Are condemned buildings really "demolished"? If so why aren't they renovated or burned?

[ScienceNostalgia101]

I don't know whether or not this anecdote is real, but it's the reason my attention was brought to the concept of "demolishing" condemned buildings and how wasteful it sounds, to say nothing of the perverse incentives to recruit demolition employees who might be biased by their destructive instincts against the possibility they're really being used as accomplices in vandalism. (After "The Troubles," a church group offering teenagers an opportunity to demolish a building sounds sketchy as all hell.)

 

A: Obvious first question is; why aren't they just repurposed? If a building is no longer structurally stable enough for its former purpose, why not strip it of its desks / its beds / whatever else was applying too much pressure on the support beams and just let it be some big empty building to rent out to tourists and/or filmmakers who would apply relatively less pressure on it? Does it depend on the structural flaws for which it was "condemned" and whether or not the support beams are already broken beyond repair? If so, how did it not collapse while those things applying downward pressure were still inside it?

 

B: If there's no longer any use to get out of the building, why not put a giant smokestack around the building, such that any fumes from its incineration are lifted past the level of free convection (assuming the incineration is saved for a day with unstable air) then pump in some extra oxygen if need be and set fire to the whole thing? That way you can put a giant pot of water over it and cook food in it (or use it for coffee, or tea, to share with everyone in the neighbourhood) in lieu of burning fossil fuels for said same heat, saving on their combustion both when the thing is burned, and when the fire is over and the ashes require less energy to transport than unburnt debris.

 

What say you, Science Forums? Is there something I'm missing here?

[exchemist]

3 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

I don't know whether or not this anecdote is real, but it's the reason my attention was brought to the concept of "demolishing" condemned buildings and how wasteful it sounds, to say nothing of the perverse incentives to recruit demolition employees who might be biased by their destructive instincts against the possibility they're really being used as accomplices in vandalism. (After "The Troubles," a church group offering teenagers an opportunity to demolish a building sounds sketchy as all hell.)

 

A: Obvious first question is; why aren't they just repurposed? If a building is no longer structurally stable enough for its former purpose, why not strip it of its desks / its beds / whatever else was applying too much pressure on the support beams and just let it be some big empty building to rent out to tourists and/or filmmakers who would apply relatively less pressure on it? Does it depend on the structural flaws for which it was "condemned" and whether or not the support beams are already broken beyond repair? If so, how did it not collapse while those things applying downward pressure were still inside it?

 

B: If there's no longer any use to get out of the building, why not put a giant smokestack around the building, such that any fumes from its incineration are lifted past the level of free convection (assuming the incineration is saved for a day with unstable air) then pump in some extra oxygen if need be and set fire to the whole thing? That way you can put a giant pot of water over it and cook food in it (or use it for coffee, or tea, to share with everyone in the neighbourhood) in lieu of burning fossil fuels for said same heat, saving on their combustion both when the thing is burned, and when the fire is over and the ashes require less energy to transport than unburnt debris.

 

What say you, Science Forums? Is there something I'm missing here?

This post looks barking mad to me. A giant pot of tea?  

I don't see much point in attempting a serious answer to this nonsense.

[Endy0816]

Some have been repurposed for tours and the like. There's no shortage of such spaces in general though.

Obviously there can also be safety and liability concerns(death, injury and illness).

Edited May 7, 2022 by Endy0816

[swansont]

11 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

Obvious first question is; why aren't they just repurposed? If a building is no longer structurally stable enough for its former purpose, why not strip it of its desks / its beds / whatever else was applying too much pressure on the support beams and just let it be some big empty building to rent out to tourists and/or filmmakers who would apply relatively less pressure on it? Does it depend on the structural flaws for which it was "condemned" and whether or not the support beams are already broken beyond repair? If so, how did it not collapse while those things applying downward pressure were still inside it?

I doubt building code is that specific that you can remove a few items and be OK. 

There is a safety margin in construction; if you expect a certain load, the design will hold perhaps twice that (or more) but if the structure has been compromised you don’t know what it will support. If it hasn’t collapsed, you can’t be sure it won’t, if it’s occupied 

 

11 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

B: If there's no longer any use to get out of the building, why not put a giant smokestack around the building, such that any fumes from its incineration are lifted past the level of free convection (assuming the incineration is saved for a day with unstable air) then pump in some extra oxygen if need be and set fire to the whole thing? That way you can put a giant pot of water over it and cook food in it (or use it for coffee, or tea, to share with everyone in the neighbourhood) in lieu of burning fossil fuels for said same heat, saving on their combustion both when the thing is burned, and when the fire is over and the ashes require less energy to transport than unburnt debris.

Sending the pollution and possibly poisonous reside elsewhere isn’t much of a solution. And some of the materials might not be combustible. You’re going to burn brick or concrete? 

 

 

[TheVat]

In some parts of the US, there are green demolition services becoming more popular.  I joined in on one a few years ago, using my renovation skills to excise some decent windows, woodwork, and a couple doors.  Most of that I donated to Habitat for Humanity, which sells used building materials.  The full green demo (which that wasn't) takes the house down to the skeleton (removing and recycling all plumbing, copper wire, flashing, etc), then disassembles the frame so that intact studding and wood flooring may be denailed and resold.  Some cities like San Diego have actually mandated green demolition, requiring at least fifty percent of the structure is kept out of landfill.   

Just flattening a house and then tossing everything in dumpsters is sickeningly wasteful.