The term deconstruction is often misinterpreted and misunderstood in the demolition industry. The dominant definition used to describe deconstruction amongst industry practitioners and in many academic contexts on the subject is “construction in reverse”. However, this is a wrong interpretation of the term. Unless buildings are designed to be deconstructed, and unless they can be unbolted the exact same way they were built, the process cannot be referred to as construction in reverse. In these times, the prevalent method to deconstruct buildings is through machine utilisation, which cuts through the building components; hence, in reality, it is not being taken down the same way it was constructed. This means that deconstruction will not reach fruition unless the built environment encompasses buildings that are suitable to be deconstructed; meaning, deconstruction cannot be implemented without the application of design for deconstruction. A study in 2002 entitled “Design for Deconstruction and Materials Reuse” showed that less than 1% of the buildings back then were fully demountable.
It is unlikely that in these days this figure has improved. This is predominantly due to the excessive use of toxic materials and composite structures the built environment witnessed in the past four decades. It is very unlikely that any valuable materials will be retrieved from demolished buildings in the future. This makes deconstruction a less valid method.
Given the preceding, deconstruction in today’s demolition should not be referred to as construction in reverse, but rather it should be defined as a demolition method, which aims to knock down structures with minimal damage for the purpose of reusing and recycling materials and components. Or it could simply be replaced with a common word used in the industry today, “piecemeal demolition”, which aligns more with what happens in reality. In the future, with the ever-increasing awareness of the circular economy and the benefits of design for deconstruction, deconstruction can be referred to as construction in reverse, or as a process that exists to eliminate demolition.
It is unlikely that in these days this figure has improved. This is predominantly due to the excessive use of toxic materials and composite structures the built environment witnessed in the past four decades. It is very unlikely that any valuable materials will be retrieved from demolished buildings in the future. This makes deconstruction a less valid method.
Given the preceding, deconstruction in today’s demolition should not be referred to as construction in reverse, but rather it should be defined as a demolition method, which aims to knock down structures with minimal damage for the purpose of reusing and recycling materials and components. Or it could simply be replaced with a common word used in the industry today, “piecemeal demolition”, which aligns more with what happens in reality. In the future, with the ever-increasing awareness of the circular economy and the benefits of design for deconstruction, deconstruction can be referred to as construction in reverse, or as a process that exists to eliminate demolition.