX J
748 Hartford Ave. - Project Photos
(All photos courtesy of Home Front Build)

170

West Elevation

West Elevation

171

North Elevation

East Elevation

172

Interior Deconstruction

Interior Deconstruction

173

Interior Deconstruction

Front Entrance

174

Roof Deconstruction

Roof Deconstruction

175

Second Floor Deconstruction

Second Floor Dust Control

176

Second Floor Deconstruction

Second Floor Deconstruction

177

First Floor Deconstruction

Front Entrance Deconstruction

178

First Floor Chimney Deconstruction

Sorting Finish/Trim

179

Finish/Trim

Finish/Trim

180

Windows

Windows

181

Salvaged Lumber

Salvaged Lumber

182

Salvaged Lumber

Miscellaneous Metal

183

Workers Denailing

Workers Denailing

184

Workers Denailing and Stacking of Salvaged Lumber

Loading Lumber for Transport to Killarney Site

185

1359 Killarney Ave. Construction Site

Delivering Salvaged Lumber

186

Stacking Salvaged Lumber

Stacks of Salvaged Lumber

187

Stacked Salvaged Lumber, including Decorative Finish/Trim

Stacks of Salvaged Lumber

188

Makeshift rack

Worker Loading Makeshift Rack

189

Makeshift Rack with Salvaged Lumber

Salvaged Lumber Available During Construction

190

Salvaged Lumber Available During Construction

Salvaged Lumber Used in Construction

191

Salvaged Lumber Used in Construction

Salvaged Lumber and New Beams

192

Salvaged Lumber Used in Construction

Salvaged Lumber, New Beams, and New Plywood

193

Salvaged Lumber Together with New Lumber

Salvaged Lumber Used in Construction

194

Salvaged Lumber Used in Construction

Salvaged Lumber Used in Construction

Abstract (if available)

Abstract There is an inherent relationship between heritage conservation and sustainability. As concepts, both movements have deep roots, but in the last sixty years, these movements have flourished. By examining their histories in tandem, it is possible to understand their interrelationship. The thesis examines the intersection of the two fields through the lens of deconstruction- the manual disassembling of a building for the purpose building materials salvage with the primary objective of reuse. The overall concept of deconstruction, including a brief history, serves to provide background information and context in relationship to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. A case-study provides further insight by highlighting a deconstruction project of a non-contributing 1907 house in Los Angeles in pursuit of a LA2050 Challenge grant to mitigate climate change. This thesis also reveals how heritage conservation and deconstruction intersect, exploring the complexities of material value through heritage value and material reuse, deconstruction policies at the municipal level, deconstruction’s link to the circular economy, and reform of the current treatments. With the demise of a building, deconstruction can provide a meaningful alternative to demolition; one that simultaneously promotes both heritage conservation and sustainability.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Collaborative conservation: how the heritage and environmental movements can and should unite for progress

PDF

Mobilizing heritage conservation as a tool for urban resilience: linkages and recommendations

PDF

Values-based approach to heritage conservation: identifying cultural heritage in Los Angeles Koreatown

PDF

Success stories: an exploration of three nonprofits working in preservation, affordable housing, and community revitalization

PDF

Not so Little Armenia: conserving Armenian heritage sites in Los Angeles

PDF

Empowering communities through historic rehabilitation: creating a maintenance plan for public housing developments in Los Angeles

PDF

The ambivalence of conserving Busan’s colonial heritage

PDF

Reconstruction right now: conserving vernacular heritage in Beaufort, South Carolina as an act of reconstructing preservation practice

PDF

Greening historic districts with solar roofs: an exploration of Western Heights in Los Angeles

PDF

Using the UNESCO Historic Urban Landscape framework: a case study of the Pico-Union neighborhood

PDF

Scanning using a smart phone for heritage conservation: a case study using the Reunion House

PDF

Heritage conservation in post-redevelopment Los Angeles: evaluating the impact of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (CRA/LA) on the historic built environment

PDF

Identifying and conserving Pacoima: a heritage conservation study of a minority enclave in the San Fernando Valley

PDF

Contemporary vision: photography's influence on perception of places and the past

PDF

Beyond intangible cultural heritage designation: protecting Jidong shadow puppetry

PDF

Acoustic heritage of recording studios: physical characteristics and signature sound

PDF

Exploring the conservation of traditional Chinese timber architectural craftsmanship through the restoration of Buddhist temples in southwest China

PDF

Conservation 'on the natch': maintenance and remembrance at the Alcoholism Center for Women

PDF

Money in the bank: three case studies in the adaptive reuse of midcentury bank branch buildings

PDF

Mapping heritage justice in the city of Los Angeles

Asset Metadata

Creator Flores, J. Guadalupe (author)

Core Title Deconstruction: a tool for sustainable conservation

School School of Architecture

Degree Master of Heritage Conservation

Degree Program Heritage Conservation

Degree Conferral Date 2022-08

Publication Date 05/20/2022

Defense Date 05/06/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag circular economy,deconstruction,Heritage Conservation,heritage value,Historic Preservation,OAI-PMH Harvest,Secretary of the Interior's standards.,sustainability,sustainable development,waste

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Sandmeier, Trudi (committee chair), Hall, Peyton (committee member), Platt, Jay (committee member)

Creator Email guad@dosflores.net,guadflores@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111333313

Unique identifier UC111333313

Document Type Thesis

Rights Flores, J. Guadalupe

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20220523-usctheses-batch-943 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu