Boston’s Circular Shift: Building Smarter, Greener, Better
In celebration of Zero Waste Week, join Jennifer Taranto, VP of Sustainability at STO Building Group, Michael Orbank, Sustainability Manager, Northeast Region at STO Building Group, and Andrea Love, Principal and Director of Building Science at Payette, as they explore how Boston teams are turning demolition into deconstruction—leveraging partnerships across owners, designers, contractors, and vendors while navigating policy, storage, and market challenges.
HOST
Jennifer Taranto
Vice President of SustainabilitySTO Building Group
View Bio
GUEST
Michael Orbank
Sustainability Manager, Northeast RegionSTO Building Group
View Bio
GUEST
Andrea Love
Principal and Director of Building SciencePayette
View Bio
The EPA has put out that something between two to 4% of materials that can be salvaged from a project or a building site typically are,
There is an increasing awareness just in general in the industry around embodied carbon over the last four or five years really. It’s gone from this thing that people vaguely knew to sort of being fundamental to how we design everything.
Architects, contractors, manufacturers, trade partners, clients. I mean, it’s really gotta be everybody’s responsibility at the end of the day.
Hi, and welcome to Building Conversations. I’m your host, Jennifer Taranto, Vice President of Sustainability at STO Building Group, and today we’re talking about material circularity in Boston. I’m joined by Michael Orbank, sustainability manager at Structure Tone Boston, New Jersey, Philadelphia, and Pavarini Northeast and Andrea Love Principal and Director of Building Science at Payette to discuss how embracing circularity early in the project lifecycle and collaborating during the design phase can make all the difference. Let’s get started. So Andrea, from a design perspective, why is the pre-construction phase such a powerful opportunity to incorporate material circularity into projects?
I think the preconstruction phase is important because it’s really where we can understand as a designer what materials might be available and also work with the contractor or to help identify opportunities and other sources of ways that we can find salvage materials because there is no, like, you know, material catalog or website that you can go to right now to find reclaim materials. And so really being able to like, understand the lay of the land of what might be available, what might be coming into the market, or getting, you know, deconstructed to be able to kind of match those two phases is really important.
Yeah, I think that, so one of the things that we’ve talked about previously that you’d mentioned was this idea of creating a specification of what a thing needs to achieve or behave or what its purpose is. And so I think that like during the pre-con phase, that that’s a really good opportunity, right, in order to sort of suss that out and allow for there to be some flexibility in what ends up coming out of the circularity market, right?
Yeah and also to understand like what are things like wood for example, there’s a pretty regular supply of wood and so, you know, being able to understand things that you can be a little more specific on versus things that you might need to just have a broader understanding to kind of work together to understand and match like the goals with the, the materials that might be available.
Right, so Michael, maybe this is a question more for you. Like what are the strategies that teams in Boston or maybe even in other places, if you’ve had other experiences outside of that, that are using during that early design and planning phase to reduce waste before the construction even begins?
Yeah, I think the longer of a runway you can have in that kind of pre-construction while the design’s still going is better and the, the pre-demo salvage – which is really coming into vogue right now – of, can I get into the space, can I look in what’s actually happening there? Can I get eyes on and really see, okay, maybe something is specified to be demolished or, replaced altogether. Can I find these finishes? Can I find the furniture? Can I find these fixtures at times that can possibly never go to landfill at all. They can be salvage removed material takeback programs really identified there. And then I think from there, really working with the designer while the documents are still kind of being finalized. The hardest part is if the, if the drawings and the specs are all finalized and it’s right before about to go to bid and then we’re asked to kind of implement circularity. But that longer runway, while there’s still kind of that malleable part of the project where we can get in there and make suggestions and really have that cooperative approach to it all because the, the changes made there are gonna have much bigger ripples on kind of what circularity can mean, but kind of extremely small ripples on any kind of price or or time at that point. Yeah.
You mentioned the pre-demo salvage assessment. You wanna tell me a little bit, what does that look like? Like in reality?
Yeah, I think that’s just working with the, the client and, and bringing, either bringing the designer in or kind of going to the site and really, like I said, getting eyes on taking as much documentation as you can whether it’s pictures, whether it’s kind of a full inventory list, but really just exploring the opportunities to get your hands dirty. Sometimes, it’s me going to a site and picking up a carpet tile and looking at it or seeing what exact brand of furniture is there or manufacturer date. And really bringing that kind of assessment back and, standardizing it over time to then present to the designer and to the owner to say, I think this is possible. Where before you really had your best guess or so disjointed or you’re working off maybe as-builds that weren’t the best or even existed. So getting in there and doing that assessment as early as possible and then having a collaborative approach to really enact the purpose of it is clutch.
So Andrea, what do you think is really driving more circular thinking in both design and construction in the Boston area?
I think there’s a lot of drivers. I think there’s an increasing awareness just in general in the industry around embodied carbon over the last four or five years really. It’s gone from this thing that people vaguely new to sort of being fundamental to how we design everything in the industry. And I think that, you know, it’s not just on our end as designers, but clients are now, you know, requesting and having standards around embodied carbon more. I mean, clients obviously aren’t on a monolith and not that all of the same, but we do a lot of institutional work. And so a lot, most universities already had carbon goals, but mostly around operational carbon. And what I would say in the last like couple years is almost all of our clients now also have goals and targets around embodied carbon as part of their green building standards that have been updated.
And so we’re seeing more interest in just reducing carbon in general, which circularity is one of those things. Though generally what we’ve seen is, I was working on a project recently where we brought up reclaim materials and they’re like, we talk about this for every project, but we’ve yet to get it done. Right. And so I think it’s more at that stage, but there is a lot of interest from the client side. There’s a lot of push I think as well from the kind of regulatory side in Massachusetts at least. There’s a number of communities, Cambridge, Boston, Somerville, Newton, I believe Amherst that have all now have embodied carbon as part of their zoning process. And you know, currently at the state they’re looking at ways to implement and think about embodied carbon. So there could be something coming at a more state level.
Right now they’re all at the stage of like, again, just think about and document your body carbon with the goal of kind of pushing towards lower levels in the future. And then there’s a lot of standards that are also, I think pushing towards having lower embodied carbon. You know, LEED obviously has a credit around that. It’s becomes a prerequisite and LEED version fives and working towards reductions. And then LBC, which is increasingly becoming more common in the industry. It used to just be little nature centers, but now you’re seeing in bigger buildings and more complex typologies, and that has a requirement for reclaimed materials. It also has a requirement around reducing embodied carbon, but we have a number of projects where they’re pursuing LBC core, and because we do large buildings, we need 30 reclaimed materials, which like suddenly starts to drive <laugh> the design. And so that actually for us has been one of the biggest drivers of like making it from something that comes out that you talk a lot about and everyone’s kind of vaguely interested in and then never do to being like, okay, no, we have to find 30 of these <laugh>.
So you mentioned LBC twice, you wanna tell our listeners what LBC is?
LBC is a living building challenge. It’s a green building rating system similar to LEED, though it looks at where LEED is about kind of propelling the bell and moving the market. LBC is about kind of being the bleeding edge and sort of the beacon that we, you know, everybody should strive towards. So kind of really trying to look at like, how do we have a truly regenerative building? And for a long time it was a lot of these little nature centers in the woods that were net zero, which is great, but we do like 500,000 square foot lab buildings <laugh>, and that wasn’t really feasible. And so LBC core, I would say is like, it’s like a little harder than LEED platinum, but maybe akin to a LEED platinum building. It’s like really far out there, but isn’t quite everything that the, like the full living building challenge is. And so that’s been a really interesting, like entry point for projects and we’re seeing a lot of interest in, in LBC Core in particular, which is the like, you know, on-ramps to full living building challenge for sure.
Michael, anything to add? Like what’s drive, you’re part of CLF, the Carbon Leadership Forum here in Boston? So what do you think is really driving the market locally?
I think it’s just the idea where, I think a lot of people are realizing that what we have been doing doesn’t quite make sense to where we wanna go and that there’s so much unexplored opportunity. There’s various industry groups. The, the state, the Mass DEP, the EPA has put out that something there between 2% to 4% of materials that can be salvaged from a project or a building site typically are. So with that much opportunity and then kind of blowing up the very ignorance of, well, I’m getting really good waste reports, we’re doing a great job. When you start shedding daylight on kind of, well, the industry’s not doing that great. And then you have client goals that are, we want to hit either a certain diversion percentage or increasing specifications that that really get specific and well for construction waste, you, you can’t kind of go about that.
You can’t landfill this, you have to hit these percentages. And then clients that are auditing these waste and are asking for better, I think that exploration of what’s possible is actually driving a lot of innovation of, well, what can I salvage? Where should it go? And then how do I actually start closing the loop with design partners so that we’re not just kind of suffocating the storage we do have with these materials that never go anywhere and eventually have to be thrown out. It’s really kind of how can we be innovative and collaborate and and figuring this all out together. And that’s what I’ve seen both kind of on the, the industry side, but also kind of the construction execution side as well. Yeah,
I like to sort of cheekly think about it as like just Yankee frugality, right?
Speaker 1 (9:53)
Oh, sure.
Speaker 3 (9:54)
A lot of that culturally built in Into the market here. Everybody’s always looking for silver bullet like this, how can tech help us? Right? So are there any tools or platforms that are really available at this point to help people identify reusable materials or to help evaluate the low carbon materials and, and options early in the process?
I would say so tools one that’s pretty powerful is software called Open Space. So for those who unaware, it’s imaging software where you can walk around a construction site and right on the top of your hard hat, there’s a cool camera that goes on and it takes a 360 view as you walk through. I mentioned pre-demo salvage assessments earlier, and it’s great if you’re kind of a single person going out there and kind of taking photos with your phone. But it gets hard then to kind of put the composite together because a lot of times these, these systems are interweaved or, or kind of throughout the space, but only in this area, not that area. So having kind of a, a walk through the space 360 I think is really helpful then to send to reuse vendors to remanufacturer, to kind of these outlets, nonprofits so that they know the hard part is I guess the other side of the coin is there’s not great software for kind of categorizing, storing kind of tracing where these materials are.
There’s different softwares that kind of almost feel like a, a new age Craigslist, but there, there needs to be much more sophisticated software going forward to almost kind of take a, a digital twin of materials so then you can follow where it’s going and then eventually give designers wanna close the loop that assurance that there’s a, a quality, a quantity and kind of if you’re looking at the timing aspects of it in four months, you can install it into a project and have that. Right now that’s not quite what we have and we really need to kind of make sure that loop is more full.
Yeah. Anything from the design side? No tools,
Speaker 2 (11:47):
No <laugh>, we have the most like rudimentary brute force method at the moment, which is like a spreadsheet that we have like Googled and try to find everything that we can that sells or specifies, you know, you can get salvage wood here and here’s the six vendors and here, but, and you know, we have a mirror board of these are the chairs that are available right now and we like look and there’s five here and three, but no, it is, it is brute force method and pretty unsophisticated tools.
<Laugh>. Yeah, I’ve heard, I’ve heard people sort of like tie on on this future idea of RFID tags or QR codes attached to materials so that like, even if the as-builts get lost at some point or they never get referenced again, which is usually more the experience this, somebody has something that’s like attached to that so that it can live on. And people understand exactly what the dimensions of the elevation are, whatever for a possible potential reuse at some point. So if we back up to like the beginning of projects when we have the most opportunity, how do we combine specifications or the submittal process so that they can play more of a role in promoting reuse or takeback strategies on projects? And are there any best practices for really kind of aligning that design intent with procurement and construction realities?
Yeah, I think we actually have to change how we, I don’t know if there’s a best practice ’cause we haven’t <laugh> had to established that yet. And I don’t know if anyone has and if they have, I’d love to hear them, but I think, I do think we have to change how we design, right? Like right now as a designer, I go and I look at the materials that are available and I pick one and that becomes the basis of design. I put it in the spec, it then, goes out to the contractor, the contractor written, and it’s like two years before it might even show up depending on the duration of construction before it might even show up in the building. And so the challenge that we have with some of the, trying to use salvage materials of do we find something now and then do warehouse it for that period of time, or do we just design something and like, fingers crossed it’s available and like, you know, the time I need it, which could be, you know, very far in the, in the future.
And so I think short of like getting lots of wear, like warehousing things and like having some system like that, I think changing how we specify things. So it’s more about these are the design intents, this is what we’re trying to accomplish. Bringing, you know, the, the contractor along of like, this is what we’re trying to do, this is maybe the basis of design, what we’re looking for. And then it’s more of a back and forth through this, the submittal process of like, well there are these that are available salvage with this work. And you know, we could kind of, and maybe it’s not even as formal as like the, the formal submittal process, but like a more of a dialogue when the time comes and then, you know, being able to kind of get the, the right things.
Yeah. Michael, any thoughts on
Yeah, I would say before we get to to that, I think first and second steps, especially on the construction side, is what can we do with the, the specification of the drawings we have now to kind of start this snowball and, and grow it a bit. So specifications like the construction waste management plan there’s spec section and kind of not asking for like a 75% and figure it out yourselves, but really we’re walking through the, okay, you cannot landfill these materials. Asking for site separation, asking for kind of third party verified diversion rates and going above and beyond what’s typical. Because I think if you just ask for a number, you’re just gonna get a number and that’s easy to swallow if you don’t look at it or think about it or audit it.
And then little notes I think always helpful if you’re, if you’re on the demolition drawings, just adding a note as simple as GC to coordinate manufacture takeback program or evaluate salvage options for these items, I think go a long way. ’cause Then those are being passed over to in the bid process to our demo sub and they’re for sure reading that. And then it’s becoming a requirement. And once it’s a requirement that is just on the drawings and in specs, then it’s leveling the bids out so that we’re not seeing a green premium for kind of circular efforts. And then, and then the snowball then goes, okay, you’re growing a more mindful approach in the, in the demo sum contractor market. So I think that’s really important. And then just kind of standardizing that across the board so it’s not just a one-off project, but we’re going to try to look, I said earlier, like a pre-demo salvage assessment.
If you can at times identify what’s there, then suddenly every demo drawing is having that. And to quickly talk about manufactured payback programs, there are manufacturers who now have their own construction waste management specs for that product. So if you can identify it earlier, you can reach out to an interface or a Shaw or a Tarkett and put that in the specifications themselves. So then down the line, once again, if you get to the bid process, the demo sub can not only look at it themselves in the drawings, but look back in the specs and say, this is exactly what I need to do to pull this out.
Yeah, I would, how did the, sorry. My experience has been that like the most success that we’ve had is when we’ve had those pre-con opportunities to collaborate with the designers of the sustainability consultants, in order for us to be able to say we don’t, like that’s your boilerplate specification, but we think that there’s an opportunity to do much better or to do differently and we have the ability to suggest those changes. You were gonna say something?
Yeah, I was just gonna ask, I thought it was a, an interesting comment ’cause I feel like we often put in our specs like, oh, you know, try to find salvage opportunities or divert from [landfills], but then they, you know, it’s like aspirational and I feel like half the time <laugh> it’s like, oh yeah, yeah, but I don’t have to do that. And so how do you move it from, and you know, you’re responsible for means and methods Sure. But like how do we move it from something that’s just like, this is the goal to like, it’s a requirement or like, you know, just to have like more teeth?
Sure, I’ve seen and asked designers to remove language, like if feasible or possible.
Yeah. That’s what we have to do
Because when that, when that happens, I think, I think subcontractors, I think definitely our subcontractors would be like, well it wasn’t feasible or it’s not possible. So kind of I think removing that language, not making it something like add alt is also really important. Yeah. ’cause If it’s seen as an adult, usually it’s priced into oblivion because it’s foreign or different or kind of not the main path we could go. But I think specifically listing things out, some of the most kind of powerful specs that I’ve seen is saying verbatim, you cannot landfill or co-mingle to landfill this material cardboard scrap metal. Yeah. Yeah. There was one that said polyiso insulation and the project was a roofing project. So we had to go audit away to say, okay, I see this in specification and then find outside the Boston area, Framingham a foam recycler who would take that. And what we realized is after the fact is it’s cheaper to give it to them than it was to put it in a dumpster and send a landfill with tipping fees, even though it’s a fairly live material. They wanted that. So while they weren’t buying it back, it was essentially a, a $0 tipping fee and it made the client happy, it hit the diversion goals, we could verify that, but simply because the specification had listed that as a very kind of, this is what you need to do.
Yeah. So when you make it not a choice then we move it from aspirational to, to getting it done Yeah. are there certain materials or systems, you know, you’ve talked a little bit about flooring and take back programs, but are there, are there materials where circularity is easier to implement?
I think from a reclaimed materials wood is probably the most common and easiest to find in the northeast. I’ve learned recently we’re doing a project in Seattle’s for whatever reason, there is not as much reclaimed wood. I don’t have many as many barns coming down, but <laugh> in the northeast, there’s a pretty good and pretty regular supply of reclaimed wood that you can at least be confident that there will be some what species exactly what you need some flexibility on. But like you can find reclaimed wood and in decent quantities. And so that seems to be one. I think insulation is interestingly one that we’re seeing more and more like XPS you can get reclaimed. And then the other one that interestingly enough, and this is just because I think they’ve really figured out the market and how to like bridge that gap between taking something out of a building and when it needs to go in is, is doors with like doors unhinged not, I dunno if we kind of promote, but anyway, <laugh> shout out to them because they’ve figured out a way to get into the spec and just be one of the three and be cost competitive and kind of like work their way, right?
And which is like, it solved some of that for very specific material. Some of those challenges that we have with other things when you need to be the connector. And then furniture seems to be another one that you can get. It’s the challenge of like, is the right quantity? Does it, you know, that just seems to be a little more challenging. But there seems to at least be a decent market in a market and like you can find a whole bunch of websites and scour through and figure out stuff.
Anything you wanna add to that list?
I mean I would agree with a lot of the same. I think when we’re going and mostly interior projects to kind of what can we salvage? I think furniture is something that is, is very, especially post pandemic. Surprisingly not used as much as you think and has extremely high value. But I think a lot of it, and well not kind of particularly use, I said before, the kind of mindful demo of it all asking for site separation of certain materials through the demo and construction process is really kind of growing. The idea of more mindful approaches to this all and taking out what you can of something like gypsum wallboard, which typically if you just want to kind of co-mingle and throw it all away, is getting that gypsum dust over everything, processes don’t want it ’cause it’s contaminating all their loads.
And then you can find that if we do a good enough job site separating it for this clean gypsum wallboard, here’s an end market for it. The USA gypsum in Pennsylvania, there’s a similar gypsum company in Seattle. And then if you get really good at it, can we start giving those back to the manufacturers national gypsum rights in Portsmouth outside of New York City in Buchanan, New York, there’s certainties. So it’s, yes, what can we do kind of on the demo side to full on salvage, but right now I think we’re only so good at salvaging that not only means and methods of kind of getting it out of the space, but once again a storage and how do we kind of combine that. But I think if we take kind of the, the full look at circularity, maybe a step down from reuse to recycling, I think we could be much, much better. And then the more we can do that, I think the more opportunities do open up to kind of expand our purview on what is possible.
Yeah, that’s that’s really good. Opportunities sort of pivoting from that to partnerships. I mean we’ve, we’ve sort of given shout outs to quite a few different, like manufacturers and companies. I think partnerships are key to really making material reuse and circularity possible. But let’s talk about what kinds of partnerships in addition, you know, architects, contractors, manufacturers, trade partners, clients. I mean it’s really it’s really gotta be everybody’s responsibility at the end of the day.
Yeah, I would agree with that. I think, you know, back to the previous conversation around like needing to work together, particularly, you know, the design and the, the the contractor and trade partner side, but the client has to be bought into like this new process and really wanting to do it as well. Right. I think there’s only so much you can drag them along if they’re not invested. ’cause It is a different way of doing things and there are some potential risks when you don’t have something new of the liability and it’s this really, you know, and just like unknowns that I think they need to, to be equally as on board as well as working together.
Yeah.
Yeah, I would say, so probably in my mind three main kind of partnerships. One is the, the owner designer as it bring as a contractor in to see kind of what is possible. A lot of circular success stories around the US have been the owner. Whether it’s a institution that says, oh, I do have space or I do have this material that is just so standard that we ordered extra. So here’s a quick win that if we didn’t think about or look into it, we wouldn’t have done. I think the second set of relationship is the contractor to the subcontractor. I mentioned a bunch of times kind of, it felt like in a good way holding hands, okay, this is maybe not something you’ve always done before. You want to go and do this as quickly as possible, but we’re going to try to pull this out, pull that out.
And because maybe there’s cost savings to it, maybe you were reducing the number of dumpsters that are going out because the takeback program is manufacturers picking for free. Or we can get much lower tipping fee when we separate. So that’s kind of a learning. But I would also say the, the contractor flow down to reuse vendor, or end use market, processor even is, really needs to kind of continue to be worked on because that, that typical linear flow that we’ve seen has left reuse vendors being hyper niche and really underdeveloped has had processors just give us piece of paper with numbers on it saying You’re doing a great job when really isn’t the case. And, and, and maybe we find a scrap metal outlet for demo because it’s so much, but we don’t need to think about it for the construction scope. So it’s really kind of developing those relationships and understanding through that flow of from the site to where it’s going, those partners and how what does better look like? What does a better relationship look like? What does better logistics and handling look like? And I think the more we can grow that, the easier it becomes on those other relationships so we know what the possibilities of actually executing circularity.
We’re gonna pivot to the last question, which is gonna be really kind of like forward thinking future. What do you think it would take to make material circularity standard practice in across, you know, Boston’s market or within our firms? How do we get there from here?
I think, I think regulations or maybe not in regulation policy would help something that would help drive and kind of require the deconstruction as opposed to landfilling things like we might normally, I think for that would help create more of a market and a comfort from a design or a knowledge from a design standpoint that materials would be regularly coming. ’cause That’s one of the challenges right now. So I think that policy could play a big role in kind of helping move and create the demand, like push the demand. And I think really just changing how we design and deliver buildings is gonna be, need to be part of that. Yeah,
I would definitely say policy. There’s very successful even in the US right now, deconstruction ordinances that something like Portland, Oregon has Palo Alto, California, even San Antonio, Texas. And while they’re all shaded a bit different, San Antonio’s looking at historic preservation, Portland, Oregon’s looking at strictly materials. There’s a lot of incentives both sticks and carats that I think push the market forward. The permitting process, which is so important to, to contractors and developers. How can you, if you can prove circularity that you can turn the demo into deconstruction drawings and, and prove out where these materials are going and have these plans and then can you get two weeks back on your permit. Boston is a classic example of permits take a very, very long time. So time is really important. And then I think the, the second part of all this is storage.
I can’t say that enough. Whether it’s storage from owners, whether it’s storage from kind of the municipalities or the state having something like in California, the, the idea of the brick the building building to reuse innovation center and having sponsored storage of, okay, you know, here is a 20,000 square foot warehouse, say 50,000 what have you, to where you can have these materials and you can have an eye on them and use ’em for both commercial and residential means to then just kind of increase that proof of concept. ’cause In theory, a lot of this makes a lot of sense. It’s just we’re really kind of trying to figure out, not great right now, the execution of it all. So if policy can, can push the idea forward and then some sort of kind of storage capabilities can really make sure that, that, once again that snowball keeps going. I think a lot of times we find that it, it is the, the cost effective obviously very carbon effective way of going about it. But we need to kind of prove that out and without storage and policy we’re, we’re only doing so much so quickly. Yeah.
Like policy is the thing, is the tipping point, right. That’s gonna create the business case and the business model for the warehousing and storage and, and the, the companies that are doing the reuse and, and and refurbishment of these materials to sort of drop off last
Thoughts. Oh, I was just gonna to agree with that. And I actually think policy or policy or whether it’s at the state or local level of providing some of that storage initially. ’cause Right now it’s like a chicken in and egg problem.
Speaker 1 (28:47)
Sure.
Speaker 2 (28:48)
Nobody specifies salvage material ’cause it’s not there and no one’s pulling it out to try to salvage it because no one wants it. Right. And you just end up throwing, so it’s like this chicken and an egg problem. And so I feel like if somebody who could have a, you know, thought towards the, the greater, you know, thinking more long term without needing to necessarily be as focused on the bottom line, whether it be the state or something like that where you could just have storage available. I think it could be become financially, you know, independent and like spin off eventually.
But like, I mean I don’t know that economics have enough, but I would think you could get there <laugh>, right? I’m just an architect. We’re terrible at this <laugh>, but I think you need someone to like be the incubator to start that storage and make the investment and just like take that bet that it’s going to make sense. And then if you have the policies that drive people to To deconstruct and to, you know, want to, to you know, or need to drive down your embodied carbon of your projects, then they, there’ll be the market, you’ll have the supply and like it’ll, it’ll, you know, perpetuate itself. But like you need someone to like take that bet. Yeah,
Yeah, for sure. Because I would say the the commercial market and the residential market right now are, are, are very kind of apart on it all. Yeah. Because I think in the residential market you can say, okay, I have these, the, the, this timber that I pulled out of a a building, it’s, I only have a a bundle or two of you can the next day maybe move to a project. But if I’m pulling out 400 chairs, if I’m pulling out all these furniture fixtures pallets of carpet, tile, ceiling, tile, solid core wood doors. Exactly, exactly. Where, where are they going? And, and if we really wanted to, I think contractors could flood the marketplace supply, but where is it going and how is it the, the demand can’t possibly be there because it’s time gated. It’s, it’s, there’s a bunch of different things that play there.
So there really needs to be that kind of connective tissue that just doesn’t exist right now. But I think easily could. Yeah, especially with the industry right now. Just pivoting there, there, there could be a new revolutionary unthought of kind of player in the market, but there might not need to be there. ’cause the theory is there and we’re almost doing it. It’s just how can we turn a demo a bit more towards deconstruction? How can we turn the, the kind of supply chains we already have just kind of be a bit more flexible and open and, and the policy we already have just to be a bit kind of more of requiring and incentivizing it. So it’s all there. It’s just kind of how can we all work together to actually achieve it and push it forward.
Yeah. Well that’s the question we’ll leave for our listeners. Thank you both. This has been a ton of fun. I’m so glad that you were able to join us and hope to do it again soon. Thank you much. Thanks.