Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Demolition, part two

My posting last week, about a very nice two-story home demolished ("What's the opposite of green? Maybe this"), has an update. Owner Max Redic says he'll be building a new house on the site.

Redic said his family had lived in the house 10 years, had been thinking for five years about rebuilding. The house had mold and a 25-year-old HVAC system, he said. They've temporarily moved to another site in Charlotte and yes, he said, they do have a building permit for the new house. (The demolition permit posted said "Total res demo - No Build Back.")

He said they recycled much of the building material, donated a good bit of the interior goods to Habitat for Humanity, and let the fire department use the house for training before the demolition.

And, he pointed out (as my blogpost had), it's his property to do with as he wishes. A bit of context: The lot is near a number of others where nice, but older, houses have been torn down and much larger new ones built -- some on spec by developers and some by homeowners.


Anonymous said...

This is a good lesson in what happens when you make assumptions and jump to conclusions. We assumed, based on the development patterns of the last 20-30 years, that a perfectly good structure was being razed to be replaced with another not-so-sustainable structure, just for the sport of it. I'm glad the owner stepped in and set the record straight.

As an employee of Duke Energy, when I first read the original post and saw how old the previous house was, I immediately thought, "that old house probably has a severely outdated HVAC system, was probably originally insulated with sawdust and generally had a carbon footprint about double the size it should be." Additionally, I thought, "if the owner is building a new house, it can be built completely Energy Star-compliant and use all the latest tools and techniques to make it one of the most energy-efficient houses around." Given the owner's explanation of the demolition of the old house, I'm guessing that's what he has in mind.

If every owner of a single-family house takes steps to increase the energy-efficiency of their house, that will go a long way to reducing the overuse of natural resources we Americans are famous for.

Anonymous said...

A good outcome and thanks for following up. My grandfather, the late Joe Connoly, an avid environmentalist, before it was "cool", would be proud

Anonymous said...

Although I bemoan the destruction of not-all-that-old homes in light-dappled neighborhoods, I think the owner made the right decision. And after all, it's his property, so long as within code and zoning regs.

It's much, much better to see people value living close-in and adding to the tax base rather than adding to the never-ending spin of sprawl

However, it would be nice to see new residences ripped from the pages of Dwell rather than another in our endless parade of replicants, the most popular of which currently is "Old World."

Jumper said...

The important thing is to try to help owners act smartly, and if that can be done by encouragement rather than coercion that would be a good thing.

J is right.