Out with the old (house, that is)

One of our first challenges was figuring out whether or not we could save the existing house. Responses ranged from enthuastic about making some slight modifications (replacing the roof, scraping off the mold and taking down the mirrors that were hanging EVERYWHERE), to mockery at the idea of trying to make it work. (Thanks, Dad.)

Once we got expert advice about the cost of bringing the current structure up to snuff versus the cost of new construction, we had to face the sad fact that our 1920's bungalow would need to go.

Which brings us to an interesting dilemma. This being Portland, there are lots of "green" options. The greenest is probably the DeConstruction Service provided by the ReBuilding Center. This service takes buildings apart piece by piece, by hand, and recycles/resells/reuses every last bit possible. They run site field trips during this process to teach children about the benefits of salvaging building materials. They bring in the media to highlight their good work. They pay "living wages" to their workers and any profit goes to support their program supporting communities in need.

The blackest option, and I mean that literally, is you can have your house burned down as part of a local fire department's training program. I've gotta say, the idea of watching this structure of mold go up in smoke is pretty appealing.

Somewhere in between falls the option of demolition, with some salvage and recycling happening around the edges when the materials make that worthwhile.

While I would like to say the moral dilemma of all this weighs heavily on me, I've got to be honest. This is going to come down to money and risk. The "green" option, as is often the case, is likely to be the most expensive. The "black" option is likely to be cheapest since it will leave the least debris to be hauled away. Both let us feel good about making a contribution to the community, though obviously one carries a lot of emotional baggage about contributing to global warming. But, hey! The firefighters here don't fight a lot of structure fires. I don't want them out of practice when the real thing hits. It's a selfless move, really.

On the risk side lies...asbestos. The fire department requires an asbestos survey of the property and abatement if asbestos is found. So, we have a dilemma. What if we do an asbestos survey and it turns out there is asbestos? Then we have to take care of that (which adds expense - sometimes a LOT of expense), before doing anything else. If we go the straight demolition route, we don't have to risk finding asbestos and being required to abate it. At least, that becomes the problem of the demolition people. And they're trained professionals, right?

This is still a hypothetical discussion of sorts, since we don't yet have bids back from the demolition and deconstruction people. I'll let you know how this all works out.