Whole building recycling as a waste reduction practice. David - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶

Jul 16, 2023 32 likes •168 views

Construction and Deconstruction Conference: Building Today Saving Tomorrow Whole building recycling as a waste reduction practice. David Turner: Dept. of Architecture, Unitec Whole building recovery / recycling as a waste reduction

SLIDE 1

Construction and Deconstruction Conference: Building Today – Saving Tomorrow

Whole building recycling as a waste reduction practice.

David Turner: Dept. of Architecture, Unitec

SLIDE 2

Whole building recovery / recycling as a waste reduction practice Quantifiable construction/deconstruction benefits include:

reduction of waste to landfill
recovery of material resources
recycling embodied energy in existing building stock

Other benefits:

Social benefits related to history of urban settlement,

participation in process, etc.

Opportunity to revisit the developing commodification
f houses – an increasingly common practice

These apply equally to a variety of building typologies – schools, etc.; but this paper focuses on houses

SLIDE 3

New Zealand habits include a willingness to frequently ‘relocate’ buildings a practical option when

ur buildings are often lightly

attached to the ground & when plans change we move approx. 2,600-3,200 houses annually (stats from HHA and SNZ) – 2/3rds of all HHA building removal consents estimated 90% are relocated & recycled into total housing stock

St Mary’s Cathedral relocated to Holy Trinity, Parnell 1982 Google Earth image 12/6/14.

SLIDE 4

Craig Walker Collection, from Dawson, “Mighty Moves” p.230,

SLIDE 5

Craig Walker Collection, from Dawson, “Mighty Moves” p.238

A skilled but unsophisticated process

SLIDE 6

Recycling by relocation

minimizes landfill waste minimizes resource depletion (energy, timber, artifacts) speeds up process of supply avoids double handling (material recovery, material attrition) preserves physical housing stories (inscribed cultural integrity) re-invested energy estimated at approx. 600kWhrs/M2 (compares to approx. 4,000kWhrs/M2 for new housing)

2 case studies illustrate this practice

(a) Kingsland-Waitoki villa (b) 379 West Coast Road Glen Eden

SLIDE 7

Kingsland-Waitoki villa, 2013: 3 years after move from Walters St., Mt Eden

Photo: author

SLIDE 8

379 West Coast Rd Glen Eden 5 relocated units

Drawing courtesy Land Development + Civil Ltd Google Earth image 22/5/15

SLIDE 9

379 West Coast Rd Glen Eden: 2015: 4 relocated houses + 1 re-positioned

Photos: author

SLIDE 10

379 West Coast Rd Glen Eden: 2015 2 units, in different stages of completion (above) new foundations to current building standards (right)

SLIDE 11

Variations in supply processes

private owner-occupier purchasers (usually villas): villas generally move away from an urban site (CS.A) commercial developers: such as LDC. Company philosophy: “Engineered solutions for people & environments” (CS.B)

thers

Investors buying in Auckland & moving units to Tokoroa, Rotorua, etc; includes HNZC moving houses to rationalize land holdings

SLIDE 12

Conclusions & suggestions

consider policies that could encourage & expand

relocations – obstruct unnecessary demolitions

recognize social (qualitative) merits of relocatables
identify / plan for a realistic relocations programme
study relationship of supply costs to affordability

statistics

require larger subdivisions to provide sections for

relocatables – (example)

use gst mechanism to reward/penalize relocated

houses v ‘mcmansions’

most significant issue for C+D:

resisting the creeping commodification of housing

SLIDE 13