Case study of demolition costs of residential buildings
Building demolition is one of the most common activities in the construction industry. Several demolition techniques are commonly used, including mechanical demolition, deconstruction and hybrid demolition. Although deconstruction has been advocated for its environmentally friendly approaches, the cost comparison of a demolition project under different techniques is rarely researched. In this paper, the cost of a demolition project is broken down to input and output costs, which are further broken down to more countable sections. Through an empirical study in Victoria, Australia, project costs of mechanical demolition, hybrid demolition and deconstruction are investigated. It is found that deconstruction has the greatest profitability among the three techniques. Hybrid demolition, which is the actual technique adopted by the contractor, has a slightly lower profit, and mechanical demolition is the most expensive. Although deconstruction has the best overall economical performance, the small extra gain comes with increased complexity and risk that deters demolition contractors from its attempt. It is found in the paper that an optimized demolition project strategy exists between hybrid demolition and deconstruction with the greatest profitability among various building demolition techniques.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 24 (2006)
Issue (Month): 9 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/RCME20|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RCME20|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Frank Ackerman & Sumreen Mirza, 2001. "Waste in the Inner City: Asset or Assault?," Public Economics 0106005, EconWPA.
- Rowland Atkinson, 2004. "The evidence on the impact of gentrification: new lessons for the urban renaissance?," European Journal of Housing Policy, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 107-131, January.
- Rowland Atkinson, 2004. "The evidence on the impact of gentrification: new lessons for the urban renaissance?," International Journal of Housing Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 107-131.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:24:y:2006:i:9:p:967-976. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Chris Longhurst)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.