Focus on Building

Portland sees benefits of deconstruction

By DENISE FEDOROW | The Municipal

When it comes to enacting deconstruction policies, weighing the pros versus the cons and being able to share those with officials and residents is one key to success.

Stacks of “old growth lumber,” a valuable commodity in deconstruction, wait to be purchased at a salvaged material market in Portland, Ore. (Photo provided by Good Wood Deconstruction & Salvage)

There are several benefits to deconstruction versus mechanical demolition. Environmental benefits, historical preservation and job creation are the big three, but cities that have enacted such policies admit deconstruction costs more and takes longer than mechanical demolition.

One city that has enacted a deconstruction policy successfully is Portland, Ore. Shawn Wood, construction waste specialist for the city of Portland, shared how its deconstruction ordinance came about.

Wood said around 2013-2014 the country was coming out of a recession, and the city saw a “sharp uptick in house demolition permits.” Most of Portland’s demolitions are driven by new development — knocking down a house and building a bigger one in its place. Around that same time, he conversed with a local nonprofit organization that was doing deconstruction “way before our ordinance was in place and were selling materials.”

He said they began thinking about how they could level the playing field for deconstruction.

“It’s a hard sell when deconstruction costs more and takes longer,” he said. “But the outcome is much better.”

Also, around that same time, the city was receiving complaints and concerns from neighborhood groups who were asking the city to halt demolitions and preserve the modest housing. Unlike cities like Baltimore and Milwaukee, many of Portland’s demolitions were private and were knocking down modest 1,200- to 1,400-square-foot homes and replacing them with 3,000-square-foot homes that were valued at $1 million versus the previous value of $350,000 for example.

“Huge McMansions were going up towering over the tiny homes next door,” Wood said, adding in 2014 someone could walk in to the permit division and get a permit over the counter and have the house razed within a couple of hours.

“Imagine coming home from work, and the house next door is gone and there’s asbestos and lead dust all over your garden, your pets and (your) kids’ toys,” he said.

The neighborhood groups went to the city council asking that the permit bureau shore up the system requiring notification of neighbors. That resulted in delays of demolition as everyone worked through this process. Neighborhood groups kept pressuring the council to expand notification and advance deconstruction. The council told the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, where Wood

Signage promoting deconstruction is posted on a site in Portland, Ore. Portland said having signage explaining the project helps residents understand why the building might take longer to come down and spreads awareness of the process. (Photo provided by Northwest Deconstruction Specialist) Pictured are cladding profiles of salvaged lumber from Portland, Ore. (Photo provided by Good Wood Deconstruction and Salvage)

works, to form an advisory group and come back to the council with a recommendation in three months.

Wood said he felt that was a “pivotal moment moving this forward.” A deconstruction advisory group was formed including Rebuild —the nonprofit group — for-profit deconstruction companies, Habitat for Humanity, homebuilders, developers, representatives from the permitting bureau, and historic preservation and neighborhood groups.

“Everyone we could think of we brought to the table,” Wood said.

By June, the advisory group brought a proposal to the city council to start giving voluntary incentives for deconstruction and requirements phased in over time. By September 2015, the city developed a grant program giving $2,500 to $3,000 in grant money to deconstruction projects that anyone involved could apply for.

“In return, we got a bunch of information: how much it costs versus mechanical, how many crew hours it took, what happens if they run into unabated asbestos. It became a proving ground for elements that were later in requirements,” he said.

Some of those elements included keeping receipts for materials sold and having yard signage promoting deconstruction. The advisory group continued meeting monthly, and in 2016, members discussed the possibility of a demolition tax — $25,000 a year on a number of demolitions.

“If we were going that route, I wanted a lower tax for deconstruction projects and maybe a rebate,” he said.

But Wood said the homebuilder’s associations fought back on that and the conversation only lasted three weeks. The advisory group continued meeting to determine what a deconstruction ordinance would look like so everyone was back at the table. Members decided to have a requirement based on the year the structure was built.

“That was another aha moment,” Wood said.

The advisory group looked at the demolition permits, and from that, it knew that structures built in 1916 or before routinely captured one-third of house permits.

“Setting the threshold at 1916, we knew we’d capture one-third of the demolitions. Everyone agreed that was a reasonable first step,” he said.

The neighborhood groups wanted everything to be deconstructed, but those that sold the materials said they wouldn’t be able to handle it and costs would go down. Wood said members wanted to start off balanced and not overwhelm anyone. The neighborhood groups relented, but with a caveat that the ordinance would include the year built requirement be raised to 1940 in three years.

Everyone agreed, and the council adopted the resolution in February 2016, followed by the ordinance in July that was effective Oct. 31, 2016. Wood said everything was moving along fine, and the city knew if it moved the year built to 1940, it would capture two-thirds of the demolitions, potentially doubling the amount to be deconstructed.

But in 2018, he said, “It became clear demolition permits had peaked in 2016 and were starting to go down.”

Wood became concerned whether there’d be enough demand for the materials so they wouldn’t eventually end up in the landfill. Wood said a whole infrastructure had been built because of the ordinance — new deconstruction companies formed, new retailers developed to sell materials and lines of furniture had been developed using salvaged materials. The city was supporting workforce training, etc.

A deconstruction worker de-nails lumber on a project in Portland, Ore. Removing the nails makes the lumber more saleable. Portland has a successful deconstruction program where two-thirds of the city’s demolition projects are conducted through deconstruction. (Photo provided by Northwest Deconstruction Specialist)

But when he looked at the demolition permits, he realized Portland would have the same level of demolitions because there were fewer projects. In 2020, the city raised the year built to 1940, missing the 2019 caveat by one month.

“That’s where we are today, capturing twothirds, and it’s no longer an oddball way of doing demolitions, it’s become the primary way,” Wood said.

In fact, he said they’re seeing voluntary deconstruction projects of homes built in the 1950s and 1960s. The upside is the cost of deconstruction has gone down over the five years, and the cost of mechanical demolition has gone up. Portland went from two companies doing deconstruction to 15 to 16 certified companies doing the work, with a half dozen doing the majority of the projects. Some of those companies have opened their own retail showrooms to sell salvaged materials, and some have become one-stop contractors by getting hazardous material removal certified and acquiring heavy machinery to remove the concrete and foundation.

Wood said the neighborhood groups really recognized the benefits of the way hazardous materials were handled in deconstruction projects. If hidden asbestos was found, contractors stopped work and called in hazardous materials abatement companies to remove it. He said that didn’t happen in mechanical deconstruction — the excavator allows asbestos and lead dust to go everywhere.

So the neighborhood groups went back to the council, saying if the city wasn’t going to require every demolition be done through deconstruction, they wanted more stringent requirements on mechanical demolitions.

In 2018, new regulations went into effect. Contractors have to hand remove any painted material that is not structural — doors, trim, siding and deck railing. They also have to wet down the structure. Both things require additional staff, causing costs to rise. That’s created a level playing field, and both types of demolition can bid on projects, according to Wood.

He said deconstruction should cost more because it does a much better job from a health standpoint and an environmental standpoint. Wood said lead dust can travel 400 feet before settling, and he just testified to the Environmental Protection Agency asking them to consider demolition a source of lead.

Wood said the key for making this work is there has to be a demand and a market for the material and that varies by location. In Portland, the old growth wood drives the industry, and “Stumptown” was Portland’s nickname because when it was first developed, there were stumps everywhere.

Wood said even though, “the hardest thing I ever did was getting this ordinance passed, it was relatively easy compared to other places.”

That was because Portland already had pieces in place — it had retail outlets selling materials and it is part of Portland’s design.

“Portland prides itself on recycling and thrift stores. One of the deconstruction contractors said, ‘We recycle bottles but throw away our houses.’”

You can see the salvaged materials in bars and restaurants in the city, and Wood believes they’ll see that being more of a focus because salvaged materials have less of an impact on the environment. He said processing metals and virgin wood uses a lot of energy and releases carbon in the air. He said two elements are needed for the salvaged materials: for-profit retailers for higher value materials and nonprofits for reusing smaller valued items like doors, fixtures, etc.

Wood said there needs to be a champion on the council or the mayor to take on the pushback that it costs more, but added if a duplex or multi-unit apartment goes up in its place, that cost is negligible.

Wood advised if a city doesn’t already have a green or climate action plan, to create one as it lays the groundwork for deconstruction. He mentioned that the city of San Francisco is approaching deconstruction differently — it is first creating the market for the salvaged material, then will seek deconstruction.

“Don’t go full throttle — start off with incentives, learn about it, promote it with signage, make sure your ecosystem is up for the task (of storing and selling materials) and raise requirements over time. That’s what worked for us,” Wood said. “In a perfect world, you’d have a deconstruction ordinance and a complimentary policy requiring or incentivizing the use of salvaged materials in new construction. That’d be perfect.”

Not just a West Coast trend:

Further case studies for deconstruction

Deconstruction has found fans across the U.S. and is not limited to the West Coast. However, there’s no one-shoe-fits approach for communities to adopt. Milwaukee, Wis., and Baltimore, Md., are two such cities that have welcomed deconstruction, though are taking different approaches.

Milwaukee, Wis.

In the city of Milwaukee, Alderman Robert Bauman championed a deconstruction ordinance for the city in 2017.

Bauman said his interest was spurred because he’s “a strong advocate for historical preservation,” but he saw three benefits in deconstruction.

“Our ordinance applied to one- to two-family homes built in 1929 or earlier,” he said, noting it provides the city with the ability to capture the old growth lumber while avoiding waste. “We’re putting good wood in the landfill and cutting down more trees.”

It was also a significant job creator, according to Bauman, at a seven-one ratio.

“In man-hours, it’s 640 man-hours versus 38 for mechanical demolition, and it created entry-level jobs for inner-city folks,” Bauman said. “In theory, it’s great — in practice, there were lots of problems.”

Chris Kraco, condemnation supervisor in the Department of Neighborhood Services, and Commissioner of the Department of Neighborhood Services Erica Roberts spoke to those issues.

Kraco said the city had piloted deconstruction as far back as 2010. “We sent out the first requests for proposals in 2010 and awarded one contract. Initially, we had a couple of individuals and contractors pushing us a little to try it — we were interested in seeing if it could be done with the cost factor. We did a few projects as pilots to see how it would go. The alderman was an avid proponent — he sees the value in reclaiming the lumber.”

The ordinance went into effect in January 2017, and a little more than a year later, it was put on hold and is still on hold — “while we figure things out,” Kraco said.

Roberts added it’s on hold while the city irons out issues of getting the buildings down in a reasonable time frame while trying to grow the program. According to the ordinance, the deconstruction requirement of the ordinance is on hold until March 1, 2023.

Kraco said one problem Milwaukee has encountered is a shortage of contractors who do deconstruction. “We have a couple of contractors who primarily do deconstruction and sell a lot of material to a variety of independent contractors and businesses. If the material is not saleable, they ground it up into mulch.”

The ordinance requires 80% to 85% of the waste to be repurposed or reused—concrete not included. It also requires 40% of the labor force needs to be residents of the city, and a small business requirement of 25% of the contract be awarded to local small businesses. A deconstruction project is shown in progress in the city of Milwaukee. The city has had some challenges enacting its deconstruction policy, but still bids out several projects a year to be deconstructed. (Photo provided)

These requirements create a challenge for some deconstruction contractors. According to Roberts, “There are too many unsafe buildings left standing and not enough vendors.”

Mechanical demolition takes about two to three days, while deconstruction takes one to three weeks, depending on the size of the building.

“We suspended the ordinance initially to try to figure out a better way to make the ordinance work,” Kraco said.

Bauman said, “Initially, they wanted us to repeal it, but we didn’t — it’s been on hold for four years.”

Despite the ordinance being on hold, the city is still bidding out deconstruction projects. Kraco said, “We just finished up a contract with up to 10 parcels, and we’re partially through reviewing a request for proposal for 10 more. Because of the overhead, it’s easier for contractors to get a volume of properties.” He added it’s easier to bond five to 10 parcels versus 50, for example.

Alderman Bauman, though frustrated, recognizes contractors don’t want to comply with the hiring city workers and small business requirements of the ordinance.

When asked if that was negotiable, he responded: “Those are politically sensitive issues. The job creation aspect helps

Stacks of old growth lumber are shown here on a Milwaukee, Wis., deconstruction project. The opportunity to reclaim and salvage this lumber is one reason Alderman Bauman championed a deconstruction ordinance in Milwaukee. (Photo provided)

inner city — typically young people of color — enter or reenter the workforce, and the job creation was a major driver of the ordinance.”

Bauman said there also needs to be a “steady supply” of salvaged materials for retailers to resell — if there’s 10 this year and none next, they’re not going to be willing to stock it.

Baltimore, Md.

Baltimore has been doing deconstruction without an ordinance for six years. Jason Hessler, deputy commissioner of permits and litigation for the city of Baltimore, said a nonprofit organization approached the city in 2014 about deconstruction.

The nonprofit, Humanim, has several branches, including one called Details, which does deconstruction, and another called Bricks and Boards, which sells salvaged materials. The city worked with them for a year as a pilot and then approved a deconstruction contract for five years — that ended in 2020.

Hessler expressed some of the same benefits that Portland and Milwaukee officials shared — being able to salvage materials, reducing items going to the landfill and the fact that it was a jobs program.

“And it was a great story. It was improving the community, with those who lived in the community trying to give back to the community and protecting the community while, at the same time, reducing vacant (properties) and not adding to the waste stream,” Hessler said.

Baltimore has the challenge of row housing. There might be a row of 10 attached houses, and five of them are coming down, which requires “wall work” to protect and shore up the exposed wall that was never intended to be an exterior wall. There’s also the potential for three of those five houses to have the roof missing. The house might have been sitting there roofless for years, so the wood and any material inside are useless; only the exterior bricks are salvageable. Workers sometimes run into situations where they can only deconstruct three of the homes and the other two must be done mechanically.

For Baltimore, the major items of value for resale are bricks — and depending on the quality, floorboards, some metals and marble are other possibilities.

“Baltimore is famous for our marble steps,” he said. Employees from Details, a division of the Baltimore-based social enterprise company, Humanim, deconstruct a home in Baltimore City. Baltimore had a five-year contract with Details for deconstruction and is in the process of preparing a new contract to send out for bid. (Photo provided by Jenny Braudaway, Humanim)

In fact, city hall is undergoing restoration, and the exterior is marble. Hessler said the city couldn’t find matching marble, so he was contacted about whether there were marble steps in town they could salvage. Hessler connected city officials with properties about to be deconstructed, and they reclaimed the marble to use in city hall’s restoration.

Some demolitions are emergency demolitions where the building is unsafe. Sometimes, there was a fire and nothing would be salvageable. But for planned demolitions, where it makes sense, the city favors deconstructions.

Hessler said the city is preparing to put a new deconstruction contract out, and it has seen interest. Baltimore is also looking at a stabilization contract at the same time. He explained the city has about 20 houses a year that it stabilizes by cleaning them out and putting a new roof on, making them more desirable. He said about 70% of the city’s demolitions are privately owned, but if the property owner doesn’t pay for the demolition, the city will put a lien on the property.

As for an ordinance, Hessler said a nonprofit agency is working with a council member to draft one, but it hasn’t been introduced yet so he’ll have to see what it looks like. One thing Hessler was impressed by is the fact that they point out the need to have a secondary market for the salvaged materials and to offer some sort of incentive for rehabbed and new construction to use salvaged materials instead of new.

Hessler said he’s “very much in support” of deconstruction, adding it fits with the city’s green building and green infrastructure plans. The city has grants to help keep seniors in their homes as long as possible by helping to maintain the home. The council has put a requirement to put “white roofs” on the houses the city stabilizes — during this process, workers put a white surface over the black tar roof to reflect the heat off the roof as an energy saver.

All of these officials believe deconstructions benefits are worth the challenges and the extra costs. They all advised doing research and ensuring there is a market for the salvaged materials and having champions for the cause.

Maintenance-Free Solutions

BEFORE: METAL AFTER: STRONGWELL FRP

STOP THE NEVER-ENDING MAINTENANCE CYCLE!

No need for constant painting or upkeep with Strongwell FRP structural shapes and decking systems. Long-term, cost effective solutions with lower life cycle costs.

Above: The Franklin County Engineers Office in Columbus, Ohio needed to refurbish a public walkway alongside a four lane bridge. Over time, the steel check plates and support members corroded beyond repair due to heavy exposure from vehicular runoff comprised of brine salt, de-icing fluids, gasoline, antifreeze, and motor oil. Through the use of Strongwell’s Corrosion Resistance Guide, gritted, interlocking SAFPLANK® panels measuring 2” thick x 24” wide were chosen for the decking/walkway surfaces and EXTREN® Series 525 pultruded beams were chosen to replace various steel support structures underneath the walkway. Corrosion resistance and ease of installation were key benefits of FRP important to this installation.