(condensed from Jack’s op-ed article published in The Oregonian)
The past months have seen an increase in public discussion regarding demolition of older (and not so older) homes in Portland. Many confusing and conflicting statements have been tossed around without regard to factual basis or logical analysis. As Land Use Chair of Beaumont-Wilshire Neighborhood Association and member of the United Neighborhoods for Reform steering committee, I have studied this issue closely. Myths abound. Here are 4 of the more common ones:
MYTH #1: Demolition is not a problem in Portland. It affects only a small percentage of our housing stock.
Last year there were 273 demolitions in Portland. This year we expect to top 400. While that might not seem like many when compared to Portland’s total housing stock, it should be noted that many, many more demolitions have occurred under the guise of “remodels”. The City presently has no definition of “demolition”. All that a builder has to do is keep one small two-by-four in place and demolish everything else, and as far as the City is concerned.
MYTH #2: If demolition is becoming more common, why am I not seeing more of it around town?
Two reasons: First, until recently, the bulk of demolitions have been confined to older, inner-city neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are especially at risk of having their character completely changed in a very short period of time. There are a finite number of 1910 bungalows and 1920 English cottages. It won’t take many demolitions in these areas to tip the balance to a neighborhood of newly-built McMansions. And just as we have seen the geography of demolitions slowly expand across the city, we can expect to see more demolitions along busy streets as time goes on.
MYTH #3: The City is powerless to invoke hazardous materials controls over demolition sites because these matters are a function of State and Federal regulation.
Anyone who has ever witnessed a residential demolition knows that a thick cloud of refuse debris lingers in the air around the neighborhood for hours or, depending on weather conditions, often the greater part of the day. This toxic blanket contains minute particles of lead paint (any house built before 1978), probably asbestos, and who knows what else? The State does not have the capacity to show up and continually monitor every demolition that occurs in Oregon. Ashland and other Oregon cities have taken proactive measures to protect their citizens from demolition fallout.
MYTH #4: In the interest of being “green”, older homes should be demolished and replaced with new, energy efficient homes.
Again, this assertion flies in the face of factual information and rational analysis. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has produced numerous studies showing that, indeed, “the greenest building is the one already there.” Older homes can be retrofitted with improved insulation, weather stripping, and storm windows to produce energy efficiency approaching that of the newest “green” eco-house.