While Cincinnati's City administration generally supports the use of the careful deconstruction and salvage of blighted buildings, the City lacks the means to do so, according to a recent report from city manager Milton Dohoney Jr.
Dohoney's report is in response to a May 13 motion by councilmembers Greg Harris and Cecil Thomas asking that the City use $160,000 in hazard abatement funds to perform this work, thereby diverting waste materials from landfills.
"The deconstruction process allows items with architectural or antique value to be salvaged and allows debris to be recycled," said a statement accompanying the motion.
But Dohoney says that the cost outweights the benefits, especially considering the large backlog of buildings awaiting City demolition.
"Unfortunately, deconstruction is estimated to cost 30 percent to 40 percent more than typical demolition," he says.
Only $198,000 in hazard abatement funds remain for 2009.
"An allocation of $160,000 for deconstruction would deplete the Hazard Abatement Program reserves earmarked for emergency demolition in the event of partial collapse or any other situation of immediate danger," Dohoney says.
Instead of dedicating funding, Dohoney says that City administration recommends a plan to deconstruct six buildings over the next 12 months, using hazard abatement and Neighborhood Stabilization Program money.
Additionally, Dohoney says that demolitions leading to new construction could be excellent candidates for deconstruction because doing so could contribute to LEED certification for the new project.
The motion also requested that any request for proposal (RFP) for the deconstruction include a job training program for unskilled or unemployed workers.
"Workers learn construction, safety, math, and tool/equipment handling skills that can be applied to other disciplines or trades," the motion's statement said.
Dohoney says that City administration recommends awarding any deconstruction contracts to companies that have a job training element.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Dohoney: Hazard abatement funding too low for large-scale deconstruction program
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(Atom)
Recent Comments
6 comments:
The hazard abatement issue is one thing but I believe the best way to reduce the amount going to landfill, would be with neighborhood based program run by local neighborhood groups. If the city could negotiate with owners of impending demos to let neighborhood groups in to Salvage architectuaral elements such as lighting, mantles, Cornices, brackets trim , claw foot tubs and such in exchange for a reduction in the Lien against the property. The neighborhood groups could resell this donated materal at low cost to help other homeowners with their restoration and use those monies generated to start facade grant programs or even acquire endangered properties, stabilize them and resell them with protective covenants.
I know that picture rail :)
Paul, I agree with you. I got permission from the salvage contractor to salvage some materials from nearby houses that as it turns out match and will allow me to restore a few details in my own house that I otherwise would have had to get custom-made. Giving the neighborhoods the opportunity to contribute here and be part of the solution is crucial to growing the sense of investment and pride in the fabric of our neighborhoods.
The ultimate answer to the City's dilemma is less demolition and more stabilization.
LOL, Todd...this is why I take photos of such random stuff!
Fifteenth and Vine, I couldn't agree more.
If you do have to demo... it seems that there are already a number of groups that might be willing to do this salvage work - any of the building reuse stores such as Building Value (or the habitat group opening the Restore?).
A number of buildings in OTR and other neighborhoods that I have been through have treasure troves of reusable materials - from architectural details down to lower-end 70's and 80's cabinetry that still have some value....
Post a Comment