Demolition Square Foot Cost
The cost of a demolition project is usually calculated by using a square foot figure. The demolition square foot cost can then be used to facilitate comparisons between various demolition methods.
The growing popularity of the demolition procedure known as deconstruction has prompted studies that have compared the demolition square foot cost of this environmentally friendly method and traditional demolition. Despite the favorable public image of what is being called “Green Demolition”, it is often thought that the cost variation was prohibitive in many cases.
One example of the studies done on the cost issue involved a 20 story apartment building demolition project. The cost of traditional demolition, using a demolition square foot cost model, was calculated at $5.36 per square foot. The cost of the deconstruction method worked out to be $6.47 per square foot. The $1.11 per square foot increase coupled with the additional time required for the slower deconstruction method seemed to support the idea that the method was an impractical alternative. This was the impression even when the fact that the longer time was also reflected in the increased cost because of more man hours being expended.
The catch was that the demolition cost estimate included the removal of debris. Deconstruction costs also has to include the removal of unsalvageable debris, but the key issue was the salvage value of what could be reused. Two different methods were used to arrive at a valuation of the salvage material. The first involved a pre-contracted arrangement that did not involve storage of the materials until sale. This method yielded a payment amounting to $3.28 per square foot. This reduced the deconstruction figure to only $3.17 or almost a 37% savings.
The second method that did involve handling and storage of the salvageable material yielded a savings that was still less than the demolition cost, but only by about 10%. These surprising figures seem to indicate that when proper arrangements are made concerning salvage, the cost of deconstruction is substantially lower and even justifies the additional time required to complete the project.
This has been the problem of most environmentally sound innovations in areas of construction as well as energy consumption. The cost appears, at first glance, to be so much higher. When a closer look is taken at the long term cost figures, the initial higher cost is usually recovered and substantial savings are possible. This is looking at the situation from a purely cost basis also and does not consider the more altruistic idea that it is in our best interests to protect the environment regardless of the cost. When the “right moral” choice turns out to be the best economic choice as well, it certainly calls for a long hard look.