A Case for Deconstruction

 Most buildings are removed using demolition processes. Demolition is an

equipment-intensive operation. Most of the crew is involved in operation of machinery

and have very little physical contact with the actual building materials. Larger materials

(usually metals, sometimes concrete and masonry) can be separated during demolition

using machinery (Falk and Lantz 1996). Deconstruction, on the other hand, "is the

systematic disassembly of buildings in order to reuse and recycle as many of the

component parts as possible, before or instead of standard mechanized demolition"

(Mcphee 2002). Deconstruction uses hand labor and physical contact with the building

by the workers and involves a methodical disassembly of building parts with similar care

taken in this process as devoted to its reverse process of construction. Because of this

physical contact with the building, deconstruction takes about twice as long as demolition

(Falk and Lantz 1996).

 As an alternative to demolition, deconstruction has advantages and disadvantages:

Advantages

 S Recycling building materials conserves resources by diverting used materials from

 the landfill and avoiding use of virgin resources. For every recovered square foot

 of wood used in new construction, a corresponding square foot of virgin wood is

 not consumed. Therefore, salvaging reduces the use of natural resources. The

 diversion of bulky and difficult-to-handle C&D waste from the municipal solid

 waste (MSW) stream will increase the operating life of local landfills and will

 result in fewer associated environmental impacts such as groundwater

 contamination (Dolan et al. 1999).