Pointing out that "the recent decline [in recovered materials] bucks a longstanding upward trend," the report notes that increases in the amount of wood and scrap metal going to the landfill—and there will be much more due to the recent closure of a Newberg mill that used to burn Portland's classic homes—were mostly to blame for the tarnish on our "green" reputation.
 |
| Truck writes its own caption: Just because they're called landfills, doesn't mean we have to fill them. Tell City Council you agree. |
Chances are you recycle; a majority of Portlanders do. We also can recycle homes if they must be demolished. We should.
Sure, it costs a little more, and takes some time, but it's the right thing to do for so many reasons. The Rebuilding Center recently issued these numbers illustrating the impacts of deconstruction over demolition, as applied to a 2,800-square-foot home:
• 24 tons less carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere
• 1,821 kilowatt hours of electricity saved
• 6 more jobs generated for every 1 in demolition
• 16 tons of materials removed from the waste stream (there you go, Metro)
• 1.2 gallons of fresh, clean water saved per square foot of building
This is not to mention the fact that mechanical demolition sends hazardous dust up to 400 feet out from the demolition site. Every pre-1978 home is almost certain to contain lead paint and likely asbestos. Keeping in mind the recent events involving lead in the water in Flint, Michigan, and emissions from glass factories in Portland, the problem of hazardous materials released into the environment should be the responsibility of the person who's responsible for releasing them.
The resolution coming to City Council next week only asks for deconstruction of homes built in 1916 or before and if they are a designated historic resource. We say, OK! (and "Finally!"), but also: For the sake of this city and people's health and safety, dare to go farther and faster—make deconstruction mandatory for homes built up until, say, 1930, when materials were still solid and the '20s building boom had ebbed —why not eventually all of homes slated for demolition if Portland wants to be as environmentally minded as it says it is.
If, just if, we save some homes from disappearing altogether, that would be a bonus for our ever-diminishing pool of affordable, usually modest-size housing. Win-win.
Developers should feel free to build on vacant land—the city says we have twice as much as we need to meet our density goals until 2035. Click here, then on "Staff Report: Residential Densities," and check out Page 2:
The vacant and underutilized land within these residentially designated areas have a combined development capacity that is double the expected growth, after considering restraints. This means that it is possible to be more selective about where development occurs in residential zones.
Tell city leaders that deconstruction needs their vote, that you love breathing clean air, planting organic gardens, and raising healthy kids. The smash-and-dump practice of erasing local history, viable affordable housing, and so much more has got to stop. Better yet, come Wednesday to speak up and/or show your support.
What: Portland City Council weighs deconstruction
When: 2:30 p.m. Wednesday, Feb. 17
Where: City Hall chambers, 1221 S.W. Fourth Ave.
Who: Your elected leaders
Why: Call a stop to the wasting of quality resources; demand deconstruction, with an accelerated timeline for implementation
How: If you can't make it downtown, send letters to council (contact info at right, scroll down); show up to bear witness; consider testifying (sign up before 1:30 p.m.) if you recycle and believe that repurposing of quality building materials is the right thing to do and a cost to be borne by developers as the price of access to this city's finite resource
No comments:
Post a Comment