ARCHITECTURAL SALVAGE: ITS USE AND VALIDITY WITHIN THE
PRESERVATION FIELD
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMNTS
for the degree
MASTERS OF SCIENCE IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION
by
SHERI ELIZABETH REPOVICH
ADVISOR - MICHELE CHIUINI
BALL STATE UNIVERSITY
MUNCIE, INDIANA
MAY 2009
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the City of Muncie for their willingness to help me identify
and access abandoned buildings within the city and to the many companies and
individuals who gave me inside knowledge into the architectural salvage field.
To Michele Chiuini, Andrea Swartz & John Vann; thank you for your advice and
valuable criticism through the writing of this thesis.
To my mom, I would not have finished without your knowledge and patience,
thank you.
To Joseph, you gave me something to look forward to, never letting me give up;
you are my rock, thank you.
Finally I would like to thank my family and close friends for their support and
encouragement throughout graduate school. Without you, none of this would have been
possible.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................
i
LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES ............................................................................... v
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................
1
Purpose .................................................................................................................
2
Architectural Salvage & Deconstruction ..............................................................
3
Preservation & LEED Standard ...........................................................................
4
CHAPTER II: MUNCIE, INDIANA ..........................................................................
6
Background Information .......................................................................................
6
The Housing Dilemma ..........................................................................................
7
Unsafe Building Hearing Authority ......................................................................
8
Muncie, Indiana Building Material Inventory ...................................................... 10
CHAPTER III: HISTORIC PRESERVATION .......................................................... 23
Using the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards ................................................... 23
Historic Preservation ............................................................................................ 24
Restoration ............................................................................................................ 25
Rehabilitation ........................................................................................................ 25
Reconstruction ...................................................................................................... 26
CHAPTER IV: SALVAGE MARKET ...................................................................... 28
History of the Trade .............................................................................................. 29
ii
Finding Architectural Salvage ............................................................................. 30
Supply & Demand for Salvaged Materials ........................................................... 32
Midwest Architectural Salvage Survey ................................................................. 34
CHAPTER V: DECONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 44
Deconstruction Industry ........................................................................................ 46
Types of Deconstruction ....................................................................................... 47
Building Assessment .............................................................................................. 48
1 2 3 Deconstruct .................................................................................................. 49
Economics ............................................................................................................. 50
Historic Influence & Benefits ................................................................................ 52
CHAPTER VI: SALVAGED MATERIALS .............................................................. 55
Material Wealth for Historic Preservation ........................................................... 56
Materials Destined for Recycling ......................................................................... 60
Non-Hazardous & Hazardous Materials .............................................................. 63
Material Value: Embodied Energy ....................................................................... 65
CHAPTER VII: SUSTAINABLE DESIGN ............................................................... 69
Preservation vs. Sustainable Design ..................................................................... 70
Preservation Saves Resources .............................................................................. 71
U.S. Green Building Council & LEED ................................................................. 73
LEED, Preservation & Architectural Salvage ...................................................... 75
CHAPTER VIII: CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................ 79
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................... 83
APPENDIX A: ARCHITECTURAL SALVAGE COMPANIES .............................. 90
iii
APPENDIX B: DECONSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION COMPANIES ................ 98
APPENDIX C: THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS
FOR THE TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES ............................. 103
APPENDIX D: ARCHITECTURAL SALVAGE SURVEY .................................... 116
iv
LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES
Figures
Figure 1: Property Locator Map: Muncie, Indiana ....................................................... 11
Figure 2: Midwest Architectural Salvage Survey Question 11 .................................... 37
Figure 3: Midwest Architectural Salvage Survey Question 6 ...................................... 38
Figure 4: Midwest Architectural Salvage Survey Question 18 .................................... 39
Figure 5: Midwest Architectural Salvage Survey Question 7 ...................................... 40
Figure 6: Midwest Architectural Salvage Survey Question 2 ...................................... 41
Figure 7: Midwest Architectural Salvage Survey Question 14 .................................... 42
Figure 8: Midwest Architectural Salvage Survey Question 9 ...................................... 43
Tables
Table A: Historic Preservation Value of Materials ....................................................... 57
v
1
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
Many American cities are facing an abandoned housing problem. Cities such as
Detroit and Flint, Michigan, and Gary, Indiana have lost significant populations due to
the closing of large manufacturing plants; thus leaving houses and commercial buildings
vacant and prone to deterioration, from the climate or vandalism. City governments have
found that the greater the expanse of deterioration, the greater the property crime, and
have grown wary of these problems. Due to budget constraints and the need to address
the problem quickly many cities have turned to demolition as the only answer. With little
private investment for city revitalization, the housing stock has been bulldozed over for
parks, new fashionable housing, or left vacant using Federal incentives through grants.
While some of the housing stock may not be worthy of being placed on the National
Register of Historic Places, their material wealth surpasses their architectural value.
A key group fighting to stop these demolitions are the historic preservationists,
who focus on maintaining a city’s architectural character through sustaining local
housing and commercial architecture. Within the preservation field, demolition is not a
feasible option unless proven inevitable. In cities such as those mentioned above,
deconstruction of the buildings may have proved more feasible to the preservationist then
demolition. Once the abandoned properties have been surveyed and the experts have
decided the buildings are unworthy of National, State, or Local Registers and cannot
2
serve a viable purpose as they stand, then the next reasonable step is to deconstruct and
save as much architectural details and materials as possible, not to simply bulldoze and
add to the already overwhelmed landfills.
Many cities are currently imposing legislation for the limitation of construction
and demolition landfill waste forcing construction and demolition companies to focus on
alternative solutions. The deconstruction industry, which stems from the concepts of
demolition, focuses strictly on the reuse and recycling of building material. This industry
in conjunction with the salvaging of architectural materials is one step to landfill evasion
and building recycling. The architectural salvage which becomes available from
deconstruction can be used in accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Properties and LEED standards, to promote rehabilitation
and the reuse of historic properties. Deconstruction and architectural salvage should not
be considered an alternative to preservation practices but should be considered as an
adjunct, a valuable practice for saving historically significant pieces of history.
Purpose
The purpose of this thesis is to explore the significance of architectural salvage in
conjunction with the preservation and construction fields. This exploration will examine
the salvage market within the Midwest, and will look specifically at the material wealth
of Muncie, Indiana’s vacant structures. Architectural salvage found in the abandoned
housing stock of Muncie will be the basis for examination of the need for deconstruction
for salvageable materials. Muncie is proposed for this case study because of its current
high volume of abandoned structures and the cities motivation to demolish or rehabilitate
3
a vast majority. Currently the City of Muncie has records of over 900 properties within
Delaware County which are considered abandoned and potentially structurally unsound.
Twenty of the structures identified as uninhabitable will be evaluated to estimate
the amount of salvageable and recyclable material which can be used in preservation
practices and new construction. The twenty houses will be defined by square footage and
the materials which can be salvaged and/or recycled. Each building will be inventoried
based on site access (boards on windows, no-trespassing). The average square footage of
the buildings will be used to determine the amount of salvageable material, in order to
determine the need for deconstruction and salvaging practices within Muncie.
By reviewing The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Buildings we
can establish how architectural salvage can be used in building preservation, restoration,
rehabilitation, and reconstruction. Within the rehabilitation field we will also examine the
use of LEED design standards and how architectural salvage can be integrated into
historic structures for LEED accreditation.
Architectural Salvage & Deconstruction
Architectural salvage includes the building materials skillfully removed from a
structure and deemed as valuable or useful. These materials can have a new use in the
same form or can be reconstituted into an alternative material. Architectural salvage
originates on all structures and is rescued from a building which is dilapidated,
structurally unsound, or slated for demolition; and is produced during the deconstruction
or dismantling of said building piece by piece. Architectural salvage is more then the
removal of architectural features, it is the preservation of the material’s physical
character, embodied energy, and material value.
4
Deconstruction as a practice of demolition, focuses on the removal of all materials
which are worthy of reuse and recycling. Deconstruction is an alternative to demolition
where only select materials, if any, are stripped from the building before total demolition
occurs. Deconstruction is also economically equivalent to demolition, where the cost of
the deconstruction may be higher than demolition but the materials recovered can be sold
to offset the deconstruction costs, and at times bring in a significant profit. If a house is
deemed economically feasible for deconstruction the materials are typically removed and
inventoried in a warehouse for further sale. Materials, such as old growth timbers, wood
flooring and moldings, windows, and doors, could be transplanted from one building to
another during a renovation or rehabilitation of another historically significant property.
Preservation and LEED Standards
Historic Preservation and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design) effectively have the same goal, conserve. Preservation aims to conserve the built
environment and help maintain the historic culture of cities and towns; while LEED
promotes the use of sustainable practices through the mitigation of natural resources and
the use of existing buildings. Preservation has been thought of as the first form of
sustainable design with the ultimate goal being to save a building and reuse it, forgoing a
large strain on our natural resources.
Together the green building and historic preservation movements are looking to
conserve embodied energy and reuse existing resources, conserve untouched resources,
preserve cultural heritage and in some cases some cases also social capital, and adapt
existing historic structures to current social needs. The movements also face many
difficulties when integrating The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and LEED rating
5
systems. When preservation and the LEED standards are jointly used in the rehabilitation
of an historic structure, opportunities arise for the use of architectural salvage.
Architectural salvage is one way to integrate preservation and LEED standards.
The next chapters will deal with the various aspects of historic preservation,
architectural salvage, deconstruction, and sustainable design. By combining all of these
practices, the use of architectural salvage links Historic Preservation and sustainable
design. Buildings and their architectural elements need to be saved, historic or not,
through rehabilitation, deconstruction and architectural salvage.
6
CHAPTER II: MUNCIE, INDIANA
Background Information
In its early years Muncie, Indiana was a “compact town centered around the
courthouse square with a high population density and little class identifications in
residential areas.”1 When natural gas was discovered in 1886 near Eaton, eastern Indiana
boomed. With a large abundance of cheap natural gas, glass industries relocated into
eastern Indiana, growing from only four glass factories in 1880 to over 110 in 1900.
Muncie had six, the most famous of which was Ball Brothers, a company relocated from
Buffalo, New York.2 Iron and steel companies, underwear manufactures, and automobile
factories also found the cheap gas prices alluring and relocated to Muncie from the
1900’s to the 1920’s. With this large influx of industry, the population quadrupled to
20,942 individuals in 1900. The entry of industries into Muncie changed not only the size
but also the shape of the community, beginning the process of dispersion and sprawl.3
Factories sprang up outside of town where the land was cheaper and in doing so, the
working class relocated, establishing an industrial suburb with each factory having its
own small suburbia. By the 1920’s Muncie hit another residential building boom. The
population increased 35% after World War I, because of an increased demand for
1
Dwight W. Hoover, Magic Middletown, (Indiana University Press: Bloomington, Indiana, 1986),
2
Ibid.
Ibid.
2.
3
7
automobiles and goods created during the war. Muncie’s Westwood and West End
neighborhoods were established during this time along with heavy development on the
southeast side of town where “new modern subdivisions” were established.4
The Housing Dilemma
Today, Muncie is stricken with the shrinking city phenomenon. The large
manufacturing companies have moved on, leaving vacant commercial buildings and the
houses that surrounded them. According to the 2005-2007 US Census Bureau, the total
population of Muncie was 63,808 in 2006 with only a slight decline from 67,430 in
2000.5 Muncie is home to Ball State University and its over 22,000 students, faculty, and
staff; approximately one third of the total population, which in large part affects the
housing market. Even with this large influx of students and permanent faculty and staff,
over the years many of Muncie’s properties have become abandoned and neglected. As of
2007 there were an estimated 31,093 housing units in Delaware County; of these, 26,427
were occupied with 4,666 vacant. This calculates out to 15% of total housing units
unoccupied which is 4% higher then the national average.6 The City of Muncie has
estimated that there are over 900 blight stricken properties throughout the city. The
majority are failing due to lack of maintenance because their owners are either deceased,
own multiple properties and do not have the funds to maintain all appropriately, live too
far away to maintain their property or the property has been foreclosed within the past
five years. This number is staggering for Muncie, and plans to either rehabilitate or
demolish have already been put in place.
4
Hoover, 25.
“Muncie city, Indiana: Fact Sheet;” 2005-2007 American Community Survey;
http://factfinder.census.gov (accessed January 25, 2009).
6
Ibid.
5
8
In September 2008, the City of Muncie received one of ten Neighborhood
Stabilization Program grants within Indiana, through the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, to use towards the demolition, rehabilitation, and the purchase of
fore-closed properties. The Neighborhood Stabilization Program provides “emergency
assistance to state and local governments to acquire and redevelop foreclosed properties
that might otherwise become sources of abandonment and blight within their
communities.”7 Indiana received 84 million dollars which was divided among cities with
the highest local abandonment risk, including: Gary, Hammond, Kokomo, Muncie, and
Anderson. The two million dollars Muncie received will be administered through
Muncie’s Department of Community Development with assistance from the Unsafe
Building Hearing Authority; and have been divided between rehabilitation, demolition,
and administrative costs.
Unsafe Building Hearing Authority
In 2008, Muncie lost a total of 78 homes and/or commercial buildings to
demolition: 40 properties were demolished by the city and 38 by the property owner.
These properties were subjects of abandonment within Delaware County and were
brought to the attention of the Building Commissioner through calls and letters from
neighbors concerned for the neighborhood as well as their own individual property.
Ninety percent of the properties discovered are found this way the other 10% are
discovered during routine site visits. These properties are photographed and a building of
equal or more dilapidation is discovered and reported to the Building Commissioner’s
7
“Neighborhood Stabilization Program Grants,”
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/programs/neighborhoodspg/ (accessed January
25, 2009).
9
office. The Building Commissioner alone determines which structures receive a
demolition order after a city inspector examines the exterior, and interior when possible,
to determine safety and stability and deems the building safe/unsafe. If the inspector
deems the building unsafe the demolition order will go through. Once the demolition
order paperwork is complete it is delivered to the Community Development office where
it is recorded in the County Recorder’s office. During this time, the home or commercial
building is placed on the Unsafe Building Hearing Authority’s agenda where it is
reviewed. The Unsafe Building Hearing Authority (UBHA) started in December 2007 as
a function of the Community Development Department, with a goal of mitigating the
blight problem in Muncie through the rehabilitation of as many residential and
commercial properties as possible and to only demolish properties which are structurally
unsound and uninhabitable. In 2008, the UBHA reviewed 237 homes and/or commercial
buildings.
When a structure is initially added to the agenda for the UBHA a letter is drafted
and sent to the property owner stating the property has been slated for demolition by the
Building Commissioner and the property owners are required to go before the Unsafe
Building Hearing Authority on a specific date, which is 30 days after the postmark. The
letter also states that if the owner plans to rehabilitate the property they must prove intent
by having a budget and a schedule at the hearing; if determined reliable the demolition
order will be changed to a rehabilitation order. The property is required to be
rehabilitated within one year of the issuance of a rehabilitation permit. Property owners
who fail to attend the hearing or fail to rehabilitate within a timely and/or proper manner
are assessed two fines ($2,500 residential/ $5,000 commercial). The property owner will
10
receive an initial fine at the first hearing, if not present or unprepared, and a second fine
at a follow up hearing if no rehabilitation plans are in progress or the owner fails to attend
again. Once a property has received two fines it is removed from the UBHA’s agenda.
The first fine is added to the taxes on the property and the second is sent to collections.
The initial fines on the taxes help to facilitate moving of the property through the tax sale
process. If a property is not sold at the tax sale it can be moved into a land bank to be
managed by the city.
From the date the owner receives their demolition order they have 45 days to
complete the order. If the owner does not have the funding the city will pay for part or all
of the demolition fees; but the owner is still obligated to repay the city for the demolition.
Once the structure is torn down the owner still has the responsibility to maintain the land.
The demolition of the structure goes through a standard bid process, where the lowest
bidder is awarded the demolition.
Muncie, Indiana Building Material Inventory
Muncie, Indiana was chosen for the material inventory because of the high
volume of buildings constructed between 1870 and 1930. These buildings tend to have
higher quality construction materials and are therefore better candidates for
deconstruction. From the 900 abandoned buildings estimated by the Unsafe Building
Hearing Authority twenty local Muncie homes were inventoried, by the author, between
fall 2008 and spring 2009 to determine the significance for deconstruction and
architectural salvage versus traditional demolition. Their size and materials were
documented based on accessibility to the property. Many of the homes have been boarded
up to help relieve vandalism, meaning no interior elements could be documented making
11
the inventory partially incomplete. The following pages list all materials found on site
and the square footage of each home. The Muncie, Indiana map below indicates the
location of each home corresponding to the information of the following pages.
Figure 1: Property Locator Map: Muncie, Indiana
12
Property Footprint
1
1101 W ABBOTT
1200 Sq. Ft.
On-site Materials:
Aluminum Siding
8” Wood Siding
Beadboard Porch Ceiling
Asphalt Shingle Roof
Interior Wood Paneling
Brick Foundation
Concrete Porch
Aluminum Storm Windows
Wood Sash Windows
Wood Doors
Wood Frame Construction
Wood Porch Columns
Property Footprint
2
315 N PERSHING
2100 Sq. Ft.
On-site Materials:
Wood Lapboard Siding
Felt Cover (Cardboard)
Fishscale Wood Shingles
Beadboard Porch Ceiling
Brick Foundation
Aluminum Gutters
Asphalt Shingle Roof
Full Concrete Basement
Wood Doors
Wood Sash Windows
Wood Frame Construction
13
Property Footprint
3
411 N MADISON
1000 Sq. Ft.
On-site Materials:
3” Wood Siding
Beadboard Porch Interior
Asphalt Shingle Roof
Brick Foundation
Concrete Block Porch
Brick Chimney
Wood Sash Windows
8” Wood Siding
Wood Porch Flooring
Wood Frame Construction
Property Footprint
4
807 S BURLINGTON
1400 Sq. Ft.
On-site Materials:
4” Wood Siding
Beadboard Porch Ceiling
Asphalt Shingle Roof
Lathe & Plaster Interior
Concrete Block Foundation
Iron Porch Columns
Decorative Wood Trim
Fishscale Shingles
Wood Flooring
4” Wood Floor Porch
Wood Sash Windows
Woof Frame Construction
14
Property Footprint
5
521 W ADAMS
4400 Sq. Ft.
On-site Materials:
Wood Lapboard Siding
Beadboard Porch Ceiling
Asphalt Shingle Roof
Wood Porch Flooring
Brick Foundation
Decorative Wood Railing
Brick Chimney
Wood Sash Windows
Aluminum Gutters
Fishscale Shingles
Wood Frame Construction
Property Footprint
6
804 N JEFFERSON
2750 Sq. Ft.
On-site Materials:
4” Wood Siding
Beadboard Porch Ceiling
Asphalt Shingle Roof
Brick Foundation
Concrete Porch
Wood Sash Windows
Fishscale Shingles
Aluminum Screen Door
Lathe & Plaster
3” Wood Flooring
Wood Frame Construction
15
Property Footprint
7
154 E 6TH STREET
4400 Sq. Ft.
On-site Materials:
8” Wood Siding
Beadboard Porch Ceiling
Asphalt Shingle Roof
Concrete Block Porch &
Foundation
Aluminum Storm Windows
Wood Sash Windows
Decorative Moldings
Brick Chimney
Wood Frame Construction
Property Footprint
8
804 N WALNUT STREET
2550 Sq. Ft.
On-site Materials:
Asphalt Shingle Siding
6” Wood Siding
Asphalt Shingle Roof
Wood Sash Windows
Brick Chimney
Concrete Block Porch &
Foundation
Wood Doors
Wood Frame Construction
16
Property Footprint
9
986 S BEACON STREET
1500 Sq. Ft.
On-site Materials:
3” Wood Siding
Beadboard Porch Ceiling
Asphalt Shingle Roof
Brick Foundation
Concrete Porch
Brick Chimney
Wood Sash Windows
Wood Door
Decorative Wood Bracket
Aluminum Gutters
Wood Frame Construction
Property Footprint
10
190 E 6TH STREET
3150 Sq. Ft.
On-site Materials:
Asphalt Shingle Siding
Beadboard Eaves
Wood Bracketing
Asphalt Shingle Roof
Wood Sash Windows
Brick Foundation
Concrete Porch & Stoop
Aluminum Gutters
6” Wood Siding
Wood Frame Construction
17
Property Footprint
11
322 E GILBERT STREET
3310 Sq. Ft.
On-site Materials:
Wood Siding
Beadboard Porch Ceiling
Asphalt Shingle Roof
Concrete Porch
Brick Foundation
Fishscale Shingles
Wood Sash Windows
Brick Chimneys
Wood Porch Columns
Wood Frame Construction
Property Footprint
12
710 E JACKSON STREET
3650 Sq. Ft.
On-site Materials:
Asphalt Shingle Roof
Wood Sash Windows
Brick Chimney
Limestone Foundation
Concrete Porch & Stoop
Wood Doors
4” Wood Siding
Frame/Brick Construction
18
Property Footprint
13
1112 S BROTHERTON STREET
1100 Sq. Ft.
On-site Materials:
Wood 3” Siding
Fishscale Siding
Asphalt Shingle Roof
Brick Foundation
Concrete Porch & Stoop
Brick Chimney
Wood Sash Windows
Vinyl Style Windows
Wood Doors
Wood Frame Construction
Property Footprint
14
856 S BEACON STREET
1350 Sq. Ft.
On-site Materials:
Wood 3” Siding
Asphalt Shingle Roof
Wood Sash Windows
Concrete Porch
Concrete Block Foundation
Aluminum Gutters
Wood Porch Columns
Wood Frame Construction
19
Property Footprint
15
556 W MAIN STREET
3300 Sq. Ft.
On-site Materials:
4” Wood Siding
Asphalt Shingle Roof
Concrete Porch
Beadboard Porch Ceiling
Brick Columns/Foundation
Wood Railings
Wood Stairs
Aluminum Gutters
Wood Frame Construction
Property Footprint
16
546 W MAIN STREET
1880 Sq. Ft.
On-site Materials:
6” Wood Siding
8” Wood Siding
Fishscale Siding
Asphalt Shingle Roof
Wood Sash Windows
Wood Storm Windows
Brick Chimney
Concrete Porch
Brick Foundation
Wood Doors
Decorative Wood
Wood Frame Construction
20
Property Footprint
17
534 W MAIN STREET
2700 Sq. Ft.
On-site Materials:
Wood 3” Siding
Wood 6” Siding
Asphalt Shingle Roof
Concrete Porch &
Foundation
Aluminum Gutters
Wood Screen Door
Wood Porch Columns
Wood Sash Windows
Wood Doors
Wood Frame Construction
Property Footprint
18
524 W MAIN STREET
2770 Sq. Ft.
On-site Materials:
3” Wood Siding
Fishscale Siding
Asphalt Shingle Roof
Wood Sash Windows
Brick Foundation
Wood Porch Flooring
Wood Railings & Columns
Wood Doors
Wood Frame Construction
21
Property Footprint
19
652 W MAIN STREET
1800 Sq. Ft.
On-site Materials:
Wood 3” Siding
Beadboard Porch Ceiling
Asphalt Shingle Roof
Concrete Block Porch &
Foundation
Wood Sash Windows
Wood Doors
Wood Porch Columns &
Railings
Brick Chimney
Wood Frame Construction
Property Footprint
20
980 W MAIN STREET
1700 Sq. Ft.
On-site Materials:
Wood 3” Siding
Asphalt Shingle Roof
Wood Sash Windows
Brick Chimney
Concrete Block Porch &
Foundation
Beadboard Porch Ceiling
Wood Porch Columns
Wood Doors
Wood Frame Construction
22
While these homes may appear to be significantly dilapidated the majority of the
materials available for salvage are in good condition. Ranging in size from 1000 square
feet to 4,400 square feet; this housing stock has the potential to provide a generous
amount of reusable and recyclable material. All houses are timber frame construction
except for 710 E Jackson, which is brick construction with a timber frame addition to the
rear. According to deconstruction estimator Brian McVay of the Oregon-based nonprofit
Rebuilding Center; 50% of a 1,500 square foot house can be salvaged and the remaining
25% to 30% can be recycled.8 Assuming that the interior of our homes are in decent
condition for salvaging, these twenty homes could produce 36,000 square feet of
salvaged and recyclable materials; diverting up to 288 tons of demolition waste. If
Muncie, implemented a deconstruction policy instead of demolishing their dilapidated
housing stock they could divert over 12,960 tons of demolition waste and could salvage
and recycle over one million square feet of materials.
8
Diana Greer, “Building the Deconstruction Industry,” BioCycle (November, 2004): 36.
23
CHAPTER III: HISTORIC PRESERVATION
The preservation field encompasses more then the idea of maintaining a historic
structure; it also involves the rehabilitation, adaptive use, restoring and reconstructing
processes. The Secretary of the Interior has developed a list of guidelines to be carefully
followed through all of these processes. The involvement of architectural salvage at first
appears hard to define while being integrated into the standards. The idea of replacing
materials on historic structures is carefully examined and only when completely
necessary are materials removed and replaced. This trend subsides as it moves down the
list with preservation using new materials sparsely and reconstruction using all new
materials. Our main focus within this chapter is to identify when and where architectural
salvage has a significant role in the preservation field.
Using the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties
have two important goals:
“1) the preservation of historic materials and 2) the preservation of a building’s
distinguishing character. Character refers to all those visual aspects and physical features
that comprise the appearance of every historic building. Character defining moments
include the overall shape of the building, its materials, craftsmanship, decorative details,
interior spaces and features, as well as the various aspects of its site and environment.” 9
9
Lee H. Nelson, “Preservation Briefs: 17,” Technical Preservation Services: National Park
Service, pg. 1, http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/brief17.htm (accessed September 17, 2008).
24
To maintain all of these features the standard’s focus on maintaining as much historic
character as possible, and replacing few materials. When materials are found to be too
deteriorated, damaged, or lost, a feature may be repaired or replaced and “it is almost
always best to use historic materials.”10
In the past, preservationists have found it difficult to find historic materials and as
a result have been forced to use alternative materials, which may not last as long due to
deterioration and lack of material compatibility, or may damage the historic fabric during
the application process or removal. Because of these consequences it is important to
identify a relationship between the need for architectural salvage and preservation. The
following sections: preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, and reconstruction, introduce
where and when replacement materials can be used on a historic structure; the full list of
materials is located in Appendix C.
Historic Preservation
Preservation standards are the strictest, with little to no allowance of removal or
additions to historic structures and features. Preservation at its core is designed to
“sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property;”11 with an
emphasis on protecting, stabilizing, and maintaining the historic materials and features.
Under these guidelines it is maintained that if “repair by stabilization, consolidations, and
conservation proves inadequate, the next level of intervention involves the limited
replacement of kind of extensively deteriorated or missing parts of features when there
10
Sharon C. Park, “Preservation Briefs: 16,” Technical Preservation Services: National Park
Service, pg. 1, http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/briefs/brief16.htm (accessed September 17, 2008).
11
Kay Weeks and 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. Department of the Interior, 1995), 14.
25
are surviving prototypes.”12 Materials are strictly limited and must match the original
material both physically and visually; and the new materials must be distinguished from
the old for future research and documentation. It is also noted that if prominent features
or materials are significantly damaged, irreplaceable, or missing then a rehabilitation or
restoration treatment should be considered more appropriate.
Restoration
Restoration is the next step down from preservation. Restoration is the act of
taking a building back to a specific point in time by means of “removal of features from
other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration
period.”13 When replacing materials or specific features, restoration is not limited to the
exact material originally used, instead it allows for a compatible substitute. Restoration
does however emphasize that replacement should only be considered when a feature is
too deteriorated to repair and all replacements should be modeled after similar
components.
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation is the process of giving a building a compatible use through
“repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which
convey its historical, cultural, and architectural value.”14 The rehabilitation process is the
most widely used among the four preservation processes; having great lenience with
material replacement and repair. Similar to preservation and restoration, rehabilitation
calls for replacing materials or features with new material only if the level of
12
Weeks and Grimmer, 17.
Ibid, 117.
14
Ibid, 61.
13
26
deterioration makes it impossible to fix. Similar materials are recommended for
replacement but if not economically feasible, other compatible materials may be used.
Reconstruction
The reconstruction of a structure differs completely from preservation,
restoration, and rehabilitation. Unlike the former, reconstruction deals with new
construction of a historic building. Reconstruction is the process of depicting a historic
site through “form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building,
structures, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of
time and in its historic location.”15 For the rebuilding of the structure it is imperative to
have clear documentation for the building materials such as masonry, wood, and metals.
Materials should only be incorporated if documented; with the exception of unexposed
structural features which are not historically significant to the building. It is also
recommended to duplicate all historic exterior as well as interior features including
“columns, cornices, baseboards, fireplaces and mantels, paneling, light fixtures,
hardware, and flooring.”16
When selecting what materials should be used for the replacement or repair of
historic features, you should always match the material in color, texture, style, scale, and
type. To accomplish this it best to use the same material which was used, or a salvaged
material with the same characteristics. Preservation and restoration projects tend to be
more specific and the building characteristics which make it historic may be specialized
and more difficult to match with a salvaged item from a local non-historic building. For
15
16
Weeks and Grimmer, 164.
Ibid, 167.
27
rehabilitation projects it is easier to incorporate salvaged building materials since the
standards are more lenient on what can be used. Reconstruction projects may have the
hardest time incorporating salvaged materials. Since a reconstruction represents what was
originally constructed it is important that all document materials are used exactly as they
were which limits the materials available from salvage. Overall, the use of architectural
salvage is possible in the historic preservation process if the materials are available for
use.
28
CHAPTER IV: THE SALVAGE MARKET
The use of architectural salvage in Historic Preservation is only possible if there is
a market where these materials are available. By doing a quick search on the internet you
will discover various outlets where architectural salvage can be purchased across the
country. These outlets consist of salvaged lumber warehouses, architectural antique
shops, Habitat for Humanity ReStores, and deconstruction company warehouses to name
a few. All of these locations are sites of architectural heritage; the pieces they hold in
their stores identify a point in our history. While the item may no longer hold its value
within a structure it can be used again to add historical character and detail to other
buildings.
The architectural salvage industry has been rejuvenated with the growth of the
recycling movement over the last twenty years. New products can be constructed out of
reused materials and recycled materials can replace virgin materials in existing
manufacturing processes.17 The potential for reuse is vast. The U.S. EPA estimates
appliances, furniture, carpets, and other miscellaneous durable goods (not including
construction and demolition waste) comprise 15% of the municipal solid waste stream, or
nearly 32 million tons, with a recycling rate of only 17%. Even after recycling, nearly 26
17
Kivi Leroux & Neil Seldman, “Deconstruction: Salvaging Yesterday’s Buildings for
Tomorrow’s Sustainable Communities,” Institute for Local Self-Reliance & Materials for the Future
Foundation, 2000): 16.
29
million tons of durable goods are land filled or incinerated each year. These materials
combined with those salvaged through deconstruction; result in a wealth of material
resources available for small business enterprises.18 In the next few pages, will discuss
the long history of architectural salvage, where to find salvaged items and the demand for
salvaged materials. The end of this chapter examines the Midwest salvage market
through a survey of salvaged material retailers, deconstruction and demolition companies.
History of the Trade
The used building materials industry, which is the primary market for salvaged
building materials, is an industry with a long history. Starting in the 1500’s, the trading of
architectural interior salvage became all the rage in the upper classes. During this time, it
is rare to find documentation of the sales of salvaged items until the 1700’s where
auctioning companies began to produce catalogues for each building to be dismantled.
These catalogues demonstrate the elements which were considered the most valuable;
mantel pieces, paneling or wainscot, and other more portable items. Starting in 1747,
there is written documentation for the demolition of the James Duke of Chandos home in
Canons, Middlesex.19 Mr. Cock, the cataloger, took eleven days and went room by room
identifying all salvageable materials. The finished product listed “180 yards of
wainscoting, two circular niches, impost and fluted pilasters,”20 and the list goes on.
Other documentation leads us to believe that the sale of architectural ornaments was not
uncommon and in fact, common place among the privileged. In America this form of
18
Leroux & Seldman, 17.
John Harris, Moving Rooms: the Trade in Architectural Salvage, (China, Best-set Typesetter
Ltd. & World Print, 2007), 16.
20
Ibid.
19
30
deconstruction and salvaging is not documented on the same level as European countries.
Americans never truly began salvaging building materials for use in another structure. It
was only when American museums began purchasing period interiors for displays did we
see a large influx of salvage; but still there is no documentation of salvaging for personal
use.
Finding Architectural Salvage
Depending on the type of architectural salvage dealer, one may stumble across old
doors, windows, fireplace mantels, moldings, claw foot tubs, lighting fixtures, old growth
lumber, cast iron railings, wood flooring, and bricks. In a Habitat for Humanity ReStore,
for example, you may find both new and used materials. Reuse operations include those
organizations that accept used, overstocked, or outdated materials such as furniture,
building materials, appliances, equipment, and other durable goods. Materials are made
available at low cost, and are sold to consumers and the building industry along with
artists and furniture makers looking for low cost items.21
An alternative to purchasing materials at a warehouse is to purchase them directly
from the deconstruction site. Building contractors and craftspeople who are interested in
a particular item/items may chose to purchase this way allowing them to save even more
money by removing the items themselves. The Green Institute, for example, sells twothirds of its salvaged material, much of it lesser-value flooring, dimensional lumber and
brick, directly from the deconstruction job site or at a warehouse that complements its
reuse store.22 This allows them to make relatively higher profits since they use less of
21
22
Greer, 37.
Seldman & Jackson, 37.
31
their labor force for material removal and do not need significant storage and display
space.
Most building material dealers sell all products “as is,” while there are some
which reconstitute the material into another product or provide some material cleaning.
Manufactures, for example, have found that “rustic” style furniture, which is defined as
looking old and well worn, are highly desirable. As the company Crate & Barrel
discovered, nail holes and other signs of wear on deconstructed wood are often the
wood’s greatest selling point. They were able to advertize a “60” by 53” table made from
wood salvaged from a deconstructed building, with many visible knots and nail holes, for
$1,499.”23 This demonstrates the potential for salvaged materials, reused or recycled.
Even smaller businesses are remanufacturing architectural salvage from
deconstruction into flooring, siding, and cabinetry. For example, Pioneer Millworks of
Shortville, New York, specializes in remilling large salvaged timbers into products such
as flooring, trim, dimensional lumber, and cabinetry,24 and these products sell. There is a
large market for high quality materials. The value of certain materials salvaged from old
buildings has increased, and people are paying a premium for particular architectural
elements. “A lot of people are demanding heart-of-pine flooring, old bricks, and old
mantelpieces,” says David H. Griffin, Jr., vice president of the Greensboro, North
Carolina—based D. H. Griffin Wrecking Company.25 A majority of these materials you
cannot purchase new, establishing a demand sector within the salvage market.
23
Leroux & Seldman, 18.
Ibid.
25
Ibid.
24
32
Supply & Demand for Salvaged Materials
Currently the demand for salvaged building materials is directed towards high end
salvage: fireplace mantels, decorative elements, elaborate doors and stained glass
windows. There are many factors that could limit potential demand for the entire market
including: “lack of public and/or contractor awareness about the availability of salvaged
materials; lack of an awareness of the significant price difference between new materials
and salvaged materials; the “hit or miss” problem of not being able to find a salvaged
material when needed, or not enough of a particular salvaged material to complete the
project; lack of awareness about the environmental benefits of using salvaged materials;
and perceptions that salvaged materials are inferior to new products.”26 These factors are
also determined by their location. At the Habitat for Humanity ReStore in Kansas City,
Missouri, for example, the Program Manager, Brian Alferman states, “the demand from
the customer is there; if we can get the materials on the floor it will sell.”27
Another concern is where the salvaged materials are coming from that end up in
the retail salvage stores. Some retailers rely completely on donations while others go into
the field and do the deconstruction themselves. In order to reach a larger consumer base,
companies have found themselves starting their own deconstruction company or creating
an alliance with demolition contractors in the area so they can remove items before
demolition. “Donations from contractors provide a more reliable source of material to the
store,” says Alferman, “About a year ago, 75% or more of our donations came from
26
“Building Deconstruction and Material Reuse in Washington, D.C,” Urban and Economic
Development Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (December, 1999): 9.
27
Greer, 40.
33
individual home owners or small landlords. Now it is more evenly split, with 50% of the
donations made by retail business and contractors.”28
A more typical concern is from architects and designers who acknowledge the
demand is there but on a smaller scale. Smaller projects, residential home improvements
and small commercial establishments have a large demand for higher end salvaged
materials. The market for larger projects is just beginning to be examined through
programs developed by the U.S. Green Building Council and from city officials wishing
to “green” their cities and reduce landfill waste.
Money and time constraints also limit how many materials are salvaged. On a
demolition site, money and time determines what is going to be saved and/or recycled
and what will be thrown away. “Demolition contractors are in business to make a profit,
and if it’s cheaper to knock stuff down and haul it to a landfill than to recycled it in some
fashion, that is what they’ll do,” says Kurt Buss, executive director of the nonprofit Used
Building Materials Association.29 If the demolition contractor does not acknowledge the
material wealth then no architectural materials will be saved, hindering the supply and
demand infrastructure.
Another problem facing the industry is national and state building codes and
regulations. On a national level there are restrictions on the use of salvaged lumber,
which is currently limited to nonstructural applications. “Building codes require all
structural lumber to be graded,” says Ted Reiff, of The ReUse People. “Right now this is
not a problem,” says Reiff. “But it could impede the growth of the industry as quantities
28
Greer, 40.
John S. Manuel, “Unbuilding for the Environment,” Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol.
111, No. 16, (December, 2003): A887.
29
34
of salvage lumber increase.”30 States have also begun to limit the sale of high-flow toilets
because of the excessive use of water, which hinders the market for used fixtures.
There is also the problem of hazardous chemicals within products, lead, mercury,
and asbestos, which have been banned from new consumer products. For example,
painted materials have a risk of containing lead based paint, if constructed prior to 1970,
which is considered to be unsafe and has to be dealt with before reuse. Today, there are
various products available for concealing lead-based paints making more products
reusable. Items which contain mercury or asbestos are best to be properly disposed
according to local waste management department.
Midwest Architectural Salvage Survey
The goal of conducting a survey of Midwest companies dealing with architectural
salvage was to establish if there is a salvage market and if so, what the key components
are which make up this market. Following a search no existing survey was found so one
was created to answer the hypotheses. The first few questions of the survey were
designed to get a better understanding of the companies and how they interact with
architectural salvage; where they are located, what types of operations they run, and
where they find the architectural salvage to sell. Other questions look at what types of
materials are being salvaged, what materials are being sold and in what quantities, who
are the consumers and, from a historic preservation perspective, what type of information
is recorded. The companies are identified by state, so an analysis could also be done to
see whether there are unique characteristics by location. All of these questions effectively
30
Greer, 41.
35
help gain a better insight into the salvage, deconstruction and demolition fields in the
Midwest.
Once these questions were compiled the target population was selected. The target
population is composed of companies which engage in architectural salvage retailing,
deconstruction, demolition and material recycling in the Midwest. The Midwest is
defined as the following states: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin. Companies were
initially selected from the 2007-2008 Guide to Architectural Salvage and Antique
Companies.31 The directory divides companies by state and specialty: salvage sales,
deconstruction, demolition, selective dismantling and materials recycling. From each
category, companies were selected and compiled into a list with the companies name,
location, internet web addresses and specialties; see Appendix A & B. Companies were
also selected based on what information was found on their internet sites, if available. If a
website clearly established that a company engages in the salvaging of architectural
materials then it qualified for the survey. When the companies were selected, the ones
with email contact information were entered into SurveyMonkey, an internet website
designed for sending, collecting and analyzing surveys.
Once the target population (112 companies) was entered into SurveyMonkey, an
initial email was sent to each contact explaining the survey goals, requesting
participation, and for anyone interested, a link to the survey. From this initial email, five
companies opted out of the survey, and nine email addresses failed to be deliverable;
31
Rich Ellis, 2007-2008 Guide to Architectural Salvage and Antique Companies, Virginia: RKE
Publishing LLC (2007).
36
leaving a target market of ninety-eight companies. From the initial email only nine
responses were received; from here a second plea was drafted a week after the first email
to encourage more responses. This second email increased responses to a total of twentyfive or a 25.5% response rate. From the responses the initial questions can be answered
based on the demographics provided. The following is a brief discussion on five survey
questions; the complete survey results are located in Appendix C. While all the survey
questions are interesting in discussion the five questions to be discussed relate closely to
the discussion followed throughout the thesis.
The results below indicate that architectural details, i.e., stair rails, mantels, tin
ceiling tiles, and flooring are frequently requested by customers. Other items which
receive inquiries are hardware, plumbing fixtures, cabinetry, doors, electrical, i.e.,
lighting fixtures and light switches, and lumber. Relating these answers to question 6,
there is a clear connection to what consumers want and what materials are available.
With such a large demand for architectural details it is not surprising to find that it is also
the most likely material to be found for sale. Other items frequently available for sale are
doors, electrical items, hardware, flooring, windows, and plumbing fixtures which
directly correspond to the first graph. Overall architectural details appear to be the mostly
widely available and requested salvaged items.
37
Figure 2: Midwest Architectural Salvage Survey Question 11
Other: Sellers also noted that consumers are interested in purchasing ironwork, garden elements,
stonework, paint, fencing, radiators and stained glass windows.
38
Figure 3: Midwest Architectural Salvage Survey Question 6
Other: unique architectural items, ironwork, gates, garden elements, stonework, paint, cast iron
radiators, HVAC units, transformers, value-added wood products.
It is important for the salvage market to understand their consumers, this leads to
what types of materials they purchase and can help establish pricing so the materials will
sell. It is interesting to discover that the largest population of buyers is the private
homeowners sector. The previously stated data indicates these buyers are looking for
replacement materials, potentially for upgrades or remodels. Contractors, architects and
designers along with artists are also taking advantage of this market on a higher level.
39
Disappointingly, historic preservationists, who can gain the most from the architectural
salvage market through the use of these materials in preservation, restoration and
rehabilitation projects, do not appear to be taking advantage of the material wealth
available.
Figure 4: Midwest Architectural Salvage Survey Question 18
Other: TV and movie companies; and landlords/ house flippers also frequent their stores.
A significant question in this field is what is the source of the salvaged material?
Previously consumers have questioned the source of the materials, because some
homeowners have claimed that people have stolen quality materials from their homes in
order to sell them in the architectural salvage market. The survey asked each consumer to
indicate all the ways in which they obtain their materials. The majority indicated that they
deconstructed buildings as part of their business, allowing for clear documentation of the
origin of the materials. Other frequently used sources of purchase are from other retailers
and at demolition or deconstruction sites.
40
Figure 5: Midwest Architectural Salvage Survey Question 7
Other: Demolition, construction companies warehouse, trade-ins, customer purchases, and Amish
communities.
From the crosstab response chart below we can see how many different salvage
related activities in which companies are engaged. The columns indicate the companies
surveyed, and the percentages below designate the activities in which the companies
participate. It seems that material sales are the most common activity conducted by all
businesses with deconstruction being the second most common activity. The chart
indicates those who engage in demolition all do deconstruction, but only about 30% of
the time do they also engage in either material down cycling or material refurbishing. Of
those companies which perform deconstruction, 37% also participate in demolition, 15%
in material down cycling, and 27% in material refurbishing.
41
Figure 6: Midwest Architectural Salvage Survey Question 2
Other: Demolition auctions, manufacture garden elements from salvaged materials, lighting
restorer, woodworking shop (products made from salvaged lumber), and recycle materials into
unique items (i.e. tables).
When it comes to using materials in preservation projects, the life of the new
materials must be fully documented, where they came from, age, and description. It is
interesting to see that the companies which maintain a record of all materials also retain a
significant amount of historic information. While the general material description is kept
on record, the source location for the material is also regularly kept on record along with
quantity, estimated value, and the date received. Half of the retailers keep an estimated
age of the materials along with a third of the companies acknowledging the rarity of the
item. This appears to be linked with how a company prices the item; the more unique/rare
and higher the quality/condition an item the higher the price. In addition to this “value
42
added” price, standard prices are also regularly set relative to national pricing and local
competitor prices.
Figure 7: Midwest Architectural Salvage Survey Question 14
Other: style or period of design, condition, and size
43
Figure 8: Midwest Architectural Salvage Survey Question 9
Other: cost involving the removal, transportation, display, and rarity of the materials, professional
opinion, price at 1/3 below retail (non-profit), and ½ of retail.
44
CHAPTER V: DECONSTRUCTION
For centuries it was normal for individuals to reuse or deconstruct the structures
available around them. If a new building or a renovation was needed, the town would tear
down buildings which were no longer used and reuse the materials available. It has only
been in the modern era when landfill space has been plentiful and raw materials cheap,
that demolition—knocking down structures without regard for reusing the components—
has become the rule. Today, it is no longer uncommon to knock down massive structures
that are barely 30 years old.32 Recently new incentives for deconstruction have been put
into the mix; landfill space has become sparse and cities are placing regulations on
construction and demolition waste, the green building movement has become well
accepted in the design and construction trades, and the preservation movement has
increased in stamina advocating to save structures and not tear them down. These
elements have allowed the deconstruction industry to gain ground in the past decade.
Originating from standard demolition practices, deconstruction “involves
carefully taking apart portions of buildings or removing their contents with the primary
goal of reuse in mind. Deconstruction can take place prior to standard demolition, be an
32
Manuel, A881.
45
integral part of demolition, or largely take the place of conventional building removal.”33
Deconstruction is by far more environmentally friendly then demolition, diverting a
generous amount of materials from landfills every year while reducing pollution and
energy consumption associated with new material manufacturing and production. Unlike
demolition, deconstruction is considered to be a labor and time intensive procedure using
low-tech methods for material removal, material separation and storage. While this may
seem to be a negative outcome, it actually helps to create jobs and a salvaged material
market.
Deconstruction service providers and advocates are motivated by multiple goals:
“to salvage high-quality materials for reuse and remanufacturing; to make a profit; to
divert as much material as possible from landfill, in order to avoid tipping costs; to
provide short-term job training opportunities; to provide long-term, high-quality
employment; and to preserve the history associated with the building.”34 All of these
components allow for this industry to boom in today’s economy. With a growing market
for salvaged materials, deconstruction has the potential to become common practice.
In the late 1960’s, as the grass roots recycling movement was started, Rick Anthony, an
early pioneer, pointed out that “recycling is a force of nature and it must be obeyed if we
are to survive on the planet.”35
33
NAHB Research Center, Inc., “A Guide to Deconstruction: an Overview of Deconstruction with
a Focus on Community Development Opportunities Complete with Deconstruction Project Profiles and
Case Studies,” (February, 2000): 1.
34 Leroux & Seldman, 14.
35
Ibid, 16.
46
Deconstruction Industry
According to the U.S. EPA, an estimated 65 million tons of demolition waste are
generated each year, with 31% (20 million tons) coming from residential projects and
69% (45 million tons) from nonresidential projects. “This is equivalent to all of the
containers and packaging waste generated by Americans each year. Yet only about 20% 30% of demolition waste is reused or recycled.”36 These numbers relate directly to the
consumption practices of our society. Each year, the construction industry is responsible
for the consumption of more than one-third of the world’s raw materials and about 10%
of the total energy consumption in the United States.37 It should also be noted that within
the construction industry approximately 94% of all residential buildings built each year in
the U.S. are light wood-framed construction.38 By conducting deconstruction, a majority
of these materials can be reclaimed and put back into the marketplace for further
consumption.
In 2003, the Department of Environmental Protection in Massachusetts set out to
determine how much construction and demolition material could be diverted from the
landfill if a new law banning waste was implemented. From the study conducted by the
Boston-based firm, Tellus Institute, they estimated “C&D recycling in Massachusetts
would increase from about 3.5 million tons in 2000 to more than 5 million tons in
2010.”39 All of the materials diverted could possibly be used in new construction,
rehabilitation, and/or recycled into new products.
36
Leroux & Seldman, 2.
Ibid.
38
Bradley Guy & Sean McLendon, “How Cost Effective is Deconstruction?” BioCycle (July,
2001): 75.
39 Jennifer Weeks, “Finding Markets for C&D (Non) Debris,” BioCycle (November 2004): 45.
37
47
Types of Deconstruction
There are two phases to deconstruction: soft-stripping and complete
deconstruction. The degree of deconstruction is determined by the site, time constraints,
and materials available. Some demolition jobs will only allow for soft-stripping to occur
due to time constraints. Soft-stripping refers to the removal of specific building
components or equipment prior to demolition of the structure.40 Items typically removed
are “plumbing or electrical fixtures, appliances, HVAC equipment, cabinets, doors,
windows, hardwood and possibly tile flooring;” anything that is easy and quick to remove
and carries a higher retail value, “rafters, floor joists, wall framing members, and perhaps
sheathing materials may be of a size, material, and condition to warrant salvage,”41 but
are more difficult to remove. When a complete deconstruction of a structure is feasible,
then the majority of the building components and materials will be removed. A complete
deconstruction involves initial planning to determine economic feasibility. To prove
deconstruction would be a positive endeavor the following procedure is typically
followed: “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.”42 Once this procedure is complete,
the deconstruction will take place and materials will be disassembled, sold on the job site
or hauled away to be stored in a warehouse for eventual resale.
40
NAHB Research Center, Inc., 5.
Ibid.
42
Ibid.
41
48
Building Assessment
When establishing the feasibility of a deconstruction project, the most important
part is the proposed building. The size and material wealth of the building will determine
if deconstruction is financially possible. Ted Reiff, President of the ReUse People, points
out that deconstruction costs and savings are completely dependent on the age, location,
types and condition of the materials within the house.43 It has been proposed that the best
building candidates were constructed between 1800 and the 1940’s when high quality
raw materials were still available and used in the construction industry. Virtually all
houses constructed before World War II are candidates for deconstruction, due to the
quality of materials used and the methods used to construct them.44
A through investigation of these buildings will allow for more materials to be
salvaged and recycled. During this process it is common for contracts to establish where
the materials will be going; a materials resale warehouse, a non-profit group, commercial
recycling plants, or even private homeowners. Having prearranged agreements for some
materials allows for cleaner removal and a quick turnaround for the overall
deconstruction. During the initial inspection of a house it is recommended to identify the
following: building size and scale, structural condition, site access, interior access,
hazardous materials, and salvage potential. It is important to do this inspection in order to
identify all materials which will need to be dealt with, the amounts of materials (for
transportation and dumping assessment), how easily will these materials be able to be
removed, and what materials are not salvageable. The tools required for a through
43
44
Greer, 37.
Leroux & Seldman, 5.
49
inspection of a proposed structure may include the following: “insight (an initial visual
inspection for building suitability), inspection forms, camera, hand/power tools (some
intrusive investigation may be useful), respiratory gear (if hazardous materials are
assumed to be present).”45
A typical structure which would be considered economically feasible could be
described as “wood-framed with heavy timbers and beams, or with unique woods such as
Douglas fir, American chestnut, and old growth southern yellow pine; constructed with
specialty materials such as hardwood flooring, multi-paned windows, architectural
moldings, and unique doors or plumbing/electrical fixtures; constructed with high-quality
brick laid with low-quality mortar; structurally sound, i.e. generally weather-tight to
minimize rotted and decayed materials.”46 The structure described above would be an
ideal candidate for deconstruction, because of its high volume of reusable materials
which could be easily deconstructed and sold.
1 2 3 Deconstruct
The following is a quick walk through of a typical deconstruction project.
1) Make a careful inspection of the buildings interior (as described in the previous
section). Remove all appliances, doors, sinks, along with architectural moldings, tin
ceilings, wainscot panels, cabinets, hardware, and miscellaneous items not of a structural
nature.
45
46
NAHB Research Center, Inc., 4.
Ibid, 3.
50
2) Remove and recycle any carpet and/or ceilings tiles which are of no use: some
companies offer reclamations deals in which they will take away old carpets and ceiling
tiles and recycle them.
3) Remove and recycle drywall. Remove old hardwood floors one piece at a time to avoid
damaging the tongues.
4) While interior work is under way, siding, gutters, and exterior trim can be removed.
Veneer surfaces may be removed, along with flashing and windows.
5) Slate and tile roofing are extremely durable and can typically be reused “as-is,” but
their underlayment will need to be disposed. Slate and tile can be resold unlike asphalt
shingles which have no resale value but may be recycled into road paving material in
some states.
6) Remove heavy roofing timbers and wall beams. At this point you may also remove any
chimneys.
7) Deconstruct exterior walls removing any old bricks and wood.
8) Demolish and crush concrete foundations into small pieces and use on site as a fill for
the next foundation or give to a local aggregate company for recycling.47 Brick and stone
foundations should be removed for reuse.
Economics
The economics behind deconstruction are always evaluated in comparison with
demolition. While demolition takes less time and labor then deconstruction, it pays more
for transportation and removal of materials not to mention the long-term environmental
cost of holding materials in landfills. When the right buildings are selected, the cost of
47
Matthew Power, “How To: Cost-Cutting Teardowns,” Builder (March 2003): 54-55.
51
deconstruction is less than or similar to the cost of demolition because additional labor
costs are offset by the sale of salvaged materials and avoided disposal fees; even when
deconstruction can require 10% to 15% more time and labor then traditional demolition
practices.48
Deconstruction is typically thought to be less cost effective than traditional
demolition when in fact you have the potential to make a profit from deconstruction
which cannot be obtained through demolition. By conducting deconstruction, companies
and individuals can potentially generate revenue. First, companies generate revenue by
selling the salvaged materials. Second, deconstruction companies can reduce costly
investments in heavy equipment, and significantly reduce the capital costs associated
with clearing a site. Third, deconstruction companies avoid the disposal costs associated
with landfilling the demolition debris.49
The largest percentage of time spent on any deconstruction is the actual
deconstruction activity, an average of 26% of total time. Because you must take the
building down schematically, versus plowing through the structure, time increases
significantly in comparison with demolition which on average takes less then 10% of the
total time. “The next greatest percentage of time was in processing materials, an average
of 24%. Disposal and cleaning required an average of 17% of total time.”50 Clearly
deconstruction is a labor intensive activity, but it also creates jobs and increases revenues
through materials sales.
48
Leroux & Seldman, 12.
Ibid, 3.
50
Guy & McLendon, 76.
49
52
Deconstruction is a way of creating jobs. Unskilled and low-skilled workers can
receive on-the-job training in use of basic tools and techniques for carpentry,
construction, and materials recovery, as well as critical thinking, problem-solving, good
work habits, and team work.51 Cities concerned with a large abandoned housing market
should look at deconstruction as a means of relinquishing the problem while creating job
training and employment benefits at relatively the same cost of demolition.
Deconstruction, if fully integrated into the U.S. demolition industry, could create 200,000
jobs and salvage $1 billion worth of building materials from the deconstruction of the
estimated 200,000 buildings it takes down annually.52
Historic Influence & Benefits
Deconstruction allows communities to retain some of the historical significance of
buildings slated for removal by reusing the components of the old building in new
construction or in the renovation of other historic structures. In Hartford, Connecticut, for
example, deconstructed lumber and bricks were used in the rebuilding of the downtown
riverfront district,53 helping to maintain the fabric of the community and the historic
character which makes it unique. Community’s nation-wide having the same opportunity
as Hartford, Connecticut, should identify the material significance of their older buildings
which are slated for demolition or need to be rehabilitated. By identifying these
resources, buildings can be rehabilitated with salvaged items while other non-historic
buildings are deconstructed and their materials put back into the market.
51
Leroux & Seldman, 4.
Seldman & Jackson, 34.
53
Leroux & Seldman, 5.
52
53
Other factors which can make deconstruction more financially appealing are the
tax benefits which companies or individuals can receive. For example: if a private owner
donates the salvaged materials from their building to a nonprofit, they can receive tax
deductions worth the value of the recovered materials. “A large motivator is the tax
benefit homeowners get from donating salvaged building materials to non-profits,” says
Julie Larson;54 Assistant Program Director for Deconstruction at the nonprofit Green
Institute in Minneapolis. Property owners who donate materials to nonprofit
organizations get to deduct “the entire appraised value of the materials to be salvaged.”55
Tax benefits can make deconstruction financially feasible for both private homeowners
and deconstruction and demolition companies.
Overall, the use of deconstruction in every city would generate more jobs,
increase revenues (private and government), and would promote the use of salvaged
materials, reducing the strain on our environment by lessening the need for new materials
for construction and helping the city maintain its historic fabric. Deconstruction, while
more expensive up front then demolition, pays for it self through landfill evasion, the
retention of historically beautiful materials, and through the sale of these materials.
Deconstruction is not only an industry but a social instrument which can help cities
minimize neighborhood blight creating an environment the citizens are proud to call
home; while creating jobs allowing people to maintain their own structures beautifying
the community further. Deconstruction may seem to be a loosing battle for the
54
55
Greer, 36.
Preservation: 22-23.
54
preservation movement, but the materials removed can be used in preservation projects
helping to maintain our culturally significant structures and a cities architectural heritage.
55
CHAPTER VI: SALVAGED MATERIALS
For many years, salvagers and savvy demolition companies have recovered the
more valuable elements from buildings before they were destroyed. But doing so was
only a minor consideration in the plan to remove the building and was done in a
haphazard way that only salvaged the best, most accessible pieces. This process is called
“architectural salvage.” Deconstructing a building allows for a more comprehensive
recovery of these materials, because the process is designed around reuse and recycling
of much or all of the structure, “rather than salvaging only the easy targets before the
wrecking ball swings through.”56
On a deconstruction site, materials are separated into reusable, recyclable,
nonhazardous waste, and hazardous waste. By initially identifying these types of
materials the deconstruction process may increase materials salvaged and be more
profitable. Materials which are removed during the deconstruction process are generally
easy to remove, resist damage during removal, and have a high resale value. While this is
not true for all materials, the majority which are in selling condition will be removed and
the rest will be recycled or thrown away. Materials which can be recycled vary
throughout the country; your local city or county determines what can be recycled based
56
Leroux & Seldman, 8.
56
on their facilities. There are also private/commercial material manufacturing companies
which will recycle used materials, such as Mohawk, a national flooring manufacturer.
Mohawk will accept carpet for recycling if it is not significantly soiled or damaged
because they can recycle the fibers into new carpet. Nonhazardous waste is considered to
be materials which are free of toxins, but can not be used as is or reconstituted into
another material; these materials should be disposed of at construction and demolition
landfills. Materials which contain chemicals which are now known to be toxic to humans
are considered hazardous waste and must be removed and disposed of carefully at a
specific location determined by your city. In the following pages we will discuss the
reusable materials pertinent to Historic Preservation, materials which can be recycled,
and materials which are considered hazardous and ways which they can be saved.
Material Wealth for Historic Preservation
As with all materials removed during deconstruction, style, age, uniqueness, and
condition affect the value of the object. Unique or historic architectural components, such
as stained glass, fireplace mantels, ornate doorknobs, and other fancy hardware, always
command the highest prices and require relatively little labor to remove. These materials
also are historically important when looking into the type of materials used and how it
can be implemented back into the preservation and design fields. Removing cabinets,
plumbing fixtures, windows and lumber require the most time and labor, but have a high
resale value within the industry; while also having a place within historic preservation.
When conducting a rehabilitation, preservation or restoration the following items will
prove to be helpful when an item needs replacing or is not historically accurate for
maintaining the historic character of the property.
57
The following table identifies the materials available from deconstruction, the
difficulty of removal (easy to difficult), any concerns regarding the material, and the
historic preservation value. The historic preservation value distinguishes each material
through a tier system, with 1st tier materials in good condition and quality and has a
valued use in preservation while 2nd tiered materials can be in moderate to good
condition, but have no place within the preservation field. 1st tier plus materials have a
known historic value and are excellent condition.
Table A: Historic Preservation Value of Materials
Material
Removal
Concerns
Lighting Fixtures
Easy
No ground wire,
missing parts or
damaged
Switch Plates & Outlet
Covers
Easy
If building wiring is
updated, they may not
fit the new switch or
outlet
Wiring & Metal
Conduit
Moderate
Not to code
Kitchen Appliances
Easy to
Moderate
Not energy efficient if
more than 5 yrs old
May not match current
trends even if in
working order – i.e.,
colored vs. stainless
steel
HVAC
Easy to
Difficult
Not energy efficient if
more than 5 years old
may require asbestos
removal to access
Gas Stoves and
Fireplaces
Easy
Technology issues if
installed prior to 1970
Historic Preservation Value
Original metal and little
damage – 1st tier
Painted metal – 2nd tier
Paint removed – 1st tier
Decorative or metal and little
damage – 1st tier
If unusable may be important
to create a historical
replacement
Not reusable, but can be
recycled for materials, i.e.,
copper
If in working order – 1st tier
especially for house museums
If in working order but not
historic – resale in smaller
markets
Not working – provide
resource for research or
recycled for materials
If in working order:
Radiators/steam heat – 1st tier
Wall or window units – 1st tier
Fans – 1st tier
If not in working order –
recycled for materials
Whole house – generally
recycled but possibly
hazardous waste
If in working order and newer
than 1970 – 1st tier
58
Tubs, & Sinks
Easy to
Difficult
Water conservation
laws may prevent use
Fiberglass difficult to
remove without
damage
Toilets
Easy
Water conservation
laws usually prevent
use
Kitchen & Bathroom
Cabinetry
Easy to
Moderate
Other wood features –
stairs, railings, trim,
paneling, and
mantelpieces
Easy to
Difficult
Not standard sized, or
built as units
May be compromised
during removal if
attached to wall with a
fixative rather than
hardware
Many of the pieces are
built for a specific
building or space
Doors
Easy
Original frame/casing
may be lost or
destroyed during
deconstruction
Older than 1970 recycled for
materials
Claw foot tubs (6’) and
pedestal sinks especially white
– 1st tier
Claw foot tubs – odd sizes, and
non-decorative feet – 2nd tier
Colored or period fixtures may
be 1st tier to match a period
building or may be disposed in
landfills
Chipped or with rust stains –
2nd tier with repair or disposed
in landfills
Fiberglass enclosures or
whirlpool tubs are not historic
but may be resold
If in working order – 1st tier
especially for house museums
If in working order but not
historic – may be recycled or
disposed in landfills
Hardwoods (oak, cherry,
hickory, and walnut), and
unpainted – 1st tier
Cabinet styles from a period
building for a similar period
building – 1st or 2nd tier
Mantelpieces – 1st tier because
easy to remove but may not be
used as intended (may become
decorative rather than
functional)
Paneling from walnut, cherry,
or mahogany – 1st tier if
undamaged
Other pieces may be
deconstructed and used in
other woodwork
Solid wood door with casing
and hardware – 1st tier plus
Doors with features, i.e.,
leaded glass or carvings – 1st
tier plus
Solid wood doors minus casing
– 1st tier
Hollow-core door with casing
and hardware – 2nd tier
59
Windows
Difficult
Painted with leadbased paint
Usually not energy
efficient
Specialty Windows
and Window
Treatments
Easy to
Difficult
Painted with leadbased paint
Original glass or
casing may be
damaged or missing
Hardwood Flooring
Moderate to
Difficult
Loss of 10% - 15%
during deconstruction
Must have at least 1/8th
of an inch on the top
tab for refinishing or
not salvageable
Ceramic and Pressed
Tin Tile
Moderate to
Difficult
Significant loss during
deconstruction
Exterior Wood Siding
– Cedar, Redwood,
and Cypress
Moderate to
Difficult
Nail holes if covered
by aluminum or vinyl
siding
Bricks
Moderate to
Difficult
Vary in size, quality,
consistency, and color
Hollow-core door minus
casing – 3rd tier – generally
used for alternate function
Unpainted, true divided-light
windows – 1st tier for
restoration or craft projects
Lead paint removed – 2nd tier
for craft projects
Retrofitted double-glazed – 1st
tier for reconstruction
Stained glass windows – if
identified as a particular
artisan – 1st tier plus
Stained glass windows – not
identified – 1st tier
Period shutters – 1st tier plus
especially for reconstruction or
remodel of that period
Oak, birch, maple and walnut,
21/4” strips, 12’ or longer – 1st
tier plus
All woods all lengths with low
to moderate damage – 1st – 2nd
tier
If matching a period building
flooring should be stockpiled
in anticipation of possible
flood or insect damage
Ceramic Tile – if decorative
and identified by a period – 1st
tier
Pressed Tin Tile – if not
damaged – 1st tier
Any tile used for craft – 2nd tier
Pressed Tin Tiles if damaged
can be recycled
Siding – if not damaged – 1st
tier
Siding in poor condition can be
recycled, used for fuel or
reconstituted into another
product
Older bricks, locally
manufactured, with lime-based
mortar – 1st tier plus
Older bricks with lime-based
mortar – 1st tier
60
Roofing – Clay Tile,
Slate Shingles, Asphalt
Shingles, Metal Tiles,
& Wood Shingles
Difficult
Wood Framing
Easy
Landscaping Elements
– Pavers, and Wood or
Iron Structures
Easy to
Moderate
Clay is vulnerable to
cracking and deglazing
Slate is vulnerable to
delaminating and
weathering around nail
holes
Do not need to
consider historic value
if the wood will be
covered
Must check material
strength (tensile
strength) prior to use
Not graded for new
construction
May be used for
historic preservation if
similar materials were
on site originally
Newer bricks with cementbased mortar – 2nd tier
Locally made bricks should be
stockpiled during
deconstruction for repair of
similar period buildings
Clay and slate tile in good
condition – 1st tier plus
Asphalt, metal tiles and wood
shingles may be recycled
True 2x4s from old growth
trees – 1st tier
Damaged framing, but still
usable – 2nd tier
Framing in poor condition can
be recycled, used for fuel or
reconstituted into another
product
Cement or brick pavers – in
good condition – 1st tier
Fences, arbors and gazebos in
good condition – 1st tier
Anything in poor condition
may be recycled or
reconstituted into another
product
Materials Destined for Recycling
Once materials like wood and metals have been processed and made into building
materials, they have an inherent economic value. Rather than smashing this value into
pieces and burying it in a landfill, reuse and recycling keep value within the local
economy where it can continue to produce financial benefits as it is remanufactured and
used again.57 “The CMRA (Construction Materials Recycling Association) estimates
there are slightly more than 3,100 concrete and asphalt recycling plants in the country,
about 600 single-material or mixed-waste recycling facilities, and several dozen each of
57
Leroux & Seldman, 4.
61
asphalt shingle and gypsum recyclers.”58 Other materials commonly recycled are metals,
plastics, and scrap wood, which all can be reconstituted into another product and used
again. The following is a brief list of items found in a building which are not salvageable,
but can be recycled and reused.
Vinyl flooring and carpet are not typically salvaged, but instead recycled. Vinyl
flooring is often found to be glued down and difficult to remove. It may also contain
asbestos depending on when it was made, so removal should be done carefully so that the
asbestos does not become air born. Carpet is generally not salvaged unless it is brand new
or in extremely good condition; instead carpet can be recycled into new carpeting or other
plastic based products.
When dealing with ceilings and walls, almost always there is either gypsum or
lathe and plaster, neither of which is reusable. Gypsum if clean and free of paint can be
recycled into new gypsum boards. Acoustical tiles found on the ceilings can be recycled
only if they do not contain asbestos, if they do they are considered a hazardous waste.
Insulation will be found in three forms: loose fill, batts, and rigid foam. Loose fill
insulation is hard to collect and is not typically reused. Fiberglass batts can be salvaged
and reused if they are in good condition and show no signs of water damage. Rigid foam
insulation can be saved if the pieces are large,59 otherwise all insulation is recycled.
Bricks of a newer generation may have cement based mortar or are of a lower
quality and therefore are recycled. Because they are joined with newer cement based
mortar, newer bricks tend to be difficult to reuse because they break during removal or
58
59
Manuel, A883.
Faulk & Guy, 83.
62
the mortar can not be removed to allow for reuse. This makes them prime candidates for
recycling and fill material for roadbeds or new construction.
Vinyl siding is easily removed and reused if removed in the exact sequence in
which it was constructed. While vinyl can not be used in historic preservation projects, it
can be used in new construction. Stucco siding while it is a durable and long-lasting
material it cannot be salvaged because of the inherent destructive removal process. Since
stucco is a form of plaster, when removed it cracks and breaks into pieces therefore not
allowing for reuse, but it can be recycled.
Asphalt shingles can be recycled but may contain asbestos; some states will
recycle them into road bed fill. Wood shingles are not reusable; they are prone to weather
deterioration and are commonly chemically treated to prevent fires. If the wood has no
chemical treatment and is free of moss and other vegetative growth it can be recycled into
wood chips for fuel.
Metals found in buildings are known for there high monetary value and are
generally recycled instead of being reused. These products include: plumbing pipes,
heating ducts, metal roofing, gutters, siding, and appliances. It has also been noted that
metals should be divided into ferrous (steel and iron) and nonferrous (brass, bronze,
copper, aluminum) because the nonferrous metals are more valuable.60 “In 1999, more
than 120 million tons of scrap metal were recycled in the United States, according to the
Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, a trade association, and the market is
improving.”61
60
61
Leroux & Seldman, 63.
Manuel, A884.
63
Depending on the construction type, the building may have concrete floors, walls,
or foundations. Concrete recycling is becoming more common and local aggregate
companies offer to recycle the concrete if it contains no lead-based paint or other
materials from the deconstruction site.
Non-Hazardous & Hazardous Materials
During the deconstruction process it is inevitable that materials which are in good
condition will break or become marred to a point where they are no longer useable or
recyclable; but the materials are non-hazardous to the environment. Non-hazardous
materials take the form of insulation (all types), damaged wood, broken bricks/concrete,
lathe and plaster, metals which cannot be recycled, and some roofing materials. All of
these items are destined for the landfill because they are no longer usable in their present
form and cannot be recycled.
Hazardous materials are materials which contain chemicals which the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined to be hazardous to humans if
ingested into our systems. “You’re likely to find several types of potentially hazardous
materials on an unbuilding project, including asbestos, lead, mercury, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), unlabeled containers of mysterious substances that might be solvents
or oils, and other chemicals in older buildings.”62 Hazardous wastes are more difficult to
deal with then non-hazardous wastes because they have to be disposed of in accordance
to local laws. Fortunately not all hazardous wastes need to be thrown away, some can be
cleaned or the chemical can be encapsulated so that the material can be used again.
62
Faulk & Guy, 65.
64
The most commonly found hazardous materials are asbestos and lead-based
paint.63 The deconstruction of a building produces less risk of these hazardous chemicals
being released into the environment through the careful removal of known hazardous
materials at the being of the process. “At the Federal level, there is at present no
regulatory or policy guidance that permits, prohibits, or qualifies practice for salvaging
and reusing building materials coated with lead-based paint (LBP), in particular lumber
and timber products.64 Lead-based paint is hard to identify on sight without removing
paint samples and having tests run to determine if lead is present. Because of this, many
salvaged items you will find are painted with lead-based paint.
Over the years, the population has grown wary of lead and especially old-houses
which will contain lead-based paint, but there is no need. Lead-based paint does not
release lead into the environment unless it is broken releasing dust into the air, is ingested
into the body through the stomach, or is heated to a point where the chemical is released.
Because of this, it is possible to use materials which are coated with lead-based paint if
the paint is removed and disposed of properly or is encapsulated into the material where
it can no longer be released into the environment.
Encapsulation is the “application of a liquid coating that dries to form a watertight
jacket over the lead paint, is easy, cost effective, and homeowner friendly.”65 This
process is identical to applying a fresh coat of paint to a home. In the past, homeowners
63
Manuel, A884.
Thomas R. Napier, Robert H Faulk, George B. Guy, & Suzan Drodz, “Regulatory and Policy
Issues for Reuse and Remanufacture of Wood materials Coated with Lead-Based Paint,” United States
Department of Agriculture (December, 2005): 1.
65
“Encapsulating Lead-Based Paint,”
http://www.bobvila.com/HowTo_Library/Encapsulating_Lead_Based_PaintMiscellaneous_Paint_and_Wallpaper-A1620.html (accessed on February 11, 2009).
64
65
would have to leave their home during the lead-removal process, by encapsulating the
lead-based paint they only have to paint contaminated areas. The encapsulating coating
also is environmentally friendly, meaning it will not omit VOC’s (volatile organic
compounds, which are known to effect human health over extended periods of time) and
is a non-toxic formula. Through the implementation of encapsulating salvaged items
which contain lead, more items can be reused and there would be an increase in the
amount of wood products available from deconstruction lessening the strain for new
wood products.
Other items which contain hazardous chemicals are light bulbs, ceiling tiles,
roofing shingles, and chemically treated wood. “Mercury and lead can be found in
fluorescent light bulbs, high intensity lights, old light switches, thermostats and old
thermometers.”66 While the previously mentioned items cannot be reused for safety
reasons, chemically-treated wood can be reused if handled properly. As with other
materials, the hazardous chemical is not hazardous unless released into the atmosphere.
Chemically-treated wood often contains pentachlorophenol, creosotes, and copperchromium-arsenate, but can be reused for sign-posts, parking barriers, retaining walls and
fences.67
Material Value: Embodied Energy
The materials salvaged during deconstruction contain an inherent material value
based on their embodied energy. This material value is what makes these items not just
historically important, but environmentally important. Because the salvaged materials
66
67
Faulk & Guy, 66.
Leroux & Seldman, 13.
66
were manufactured many years ago, they pose little threat to the environment. They
require only removal, transportation, storage and some slight remanufacturing, but
compared to a brand new product they put little strain on our environment. “Savings
include not just virgin material itself, but also the energy that would have been consumed
and the pollution created in extracting, transporting, and manufacturing these new
materials into finished products. Recyclers usually assert that reuse of building materials
generally saves about 95 percent of embodied energy that would otherwise be wasted.”68
The acknowledgment of the material value for salvaged items establishes another reason
to use deconstruction versus demolition.
There are two forms of embodied energy: initial and recurring. The initial
embodied energy in buildings represents the non-renewable energy consumed in the
acquisition of raw materials, their processing, manufacturing, transportation to site, and
construction.69 Initial embodied energy is comprised of direct and indirect energy. Direct
energy is the energy used in the transportation of the materials to the job site and then the
energy used to construct the building. The indirect energy is the energy used in the
process to acquire and manufacture building materials including any transportation
related to these activities.
The recurring embodied energy in buildings represents the non-renewable energy
consumed to maintain, repair, restore, refurbish or replace materials, components or
systems during the life of the building.70 Embodied energy is typically measured as a
68
Manuel, A886.
“Measures of Sustainability,”
http://www.canadianarchitect.comasf/perspectives_sustainability/measures_of_sustainability (accessed on
November 9, 2008).
70
“Measures of Sustainability.”
69
67
quantity of non-renewable energy per unit of building material, component or system.
The longer the building survives, the greater the expected recurring energy
consumption.71 The building envelope, structure and services contribute fairly equally
and account for about three-quarters of totally initial embodied energy. The finishes,
which represent only 13% of the embodied energy initially, typically account for the
highest increase in recurring embodied energy.
Embodied energy may not be significantly different between building systems
(e.g. wood versus steel versus concrete), however, the environmental impacts associated
with one material versus another can be dramatically different.72 “First, to the credit of
civil engineers, the structures of buildings normally do not expend recurring embodied
energy, lasting the life of the building. By year 25, however, a typical office building will
see an increase of almost 57% of its initial embodied energy due mostly to envelope,
finishes and services. By year 50, recurring embodied energy will represent about 144%
of the initial embodied energy, and it was projected that by year 100, this proportion
would rise to almost 325%. This relationship is a direct result of what is referred to as
differential durability; there the service lives of the various materials, components, and
systems comprising the building differ dramatically. The recurrent preoccupation with
lower first costs in buildings reveals its disregard for sustainability when viewed from a
building life cycle perspective.”73
Historic and non-historic buildings contain a wealth of materials for salvaging,
recycling, and disposing. While each building has a unique supply of materials, the
71
“Measures of Sustainability.”
Ibid.
73
Ibid.
72
68
majority of which are in good condition warrant the need for deconstruction. The
embodied energy of older structures is also important in the consideration for
deconstruction. Older materials are generally of higher quality and the embodied energy
has already been captured. By using salvage you save this embodied energy and reduce
the amount of embodied energy in the manufacturing of new materials.
69
CHAPTER VII: SUSTAINABLE DESIGN
It is difficult today to find a manufacturer which does not produce one “green”
product, green being the latest buzz word for sustainable and environmentally friendly
practices. Sustainability in our society has been said to mark the “advent of the fifth
industrial revolution, where human enterprise is retooled to achieve its economic and
social goals without unwanted environmental consequences.”74 Historic preservation has
been practicing sustainability since the late 1850’s with the purchase of George
Washington's Mount Vernon in 1858, by the Mount Vernon Ladies Association.
Historic preservation achieved national acknowledgement in 1949 with the advent
of the National Trust for Historic Preservation whose main goal is to sustain America’s
built heritage, and among preservationists has been considered the first form of the
sustainability movement. As of today “older and historic buildings comprise more than
half of the existing buildings in the United States and the retention and reuse of these
buildings preserves the material’s embodied energy, and human capital already expended
in their construction. The recycling of buildings is one of the most beneficial “green”
74
Carl Elefante, “Historic Preservation & Sustainable Development: Lots to Learn, Lots to
Teach,” ATP Bulletin: Journal of Preservation Technology, Vol. 36, (July, 2005): 53.
70
practices, and stresses the importance and value of historic preservation in the overall
promotion of sustainability.”75
Preservation and sustainable design in conjunction with the U.S Green Building
Council promotes the use of older buildings and architectural salvage. By reusing,
restoring and adapting historic structures to the needs of today, society is able to
effectively leverage the energy and resource expenditures of past generations, while
minimizing waste and current energy and materials usage.76 “Based upon the savings in
embodied energy, reusing historic buildings should be preferable to building new…This
experience has shown that buildings, no matter how well built, will be sustained only if
they are seen as having a positive cultural and economic value.”77
Preservation vs. Sustainable Design
Preservation and sustainable design groups over the years have grown
apprehensive of each other, “the former seeking to protect our history and culture,
typically by applying traditional methods of construction and conservation to familiar
buildings from the past; the later trying to protect human health and natural habitat and
promote alternative sources of energy, often through the application of innovative
technologies and construction methods to novel forms.”78 Overall, preservation and
environmental design have the same goal in mind; conserve what resources we already
have. “We in the preservation business have always been about sustainability and
75
“LEED: 2007 NCSHPO Annual Meeting Squaretable Discussion,”
http://www.ncshpo.org/HPFPreservation/LEED.htm (accessed November 11, 2008).
76
“The Greening of Historic Properties National Summit: White Paper.” Pittsburgh History &
Landmarks Foundation & Green Building Alliance, (2006): 5.
77
Mike, Jackson, “Building a Culture that Sustains Design,” ATP Bulletin: Journal of
Preservation Technology, Vol. 36, (July, 2005): 2-3.
78
Nancy B. Solomon, “Tapping the Synergies of Green Building & Historic Preservation,”
Architectural Record: Green Source.
71
stewardship,” said Mike Jackson, chief architect with the Illinois Historic Preservation
Agency, at the Traditional Building Exposition and Conference in New Orleans last
fall.79 Over the years, preservationists have struggled to save some of our nation’s most
prominent structures; Pennsylvania Station: New York City, for example, was demolition
in 1964 resulting in the gain of more advocates for preservation. Because of this,
preservationists have become more focused and driven to protect our historic resources,
this being an inherently “green” practice.
Preservation Saves Resources
With an increased interest in sustainability, numerous studies have been
conducted to determine the material value of new construction and historic buildings. The
original hypothesis portrayed historic buildings as energy guzzlers, which needed to be
actively retrofitted with the newest products in order to make them environmentally
friendly. This was proven to be an over estimation. “According to the U.S. Energy
Information Administration, commercial buildings constructed prior to 1920 have an
average energy consumption of 80,127 BTUs per square foot. For the more efficient
building built since 2000, that number is 79,703 BTUs. (The energy efficiency of
buildings constructed between these years was less enviable—reaching around 100,000
BTUs—reflecting the cheap oil and electricity of the thermostat age.)”80 Historic
buildings are effectively equal to brand new sustainable buildings; which is possible
because of the inherent value and the quality of craftsmanship in older structures.
79
Wayne Curtis, “Amid our Green-Building Boom, Why Neglecting the Old in Favor of the New
just Might Cost Us Dearly,” Preservation (January/ February 2008): 20.
80
Ibid.
72
Because sustainable-design decisions are often based on whether or not a material
is durable, locally available, or salvaged, the preservation of historic structures is the best
method for sustainable design. “The analogous criteria for materials used in preservation
work are longevity, regional appropriateness, and in-kind replacement to retain historic
character.”81 When evaluating historic structures we look at materials-performance, lifecycle studies, and energy efficiency: which are the same criteria for new sustainable
construction. The effective part for historic structures is the materials are already there,
the majority of labor has been used, and little needs to be done to make them more energy
efficient; new sustainable buildings have to start from square one.
Buildings constructed prior to 1920, were typically built using local materials,
local labor, and were designed for the site/region. In the South buildings would be
designed with high ceilings and operable shutters allowing for cross ventilation. In the
North, buildings were constructed with thicker walls, smaller windows and shutters, to
assist with maintaining a comfortable temperature during the winter months, and sun
porches for summer time sleeping. Today, modern buildings are identical no matter what
the environment and the majority of materials are transported from thousands of miles
away, even the sustainable ones.82 Even during repairs to historic structures, preservation
promotes sustainable practices by encouraging the use of local labor, which can supply
higher wages and steady jobs for the community. Possibly the strongest argument is in
most cases “the effective lifespan of many materials used in historic structures extends
81
Helena Maryman, “Structural Materials in Historic Restoration: Environmental Issues and
Greener Strategies,” APT Bulletin: Journal of Preservation Technology, Vol. 36, Num., 4 (April 2005): 31.
82
Kim K. Del Rance, “Preservation and Sustainability: The Greenest Building is the One Already
Built,” American Institute of Architects, 2004.
73
far beyond that of most materials used in modern structures” 83 making a clear point to
use historic materials and methods in new construction.
U.S. Green Building Council & LEED
The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) is a non-profit organization;
established in 1993, and is a leader in the movement to create a more sustainable built
environment. The USGBC’s mission statement reads: “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.” The USGBC promotes sustainable building through a conglomerate of over 15,000
organizations that are “working to advance structures that are environmentally
responsible, profitable, and healthy places to live and work.”84 To accomplish this, the
UAGBC created the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), a point
system developed to identify buildings which have been environmentally conscious in
their design and construction. Many states and local governments have begun to require
LEED certification for all new commercial buildings. The “U.S. General Services
Administration, now recommend or require that construction projects earn a LEED
rating.”85 States and cities are even offering financial incentives to promote the LEED
system. While the USGBC has had a positive effect on new construction, it lacks a
needed connection to the historic preservation movement.
83
“The Greening of Historic Properties National Summit: White Paper,” 5.
“About UAGBC,” www://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=124 (accessed
March 14, 2009).
85
Barbara A. Campagna, “How Changes to LEED will Benefit Existing and Historic Building,”
Forum News: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Vol. XV, No. 2 (November/December 2008): 1.
84
74
With such a wide acceptance and promotion for LEED accredited buildings,
historic buildings have become vulnerable. When initially developed, the point system
was designed for new construction. Over the years they have expanded into existing
buildings, neighborhood development, commercial interiors, schools, healthcare, and
retail. While not all of these rating systems relate to historic buildings, even the existing
buildings category, which one would assume was for historic structures, is focused on the
operation and maintenance of the building not the significance of material. It has been
generally noted within the preservation movement that 2.0 “versions of LEED:
1) overlook the impact of projects on cultural value; 2) do not effectively consider the
performance, longer service lives, and embodied energy of historic materials and
assemblies; and 3) are overly focused on current or future technologies, neglecting the
advantages of many traditional building practices.”86
The quality of materials within historic buildings is also neglected in the LEED
point system. “Historic buildings and their existing low energy designed systems (e.g.
prismatic glass, reflective tin ceilings, and durable materials such as marble) are not
given equitable points in the scoring system as noted under the LEED Existing Building
grading system.”87 There have been other problems incorporating LEED into historic
structures since preservation entails that historic character remains unaffected. When it
comes to energy efficiency, preservation standards have remained strong for our “most
precious historic properties.”88 When it comes to adding a live green roof or photo-voltaic
panels to a structure, preservation practices have held strong to protect the most important
86
Campagna, 2.
“LEED: 2007 NCSHPO Annual Meeting Squaretable Discussion.”
88
Del Rance.
87
75
structures not allowing for these elements to be constructed. Structures of lesser historic
importance have been shown more leniencies, allowing these types of changes, helping to
negate the difficulties of applying the LEED point system to historic properties.
LEED, Preservation & Architectural Salvage
In 2009, the U.S. Green Building Council launched a revised LEED accreditation
system, reevaluating how points are earned and making a stronger connection to historic
preservation with the LEED v3 accreditation system. For historic preservation,
rehabilitations and restoration projects, LEED NC (New Construction) is the most
commonly used. Within this point system it is best to focus on the “Materials &
Resources” section which can relate to preservation practices. Under the LEED point
system each section: sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy & atmosphere, materials
& resources, indoor environmental quality, and innovation & design process, lists
different categories. Under the “Materials & Resources” heading LEED points are
designated for building reuse, waste management, materials reuse, recycled content,
regional materials, rapidly renewable materials, and certified wood. For our purposes we
are only concerned with building reuse, waste management and materials reuse.
For building reuse credits 1.1 and 1.2, points are awarded for maintaining the
existing materials. Under credit 1.1 there are three chances to earn points if you “maintain
the existing building structure (including structural floor and roof decking) and envelope
(the exterior skin and framing, excluding window assemblies and non-structural roofing
material).”89 The points you achieve are based upon the percentage of material reused; to
89
48.
“LEED for New Construction & Renovations,” U.S. Green Building Council (November 2008):
76
earn one point you must maintain 55%, for two points 75%, and three points 95%. All
hazardous wastes removed from the site are not included within the above percentages
and if there is an addition to the structure, which is two times the square footage of the
existing building, the credit is not applicable. Credit 1.2 deals with interior non-structural
elements stating that in order to earn one point you must “use existing interior
nonstructural elements (e.g., interior walls, doors, floor coverings and ceiling systems) in
at least 50% (by area) of the completed building, including additions.”90 Again with this
credit, if there is an addition to the structure which is two times the square footage of the
existing structure, the points are not applicable. These points promote the use of historic
materials helping to maintain the buildings character and helps keep materials out of the
landfill.
Credit 2 deals with construction waste management. To earn one point here you
must divert 50% of non-hazardous waste from disposal; which means the recycling
and/or salvaging of materials. To earn a second point you must divert 75% of materials
from the landfill. This section allows for material recovery, helping to promote the saving
of historic materials for alternate use.
Under Credit 3, materials reuse, we find a need for architectural salvage. To earn
one point, you must “use salvaged, refurbished or reused materials such that the sum of
these materials constitutes at least 5%, based on cost, of the total value of materials on the
project.”91 In order to earn an additional point, this percentage increases to 10%. The
LEED guidelines also help to identify how salvaged materials can be incorporated into
90
91
“LEED for New Construction & Renovations,” 49.
Ibid, 51.
77
the structure. “Identify opportunities to incorporate salvaged materials into building
design and research potential materials suppliers. Consider salvaged materials such as
beams and posts, flooring, paneling, doors and frames, cabinetry and furniture, brick and
decorative items.”92 By earning these points one can assume if material costs are
$100,000 you spent a minimum $10,000 on salvaged materials. While this may seem low
overall, it still promotes the use of historically significant high quality materials within
new construction and rehabilitations, therefore creating a need for deconstruction and
architectural salvage.
For all of the various LEED point systems, the “Materials & Resources” section;
is the only section where the material value of historic buildings is identified. By starting
with an older structure, earning LEED NC accreditation becomes easier, helping to earn a
potential seven points out of the 40 points needed for the basic certified accreditation. To
achieve silver you must earn 50 points, to achieve gold you need 60 points, and to reach
platinum you must earn a minimum of 80 points. The seven points possible for reusing a
historic building and materials helps a building become LEED certified while protecting
and reusing the historic quality and character we love in older buildings and architectural
details.
Overall, it is up to the architect and contractor to maintain and/or add historic
character to buildings. Since historic and older structures are inherently sustainable they
should be maintained. When undergoing rehabilitation, preservation or restoration
projects, a structure can become even more sustainable by maintaining the historic fabric
and the incorporation of salvaged building materials. Not only does the use and reuse of
92
“LEED for New Construction & Renovations,” 51.
78
historic buildings become less invasive to our landfills and our environment, but they
help to sustain better communities.
79
CHAPTER VIII: CONCLUSIONS
Validating the use of architectural salvage within the preservation field is
complicated unlike the use of salvaged materials in new construction. There are pro’s and
con’s to the use of architectural salvage, being that the materials must be taken from an
existing building and when conducting historic preservation projects, it is more difficult
to implement these materials. Historic preservationists promote the saving of buildings,
landscapes, and structures of significances; while deconstruction produces architectural
salvage from these structures. The argument stands that buildings, no matter how rundown or dilapidated, still have a use. This is not possible in many parts of the United
States where the population has fled the city, creating both an abandoned inner city and
an over abundance of housing in the suburbs. With the closing of significant
manufacturing plants within these areas, populations have had no choice but to relocate to
other cities leaving houses and commercial buildings abandoned and vulnerable to
deterioration. In cases such as the above where cities have begun to mandate demolitions
because the buildings pose a threat to neighboring structures; deconstruction and salvage
should be implemented.
As discussed in Chapter II, Muncie, Indiana is a prime example of a shrinking city
with over 900 houses and commercial buildings abandoned or neglected. Of these
structures a majority of the houses are great examples of buildings which can be
80
deconstructed and the materials reused within the construction market. Few of these
homes are historically significant as they stand, the ones which are should be considered
for rehabilitation rather than deconstruction. They range in sizes from 1000 square feet to
over 4,000 square feet; and have a significant amount of material which can be salvaged.
If allowed these buildings could add to the growing market for architectural salvage. For
the buildings inventoried in Muncie, Indiana their useful lives may have already passed
and deconstruction not demolition should be the next step. The materials which would be
collected from the deconstruction of these homes can be implemented into historic
building in conjunction with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic
Preservation.
Within the preservation field there is a recognizable place for the use of
architectural salvage, typically for the replacement of historic fabric. Although salvaged
materials can be incorporated into every form of preservation, they can be used
significantly in rehabilitation projects. Rehabilitations are the most lenient when it comes
to replacement materials. Preservation, restoration and reconstruction have a place for
salvage, but it is more difficult to determine. For all of these processes, a material must
be significantly dilapidated or missing to warrant the use of salvaged materials. If a
material does need replacing it is best to use materials of similar style, type and
craftsmanship to preserve the significance of the historic structure. If salvaged materials
were implemented for these projects, new materials would not be needed and historically
significant materials will be free of the lasting effects of newer replacement materials.
This would also increase the use and need for salvaged materials, increasing the demand
and supply for the market.
81
According to the Midwest Salvage Market Survey, there is a demand and a large
supply of architectural salvage within the Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota and
Wisconsin. The results of the survey prove that deconstruction and salvaged material
sales are prominent and there is a consumer base made up of architects, designers,
contractors, private homeowners, and preservationists, to name a few. It was also found
that companies who took part in material sales also deconstructed their own buildings
creating a reliable stream of materials for reuse. With this information we can determine
that there is a need for the availability of architectural salvage.
In order to get architectural salvage we must use deconstruction, a sector of the
demolition field which proves to be more profitable with a growing demand for salvaged
material. By deconstructing we can save thousands of tons of materials from the landfill
and incorporate them into new construction and preservation projects. The materials
found are of a higher quality and have more character and distinguishing features then
new materials. Through the incorporation of these materials into communities, more
buildings can be rehabilitated using like materials keeping them historically accurate and
new construction can be less invasive towards the environment.
The need for architectural salvage increases with the increased promotion of
sustainable design and construction practices throughout the nation which has been
established through the use of LEED for certifying buildings as sustainable entities.
Sustainability and preservation can be incorporated through the use of architectural
salvage in rehabilitation projects which are aiming to be LEED certified. The LEED 3v
point system, while still not completely acknowledging the value of historic/older
82
structures, does allow for the use of salvaged building materials and encourages the
removal and reuse of unwanted materials. The significance of the embodied energy
within salvaged materials is justified through their incorporation within LEED projects.
The salvaging of America’s heritage, while not directly in line with Historic
Preservation practices, is another form of sustainability. Through the adaptive use and
rehabilitation of vacant and underdeveloped buildings in conjunction with the use of
architectural salvage, communities capture the embodied energy and quality of older
materials while minimizing needs for new materials and demolition waste. Architectural
salvage has found a place, not just in new construction, but in the replacement of
dilapidated materials in historic structures and revitalization projects.
83
Bibliography
Books:
Davey, Norman. A History of Building Materials. London: Phoenix House, 1961.
Ellis, Rich. 2007-2008 Guide to Architectural Salvage and Antique Companies. Virginia:
RKE Publishing LLC, 2007.
Emmitt, Stephen, John Olie, & Peter Schmid. Principles of Architectural Detailing.
United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2004.
Faulk, Robert H. & Brad Guy. Unbuilding: Salvaging the Architectural Treasures of
Unwanted Houses. Newton, Connecticut: The Taunton Press, Inc., 2007.
Hamin, Elisabeth M., Priscilla Geigis, and Linda Silka. Preserving and Enhancing
Communities: A Guide for Citizens, Planners, and Policymakers. United States of
America: University of Massachusetts Press, 2007.
Harris, John. Moving Rooms: The Trade in Architectural Salvage. China: Best-set
Typesetter Ltd. & World Print, 2007.
Hoover, Dwight W. Magic Middletown. Bloomington, Indiana: Historic Muncie Inc.,
1986.
Litchfield, Michael. Salvaged Treasures: Designing and Building with Architectural
Salvage. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1983.
84
Rhatigan, Joe & Dana Irwin. Salvage Style: 45 Home & Garden Projects Using
Reclaimed Architectural Details. New York: Lark Books, 2001.
Roberts, Jennifer. Redux: Designs that Reuse, Recycle, and Reveal. Salt Lake City: Gibbs
Smith, Publisher, 2005.
Sherwood, Gerald E. New Life for Old Dwellings. New York; London: Drake Publishers
Inc., 1977.
Simpson, Pamela H. Cheap, Quick & Easy: Imitative Architectural Materials, 18701930. Knoxville, Tennessee: The University of Tennessee Press, 1999.
Thompson, Elisabeth Kendall. Recycling Buildings: Renovations, Remodelings,
Restorations, & Reuses. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1977.
Articles:
Bennink, David. “Refine and Redesign: Eleven Years of Reuse.” Deconstruction and
Building Materials Reuse Conference.
“Builder’s Guide to Reuse & Recycling: A Directory for Construction, Demolition &
Landscaping Materials.” Green Building in Alameda County, (2007).
“Buildings and the Environment: A Statistical Summary.” U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Green Building Workgroup, (December 20, 2004).
“Building Deconstruction and Material Reuse in Washington, D.C.” Urban and
Economic Development Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
(December, 1999).
Campagna, Barbara A. “How Changes to LEED will Benefit Existing and Historic
Building.” Forum News: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Vol. XV, No. 2
(November/December, 2008), pp. 1-2, 6.
85
Cathcart, James, Frank Fantauzzi & Terence Van Elslander. “Gravity.” Princeton
Architectural Press: New York, New York, (2003), pp. 18-23.
Crisman, Phoebe. “Materials.” Whole Building Design Guide, (September 28, 2007).
Curtis, Wayne. “Amid Our Green-building Boom, Why Neglecting the Old in Favor of
the New Just Might Cost Us Dearly.” Preservation, (January/February 2008), pp.
19-24.
Del Rance, Kim K. “Preservation and Sustainability: The Greenest Building is the One
Already Built.” American Institute of Architects, (2004).
Elefante, Carl. “Historic Preservation & Sustainable Development: Lots to Learn, Lots to
Teach.” ATP Bulletin: Journal of Preservation Technology, Vol. 36, (July, 2005),
pp. 53.
“Encapsulating Lead-Based Paint,”
http://www.bobvila.com/HowTo_Library/Encapsulating_Lead_Based_PaintMiscellaneous_Paint_and_Wallpaper-A1620.html (accessed February 11, 2009).
Fuller, Sieglinde. “Life-Cycle Cost Analysis.” Whole Building Design Guide, (December
3, 2008).
Greer, Diane. “Building the Deconstruction Industry.” BioCycle, (November, 2004), pp.
36-42.
Gresock, Amy R., Judd H. Michael, Ann E. Echols, Paul M. Smith. “The Habitat for
Humanity ReStore System: Sourcing and Sales of Donated Wood-based Building
Materials.” Forest Products Journal, Vol. 56, No. 10, pp. 37-41.
Guy, Bradley & Sean McLendon. “How Cost Effective is Deconstruction?” BioCycle,
(July, 2001), pp. 75-82.
86
Guy, Bradley & Timothy Williams. “Final Report: Design for Deconstruction and
Reuse.” The Powell Center for Construction and Environment. (September,
2003).
Jackson, Mike. “Building a Culture that Sustains Design.” ATP Bulletin: Journal of
Preservation Technology, Vol. 36, (July, 2005), pg. 2-3.
Jackson, Mike. “Embodied Energy & Historic Preservation: Needed Reassessment.” Apt
Bulletin: Journal of Preservation Technology, Vol. 36, (July, 2005), pp. 47-52.
Joslin, Jeff. “The Waste Papers: Analysis and Discussion of the Potential for Salvage and
Reuse of Construction Materials from Residential Demolition.” Sustainable
Strategies for Communities and Building Materials, (October, 1993), pg. 8-9.
Kuykendall, K.C., David Bennink. “Fort Carson: Deconstruction Pilot Project.”
(September 20, 2004).
Langdon, Davis. “Cost of Green Revisited: Reexamining the Feasibility and Cost Impact
of Sustainable Design in the Light of Increased Market Adoption.” (July, 2007).
“LEED: 2007 NCSHPO Annual Meeting Squaretable Discussion.”
http://www.ncshpo.org/HPFPreservation/LEED.htm (accessed November 11,
2008).
“LEED for New Construction & Renovations,” U.S. Green Building Council (October,
2005).
Leroux, Kivi & Neil Seldman. “Deconstruction: Salvaging Yesterday’s Buildings for
Tomorrow’s Sustainable Communities.” Institute for Local Self-Reliance &
Materials for the Future Foundation, (2000).
87
Manuel, John S. “Unbuilding for the Environment.” Environmental Health Perspectives,
Vol. 111, No. 16, (December, 2003), pg. A880-A887.
Maryman, Helena. “Structural Materials in Historic Restoration: Environmental Issues
and Greener Strategies.” APT Bulletin: Journal of Preservation Technology, Vol.
36, Num., 4 (April, 2005), pp 31-38.
“Measures of Sustainability.”
http://www.canadianarchitect.com/asf/perspectives_sustainibility/measures_of_su
stainability (accessed November 9, 2008).
Mooallem, Jon. “This Old Recyclable House.” The New York Times, September 28,
2008.
“Muncie, Indiana: Fact Sheet 2005-2007 American Community Survey 3-Year
Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau.
Murray, Nick. “Green Starts with Energy.” Boma Kinsley Quarterly, the Green Issue,
(Spring, 2006), pp. 9-11.
NAHB Research Center, Inc. “A Guide to Deconstruction: An Overview of
Deconstruction with a Focus on Community Development Opportunities
Complete with Deconstruction Project Profiles and Case Studies.” (February,
2000).
Napier, Thomas R., Robert H Faulk, George B. Guy, & Suzan Drodz. “Regulatory and
Policy Issues for Reuse and Remanufacture of Wood Materials Coated with LeadBased Paint.” United States Department of Agriculture, (December, 2005).
88
Nelson, Lee A. “Preservation Briefs: 17,” Technical Preservation Services: National Park
Service, http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/brief17.htm (accessed September 17,
2008).
Park, Sharon C. “Preservation Briefs: 16 The Use of Substitute Materials on Historic
Building Exteriors.” Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service, &
U.S. Department of the Interior.
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/briefs/brief16.htm (accessed September 9,
2008).
Power, Matthew. “How to: Cost-Cutting Teardowns.” Builder (March, 2003), pp. 54-55.
Roysdon, Keith. “Blight has Significant Impact.” The Star Press, March 16, 2008.
Salant, Katherine. “Deconstructing an Old Home Can Give You Building Blocks for a
New One.” The Washington Post, December 13, 2008.
Seldman, Neil & Mark Jackson. “Deconstruction Shifts From Philosophy to Business.”
BioCycle, (July, 2000), pp. 34-38.
Slabaugh, Seth. “City Plans to Demolish 40 Homes.” The Star Press, November 3, 2008.
Solomon, Nancy B. “Tapping the Synergies of Green Building & Historic Preservation.”
Architectural Record: Green Source.
Sturdivant , Frederick D. “Community Development Corporations: The Problem of
Mixed Objectives.” Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 36, No. 1,
Community Economic Development: Part 1, (Winter, 1971), pp. 35-50.
“The Greening of Historic Properties National Summit: White Paper.” Pittsburgh History
& Landmarks Foundation & Green Building Alliance, (2006).
89
Weeks, Jennifer. “Finding Markets for C&D (Non) Debris.” BioCycle, (November,
2004), pp. 43-45.
Werner, Nick. “Home Frustrates Neighbors.” The Star Press, November 10, 2008.
Werner, Nick. “Fight Blight: City Hopes to Turn Tide Against Blight.” The Star Press,
November 23, 2008.
90
APPENDIX A:
ARCHITECTURAL SALVAGE COMPANIES
Location
Chicago
Chicago
Chicago
Chicago
Skokie
Chicago
Farmer City
Cambridge
Chicago
Glenview
Rockton
Dix
Bloomington
Elk Grove Village
Chicago
Rockford
Woodstock
East St. Louis
Waverly
Grayslake
LaGrange Park
Jacksonville
Bloomington
Rockford
Belvidere
Chicago
Peoria
Chicago
Joliet
Joliet
Rock Island
Northbrook
Frankfort
Chicago
Chicago
Glen Ellyn
Company Name
Illinois
Adams Brick Co., Inc.
American Barn Company
Archaic Architectural Artifacts
Architectural Artifacts
Asset Recovery Contracting
Brandenburg Industrial Service Company
Builders Salvage
Carlson's Barnwood Company
Colonial Brick Company
Cook County Demolition Sales
Darrah-Barns
Dix Lumber and Recycling
HFH of McLean County
Island Girl Salvage
Jan's Antiques
J Stuart Corsa-Purveyors of Salvage Material
Kimball & Bean Architectural & Garden Antiques
Lockett's Lumber & Salvage
Lowder Construction Architectural Salvage
Mid-America Architectural Salvage
Murco Recycling Enterprises Inc.
Old House Heaven
Old House Society Warehouse
Purveyors of Salvage Material
Renaissance Roofing, Inc.
Revival Architectural Eye Catchers
River City Demolition
Salvage One
Spiess Architectural Antiques
The Renovation Source Inc.
The Restoration Place
The Reuse People of America
Tile Roofs Inc.
The Storehouse of Vision
Urban Remains
Vintage Details
www.thereusepeople.org
www.tileroofs.com
www.thestorehouse.org
www.urbanremainschicago.com
www.claytileroof.com
www.rerevival.com
www.rivercitydemolition.com
www.salvageone.com
www.architectural-antqs.com
www.murco.net
www.oldhousehaven.com
www.oldhousesociety.com
www.kimballandbean.com
www.islandgirlsalvage.com
www.carlsonsbarnwood.com
www.colonialbrickchicago.com
www.demolitionsales.com
www.arcdemo.com
www.brandenburg.com
www.adamsbrick.com
www.americanbarncompany.com
www.architecturalartifacts.com
Website
Old Brick
Old Wood
Chicago Architectural Salvage
Used Building Materials
Used Building Materials
Demolition/ Salvage/ Recycling
Architectural Salvage
Barn Wood/ Architectural Salvage
Old Brick
Building Material
Old Wood/ Deconstruction/ Soft-Stripping
Used Building Materials
Used Building Materials
Architectural Salvage
Used Building Materials
Used Building Materials
Architectural Salvage/ Garden Ornaments
Used Building Materials
Used Building Materials
Used Building Materials
Demolition/ Salvage/ Recycling
Used Building Materials
Used Building Materials
Architectural Salvage
Roofing Tile/ Slate
Architectural Salvage
Used Building Materials
Architectural Salvage/ Used Building Materials
Used Building Materials
Used Building Materials
Used Building Materials
Architectural Salvage/ Deconstruction
Roofing Tile/ Slate
Used Building Materials
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage/ Deconstruction
Description
91
Location
Indianapolis
Indianapolis
Camby
Evansville
Indianapolis
Indianapolis
Indianapolis
Spencer
Morocco
Indianapolis
Greensburg
Cedar Grove
Indianapolis
Indianapolis
Fort Wayne
Indianapolis
Emmetsburg
Waterloo
Cedar Rapids
Des Moines
Waterloo
Iowa City
Des Moines
Des Moines
Des Moines
Paullina
Bettendorf
Osage
Dubuque
Iowa City
Des Moines
Company Name
Architectural Antiques of Indianapolis
Bringing it Back
Capellier Salvage & Wrecking
Crowe Wrecking Co.
Doc's Architectural Salvage
Eric's Architectural Salvage
Edgewood Building Supply
First Saturday Construction Salvage
Harris Building & Salvage
Rehab Resources, Inc.
Richey Salvage & Demolition
Searcy Antique Woods
Tim & Billy's Salvage Store
The Reuse Development Organization
The Wood Shack
White River Architectural Salvage & Antiques
Building Savers
Cedar Valley Recovery & Demolition
Eco-Youth
Found Things
Fuller Salvage & Wrecking
Gavin Historical Bricks
Home Recycling Exchange
House and Cargen Restoration Specialties
Ken Hunt Building Supply & Salvage
Old Woodworks ND Millwork Salvage
ReStore Habitat for Humanity Quad Cities
Rock Creek Tree & Building Salvage
Restoration Warehouse
Warehouse
West End Architectural Salvage
www.restorationwarehouse.net
www.ic-fhp.org/salvagebarn.html
www.oldwoodwork.com
www.restoreqc.com
www.historicalbricks.com
www.whiteriversalvage.com
www.redo.org
www.searcyantiquewods.com
www.rehabresource.org
www.docsarchitecturalsalvage.com
www.ericssalvage.com
www.edgewoodbuildingsupply.com
www.constructionsalvage.com
www.antiquearchitectural.com
Website
Architectural Salvage
Salvage/ Demolition
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Salvage/ Demolition
Brick/ Landscaping Elements
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Deconstruction
Architectural Salvage
Deconstruction/ Soft-Stripping
Architectural Salvage
Deconstruction/ Soft-Stripping
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Deconstruction/ Soft-Stripping/ Salvage
Deconstruction/ Soft-Stripping/ Salvage
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling/ Salvage
Architectural Salvage/ Antiques
Architectural Salvage
Salvaged Brick & Stone
Demolition/ Salvage/ Recycling
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Deconstruction/ Soft-Stripping/ Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Description
92
Indiana
Iowa
Location
Silver Lake
Mission
Derby
New Cambria
Wichita
Grantville
Wichita
Wichita
Beloit
Ypsilanti
Detroit
Grass Lake
Allegan
Kalamazoo
Detroit
Detroit
Grass Lake
Detroit
Kalamazoo
Detroit
Grand Rapids
Detroit
Detroit
Ypsilanti
Detroit
Traverse City
Ann Arbor
Lake Odessa
Royal Oak
Ann Arbor
Howell
Grass Lake
Oxford
Company Name
Bahm Demolition
Ben Tarbe Use Brick, Inc.
Bill Porter Wrecking
Bob Smith Salvage
BOGE Iron & Metal Company Inc.
McPherson Wrecking Inc.
Novick Iron & Metal
Reeves Lumber & Surplus
Wise Buys
21st. Century Salvage
Architectural Salvage Warehouse of Detroit
Architectural Salvage Wing-Grand Illusion
B&C Emporium
D&M Wrecking Compant, Inc./ Axxiom
Detroit Building Materials
Detroit Recycled Concrete Co.
Grand Illusion Gallery & Architectural Salvage
Habitat ReStore Detroit
Heritage Architectural Salvage & Supply
Heritage Building & Materials Co.
Home Repair Services
K D Used Brick & Building Material
Larry's Building Materials
Materials Unlimited
Motorcity Building Materials Center
Odom Reusable Building Materials
Recycle Ann Arbor
Robinson's Antiques
The Heritage Company
The Reuse Center
Timber & Stone Barn Removal
Toth Brothers
Williams Art Glass Studio Inc & Sunset Antiques
www.tothbros.com
www.williamsartglass.com
www.odomreuse.com
www.recycleannarbor.org
www.robinsonsantiques.com
www.materialsunlimited.com
www.homerepairservices.org
www.habitatdetroit.org/Restore
www.b-c-e.biz
www.aswdetroit.org
www.bahmdemolition.com
Website
Salvage/ Demolition/ Deconstruction
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage/ Deconstruction
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Construction/ Demolition/ Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Salvage/ Material Recycling
Architectural Salvage/ Hardware
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage/ Used Building Materials
Old Wood/ Barn Removal
Old Wood/ Barn Removal
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Used Brick/ Lumber/ Building Materials
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Scrape Metals
Architectural Salvage
Scrape Metals
New & Salvaged Lumber
Architectural Salvage
Description
93
Kansas
Michigan
Location
St. Paul
Norwood
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
St. Paul
Minneapolis
Duluth
Duluth
St. Paul
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Mankato
Minneapolis
Foreston
Two Harbors
St. Paul
Minneapolis
St. Paul
Minneapolis
Company Name
Minnesota
All State Salvage Inc.
Antique Woodworks
Architectural Antiques
Bauer Brothers Salvage
Carl Bolander & Sons Co.
City Salvage & Antiques, Inc.
Common Ground Deconstruction & Reuse
Duluth Timber
F.M. Frattalone Excavating
Green Institute
Guilded Salvage
Habitat for Humanity of South Central MN
Historic Stone Company
Minnesota Timber Salvage
North Shore Architectural Antiques
Old Growth Woods
PPL Shop
Rural Resource Recovery
The Reuse Center
www.greeninstitute.org/reusecenter.htm
www.north-shore-architectural-antique.com
www.oldgrowthwoods.com
www.pplshop.org
www.historicstone.com
www.duluthtimber.com
www.fmfrattalone.com
www.greeninstitute.org
www.guildedsalvage.com
www.antiquewoodworks.com
www.archantiques.com
www.bauerbrotherssalvage.com
www.bolander.com
www.citysalvage.com
Website
Architectural Salvage
Old Wood/ Flooring/ Furniture
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage/ Deconstruction
Demolition/ Salvage/ Deconstruction
Demolition/ Salvage/ Deconstruction
Architectural Salvage/ Deconstruction
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Salvage/ Deconstruction
Salvaged Stone/ Used Building Materials
Architectural Salvage/ Deconstruction
Architectural Salvage/ Deconstruction
Architectural Salvage/ Deconstruction
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage/ Deconstruction
Description
94
Location
Kansas City
Kansas City
Kansas City
Sappington
St. Louis
Springfield
Kansas City
St. Louis
Springfield
Kirkwood
St. Louis
St. Louis
St. Joseph
St. Louis
Lexington
Sainte Genevieve
Kansas City
St. Louis
Kansas City
St. Louis
St. Louis
St. Louis
Omaha
Lincoln
Omaha
Omaha
Lincoln
Company Name
Anderson Fine Carpentry & Salvage
Antiques & Oddities
Ben Tarbe Used Brick Inc.
Century Used Brick
Chuck's Stone and Brick Co.
Cross Creek Architectural Artifacts
Elmwood Reclaimed Timber
Fellenz Antiques & Architectural Artifacts
Habitat for Humanity ReStore
Hardico
Heartwood Associates Int'l
Mack Circle Used Brick & Wrecking
Madget & Griffin Inc.
Perhat Lumber Co.
Peterson Wrecking Used Lumber
Pitchpine Lumber
PlanetReuse, LLC
Riverside Architectural Antiques
Seldom Found Architecturals
St. Louis Architectural Art Co.
St. Louis Habitat for Humanity ReStore
Stockton Heartwoods Limited
A&R Salvage & Recycling
Conners Architectural Antiques
MT Salvage
RPM Salvage
Scherer's Architectural Antiques
www.arsalvage.com
www.connersarchitecturalantiques.com
www.heartwoods.com
www.seldomfound.com
www.pitchpine.com
www.heartwoodassociates.com
www.habitatrestore.com
www.crosscreekartifacts.com
www.elmwoodreclaimedtimber.com
www.aoarchitecturalsalvage.com
Website
Deconstruction
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage/ Deconstruction
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Bricks/ Pavers/ Flooring/ Lumber
Bricks/ Pavers/ Flooring/ Lumber
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage/ Deconstruction
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage/ Deconstruction
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage/ Deconstruction
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Antique Flooring/ Barn Wood
Description
95
Missouri
Nebraska
Location
Cincinnati
Youngstown
Columbus
Toledo
Copley
Youngstown
Cleveland
Cleveland
Canton
Columbus
Cincinnati
Columbus
Mantua
Cincinnati
Dayton/ Columbus
Salineville
Minerva
Health
Akron
Akron
Malvern
Akron
Minerva
Painesville
Chillicothe
Canton
Cleveland
Hamilton
Akron
Cincinnati
Cincinnati
Company Name
Ohio
Acme Construction Services
Allied Erecting and Dismantling
Angelo Building Wreckers
Architectural Artifacts
Barnwares
B&R Architectural Antiques
B and B Wrecking and Excavating Inc.
Broadway Contracting Inc.
Buckeye Wrecking
Build It Again Center
Building Value
Columbus Architectural Salvage
Eagle Creek Designs, Inc.
Firehouse Architectural Salvage Co.
Habitat for Humanity ReStore
J & J Barnwood
Lincoln Street Salvage
Loewendick's
National Salvage Supply Inc.
North Hill Salvage Store
Olde Wood, Ltd.
Rex Salvage Store
Salvage II
Salvage Masters
Scioto Salvage
The Stock Pile
The Stone Salvage Company
Tristate Habitat Restore
United Salvage Co.
Valley Building Materials
Wooden Nickel Antiques
www.sciotosalvage.com
www.thestockpile.org
www.stonesalvage.com
www.habitat-tristate.org
www.stonesalvage.com
www.valleybuildingmaterials.com
www.woodennickelantiques.net
www.eaglecreekdesigns.net
www.habitat-columbus.org
www.buildingvalue-cincy.org
www.bbwrecking.com
www.broad3939.com
www.coolstuffiscoolstuff.com
www.barnwares.com
www.aed.com
Website
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage/ Landscaping
Barn Wood/ Beams/ Lumber/ Flooring
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Deconstruction/ Salvage
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling/ Salvage
Deconstruction/ Salvage
Salvage/ Deconstruction/ Construction
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage/ Deconstruction
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Barn Wood/ Old Dimensional Lumber
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage/ Deconstruction
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage/ Used Building Materials
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Description
96
Location
Sioux Falls
Baltic
Rapid City
Viborg
Milwaukee
Black River Falls
Watertown
Oshkosk
Madison
Franklin
Baraboo
Madison
Milwaukee
Baraboo
Wausau
Bayfield
Osceola
Green Bay
Baraboo
Waukesha
West Allis
Green Bay
Janesville
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Ashland
Somerset
Menasha
Superior
Company Name
South
Dakota
Wisconsin
Architectural Elements
Keetagilly
Materials Clearance & Salvage
Second Chance Lumber
American Resource Recovery
Barnwood Products
Coughlin Contractors Inc.
Crescent Moon Antiques & Salvage LLC
DeConstruction Inc.
Gerovac Wrecking Company
Great Lakes Company
Habitat for Humanity ReStore
Homesource Center
Milwaukee Timber Company
Old House Salvage
Orphan Wood
Osceola Antiques
Pagenkopf
Reclaimed Lumber Co.
Reclaimed Lumber Company
Salvage Heaven
Scarboro River Barn & Lumber
Schuler's Country Store & Workshop
SCS of Wisconsin Inc.
The IM Salvage Company
Timeless Timber
Traditional Woodworks & Lumber Company
Urban Evolutions
Wisconsin Woodchuck LLC
www.imsalvage.net
www.timelesstimber.com
www.tradwood.com
www.urbanevolutions.com
www.wisconsinwoodchuck.net
www.schulercountry.com
www.reclaimed-lumber.com
www.old-barn-wood.com
www.salvageheaven.com
www.reclaimed-timbers.com
www.oldhousesalvage.com
www.orphanwood.com
www.osceola-antiques.com
www.greatlakescompany.com
www.restoredane.org
www.deconstructinc.com
www.secondchancelumber.com
www.architectural-elements.com
Website
Architectural Salvage
Barn Wood/ Beams/ Lumber/ Flooring
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Barn Wood/ Beams/ Lumber/ Flooring
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Barn Wood/ Beams/ Lumber/ Flooring
Deconstruction/ Salvage
Barn Wood/ Beams/ Lumber/ Flooring
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Deconstruction/ Salvage
Deconstruction
Recycled/ Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Barn Wood/ Beams/ Lumber/ Flooring
Architectural Salvage/ Deconstruction
Architectural Salvage/ Deconstruction
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Architectural Salvage
Description
97
98
APPENDIX B:
DECONSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION COMPANIES
Location
Markham/ Chicago
Elgin
Skokie
Chicago
Chicago
Dix
Waukegan
Markham
Chicago
Bloomington
Joilet
LaGrange Park
Chicago
Stearmwood
Peoria
Oakbrook Terrace
Chicago
Chicago
Des Plaines
Evansville
Clayton
Gary
Indianapolis
Greensburg
Muncie
Company
A&T Wrecking & Lumber Co.
American Demolition Corporation
Asset Recovery Contracting
Brandenburg Industrial Service Company
Delta Demolition, Inc.
Dix Lumber & Recycling
Ecologic, Inc.
Environmental Cleansing Corporation
Heneghan Wrecking Co.; Inc.
Habitat for Humanity of McLean County
J. Hoffman Co.
Murco Recycling Enterprises Inc.
N.F. Demolition
Omega Demolition Corporation
River City Demolition
Robinette Demolition, Inc.
The Renovation Source, Inc.
The Restoration Place
United Demolition Incorporated
Crowe Wrecking Co.
Hannells Wrecking Co.
Northlake Excavation & Demolition
Rehab Resources, Inc.
Richel Salvage and Demolition
The Shroyer Brothers
www.shroyerbros.com
www.rehabresource.org
www.united-demolition.com
www.rdidemolition.com
www.murco.net
www.nfdemo.com
www.omega-demolition.com
www.environmentalcleansingcorporation.com
www.heneghanwrecking.com
www.habitatmclean.org
www.brandenburg.com
www.deltademoinc.com
Web Address
Demolition/ Salvage
Deconstruction/ Soft-Stripping
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Deconstruction/ Material Recycling
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Demoltion/ Recycling
Deconstruction/ Soft-Stripping
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Demolition/ Deconstruction
Demolition/ Salvage/ Recycling
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Demolition/ Recycling
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Demolition/ Recycling/ Deconstruction
Demolition/ Recycling/ Deconstruction
Construction/ Rehabilitation
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Demolition/ Salvage/ Recycling
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Deconstruction/ Soft-Stripping
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Deconstruction/ Soft-Stripping
Deconstruction/ Soft-Stripping
Demolition/ Deconstruction
Services
99
Illinois
Indiana
Location
Waterloo
Des Moines
Ossian
Waterloo
Des Moines
Des Moines
Cedar Rapids
Sioux City
Dubuque
Silver Lake
Derby
New Cambria
Grantville
Detroit
Detroit
Midland
Detroit
Kalamazoo
Detroit/ Bay City
Grand Rapids
Lapeer
Grand Rapids
Detroit
St. Paul
Minneapolis
St. Paul
Corcoran
St. Paul
Company
Cedar Valley Recovery and Demolition
Central C&D Recycling
Concrete Recyclers Ltd.
Fuller Salvage and Wrecking
Home Recycling Exchange
Home & Garden Restoration Specialties
Iowa Demolition & Recycling Services
J. Myron Olson & Son Inc.
Jim's Small Demolition
Bahm Demolition
Bill Porter Wrecking
Bob Smith Salvage
McPherson Wrecking Inc.
Adamo Demolition
Best Wrecking Co.
Bierlein Companies, Inc.
Detroit Recycled Concrete Co.
D&M Wrecking Company
Dore & Associates Contracting, Inc.
Home Repair Services
North American Dismantling Corp.
Pitsch Wrecking
Upright Wrecking
Century Construction Co. Inc.
Deconstruction Services
F.M. Frattalone Excavating
Kellington Construction Inc.
SKB Environmental
www.skbinc.com
www.centuryconstruct.com
www.greeninstitute.org
www.frattalonecompanies.com
www.doreandassociates.com
www.homerepairservices.org
www.nadc1.com
www.pitschco.com/salvage.html
www.bierlein.com
Web Address
Michigan
Minnesota
Iowa
Kansas
Deconstruction/ Soft-Stripping
Deconstruction/ Soft-Stripping
Deconstruction/ Soft-Stripping
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Demolition/ Deconstruction/ Recycling
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Demolition/ Deconstruction
Material Recycling
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Demolition/ Deconstruction
Construction/ Demolition
Demolition/ Deconstruction
Demolition/ Deconstruction/ Salvage
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Demolition/ Salvage Dismantling
Construction/ Demolition/ Recycling
Material Recycling
Demolition/ Salvage Dismantling
Material Recycling
Material Recycling/ Restoration
Demolition/ Recycling
Demolition/ Salvage Dismantling
Deconstruction/ Soft-Stripping
Services
100
Location
St. Joseph
Columbia
Kansas City
Scott City
St. Louis
Cincinnati
Youngstown
Cleves
Columbus
Cleveland
Cleveland
Canton
Columbus
Sagamore Hills
Columbus
Dayton
Kent
Cincinnati
Springfield
Health
Dayton
Cincinnati
Independence
Miamisburg
Miamisburg
New Lebanon
Cleveland
Akron
Company
Madget & Griffin Inc.
Missouri Deconstruction
Deco Companies
Sanders Enterprise, Inc.
Spirtas Wrecking Company
Acme Construction Services
Allied Erecting & Dismantling
American Services Group, Inc.
Angelo Building Wreckers
B & B Wrecking & Excavating Inc.
Broadway Contracting Inc.
Buckeye Wrecking
Building It Again Center
Cleveland Deconstruction Inc.
Complete Resources Co.
Dayton Demolition & Contracting Inc.
Kent Demolition Tool
King Wrecking Co., Inc.
L & L Demolition Excavating Inc.
Loewendick's
Murphy's Plumbing Supplies
O'Rourke Wrecking Company
Precision Environmental
Raisch John P Contractor
Stark Wrecking Company
The Rose Group Ltd.
The Stone Salvage Company
United Salvage Co.
www.rose-grp.com
www.stonesalvage.com
www.murphyswedoplumbing.com
www.orourkewrecking.com
www.precision-env.com
www.complete-resources.com
www.habitat-columbus.org
www.bbwrecking.com
www.broad3939.com
www.aed.com
www.deco-kc.com
Web Address
Deconstruction/ Construction
Deconstruction
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Deconstruction
Deconstruction
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Deconstruction
Deconstruction
Material Recycling
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Demolition/ Salvage
Deconstruction/ Salvage
Plumbing Construction/ Salvage
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Demolition/ Recycling
Deconstruction/ Demolition/ Salvage
Deconstruction
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Material Recycling/ Deconstruction
Demolition/ Salvage Dismantling
Deconstruction
Demolition/ Deconstruction
Deconstruction
Demolition/ Salvage Dismantling
Services
101
Missouri
Ohio
South
Dakota
Wisconsin
Baltic
Viborg
Milwaukee
Racine
Watertown
Madison
Rhinelander
Franklin
Baraboo
Green Bay
Green Bay
Milwaukee
Second Change Lumber
American Resource Recovery
Azarian: Sam Wrecking
Coughlin Contractors, Inc.
DeConstruction Inc.
Eckert Wrecking Inc.
Gerovac Wrecking Company
Glenville Timber Wrights
Pagenkopf S
Scarboro River Barn and Lumber
SCS of Wisconsin Inc.
Location
Keetagilly
Company
www.glenvilletimberwrights.com
www.deconstructinc.com
Web Address
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Deconstruction/ Construction
Deconstruction
Deconstruction
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Deconstruction/ Construction
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Demolition/ Selective Dismantling
Deconstruction
Deconstruction
Services
102
103
APPENDIX C:
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS
FOR THE TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES
104
Preservation
Masonry: “Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts of masonry
features when there are surviving prototypes such as terra-cotta brackets or
stone balusters. The new work should match the old in material, design, color,
and texture; and be unobtrusively dated to guide future research and
treatment.”93
Wood: “Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts of wood features
when there are surviving prototypes such as brackets, molding, or sections of
siding. New work should match the old in material, design, color, and texture;
and be unobtrusively dated to guide future research and treatment.”94
Metal: “Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts of architectural
metal features when there are surviving prototypes such as porch balusters,
column capitals or bases, or porch cresting. The new work should match the
old in material, design, and texture; and be unobtrusively dated to guide future
research and treatment.”95
Roof: “Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts of roof features or
roof coverings when there are surviving prototypes such as cupola louvers,
dentils, dormer roofing; or slates, tiles, or wood shingles on a main roof. The
new work should match the old in material, design, color, and texture; and be
unobtrusively dated to guide future research and treatment.”96
93
Weeks and Grimmer, 25.
Ibid, 28.
95
Ibid, 32.
96
Ibid, 34.
94
105
Windows: “Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts of windows
when there are surviving prototypes such as frames, sash, sills, glazing, and
hoodmolds. The new work should match the old in material, design, color, and
texture; and be unobtrusively dated to guide future research and treatment.”97
Entrances & Porches: “Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts
of repeated entrance and porch features when there are surviving prototypes
such as balustrades, cornices, entablatures, columns, sidelights, and stairs. The
new work should match the old in material, design, color, and texture; and be
unobtrusively dated to guide future research and treatment.”98
Store Fronts: “Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts of
storefronts where there are surviving prototypes such as transoms, kick plates,
pilasters, or signs. The new work should match the old in materials, design,
color, and texture; and be unobtrusively dated to guide future research and
treatment.”99
Structural Systems: “Replacing in kind those visible portions or features of the
structural system that are either extensively deteriorated or missing when there
are surviving prototypes such as cast iron columns and sections of loadbearing
walls. The new work should match the old in materials, design, color, and
texture; and be unobtrusively dated to guide future research and treatment.
Considering the use of substitute material for unexposed structural
replacements, such as roof rafters or trusses. Substitute material should, at a
97
Weeks and Grimmer, 37.
Ibid, 39.
99
Ibid, 41.
98
106
minimum, have equal loadbearing capabilities, and be unobtrusively dated to
guide future research and treatment.”100
Interior Features: “Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts of
repeated interior features when there are surviving prototypes such as stairs,
balustrades, wood paneling, columns; or decorative wall coverings or
ornamental tin or plaster ceilings. New work should match the old in material,
design, color, and texture; and be unobtrusively dated to guide future research
and treatment.”101
Mechanical Features: “Installing a new mechanical system if required, so that it
causes the least alteration possible to the building. Providing adequate
structural support for new mechanical equipment. Installing the vertical runs
of ducts, pipes, and cables in closets, service rooms, and wall cavities.
Installing air conditioning in such a manner that historic features are not
damaged or obscured and excessive moisture is not generated that will
accelerate deterioration of historic materials.”102
Exterior Features: “Replacing in kind extensively deteriorated or missing parts of
the building or site where there are surviving prototypes such as part of a
fountain, or portions of a walkway. New work should match the old in
materials, design, color, and texture; and be unobtrusively dated to guide
future research and treatment.”103
100
Weeks and Grimmer, 43.
Ibid, 48.
102
Ibid, 50.
103
Ibid, 53.
101
107
Restoration
Masonry: “Replacing in kind an entire masonry feature from the restoration period
that is too deteriorated to repair—if the overall form and detailing are still
evident—using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature.
Examples can include large sections of a wall, a cornice, balustrade, column,
or stairway. If using the same kind of material is not technically or
economically feasible, then a compatible substitute material may be
considered. The new work should be unobtrusively dated to guide future
research and treatment.”104
Wood: “Replacing in kind an entire wood feature from the restoration period that is
too deteriorated to repair—if the overall form and detailing are still evident—
using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature. Examples of
wood features include a cornice, entablature or balustrade. If using the same
kind of material is not technically or economically feasible, then a compatible
substitute material may be considered. The new work should be unobtrusively
dated to guide future research and treatment.”105
Metal: “Replacing in kind an entire architectural metal feature from the restoration
period that is too deteriorated to repair—if the overall form and detailing are
still evident—using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature.
Examples could include cast iron porch steps or roof cresting. If using the
same kind of material is not technically or economically feasible, then a
104
105
Weeks and Grimmer, 126.
Ibid, 129.
108
compatible substitute material may be considered. The new work should be
unobtrusively dated to guide future research and treatment.”106
Roof: “Replacing in kind an entire roof feature from the restoration period that is too
deteriorated to repair—if the overall form and detailing are still evident—
using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature. Examples can
include a large section of roofing, or a dormer or chimney. If using the same
kind of material is not technically or economically feasible, then a compatible
substitute material may be considered. The new work should be unobtrusively
dated to guide future research and treatment.”107
Windows: “Replacing in kind a window feature from the restoration period that is
too deteriorated to repair using the same sash and pane configuration and
other design details. If using the same kind of material is not technically or
economically feasible when replacing windows deteriorated beyond repair,
then a compatible substitute material may be considered. The new work
should be unobtrusively dated to guide future research and treatment.”108
Entrances & Porches: “Replacing in kind an entire entrance or porch from the
restoration period that is too deteriorated to repair—if the form and detailing
are still evident—using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the
feature. If using the same kind of material is not technically or economically
106
Weeks and Grimmer, 133.
Ibid, 136.
108
Ibid, 138.
107
109
feasible, then a compatible substitute material may be considered. The new
work should be unobtrusively dated to guide future research and treatment.”109
Store Fronts: “Replacing in kind a storefront from the restoration period that is too
deteriorated to repair—if the overall form and detailing are still evident—
using the physical evidence as a model. If using the same material is not
technically or economically feasible, then compatible substitute materials may
be considered. The new work should be unobtrusively dated to guide future
research and treatment.”110
Structural Systems: “Replacing in kind—or with substitute material—those portions
or features of the structural system that are either extensively deteriorated or
are missing when there are surviving prototypes such as cast iron columns,
roof rafters or trusses, or sections of load-bearing walls. Substitute material
should convey the same form, design, and overall visual appearance as the
historic feature; and, at a minimum, be equal to its load-bearing capabilities.
The new work should be unobtrusively dated to guide future research and
treatment.”111
Interior Features: “Replacing in kind an entire interior feature or finish from the
restoration period that is too deteriorated to repair—if the overall form and
detailing are still evident—using the physical evidence as a model for
reproduction. Examples could include wainscoting, a tin ceiling, or interior
stairs. If using the same kind of material is not technically or economically
109
Weeks and Grimmer, 141.
Ibid, 144.
111
Ibid, 146.
110
110
feasible, then a compatible substitute material may be considered. The new
work should be unobtrusively dated to guide future research and treatment.”112
Mechanical Systems: “Replacing in kind—or with compatible substitute material—
those visible features of restoration period mechanical systems that are either
extensively deteriorated or are prototypes such as ceiling fans, switch plates,
radiators, grilles, or plumbing fixtures.”113
Exterior Features: “Replacing in kind an entire restoration period feature of the
building or site that is too deteriorated to repair if the overall form and
detailing are still evident. Physical evidence from the deteriorated feature
should be used as a model to guide the new work. This could include an
entrance or porch, walkway, or fountain. If using the same kind of material is
not technically or economically feasible, then a compatible substitute material
may be considered. The new work should be unobtrusively dated to guide
future research and treatment.”114
Rehabilitation
Masonry: “Replacing in kind an entire masonry feature that is too deteriorated to
repair—if the overall form and detailing are still evident— using the physical
evidence as a model to reproduce the feature. Examples can include large
sections of a wall, a cornice, balustrade, column, or stairway. If using the
same kind of material is not technically or economically feasible, then a
compatible substitute material may be considered. Designing and installing a
112
Weeks and Grimmer, 149.
Ibid, 151.
114
Ibid, 155.
113
111
new masonry feature such as steps or a door pediment when the historic
feature is completely missing. It may be an accurate restoration using
historical, pictorial, and physical documentation; or be a new design that is
compatible with the size, scale, material, and color of the historic building.”115
Wood: “Replacing in kind an entire wood feature that is too deteriorated to repair—if
the overall form and detailing are still evident— using the physical evidence
as a model to reproduce the feature. Examples of wood features include a
cornice, entablature or balustrade. If using the same kind of material is not
technically or economically feasible, then a compatible substitute material
may be considered.”116 “Designing and installing a new wood feature such as
a cornice or doorway when the historic feature is completely missing. It may
be an accurate restoration using historical, pictorial, and physical
documentation; or be a new design that is compatible with the size, scale,
material, and color of the historic building.”117
Metal: “Replacing in kind an entire architectural metal feature that is too deteriorated
to repair—if the overall form and detailing are still evident—using the
physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature. Examples could
include cast iron porch steps or steel sash windows. If using the same kind of
material is not technically or economically feasible, then a compatible
substitute material may be considered. Designing and installing a new
architectural metal feature such as a metal cornice or cast iron capital when
115
Weeks and Grimmer, 70.
Ibid, 73.
117
Ibid, 74.
116
112
the historic feature is completely missing. It may be an accurate restoration
using historical, pictorial, and physical documentation; or be a new design that
is compatible with the size, scale, material, and color of the historic
building.”118
Roof: “Replacing in kind an entire feature of the roof that is too deteriorated to
repair—if the overall form and detailing are still evident—using the physical
evidence as a model to reproduce the feature. Examples can include a large
section of roofing, or a dormer or chimney. If using the same kind of material
is not technically or economically feasible, then a compatible substitute
material may be considered.”119 “Designing and constructing a new feature
when the historic feature is completely missing, such as chimney or cupola. It
may be an accurate restoration using historical, pictorial, and physical
documentation; or be a new design that is compatible with the size, scale,
material, and color of the historic building.”120
Windows: “Replacing in kind an entire window that is too deteriorated to repair
using the same sash and pane configuration and other design details. If using
the same kind of material is not technically or economically feasible when
replacing windows deteriorated beyond repair, then a compatible substitute
material may be considered.”121 “Designing and installing new windows when
the historic windows (frames, sash and glazing) are completely missing. The
replacement windows may be an accurate restoration using historical,
118
Weeks and Grimmer, 77.
Ibid, 79.
120
Ibid, 80.
121
Ibid, 82.
119
113
pictorial, and physical documentation; or be a new design that is compatible
with the window openings and the historic character of the building.”122
Entrances & Porches: “Replacing in kind an entire entrance or porch that is too
deteriorated to repair—if the form and detailing are still evident— using the
physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature. If using the same kind
of material is not technically or economically feasible, then a compatible
substitute material may be considered. Designing and constructing a new
entrance or porch when the historic entrance or porch is completely missing. It
may be a restoration based on historical, pictorial, and physical
documentation; or be a new design that is compatible with the historic
character building.”123
Store Fronts: “Replacing in kind an entire storefront that is too deteriorated to
repair—if the overall form and detailing are still evident—using the physical
evidence as a model. If using the same material is not technically or
economically feasible, then compatible substitute materials may be
considered. Designing and constructing a new storefront when the historic
storefront is completely missing. It may be an accurate restoration using
historical, pictorial, and physical documentation; or be a new design that is
compatible with the size, scale, material, and color of the historic building.”124
Structural System: “Replacing in kind—or with substitute material—those portions
or features of the structural system that are either extensively deteriorated or
122
Weeks and Grimmer, 83.
Ibid, 87.
124
Ibid, 89.
123
114
are missing when there are surviving prototypes such as cast iron columns,
roof rafters or trusses, or sections of load-bearing walls. Substitute material
should convey the same form, design, and overall visual appearance as the
historic feature; and, at a minimum, be equal to its load-bearing
capabilities.”125
Interior Features: “Replacing in kind an entire interior feature or finish that is too
deteriorated to repair—if the overall form and detailing are still evident—
using the physical evidence as a model for reproduction. Examples could
include wainscoting, a tin ceiling, or interior stairs. If using the same kind of
material is not technically or economically feasible, then a compatible
substitute material may be considered.”126 “Designing and installing a new
interior feature or finish if the historic feature or finish is completely missing.
This could include missing partitions, stairs, elevators, lighting fixtures, and
wall coverings; or even entire rooms if all historic spaces, features, and
finishes are missing or have been destroyed by inappropriate “renovations.”
The design may be a restoration based on historical, pictorial, and physical
documentation; or be a new design that is compatible with the historic
character of the building, district, or neighborhood.”127
Mechanical Systems: “Replacing in kind—or with compatible substitute material—
those visible features of mechanical systems that are either extensively
125
Weeks and Grimmer, 92.
Ibid, 97.
127
Ibid, 98.
126
115
deteriorated or are prototypes such as ceiling fans, switch plates, radiators,
grilles, or plumbing fixtures.”128
Exterior Features: “Replacing in kind an entire feature of the building or site that is
too deteriorated to repair if the overall form and detailing are still evident.
Physical evidence from the deteriorated feature should be used as a model to
guide the new work. This could include an entrance or porch, walkway, or
fountain. If using the same kind of material is not technically or economically
feasible, then a compatible substitute material may be considered. Replacing
deteriorated or damaged landscape features in kind.”129 “Designing and
constructing a new feature of a building or site when the historic feature is
completely missing, such as an outbuilding, terrace, or driveway. It may be
based on historical, pictorial, and physical documentation; or be a new design
that is compatible with the historic character of the building and site.”130
128
Weeks and Grimmer, 100.
Ibid, 104.
130
Ibid, 105.
129
116
APPENDIX D:
ARCHITECTURAL SALVAGE SURVEY
117
Question 1: Company demographics including: company name, address, city, state, postal
code, country, email address, and phone number. This information can be found in
Appendices A & B.
Other: demolition auctions, manufacture garden elements from salvaged materials, lighting
restorer, woodworking shop (products made from salvaged lumber), and recycle materials into
unique items (i.e. tables).
Other: bid on & deconstruct only items that can be reused, manufacture wood products and reuse.
118
Other: unique items (i.e. any architectural item that can be integrated into a new environment),
Ironwork, gates, garden elements, stonework, stained glass, and cast iron radiators.
119
Other: unique architectural items, ironwork, gates, garden elements, stonework, paint, cast iron
radiators, HVAC units, transformers, value-added wood products.
120
Other: demolition, construction companies warehouse, trade-ins, customer purchases, and Amish
communities.
121
Other: cost involving the removal, transportation, display, and rarity of the materials, professional
opinion, price at 1/3 below retail (non-profit), and ½ of retail.
122
Other: radiators, furnaces, boilers, hot water heaters, terra cotta items, ironwork, garden elements,
and stonework.
123
Other: ironwork, garden elements, stonework, paint, bars, furnaces, transformers, fencing,
radiators, and stained glass windows.
124
Other: sell items at junk markets if they do not sell in store, no more than one month, and custom
ordered merchandise is never left over.
125
Other: style or period of design, condition, and size.
Question 16: If you maintain a website, what is your web address?
All web addresses are listed in Appendices A & B.
126
Other: personal website, radio, display booth, chamber of commerce, billboard, email newsletters,
local neighborhood newsletters, yellow pages, and magazines (bi-monthly).
Other: TV and movie companies; and landlords/ house flippers also frequent their stores.