A STATELY WHITE duplex has been keeping watch over the intersection of SE 15th and Umatilla for the last 114 years. Built in 1902, it sits on a large corner lot and boasts about 2,500 square feet of living space with a full, unfinished basement. A porch runs the length of the faรงade and wraps around the building’s east side.
This classic Portland homeโunique not only for its age, but also because city code no longer allows construction of this type of duplex in its zoning areaโwas sold in October 2015 for $800,000. The new owner isn’t planning to enjoy the home’s expansive patio or its mature landscaping, though. He’s going to rip the whole thing out.
Buyer Vic Remmers, owner of Beaverton-based Everett Custom Homes, was granted a demolition permit last month for the home. Remmers says he’s going to raze the century-old structure and replace it with three new single-family homes.
The three-for-one trade is good news for Portland’s ongoing housing crisis. And for Portlanders concerned with preserving the city’s history, Remmers’ choice to deconstructโrather than demolishโthe home will also be a welcome one.
In deconstruction, developers carefully dismantle the home piece by piece and salvage the materials for reuse, rather than using heavy equipment to pulverize and haul them to a landfillโotherwise known as demolition.
Portland is in the midst of what Peggy Moretti, executive director of preservation advocacy nonprofit Restore Oregon, calls a “demolition epidemic.”
“It’s chewing away at the character of many older Portland neighborhoods,” Moretti says. “The market has created financial incentives for demolition, so we need to balance that out a bit with some disincentives.”
On February 17, Mayor Charlie Hales will introduce a proposal to city council that would provide some of those disincentives. The resolution, if passed, would direct the Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS) to develop code requiring full deconstruction of all single-family homes and duplexes that were either built prior to 1916, or that are designated as historic resources.
“I’m interested in doing a number of things to slow the rate of demolition of these great old buildings,” Hales says. “The ordinance requiring deconstruction itself isn’t a ‘Eureka!’ solution, but it’s one of three or four solutions that we hope will create a different picture in the future.”
Hales’ first proposal to this endโa $25,000 demolition taxโdidn’t fly with his fellow commissioners, but he says he’s “hearing supportive comments from the members of council” he’s talked to.
Moretti testified to council in November that Portland was on track to lose more than 400 single-family homes in 2015. Alisa Kane, green building and development manager for BPS, says that, on average, about 300 homes a year come down in favor of new development. Of those, a third were built before 1916.
“Homes that are more than 100 years old, if they’ve been reasonably maintained over the years, have materials, like old-growth Doug fir, that can be salvaged and have great value,” Hales says. “The deconstruction process creates jobs and offers great environmental value in our community where there’s concern that a mechanized demolition puts a house in a blender and can spew a lot of pollutants into the neighborhood.”
Michael Armstrong, senior sustainability manager at BPS, says the city already encourages deconstruction over demolition, but believes making it a common practice will require policy change.
“Deconstruction jobs serve as gateways to higher-paying construction jobs,” he says. “The salvage industry estimates that 25 new people will be needed to meet the increased work as a result of the new requirements.”
There’s a reason developers opt for demolitions: They’re quicker and cheaper than deconstruction.
Kane says demolishing a home takes a few people, an excavator, and a day or two. After inspecting a house and removing visible environmentally hazardous materialsโlike asbestos and leadโone person operating heavy machinery can smash through the home quickly
It’s a crude process and neighbors worry that hidden pollutants are released into the air.
Their worries might be justified: According to recent reporting by the Oregonian, hundreds of Portland homes have been demolished without proper asbestos removalโa potential health hazard.
“With deconstruction you increase the likelihood of discovering additional instances of hazardous materials hidden inside the walls,” Kane says.
Following demolition, what’s left is a pile of unusable sticks and twisted metal destined for the landfill. Deconstruction is a lengthier, more expensive processโit can take a crew of six to eight trained workers five days or so, and cost 40 to 60 percent moreโbut what’s left is a neat stack of high-quality, reusable lumber and hardware.
Bob Falk, co-author of Unbuilding: Salvaging the Architectural Treasures of Unwanted Houses, writes that the lumber in those old homes is often of higher quality than anything on the market today and can fetch a hefty price.
“The quality of the structural lumber in our older buildings is like nothing we’ll ever see again in our lifetimes,” says Jordan Jordan (yes, that’s his name), a used material broker at Portland nonprofit Earth Advantage. “Someone more poetic than me said something like, ‘Our old-growth forests are still standing; they’re in our historic buildings.'”
It’s more than just the lumberโold glass doorknobs, ornate mantelpieces, and brass fixtures can be salvaged and reused or sold.
“There’s a lot of great history in those old homes,” Kane says. “There’s an afterlife in them and salvaging those materials reduces waste and carbon emissions.”
Jordan says construction and demolition debris accounts for about 25 percent of total annual waste in the Metro area. Deconstruction reduces carbon emissions by two to three times by preserving existing materials and avoiding the carbon cost of producing new materials.
“Deconstruction is a far superior option to mechanical demolition,” he says. “It creates more jobs than traditional demolition, supports small businesses, and… offers an affordable option for acquiring quality used building materials.”

This is not a “three-for-one trade.” It is three for two, which is much less reason to rip apart a perfectly good building, piece of history, and contributing part of a strong community. If the new houses engage the street well that would be nice, but most new homes focus on life indoors and do not facilitate chance neighborly meetings like these old homes do.
How in God’s name is this the city’s solution? Why is there not a single elected official who gives a rip about preserving the character and integrity of our community? In what universe is it ethical to let Vic “Let me Rip out 100 Year-Old Sequoia Trees” Remmers continue his efforts to raze anything that represents history and quality in favor of his shoddily-built pieces of garbage? Why does this never-ending desecration keep happening??? Good Lord, I am really starting to hate this place…..
Thank you Alyse…that’s exactly how I feel! The house might be deconstructed but its still a demolition. What’s going on in this city is a terrible crime. I’m tired of City Council pretending that they’re doing something by creating a “taskforce” or committee to study the demolition problem…and appointing mostly developers to the committee. Any wonder why the demolitions just keep on happening?! I didn’t vote for Mayor Hales…but at one time or another I did vote for the other Council members…believe me, it won’t ever happen again!
Tom although I agree with what you are saying, there has to be laws that protect and preserve the city. If your name is on the title you don’t just get to do what you want, as you said. You still need building permits, etc, you can’t put a 10 story apartment on it if you want. City council needs to start thinking about what’s right for the city. Does the 3 shitty row houses you wanna put on that property go well with the community. What about developers coming in and wanting to take a whole part of old Belmont to put apartments on it. Is that fair? No something has to be done.
I did some research on the original owners of this home. You can find it here: http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/ch…
There are about 148,000 single family homes in Portland. Suppose we had 1,000 demolitions per year (way more than we actually do). The average home would have to last 148 years. Is that plausible? Desirable? Defensible?
Now use a more realistic number for demolitions per year, say 500. If that’s too many, it means the average home has to last more than 286 years. Is that plausible? Desirable? Defensible?
I don’t think so. I have no objection to wanting to make demolitions safer or more environmentally friendly. But to say public policy should as its aim reduce the number of demolitions, doesn’t make sense.
It’s all temporary.
We focus on the demolition, but this is always an issue about so much more.
Some don’t like:
tall houses
skinny houses
new houses
poorly constructed houses
apartments
tall apartments
people who live in apartments
the more affluent people who are going to buy the new property
the more white people who are going to buy the new property
But rather than discuss this honestly, we rail against the demolition itself. We enact rules that don’t save the houses, don’t save the trees, don’t save the sunlight and in the end really just make everything that much more expensive for all of us.
Obviously we can’t expect a developer to act with any kind of integrity or honesty, so I get the desire to mandate a behavioral standard. When done without any consistency though, it appears as little more than hypocrisy and favoritism – for the builder, street, or area of town.
They could rehab this house and make it into a four plex and solve the density issue and keep the integrity of the neighborhood.