Report submitted to: Genesee Institute, Genesee County Land Bank June 2007
Deconstructing
FLINTT FLIN
Wes Janz
PhD, RA Associate Professor of Architecture Ball State University Muncie, Indiana
This document summarizes the “Deconstructing Flint” research project funded by the Ruth Mott Foundation, directed by Robert Beckley of the Genesee Institute (an affiliate of the Genesee County Land Bank), and conducted by the author in 2006 and early 2007. In addition to its focus on Flint, Michigan, it is hoped that this report will be useful to other communities considering an organized demolition and/or deconstruction program. The challenges in Flint and Genesee County, as set out by Beckley in his concept paper “Building Deconstruction in Flint, Michigan,” are substantial:
“to examine development of a program for building deconstruction” in a city and county where the housing stock does “not have the high end architectural features usually associated with building recycling endeavors” where “it is easy to predict an ever-expanding circle of abandonment of buildings that are no longer salvageable” understanding that given “current patterns of abandonment, and despite best efforts to curtail this tragic loss of building stock, abandonment of obsolete structures will continue to be a problem for Flint in the foreseeable future.”
Specific to this project, the goal is to determine if the amount of landfill waste can be reduced, even minimally, when a house is torn down in Flint. To put this another way: what potentials are revealed if the house teardown process currently practiced in Flint is creatively reconsidered? The recommendations that follow are based on seven trips to Flint from May 2006 to February 2007, conversations with persons at the Land Bank and in the community, observation of six teardowns, walkthroughs of several abandoned houses, a visit to the Habitat for Humanity ReStore Center in Flint, one presentation as part of the Genesee Institute series of public conversations, and on-going communications with members of the Land Bank and Genesee Institute staffs along with a City of Flint demolition crew.
Deconstructing Flint
September 14, 2006
Immediate Recommendations To diminish landfill deliverables and model best practices: Separate and recycle construction waste produced at all Land Bank renovation projects. Cut down overgrown brush and distressed trees at all locations where buildings owned by the Land Bank are being torn down and haul the raw material to a central processing area where it can be converted into mulch or firewood.
To determine if profit can be realized through recycling efforts: Identify a group of houses, scheduled for demolition, that evidence a number of interior and/or exterior components that can be easily accessed and recycled. Hire a private demolition contractor to remove items from specific houses. Sell these items or materials to local recycling yards, the profits to be split between the Land Bank and the demolition contractor.
To identify house-specific recycling potentials: Add two criteria related to building materials to the windshield survey form used by the Land Bank: “Exterior components that can be accessed and recycled.” “Interior components that can be accessed and recycled.” To coordinate this effort internally: Enter this additional information into the individual house files maintained by the Land Bank. 2
To plan next steps: Report findings to the Genesee County Land Bank staff for additional consideration and possible implementation of a widespread deconstruction program to be implemented in winter and spring 2008.
Deconstructing Flint
Admittedly, these are small recommendations, intended for implementation in spring and summer 2007 when a new round of foreclosed properties will be directed to the Land Bank. It is believed that such measures can be enacted without significant expenditures for retraining or new equipment while taking advantage of the large numbers of low quality houses that will be demolished in coming years. If, after evaluation in Fall 2007, this program is shown to diminish landfill waste (even slightly) while providing some income, decisions can then be made about expanding the effort. It is important to point out that this report is guided primarily by environmental imperatives, which are distinct from profit motives and not contingent upon market variables. Large numbers of buildings are setting abandoned in our cities; they must be addressed. Large amounts of solid waste are being taken directly to the landfill when abandoned buildings are torn down in Flint; this must be addressed. In the sections that follow, general background and observations specific to Flint are offered to provide a larger context for these small recommendations. Key aspects that will be featured are the numbers of abandoned buildings in the Midwestern United States, the amount of construction & demolition waste taken to landfills, deconstruction processes as currently practiced, and the ways in which reused goods re-enter the marketplace. Observations are related to the houses, scrappers, teardown practices, the deconstruction process, safety concerns, and opportunities that present themselves only in Flint. A range of approaches that might be considered in Flint as houses continue to be demolished is then presented. These are named Peel Off, Soft Strip and Haul Off. Finally, a brief bibliography of relevant sources and information is provided.
Background In some ways, the story of Flint’s decline is rather simple. General Motors was founded there early in the twentieth century. In time, the company’s ascent drove the worker-citizens to unparalleled personal, familial, and communal gains. Job creation surged in the periods following World Wars One and Two as the demand for automobiles soared. At its peak in the 1960s, Flint was home to 190,000 persons and 80,000 General Motors’ jobs, and was believed to be on its way to a population of 250,000. Today, Flint’s population is at 120,000 and 17,000 GM jobs remain. No one is sure if the bottom has been reached or if it is even in sight.
Abandoned Buildings As extreme as the situation is in Genesee County and Flint, it is not unique. Significant numbers of abandoned buildings are standing (and falling) throughout the Rust Belt: A 2003 study commissioned by the Mayor’s Office determined that Indianapolis has more than 7,500 abandoned houses. In their 2005 article “Cleveland at the Crossroads: Turning Abandonment Into Opportunity,” Mallach, Mueller Levy, and Schilling state that between 10,000 and 25,000 vacant and abandoned properties exist in Cleveland. Every year Cleveland spends roughly $2 million to board up, clean up, and demolish abandoned properties. According to Leigh and Patterson’s 2006 paper “Deconstruction to Redevelop: A Sustainable Alternative to Mechanical Demolition,” other cities report large numbers of abandoned structures, including Baltimore (15,000), Detroit (10,000), and Kansas City (5,000). The abandoned structures of Indianapolis, Cleveland, Baltimore, Detroit, and Kansas City will be joined by many more, if the case of Flint is an indicator. To generalize, the houses being demolished in Flint always were of relatively poor quality and have been abandoned for some time. As more members of the remaining middle class--many of them drawing pensions from General Motors--leave and have difficulty selling their houses, more and more houses of relatively good quality will fall vacant and become susceptible to abandonment and rapid deterioration. As the cities’ populations shrink, the abandonment problem grows. Many more houses will find their way to the landfill.
3
Deconstructing Flint
Landfill Holdings epa.gov/epaoswer/ non-hw/ debris-new/basic.htm
Estimates regarding the percent of landfill holdings that are the product of building construction and demolition activities (C&D) are somewhat difficult to come by, and vary. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 136 million tons of building-related construction and demolition debris was generated in the United States in 1996.
fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts
According to the 2002 USDA document titled, “Successful Approaches to Recycling Urban Wood Waste,” wood waste accounts for 17% of the total waste received at municipal solid waste landfills in the U.S. In 1998, new construction generated 8.7 million tons of wood waste, with 6.6 million tons available for recovery; demolition waste generated 26.4 million tons of wood waste, with 9 million tons available for recovery.
ciwmb.ca.gov/ ConDemo
The 1996 report titled, “Managing Construction and Demolition Debris: A Guide for Builders, Developers, and Contractors,” states that roughly 11 percent of the solid waste produced in North Carolina each year consists of construction and demolition debris. More recently, in 2004, the State of California estimated that C&D materials account for almost 22 percent of the waste stream.
wastecap .org
WasteCap of Massachusetts, a statewide, non-profit, public/private partnership intended to help businesses reduce solid wastes, cut business costs, and improve environmental performance, states that in 1999 approximately 4.7 million tons of C&D debris was generated in-state. About 75% was recycled or reused with the remainder being disposed almost exclusively in landfills. Obviously, many tons of C&D debris are buried “out of sight and out of mind” every day in the United States.
Deconstruction In some cities, under some circumstances, deconstruction (also referred to as “soft demolition”) is practiced. According to the Deconstruction Institute: “Deconstruction is an alternative to demolition and landfilling and combines the salvage and recovery of building materials for creative reuse and recycling. Deconstruction is defined as ‘the process of removing a building by taking it apart in the reverse order of construction.’”
deconstructioninstitute .com
Deconstruction typically focuses on better buildings (originally built using quality materials and methods, and quite possibly maintained right up to deconstruction) with better architectural elements (door, window, and room trim; lighting fixtures, hardwood floors, fireplace mantels, newel posts and stair railings, etc., etc.), under controllable conditions (i.e., in law-abiding settings), and features reuse businesses catering to people with developed design sensibilities and tastes. Money can be made because there is a popular demand for the deconstructed elements and artifacts. Crews coordinate the deconstruction, a brick and a board at a time, one Art Deco sink or clawfoot bathtub at a time, a long line of 1 1/2” copper pipe or many square feet of hardwood flooring at a time.
Retail Facilities Retail facilities that “move” the goods vary in terms of available materials, suppliers, and audiences. “For-profit” typically indicates selective antiques, on-staff buyers, buying trips, possibly a smaller facility, and additional consulting services.
joeley.com
materialsunlimited .com
Joe Ley Antiques of Louisville, Kentucky is a high-end for-profit recycling facility, recommended by “House Beautiful,” “Travel and Leisure,” “Southern Living,” and “Apartment Life” magazines. Ley’s stocks doors (5,000 by their own count) and hardware, mantels, balconies, fences, gates, posts, railings, dentils, brackets, shutters, moldings and architectural ornaments. Materials Unlimited of Ypsilanti, Michigan sells salvaged building elements, including restored fireplace mantels, leaded glass doors, stained & beveled glass windows, hardware, restored period lighting, and more. They offer on-site consulting, modifications, refurbishment, updating, refinishing, and advice when historical accuracy and consistency are sought. 4
Deconstructing Flint
“Not-for-profit” can suggest a large warehouse facility with materials brought by contractors, builders, and others. Again, deconstruction is targeted at better buildings under controlled conditions.
rebuildingcenter .org
The 64,000-square-foot ReBuilding Center of Portland, Oregon is the largest non-profit used building materials resource in North America. Their licensed and bonded deconstruction crews are “capable of both large and small jobs including complete homes & commercial structures, kitchen tear-outs, garages, roof to foundation deconstruction, multi-story, partial salvage, and more.”
rehabresource .org
Rehab Resource of Indianapolis, Indiana is a not-for-profit that provides affordable building materials for the repair and rehabilitation of existing housing, the construction of new affordable housing for low to moderate income individuals, and the repair of 501(c)(3) owned facilities. RRI seeks out both new and used items, and solicits excess, discontinued, or cosmetically damaged materials for its 75,000-square-foot warehouse. “On-line” suggests the integration of digital technology into the transactions, with little or no actual human contact, even though goods are moved.
garbagescout .com
GarbageScout.com provides pictures and locations of furniture, clothes, and appliances found curbside in the New York metropolitan area. “Scouts” upload photographs to a website which provides a map of Manhattan, “garbage” location, comments, and the amount of time since the posting. Not for-profit and not not-for-profit, GarbageScout exists as a cyberplace that is maintained, viewed, and used by a network of like-minded individuals. These larger concerns for profit (or not), space available, customer, and supply, when considered in the context of Flint, create and encounter harsh realities on the ground. Unlike the retail facilities profiled above, little or no money is to be made through deconstruction efforts. Not only is there not a supply of high quality building elements, for the most part, there is not a local market. Houses are not being built and there appears to be little, if any, house renovation activity either. (In Flint, a Habitat for Humanity ReStore Center accepts donations, but does not purchase building materials.) What follows are: 1) observations made regarding demolition and deconstruction potentials in Flint; 2) alternative teardown practices to consider; and 3) next steps.
Observations are related to the low quality and large quantity of houses, scrappers, current teardown procedures, concerns for safety, and opportunities.
Low Quality Many, if not most, of the houses being demolished and in need of demolition in Flint were constructed using low quality materials and techniques. According to Beckley, following WWI and WWII, “small poorly constructed housing was quickly erected on narrow lots, close to the factories that provided employment.” These never were high quality houses. It can be argued that these buildings, long ago, fulfilled their original mission. From a different perspective, house elements not accepted by the acclaimed ReBuilding Center in Portland, Oregon (see above) comprise the great majority of elements available in Flint teardowns today: hollow core doors, asbestos-containing materials (drop ceiling tiles, floor tiles, some light fixtures, etc.), paint, toxic or flammable products, thermostats containing mercury, heating ducts with asbestos tape, vinyl floor tiles, vinyl siding, window coverings (plastic or metal blinds, curtains, drapes), and curtain rods among them. Matters are complicated both by absentee owners and the length of time it takes to foreclose on a house and transfer ownership. Taxes might be paid in absentia by owners who do not maintain a vacant house, foreclosure procedures can take a year or more, and many properties that are foreclosed upon and in need of demolition might not be torn down for years.
5
Deconstructing Flint
Large Quantity The large quantity of abandoned and boarded houses in Flint is critical. This much is clear: thousands have been torn down and thousands await demolition. Some are emergencies and in need of immediate removal, while many others wait their turn. Hard, comprehensive numbers are difficult to establish due to the number of actors involved, the time that has passed, and the daunting work that lies ahead. A mayoral aide in Flint stated in late 2006 that City crews tear down two to seven houses every working day. A City of Flint demolition crew chief told me that 4,000 houses need to be torn down “today” and another 10,000 will need to be torn down in the future. Quantity of demolition waste produced in Flint is significant: 200 cubic yards of waste/house x 5 houses/day (+/-) x 5 work days/week x 52 weeks = 260,000 cubic yards/year. That’s equivalent to a standard city block in Manhattan covered with a block of house debris the height of a 3-story building, or a 15-story building the size of an American football field. Every year. When such a large amount of somewhat predictable “waste” is being produced and will be produced for years into the future, it might not be necessary to find a “big idea” or a “big solution.” An effective small idea or ideas repeated thousands of times can lead to a significant reduction in the amount of waste taken to landfill sites.
Scrappers Scrappers further complicate the scene. “Scrapping” is described by Paul Dickinson in his article “Out Scrappin’: The Art of Metals Recycling” (as published in the December 2006 issue of Flint’s Uncommon Sense newspaper): “A scrapper finds the metal, breaks it down, and brings it into one of the many scrap yards located in northeast Flint. . . Scrappers at the yard range from homeless guys with bags of cans to semi-rig drivers delivering dismantled factories, with scavengers like me (who avoid steady employment) and professional contractors who unload ‘extra’ materials out of immaculate trucks . . . The scrapper spends tedious hours trolling the back roads that run along Flint’s perpetual supply of cluttered lots and factories, discovering clandestine routes used only by railroads, funky diners, bizarre convenience stores, and amazing little parks. Part urban pioneer, part pirate, and part nomad of tar-and-concrete streets, a scrapper views the entire cityscape as an enterprise zone where anything is possible—even if it means defeating the laws of physics by fitting a 300-pound brass slab into a ’78 Vega hatchback.” Scrappers enter abandoned properties with relative impunity and ease. They can work without significant distraction or concern, stripping out whatever artifacts (new hot water heaters, fixtures, etc.) or harvesting materials (copper piping, cast iron radiators, new electrical wiring) that have value on the local recycling market. In some cases, they have access that is denied to employees or representatives of the Land Bank or the City who cannot enter houses deemed to need “emergency” demolition (a house that was set on fire or where a roof is collapsing), primarily because of liability concerns--for coming in contact with asbestos or being in a house that might collapse. Such urban pioneers/pirates/nomads, when combined with absentee landlords, an overworked police force, and an undersized city government overwhelm standard deconstruction protocols, especially if for-profit concerns are central.
What remains is a carcass that was once a home, but today is less than a house.
6
Deconstructing Flint
Current Procedures W Well-practiced procedures for tearing down houses are already in place as shaped primarily by economics (time and money), available equipment, and narrow lots. The same basic teardown procedure is followed for every house, two to seven times a day, every working day of every week and month of every year. A house is crushed in thirty minutes and disappears in one day. This is not a fine-grained process—an unforgiving machine, guided by a human, tears a house apart unsympathetically. Equipment purchased by the City must be used; it is unlikely that other machines more appropriate for deconstruction protocols--such as forklifts, high-reach forklifts, skid-steer tractors, and even scaffolding—will be available. Narrow lots dictate approach. Typically, the backhoe moves in frontally, directly from the street and up the front steps, and crushes the house down onto itself into the basement. Shards of house are then lifted into large dump trucks and taken directly to the landfill. These standard protocols are shaped, to varying degrees, by City and County bureaucracies attempting to work together under difficult conditions. For example, the Genesee County Land Bank contracts City of Flint crews to carry out demolitions. The ability to schedule (i.e., coordinate, plan) teardowns eludes Land Bank personnel, who do not know until Monday which of their properties City crews will demolish in the coming week. The need to tear down “emergencies” as soon as possible further complicates coordination between City and County. All this—all this--is at odds with the sensibilities that inform deconstruction. The Deconstruction Institute website makes this readily apparent: language includes phrases such as: “when dismantled carefully,” “a careful separation of building materials,” and “careful deconstruction followed by recycling.” Such niceties, currently, do not have a place in the demolition processes being practiced in Flint. Additionally, expecting workers (in the field, in City offices, and at the Land Bank) to make significant changes to wellestablished routines must be weighed carefully. Any alteration will require retraining of City crews as well as a kind of sensitizing to a recycling/repurposing mission. For example, asking Land Bank employees accustomed to conducting windshield surveys to enter the houses (to get a better idea of what might be salvageable) involves time, money, personal risk, and organizational liability.
Safety Safety concerns must be foregrounded at demolition and deconstruction sites in general, and in Flint specifically. The health and safety of the general public is of primary importance. Lead-based paint (outlawed in 1978) is prevalent on siding, trim, cabinetry, doors, windows, door and window frames, handrails, and railings. Asbestos (outlawed in 1981) also is found in numerous houses. This places hard limitations on whether or not painted wood can be reused or recycled (probably not because of the expenses involved in stripping the paint and varnishes), or whether wood—joists, rafters, wall studs, floorboards—that set near asbestos for decades should be ground into mulch (no), or whether our existing technologies are capable of measuring, satisfactorily, the presence of fine asbestos fibers (no). Worker safety must be a paramount concern, especially because of the dangers introduced when working around asbestos, lead-based paint, exposed nails, and weakened structures. Risk and liability exist at all Land Bank properties. Can roofs be trusted not to collapse on workers? On squatters? On children? Are the floors safe, after years of rainwater entering through a leaky roof or blocked downspout? Should demolition workers walk on a crushed house retrieving twisted aluminum gutters, or splintered wood rafters, or exposed copper pipes? The answers: no, no, no, no, and no. The use of safety equipment becomes a core element of minimal or extensive deconstruction programs. The presence of lead-based paints and asbestos calls for the use of safety glasses, gloves, ear protection, work boots, hard hats, dust masks, and respirators. Work on roofs and ladders requires temporary railings and barricades, lanyard lines, and harnesses. As such, complications arise immediately in terms of time, equipment, training, and cost required to conduct such efforts. Worker safety in Flint takes on another dimension. One study, completed in late 2006 and based on Federal Bureau of Investigation statistics, found Flint to be among the most dangerous cities in the U.S. Beyond normal safety concerns at deconstruction sites, will workers be safe in what many consider to be dangerous neighborhoods? Anecdotally, the author was told that the local Habitat for Humanity ReStore Center withdrew from field salvage operations because of a concern for the safety of its workers. Tactics exist with which to counteract such perceptions or realities (for example, doing field work in the morning). Still, different individuals and organizations will react in their own ways to such pressures. 7
Deconstructing Flint
October 10, 2006
Opportunities With that said, it’s important to remember: it could be worse. Opportunities exist in Flint that don’t register in other places, primarily because a level of organization and commitment is present that one doesn’t find in nearby metropolitan areas suffering their own shrinkage. A driving trip in October 2006 to distressed neighborhoods in other “shrinking cities” (Detroit, Gary, and East St. Louis) showed the long-term devastation that has settled into these communities. Abandoned houses that are truly abandoned; no one is paying attention. Houses have fallen and others are falling; they will never be hauled away. Never. Churches are quiet, their congregations gone. Once vibrant public buildings are in ruin. Nature is winning; some buildings exist more as landscape than architecture. These are former neighborhoods, lost communities, forgotten places. In Flint, opportunity exists. People remain, churches and congregations are intact, public buildings are busy, the University of Michigan campus is active, and the downtown is lively, at least from 9-5. As regards “deconstructing Flint,” potential is present, ironically, because of the number of houses that need to be torn down and also because of the good practices instituted by the Land Bank. The number of houses and other properties that are or will be in need of demolition in coming years is staggering. Again, it has been said that 4,000 houses are in need of immediate demolition. One can imagine that 10,000 buildings will need to be torn down in coming years. At the rate of 2-7 teardowns/day, 5 days/week, that’s approximately 1,300/ year, or enough houses to keep crews busy for the next 3 years. Plus many hundreds if not thousands more are likely to be abandoned and boarded in coming years. To see this from another perspective, a small, tactical adjustment to the tear down process can have significant impact when multiplied by 4,000 or 10,000 over the next five to ten years. The Land Bank and City of Flint currently model responsible behavior when tearing down properties. Buildings are completely removed; basement walls and slabs are not only pulled out of the earth, they are separated and ground into aggregate for roadbed construction (this procedure is now required of all demolition contractors and crews); backfill is hauled in immediately and grass seed is spread. Such best practices under the most difficult of conditions suggest that these particular aspects of the teardown efforts in Flint and Genesee County can model processes for others now and in the future. Procedures for cataloging foreclosed properties are also in place at the Land Bank. Good records exist as regards more legalistic foreclosure protocols and windshield surveys of every Land Bank property. This database has the potential to be expanded and made more integral to the teardown process, from which it is currently detached. Looking ahead, it is worth noting that in coming years, as more GM pensioners and others leave the city and their dwellings, it is likely that higher quality houses will become candidates for more conventional deconstruction. In this sense, “Deconstructing Flint” has the potential to become a part of the mainstream deconstruction industry. But not now, not yet.
8
Deconstructing Flint
Approaches Three possible approaches to reducing the amount of landfill waste when tearing down a house in Flint are offered. They span across a range of scales of intervention and investment.
Peel Off..... takes only what is easily available and can be recycled locally. It is tactical, in that small numbers of people—private demolition contractors hired on a full-time subcontract basis, for example--will rescue and recycle a limited list of components. From a strategic perspective, each house provides small income (with small associated costs) that brings environmental and social benefits (when multiplied thousands of times). The author visited six teardowns in-progress; five houses being demolished by City crews (three were Land Bank properties), and one site where a private contractor was tearing down a house. At all of these sites, elements were present that could be salvaged (a set of double steel doors, a bathroom sink, clothes, an exhaust fan) or recycled (aluminum storm windows, downspouts, gutters, fascia, and soffit) with little commitment of time or energy. In the case of the privately contracted demolition, according to the contractor, the house owner first pulled out small elements and fixtures for use in his other rental properties. Then the contractor was free to pull out anything of value. He set some bulk materials curbside for collection by a local recycler and then filled the bed of his pick-up truck with other scavenged materials that he planned to reuse or resell. Finally, the backhoe driver showed me a 12’0” 2x4 that he rescued while crushing the house. Anecdotal evidence—a one-time experiment conducted at the Land Bank--suggests additional potential. A private contractor was directed to take whatever he could out or off of one Land Bank house in a few hours time, to sell these items to a local recycler, and split the profits with the Land Bank. I was told that a total of $180 was taken in, or $90 for the scrapper and $90 for the Land Bank. To begin the Peel eel Off effort, the survey form used by the Land Bank should be altered to include the following questions: Are there any “exterior components” that will have obvious reuse or recycle value? (This could include steel doors or aluminum storm/screen windows that could be reused, or aluminum downspouts, gutters, or fascia that could be recycled.) Are there any “interior components” that can be removed for reuse? (This could include clothes or furniture or fixtures. Recycling is not considered as an option here, as the idea is to move quickly among a large number of houses.) This information can be entered into the database that the Land Bank maintains for each property. Later, a list of the “best” properties—those with aluminum siding, gutters, or fascia intact and accessible, for example-can be shared with private individuals commissioned to conduct Peel Off deconstruction activities. Specific houses can be minimally deconstructed in a matter of hours, their recyclables “peeled off ” and sold to local, private recyclers. However, in order to forestall even more depressed conditions in neighborhoods throughout the city, Peel Off processes should be coordinated with teardown schedules, so that houses with siding or fascia removed do not sit in this partially deconstructed state for long periods of time.
9
Deconstructing Flint
Soft Strip..... represents a more significant commitment to recycling and reuse. According to Falk and Guy Guy, in their 2007 book Unbuilding: Salvaging the Architectural Treasures of Unwanted Houses, “softstripping is the most common form of materials salvage because it is intended to recover only the components and materials that are most readily accessible, easiest to remove, and yield the highest value. Soft-stripping typically doesn’t disturb the structural integrity of a building, so it tends to be less hazardous in terms of physical safety.” After talking in general terms about deconstruction, Falk and Guy give a step-by-step overview of a typical unbuilding process: house and site characteristics are considered, the site is prepared (the house utilities are shut off, fencing placed on the perimeter, and the dumpster delivered), reusable items are identified, inventoried, and removed (this includes light fixtures, kitchen cabinets, and built-ins), the house is opened up (i.e., some walls removed), door and window trim is removed and saved, windows are taken out, doors removed, architectural items and plumbing fixtures are salvaged, and the finished floor is pulled up. Once the salvaged materials are loaded and the house cleaned up, Soft Strip is done. In Flint, there are some houses that are not in need of emergency teardowns, that are not among those of the lowest quality construction, that might have had any asbestos removed, and that are sitting vacant and boarded, awaiting demolition, not now, maybe not for several years. Persons at the Land Bank generally refer to such properties as “abated, non-emergency, solid” houses. Conversations with local contractors suggest that a range of “better” materials might exist in some abandoned houses that would require more considered efforts. These include components that can be: reused in Land Bank renovations or resold -- hardwood floors or floors made of hardwood cut-offs, 1x6 plank in some floors, floor joists, exhaust vents; recycled -- electrical wiring in houses with new additions; repurposed (reused or ground into aggregate) – bricks, concrete steps, asphalt. Additionally, garages and roof structures on houses present their own opportunities. It is likely that garages have never contained asbestos and that their 2x4 framing is accessible (especially from inside where it is unlikely that there is any sheathing) and clean (no lead paint). In most cases there will not be any plumbing. House roofs have some of the same potential – no paint, probably no asbestos, no plumbing, and clean wood in the attic. Complexities abound, however, in terms of access (ladders and scaffolding) and safety. And asphalt driveways can be ground into aggregate used to construct roads or paths; currently, these are not recycled by the Land Bank. Soft Strip has its own staffing considerations that might include existing demolition contractors and new Land Bank supervisory personnel. Thought of differently, in a city where large numbers of jobs have disappeared and where new employment opportunities are desperately needed, Soft Strip has its own potentials. According to the Deconstruction Institute, deconstruction “is more labor intensive than demolition. Consequently, more time and money is spent on hand labor than on the operation of heavy equipment. Through cooperation with job training programs, deconstruction has the potential to create well-paid entry-level jobs to the construction trades.”
10
Deconstructing Flint
Haul Off..... Haul is driven by scale and industry. It is at the other end of the deconstruction spectrum from Peel Off. With thousands of houses in need of demolition, it might be time to consider a processing facility built solely to sort through the thousands and thousands of dumpster loads of house that will be created in the coming years. It is imagined that houses, in Haul Off, will be torn down exactly as they are torn down today, but instead of going to the landfill, the dumpster loads are taken directly to the new facility where they are sorted via magnet, float tank, crusher, and other means, to separate out quantities of wood and metal and shingles, for example. Most of the basic materials of the houses have potential and can be recycled locally. WOOD waste has many applications ranging from bio fuel use to pulp and paper products, reconstituted panelboard, animal bedding, and mulch. However, wood waste from demolition sites is often contaminated with paints, adhesives, and chemicals, and is difficult to separate from other building materials. For example, at Ball State University “clean and official” wood waste—from building renovations, timber pallets on which paper supplies or building parts are delivered, packing crates, etc.—is collected for a year. In the spring a grinder is rented for one month, and the entire pile is ground into mulch that is “turned” and aerated for several years before becoming mulch that is used on campus in garden beds. Locally, Mid-Michigan Recycling of Flint recovers about 200,000 tons of wood waste every year. Sources include wood waste recycling yards, municipal yard waste processing sites, and industries in the area. Collection sites in Livonia, Ann Arbor, Macomb, Flint and Lansing accept pallets and skids, crates, wire reels, poles, scrap wood from new construction, sawdust, shavings, trees, and tree trimmings. A portable grinder processes the wood at these locations and the fuel is then combusted at the Genesee Power Plant to generate electricity. CONCRETE from sidewalks, exterior stairs, steps, slabs, or walls; driveways, and basement walls, foundations, and slabs can be crushed into a small aggregate. Metals embedded in the concrete, such as reinforcing rods, are often accepted, as they can be removed by humans or with magnets or other sorting devices. ALUMINUM windows, doors, siding, gutters, downspouts, thresholds, and hardware can be sold to recyclers for reprocessing. Recyclers include Olympic Buyers in Birmingham and Lorbec Metals in Flint. PLASTIC, in the form of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe, acrylic bathtubs, sinks, and basins; polyvinyl chloride (PVC) bathroom accessories (toilet seats, soap trays, toilet paper holders, towel rods, etc.), and vinyl tiles on walls and floors, can be recycled. Recycled HDPE typically takes the form of plastic lumber, tables, benches, truck cargo liners, trash receptacles, and other durable plastic products. Flint-based plastic recyclers include Averill Recycling and Johnson Controls. FERROUS METALS can be found in wrought iron, cast iron, mild steel, stainless steel, weathering steel and high tensile steel. In the resmelting process, properties of metals are fully restored, though not always easily. The resulting material is effectively new and can be recycled indefinitely. Local recyclers include Georgetown Logistics and Genesee Recycling. GLASS can be remelted, although this is an energy intensive process. Eventual downstream uses include tiles, fiberglass insulation, bedding sand for pavement, and glass blocks. CBC Recycling of Davison and Glass Recyclers in Dearborn are potential processors. PORCELAIN, which is found in toilets, sinks, ceramic tiles, electrical insulators, and pottery, can be ground and used as an aggregate or decorative chip.
11
Deconstructing Flint
Of course, a significant expenditure will be needed to put such a facility in place (an estimate is beyond the scope of this study and report). Whole tree chippers, wood grinders, and front-end loaders will be required to process, immediately and over time, the trees and building chunks. Pre-sorting screens, pre-grinders, conveyors, vibratory feeders, and floatation tanks are among the major pieces of equipment typically used in C&D recycling efforts. Recycling bucket crushers and concrete pulverizers are among the pieces of heavy equipment that will be required to recycle concrete. Pre-shredders and hydraulic shears, along with scrap metal balers will be required to process aluminum. But again, the scale of the deconstruction of Flint makes this an approach worth considering.
In SUMMARY . . .
Peel Off
Pros: Operates within existing systems and processes Low initial investment Some local job creation Cons: Small payback Minimal reduction of landfill waste
Soft Strip
Pros: Significantly more building materials reused Less impact on landfills Cons: More coordination required of City of Flint and Land Bank Are there enough quality houses to justify this approach?
Haul Off
Pros: Maximum reduction of landfill waste Local recyclers profit Cons: Huge investment required
12
Deconstructing Flint
October 10, 2006
Next Step On page 2 of this report, recommendations for immediate next steps are made. In a next phase of field testing of the Peel Off approach, one additional “experiment” would be most beneficial: as many as five houses could be torn down using standard deconstruction processes to determine if such efforts hold potential when targeting low quality houses. It should be remembered that the Land Bank pays between $6,000 and $9,000 to tear down and haul away a house. These moneys could be used to subsidize this study, including the hiring of a skilled person to train and oversee the deconstruction crew and rent equipment.
In Closing It must be said that deconstruction as conventionally defined and practiced has little or no relevance in Flint. The houses in need of demolition have few, if any, of the qualities that typify deconstruction targets. In this sense, the project title is really more of a question. Is it possible to think about “Deconstructing Flint?” Hopefully this report provides a viable set of first steps to begin this process.
13
Deconstructing Flint
Acknowledgments The following Ball State University graduate students contributed to this study -- Marwa el-Ashmouni, Mickel Darmawan, Nitya Peraboina, Sweata Pradhan, and Sujata Tuladhar.
Bibliography Beckley, Robert. “Flint Michigan and the Cowboy Economy: Deconstructing Flint,” Taubman College of Architecture + Planning, The University of Michigan, http://www.tcaup.umich.edu/urp/cowboyeconomy. html (accessed April 1, 2007). Bélanger, Pierre. “Airspace.” In Trash, edited by John Knechtel, 132-155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007. Bélanger Byles, Jeff. Rubble: Unearthing the History of Demolition. New York: Harmony, 2005. Falk, Bob and Brad Guy. Unbuilding: Salvaging the Architectural Treasures of Unwanted Houses. New York: Random House, 2007. Green Leigh, Nancy and Lynn M. Patterson, “Deconstruction to Redevelop: A Sustainable Alternative to Mechanical Demolition,“ Journal of the American Planning Association 72, no. 2 (Spring 2006): 217-25. Hamper, Ben. Rivethead: Tales from the Assembly Line. New York: Warner Books, 1991. Janz, Wes. “Compared to What?” Archinect. http://archinect.com/features/article.php?id=50579_0_23_0_C (accessed April 1, 2007). Jessmore, Steve. “Sense of Community.” http://photos.blogs.mlive.com/ (accessed April 1, 2007). Mallach, Alan, Lisa Mueller Levy, and Joseph Schilling, “A National Vacant Properties Assessment Report: Cleveland at the Crossroads: Turning Abandonment Into Opportunity,” June 2005 (see http://www.vacantproperties.org/technical/programs/cleveland.html). Moore, Michael. Roger & Me. Burbank, CA: Warner Brothers, 1989. Park, Kyong. Urban Ecology: Detroit and Beyond. Hong Kong: Map Book Publishers, 2005. Peterson, Bart. Mayor of Indianapolis, Abandoned Housing Initiative, Vacant Housing Project, http://www. indygov.org/eGov/City/DMD/Abandoned/Overview/home.htm (accessed April 1, 2007). Oswalt, Philipp, ed. Shrinking Cities: Volume 1: International Research. Ostfildern, Germany: Hatje Cantz Verlag, 2004. Oswalt, Philipp, ed. Shrinking Cities: Volume 2: Interventions. Ostfildern, Germany: Hatje Cantz Verlag, 2006. Oswalt, Philipp and Tim Rieniets, eds. Atlas of Shrinking Cities. Ostfildern, Germany: Hatje Cantz Verlag, 2006. Peters, Jeremy W. and Micheline Maynard. “Company Town Relies on G.M. Long After Plants Have Closed.” New York Times, February 20, 2006. Sussman, Elisabeth, ed. Gordon Matta-Clark: You Are the Measure. New York: Whitney Museum of American Art and New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007. Willingham, Brian. Soul of a Black Cop. Flint, Michigan: Urban Humanities Publishing, 2005.
14