Instead of tearing down old buildings, what if we recycled them? Tacoma might try it
Tacoma leaders are exploring new ways to protect the environment, including by researching how to effectively recycle old buildings.
Some residents argue that the process, called deconstruction and salvage, will cut back on pollution and create jobs in the green economy. Others remain skeptical.
Tacoma City Council on March 19 approved a resolution that asks the city manager to examine options for boosting deconstruction and salvage, as well as potential related costs. The Infrastructure, Planning and Sustainability Committee will review the results by May 22.
While demolition quickly destroys a structure, deconstruction takes time to dismantle it bit by bit. Salvaging site materials means saving them for later reuse.
City Council member Kristina Walker is spearheading the effort.
“We as a country are filling up our landfills, so we all need to figure out ways that we can deal with our waste, and [demolition] is one of those that contributes very big, bulky amounts of garbage,” Walker told The News Tribune. “We’re looking at all of these different cities to kind of see how that works, but that is sort of a group goal: to make sure that we can contain and control our landfills.”
Other cities have sought to prioritize deconstruction and salvage, including San Antonio, Palo Alto and Pittsburgh. Proponents say such policies are better for the environment and create more jobs. Detractors argue that they aren’t as climate friendly as some might hope.
Walker noted that the salvage component of the process can be fun. People could redecorate their homes with vintage clawfoot tubs and stained-glass windows, and the history behind some of Tacoma’s oldest buildings could be preserved.
Freeing up landfill space translates to better air and helps to support the city’s climate goals, she said.
Deputy Mayor John Hines also wants to see whether deconstruction and salvage could work in Tacoma. During the March 19 City Council meeting, Hines said it’s often easier and cheaper to discard materials than it is to recycle them.
“If we want to see more deconstruction in our community, we have to find a way to incentivize it, because it will never be able to compete with just throwing it in the trash,” he said. “And that’s sad.”
Questions remain as to whether home prices could rise because of deconstruction and salvage. Walker said that, if done right, housing costs could possibly drop thanks to the reuse of materials like lumber.
Tacomans should know that nothing has been set in stone, she added. The city is in the process of learning, and leaders welcome stakeholders’ input.
“[T]his touches so many different pieces of Tacoma: It’s a planning project. It’s a climate-action project. It’s an economic-development strategy,” Walker said. “That to me is the real reason why this makes so much sense right now, is that it touches everything we’re already working on and has a benefit in each of those spaces.”
Support and concern about deconstruction
Several people weighed in on the resolution at the March 19 council meeting. Aaron Blanchard with Earthwise Architectural Salvage noted that a deconstruction requirement in Portland “faltered” because it lacked a sound salvage component. Certain materials from deconstructed homes wound up in landfills anyway, he said.
Jessie Baines Jr., a former Tacoma Metro Parks commissioner, said he believes deconstruction and salvage would help create jobs and decrease pollution — something that’s particularly important for areas with less-than-stellar air quality, like South Tacoma.
“As a local contractor, I can attest to the amount of dust and debris that is released into our breathable air during the demolition process, even with preventative measures, such as spraying water on top of the dust and debris,” Baines said.
Evan Mann, the 2024 president of the Master Builders Association of Pierce County, thinks that deconstruction and salvage isn’t without risks. He told The News Tribune that in addition to being expensive and time consuming, the efforts could potentially expose workers to more toxins.
Contractors are shielded from pollutants during demolitions because they operate in air-sealed and ventilated excavators, he said.
“They can take the house apart pretty carefully, and they’re not in there breathing or being exposed to whatever may be in the home,” Mann said. “Whereas, in the deconstruction method, you’re very likely putting people into those homes with more direct contact to potentially hazardous situations.”
Demolition can be completed in two days, but deconstruction might take as long as two weeks, Mann said. Surrounding neighbors could potentially be exposed to contaminants and dust for a longer duration.
Certain salvaged materials have limited reuse value, he added. Old lumber might be deteriorated or riddled with mold, for instance. Piping may contain lead. Wiring could be “wrapped in asbestos shielding.”
Builders often skip buying salvaged materials that don’t meet today’s standards, he said, meaning that they would sit in storage.
“I can’t say that there isn’t a market [for deconstruction and salvage], but I am curious,” Mann said. “I would believe that the market isn’t maybe as strong as someone might assume it is.”
