Cost Analysis of Deconstruction vs. Demolition

This academic paper, titled An Analysis of Cost and Duration for Deconstruction and Demolition of Residential Buildings in Massachusetts https written by Nasiru A. Dantata, is a detailed discussion of the variables involved in comparing deconstruction vs. demolition in Massachusetts. Since the publishing of this paper, deconstruction has come a long way in our neck of the woods – especially in the form of one significant variable that is missing from this paper: the homeowners tax refund. Regardless, the paper lays a strong foundation for financial aspects and worthiness of deconstruction over demolition. Not least of these is the tremendous tonnage diverted from our landfills each year. Given the added value of a tax credit, the 2023 homeowner benefits may very well exceed the coverage of the cost of deconstruction.

From the introduction:

Managing solid waste has challenged cities and governments throughout the world. Limited landﬁll capacity coupled with the difﬁculty of developing new landﬁlls, especially in the face of environmental concerns and public opposition, has caused regulators to set plans for reducing the disposal of solid waste in landﬁlls. In the United States, the major compo-nent of non-municipal solid waste consists of Construction and Demolition (C&D) debris.According to one estimate, approximately 136 million tons of building-related C&D debriswas generated in the United States in 1996 (Franklin Associates, 1998). In the Common-wealth of Massachusetts, it is estimated that 95% of non-municipal solid waste is C&Ddebris (Executive Ofﬁce, 2000). Although C&D waste is generally inert, and therefore,may not pose an environmental threat as great as hazardous waste or typical municipalsolid waste, still its large volume results in a major problem for many communities dueto the diminishing disposal capacity. In responding to this concern, Massachusetts has seta goal of reducing the non-municipal waste by 88% by the year 2010 (Executive Ofﬁce,2000). One effective means of reducing the volume of C&D waste is to increase and pro-mote the practice of deconstruction. A careful analysis of the costs of deconstruction inMassachusetts will help in planning and formulating policies that can promote C&D waste reduction.

Deconstruction, also referred to as selective dismantling, is the process of dismantling building components in the reverse order as how they are originally constructed (Guy andMcLendon, 2000). It is a last-in, ﬁrst-out process. The materials removed are salvaged for reuse or recycling and only those that cannot be reused or recycled are discarded.Deconstruction provides potential economic and environmental beneﬁts compared to the conventional practice of total demolition. The economic beneﬁts come from the salvage materials sold/reused and from the disposal fees avoided. The primary environmental beneﬁtis the reduced waste generation. However, deconstruction may take longer than demolition because of its labor-intensive nature. This paper discusses the economic prospects of deconstruction practices in Massachusetts and the labor requirement and project duration based on the analysis of deconstruction projects and studies previously reported for the Southeast(Florida) and mid-Atlantic (Maryland) regions.

Several studies have shown the potential economic and environmental beneﬁts of deconstruction. Among these is a study by the Center for Construction and Environment(CCE) of the University of Florida. The study included deconstructing six(6) houses in 1999 and 2000 “to examine the cost–effectiveness of deconstruction and salvage when compared to tradi-tional demolition” (Guy and McLendon, 2000). The analysis in the CCE report was based on the labor rates, demolition cost, and landﬁll tipping fees in the Gainesville, Florida area.It is expected that these rates are area-speciﬁc and can vary signiﬁcantly between various regions in the U.S. Another study was done by the National Association of Home Builders(NAHB) Research Center. The report (NAHB, 1997) documents the deconstruction of a 2000ft (SF) building located in Baltimore County, Maryland.

A comparative analysis of the deconstruction versus demolition costs is performed using the prevailing wage rates, tipping fees, and demolition fees applicable to Massachusetts. The two research studies mentioned above are used as the basis for this analysis. The objective of this study is to evaluate how the impact of certain cost parameters may affect industry’s decisions of adopting deconstruction and the potential delay impact of deconstruction on projects. The results of this study should be also valid for most Northeastern States with labor and housing conditions similar to Massachusetts.