Liu, C; Lyle, B and Langston, C (2003) Estimating demolition costs for single residential buildings. Construction Economics and Building, 3(2), pp. 33-42. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
With the increasing stock of aging structures, buildingdemolition is becoming a challenging research field fromthe perspective of management. As the converse ofconstruction, management of demolition puts forward somenew management themes or adds some new contentseven though the same issues are faced in constructionmanagement. This research aims to develop a quantitativeapproach to estimate the costs of a demolition project. Acost analysis method is presented to systematically breakdown the cost components involved in the demolition ofa structure. Due to the lack of robust research in theoryand systematic summary in practice to date, the economicperformances of demolition will be studied through a casestudy, and the majority of parameters are derived fromactual experiences in practice. The proposed demolition costestimation method is applied to the actual form of buildingelimination (ScenariO 1), and further comparison is carriedout with two other elimination methods, which are the newlydeveloped deconstruction (Scenario 2) and mechanicaldemolition (Scenario 3). Deconstruction is found to be themost profitable in this particular instance, and is closelyfollowed by the actual form.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | deconstruction; demolition cost; residential buildings; salvaged materials; waste minimisation |
| Index terms: | minimization, becoming, estimate, estimating, residential building |
| Subjects: | philosophical process, algorithms, construction type, financial and cost management |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Research Practice, Construction Technology, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here