Deconstructing heritage: enabling a dynamic materials practice
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to address a gap in current heritage practice within the USA, as defined by the US Secretary of Interior’s Standards, which offers no treatment for a building entering the end of its lifecycle. Design/methodology/approach Building on research conducted for “Deconstructing the Culture of Demolition,” Master of Design Studies thesis completed in 2018, this paper seeks to better understand how deconstruction industry practice could be changed by the inclusion of heritage values through a case study of the sustainability non-profit Emergent Structures of Savanah, Georgia. Findings The benefits of replacing demolition with deconstruction extend beyond the preservation of materials alone. Applying critical heritage theories to deconstruction practice addresses challenging issues in the discipline, such as mutability of heritage objects and equity in heritage practice. Deconstruction redefines the concept of death in the built environment, harnessing its energy to serve the heritage goals of memory, revival and sustainable community development. Practical implications The findings are based on real-world practice, linking heritage methodology to deconstruction practice. These examples will be useful to preservation professionals who deal with demolition in the course of their work, to rethink the idea of waste and value in heritage practice. Originality/value This paper explores best practices in promoting heritage value and community engagement…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Some estimates show that a transition to deconstruction can divert over 85 percent of demolition discards from landfills and produce notable reductions in total carbon emissions.
“Some industry observers, for instance, point to considerable waste reductions with a transition to deconstruction, as some estimates show over 85 percent of demolition discards diverted from landfills and notable reductions in total carbon emissions (McCarthy and Glekas, 2019).”
From Unbuilding the city: Deconstruction and the circular economy in Vancouver (2022) · cites this paper as McCarthy and Glekas, 2019
The rise of deconstruction in Vancouver, as elsewhere, offers a direct way to engage in the heritage goals of preserving memory while supporting a sense of revival and sustainable community development.
“the rise of deconstruction in Vancouver, as elsewhere, offers a direct way to engage in what McCarthy and Glekas (2019: 16) describe as the heritage goals of preserving memory while supporting a sense of ‘revival’ and sustainable community development.”
From Unbuilding the city: Deconstruction and the circular economy in Vancouver (2022) · cites this paper as McCarthy and Glekas (2019: 16)
The economic benefits of deconstruction result in wider social implications: consumers get access to more affordable building materials, and a large proportion of the deconstruction workforce is made up of entry-level positions that employ economically disadvantaged workers.
“Relatedly, McCarthy and Glekas (2019:19; see also Paruszkiewicz et al. 2016) highlight how these economic benefits result in wider social implications: not only do consumers get access to more affordable building materials, but a large proportion of the deconstruction workforce is made up of entry-level positions that employ economically disadvantaged workers.”
From Unbuilding the city: Deconstruction and the circular economy in Vancouver (2022) · cites this paper as McCarthy and Glekas, 2019
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Unbuilding the city: Deconstruction and the circular economy in Vancouver
Lynch, N. (2022) · Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space · doi:10.1177/0308518x221116891 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
“Limited but sustained research has shown a range of planning and sustainability benefits of deconstruction (McCarthy and Glekas, 2019; Nunes et al. 2019; Paruszkiewicz et al. 2016).”
Background
- Authors
- McCarthy, T. M., & Glekas, E. E.
- Affiliations
- Boston Architectural College (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2019-12-09
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 16-28
- ISSN
- 2044-1266 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2996104871
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 3.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Cultural Heritage Management and Preservation
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Recycled Aggregate Concrete Performance
- Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Urban Development and Cultural Heritage
- Keywords
- building deconstruction, historic preservation, demolition, historical building materials, emergent structure, community participation, sustainable community development
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
