The world today is undergoing some significant changes, especially in the housing and construction industry. Accommodation falls under the basic needs in the life of every human being. However, old housing systems today are facing a major challenge in the booming modernized establishments. Indeed, because of these changes, many people would like to live in the modern-designed houses equipped with all the appliances available in the market today. Under those premises, the developers and governments are opting to demolish and build new establishments that are fully endorsed with aspects of modernity. This trend has, however, led to some setbacks, which are being experienced globally. Some of these problems include a polluted atmosphere due to carbon emission, strenuous construction budgets, and use of more energy source in a bid to cover the requirements of all the new houses and their needs. Nevertheless, there have been discussions on the best ways of reducing or evading all these challenges in the housing industry. Retrofitting is, therefore, being applied and concisely gaining momentum with some individuals opting to restructure their establishments instead of demolishing them. Consequently, those who choose to undertake this kind of change are enjoying better outcomes in comparison to those who are going for demolition and reconstruction. Retrofitting has proved to be advantageous economically, environmentally, and preserve energy and resources as witnessed from fewer resources needed in refurbishing old buildings. Therefore, the rationale for this research paper is to justify the need for embracing the aspect of retrofitting rather than demolition on specific projects.
Retrofitting has ensured the reduction of carbon emission into the atmosphere globally. Carbon dioxide is generated from human activities which is one of the leading causes of climatic changes. Although CO2 is said to be emitted from human activities, most people do not know that a certain amount of carbon is emitted from buildings due to the materials locked into these establishments. For instance, if only a single building is considered, the effects may appear negligible, however, from a wider perspective, the emission is a significant contributing factor in an already polluted environment. Ireland’s article on the carbon emission is horrifying on the impacts it has on the environment. From his study, a new house emits up to 50 tons of carbon in the first 50 years since its construction. On the other hand, an old reconstructed house emits up to about 15 tons of CO2 (Ireland, 2008). It has been criticized that a single building cannot affect the atmosphere once it is demolished. However, the problem becomes hazardous once several buildings are demolished and replaced with new ones. More so, there are other claims that new homes are friendlier to the environment in comparison to the older ones. In fact, such claims have been posed by many developers and planners in a bid to replace the old houses with newer ones. Conclusively, change is inevitable and policymakers should come up with strict rules governing the building industry. These policies should be enacted as one way of promoting the construction of the zero-carbon establishments a mandatory rule towards a society founded on a healthy atmosphere.
The building and demolition debris generated from building and later disposed into the environment are increasing deteriorating an already destroyed eco-system. A new building produces more waste products in comparison to one which is undergoing a simple retrofit. This output is mostly witnessed during demolition within a short period. Most demolition techniques used includes using explosives, deconstructing the structure, or the use of cranes and wrecking balls with most projects applying the last two combinations. In fact, the demolition wastes generated add up to 30 times more than the construction debris (Beachey 1998). This waste product becomes problematic, especially during disposal and the techniques used. Although some of the rubble collected may be recycled, combusted, or landfilled, it is worth noting that most of the waste materials are left exposed and litter the environment. Occasionally, some debris gets its way into the rivers and other water bodies, thus destroying the eco-system. However, there is often some argument that there are some hazards experienced during retrofitting. This kind of criticism is strongly refutable because no demolition is witnessed during reconstruction and in most cases more installations are made to the already existing structures. In this case, there is less generation of the waste products, and there is more reuse of the recyclable waste materials, a situation that makes the environment safer for human beings. Therefore, it is advisable for people to embark on retrofitting rather than demolition because it is one way of reducing environmental degradation. Consequently, a clean environment will guarantee the human beings, plants, and animals a longer healthier life.
Architectural historians have embarked on the preservation of historical landmark of specific projects that have a cultural significance in their respective communities. Some of these buildings that are intended to undergo retrofitting not only have a history accrued to them, but also serve as crucial sites that attract members of the society (The United States, 1979). A relevant example is the Canal National Park that is endowed with the age old lock houses. These lock houses have consistently served as useful attraction sites that demonstrate the wonders of the nineteenth century, a sensation that most people crave for even today. Consequently, with the continued restructuring, hikers and bikers will continue enjoying this new venture. More so, this project will also serve the needs of tourists who explore the countryside (Jackson, 2005). However, a discussion often emerges in concern with the need for preserving historical buildings that have very little or no economic value. It has often been argued that these structures should be pulled down and instead replaced with other modern refurbished and dynamic structures. In response, it is refuted by the fact that construction of new establishments and recreational structures will incur more costs on the already neglected landmarks. Moreover, those who derive their joy from exploration will not experience the early enthusiasm accrued to the same. Importantly, these historical buildings have very rich cultural and social significance attached to their existence.
Developers and homeowners should consider cutting the cost of building new establishments by embarking on green retrofitting, a potential measure of reduced energy consumption. Before embarking on a demolition, builders should first analyze the impacts that this old homes could gain from retrofitting. Some of the reasons they should consider are huge amounts of resources incurred in the construction of energy sources in these projects. Since the older structure tends to use more power, then strategies should be outlined on improving and building sustainable and small energy facilities (Jafari et al., 2014). In fact, after retrofitting these buildings, they demonstrated amazing results with the energy costs reduced to more than a half. Moreover, households have had the chance to enjoy some of the energy advantages accrued to a modernized establishment. However, critics have often argued that this kind of venture is hopeless. The explanation to this criticism is that it is rather difficult to improve an older construction than installing a new establishment. Indeed, most people believe that it is more challenging to upgrade an older building because it requires matching up to the high and adequate standards of the modern facilities. However, it is evident that the cost of demolition and construction is more than the amount used in proper retrofit. In addition, these structures have been able to withstand the test of time. Therefore, it is recommendable for older buildings to undergo retrofitting instead of demolition. With the already available methods of reconstruction and modernization, it is easy for these structures to produce optimum benefits once they are fully refurbished.
As evident from the analysis, retrofitting is more effective than the demolition of old structures in many ways, including the economic advantages, environmental, energy, and the resource preservation. Reconstruction has proved to be an expense venture in the housing industry because of the expenses attached during the process. On the other hand, there are environmental gains in the process of retrofitting because of the reduced carbon emission into the atmosphere. Additionally, retrofitting is very eco-friendly since it is one way of reducing the debris and construction waste generated during construction. Considerably, some of the old buildings carry historical significance and only retrofitting can retain their importance. In fact, refurbishing the energy systems in old buildings has rendered them as optimally beneficial and sustainable. Although it is impossible to quell the recurrent urge of constructing new houses entirely, it is important that house owners consider rehabilitating the already existing structure instead of demolishing them.
References
Beachey, J. E. (1998). Characterization of building-related construction and demolition debris in
the United States. Rep. No. 530-R-98, 10.
Ireland, D. (2008). New Tricks with Old Bricks: How Reusing Old Buildings can cut Carbon
Emissions. The Empty Homes Agency, London.
Jackson, M. (2005). Embodied energy and historic preservation: A needed reassessment. Apt
Bulletin, 47-52.
Jafari, A. A., Valentin, V. V., Howe, K. J., & Russell, M (2014). Environmental Impact of
HousingRetrofit Activities: Case Study.
The United States. (1979). Assessing the energy conservation benefits of historic preservation:
Methods and examples. Washington, D.C: The Council.