Category: resource waste

What’s the opposite of ‘green’? Maybe this?

(Update Sept. 21: See “Demolition, part two” for an update on the owner’s plans to build a new house on the site.)

Some days I think I should have a contest for the Anti-green. This would probably win for the month. Maybe the year.

The attractive, two-story, 3,161-square-foot home, built in 1941 was assessed for tax purposes at $331,900 (the total parcel, including the land, is assessed at $778,800). I walked past it a few weeks ago and spotted the bulldozer.

When I walked past it today, here’s what it looked like:

I don’t know the owners’ plans. The demo permit says: “Total res demo – No Build Back.”

Demolition is extraordinarily wasteful, and not just of materials. As Time magazine has written: “It would take an average of 65 years for the reduced carbon emissions from a new energy efficient home to make up for the resources lost by demolishing the old one.” And that’s IF you build a new, green home.

This waste is unconscionable. Yet there’s nothing to stop it other than owners’ consciences. And many people don’t know about, or don’t care about, wasting resources.

This lot is next door to another vacant lot, where another large and attractive home was demolished by a builder several years ago, right before the housing market imploded.

In my opinion the city should stop allowing demolitions until there is a building permit in hand for whatever is going to replace it. Now THAT would be green. We’d have saved plenty of useful (and affordable) houses and buildings over the years if that policy had been in place.

What’s the opposite of ‘green’? Maybe this?

(Update Sept. 21: See “Demolition, part two” for an update on the owner’s plans to build a new house on the site.)

Some days I think I should have a contest for the Anti-green. This would probably win for the month. Maybe the year.

The attractive, two-story, 3,161-square-foot home, built in 1941 was assessed for tax purposes at $331,900 (the total parcel, including the land, is assessed at $778,800). I walked past it a few weeks ago and spotted the bulldozer.

When I walked past it today, here’s what it looked like:

I don’t know the owners’ plans. The demo permit says: “Total res demo – No Build Back.”

Demolition is extraordinarily wasteful, and not just of materials. As Time magazine has written: “It would take an average of 65 years for the reduced carbon emissions from a new energy efficient home to make up for the resources lost by demolishing the old one.” And that’s IF you build a new, green home.

This waste is unconscionable. Yet there’s nothing to stop it other than owners’ consciences. And many people don’t know about, or don’t care about, wasting resources.

This lot is next door to another vacant lot, where another large and attractive home was demolished by a builder several years ago, right before the housing market imploded.

In my opinion the city should stop allowing demolitions until there is a building permit in hand for whatever is going to replace it. Now THAT would be green. We’d have saved plenty of useful (and affordable) houses and buildings over the years if that policy had been in place.