Quantcast

Comments about ‘Saving old buildings creates more jobs than new construction, saves energy, says PlaceEconomics' Don Rypkema’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, May 22 2011 1:49 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Dadof5sons
Montesano, WA

Thats great to see the old building stay. I look at when they tore down the Kingdome it still had 50 years of life left in that and had ten years left till it was payed off. That was a compleat waste of money and energy. So its glad to see this trend happing were we save and use whats there.

Corn Dog
New York, NY

"Saving old buildings creates more jobs than new construction"

That's obvious - it's less efficient than building something from scratch.

What the US needs is efficient, productive jobs, not inefficient, make-work jobs.

Old buildings may have some aesthetic appeal but they were built to old, outmoded standards and are often full of environmental hazards.

KDave
Moab, UT

You could say the same for old people. They keep more doctors employed.

LBR50
Orem, UT

I'm all for restoring old buildings. However, unless a building of unreinforced masonry is brought up to current earthquake code, it's an irresponsible use of monetary and human resources. Risking human life and prolonging the inevitable fate of such a building cannot be considered efficient.

BHW
Draper, Utah

Excellent choice using the First Security/Wells Fargo City Center building as an example of preservation.

This building was originally slated to be demolished, but the owner fought for reconsideration. The cost for rehabilitation was deemed too high, but then a more detailed engineering analysis proved that the building had a much better than expected response to earthquake forces. Score one for preservation.

When decisions are being made about the economics of seismic rehabilitation, careful consideration should be given to the "second opinion". Not only because of the value added to our communities as outlined in this article, but also because we need to consider the consequences of improving the seismic landscape for where we live.

I'll second LBR50's attention to unreinforced masonry buildings and add that if we don't start thinking seriously about what we have to loose, we'll find very little solace in quick decision-making.

oliwj;lajg;lj
MENOMONEE FALLS, WI

I echo Corn Dog, Kdave and LBR50 and I would add that the Delaware study also shows how much better paying all the other jobs are compared to the restoration work. If it takes only $1 million to pay for 14.6 jobs, but $1 million to pay for 3.5 automotive jobs. I think I want to be an automotive worker!

Now, this assumption is not really based on real information, but I would say this article is based on just as dubious thinking as my statement above. Preservation is typically a poor allocation of resources. Americans will not continue to sustain our standard of living by simply preserving our buildings, and conducting tourism tours!

Unfortunately, "studies" mean very little these days.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments