Demolishing Human-Scale Development Undermines Emissions Reduction

Deep Dive – Climate Change Series

A gap exists between what municipal governments say about climate action and what they actually accomplish. This article is the forth in an eight-part series exploring that reality.

---

The Greenest Building is the One Already Built

The construction industry is, as the Economist has said, “horribly climate unfriendly.” The publication went on to say that “governments are falling well short in their efforts to turn things around.” There is no better way to illustrate this point than to compare a worst-case scenario in Halifax, Nova Scotia with an arguably better outcome in Portland, Maine. And that’s what I’ll do here.

 A few years ago, Carl Elefante, former president of the American Institute of Architects, (somewhat) famously said, “The greenest building is the one already built.” Why? Because a tremendous amount of energy and materials have already gone into making the thing. The idea is that you don’t want to demolish it and then build anew. Whenever possible, renovate the building. In doing this, you’re minimizing the amount of embodied carbon you’re dumping into the atmosphere.

All this ties back to the first key objective of any climate action plan, namely, to renovate rather than demolish existing human-scale development.

You are likely familiar with the term “embodied carbon.” If not, a quick explanation is in order. The term refers to all CO2 that gets emitted in relation to building construction. When we mill lumber, CO2 is produced. When we make and transport materials like steel and concrete, more CO2 is produced. And when we construct a building, yet more gets produced. Embodied carbon refers to all this “up front” CO2 that’s emitted before anyone ever occupies a new building.

Elefante and the Economist are making an implicit point regarding municipal climate action plans. For a municipality, such as Halifax, to claim it’s a climate leader, yet completely ignore the impact of widespread building demolition, makes a mockery of so-called “climate action.” Although there are risks on the horizon in Portland, over the past two decades, the city has taken a different path relative to Halifax. Although there are exceptions, Portland typically preserves the human-scale development it already has to the benefit of the climate and a community that values its built environment.

Widespread Demolition in Halifax Over the Past Two Decades

When my wife Christine and I moved to Halifax in July 2000, most of the city was still built at the human scale and dominated by late 19^th and early 20^th-century architecture. It was a somewhat shabby yet vibrant city and had a feel of its own. For me, Halifax bore some resemblance to Bergen, Norway, one of my favorite places. Back then, Canadian researchers found employers had no difficulty bringing talent to Halifax on account of the “quality of place.”¹ People appreciated the built and natural environment, the pace of life, the lack of traffic, and affordability. These things drew us back in 2007 to raise a family. Since then, however, much of what we valued has been erased for cultural reasons I’ve described in Part 2.

Below is a map of Halifax’s urban core showing demolition permits that were active between January 2020 and June 2022. They’re part of a much larger group of over 2500 demolition permits the municipality has issued since 2003.

Halifax’s urban core isn’t that big, yet developers have torn down the equivalent of over 17 city blocks over the past 20 years. Suffice it to say, demolition is a big part of Nova Scotia’s business culture. Renovation is rarely considered. The government, for example, routinely allows schools and hospitals to fall into disrepair, strengthening the case for awarding politically connected contractors lucrative deals to demolish and build anew.

Since 2020, the rate of destruction has sped up as Halifax aggressively pursues its goal of erasing the historic city and building tall. As described in Part 3, Halifax’s climate action plan fails to even mention that widespread demolition is taking place, much less speak to the environmental consequences.

The slide show below shows the scale of destruction in and around the neighborhood where we raised our family. I’ve included pictures of our 120-year-old house, which we renovated in 2008. What you see in these pictures is the implementation of Halifax’s “strategic growth” agenda which I’ve also described in Part 2. Buildings fall victim to a municipal policy called “upzoning,” Developers buy and combine narrow lots, destroy the structures, and then erect much larger, taller buildings made of concrete and steel.

Reactions to Demolition in Halifax

There is in Halifax, a culture of learned helplessness. It’s expressed in the occasional conversation between neighbors and in the many newspaper articles that have described demolitions in Halifax over the years. It is the same place it was 50 years ago when prominent outsiders described Halifax as being a “governmentally organized town” where “authoritarian, bureaucratic, not very productive” ways of doing business were the norm. 

What you have is a largely unaccountable, top-down decision-making culture that favors developer profit at the expense of the community.

People in Halifax have reacted differently to all the buildings being torn down. Some are upset. Some have given up. Others don’t seem to care. And a few have taken the time to document what’s being lost.

In 2023, the Dalhousie University Law Journal published a paper by Eliza Richardson pointing out that historic properties were disappearing at an “alarming rate.” She notes that since 2009, developers have demolished 41% of all buildings that had potential heritage value. And that figure is growing larger quickly.

More recently, a Canadian archeologist named Jonathan Fowler led a team that figured out that only 12.8% of the 8,931 buildings from 1878 were still standing. Their online report and maps illustrating what has been lost are, at the same time, well done and discouraging. The report refers to the buildings still standing as a “silver lining” and holds out the hope that Halifax’s urban planners may think differently if presented with a clear picture of Halifax’s architectural heritage. The larger forces driving demolition suggest otherwise.

Building Demolition is Widely Recognized as Climate Unfriendly

One interesting thing about Halifax’s response to climate change is how those involved with “climate action” are so capable of ignoring everything that’s known about the impact of building demolition. Here I’d like to note what just a few prominent voices have said in recent years.

London School of Economics

Back in 2003, the UK government launched what they called their “Sustainable Communities Plan.” Similar to Halifax, this plan encouraged a lot of building demolitions. Anne Power, a professor at the London School of Economics, criticized the policy in an award-winning paper published in the Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineering. In this paper, titled “Housing and Sustainability: Demolition or Refurbishment?”, she argues that the government’s approach was expensive, unpopular, and not sustainable. In conclusion, Power writes,

Large-scale and accelerated demolition would neither help with meeting energy and climate change targets, nor would it address social needs. Refurbishment offers clear advantages in time, cost, community impact, prevention of building sprawl, reuse of existing infrastructure and protection of existing communities. It can also lead to significantly reduced energy use in buildings in both the short and long term.

Ann Power, London School of Economics

International Energy Agency

Intergovernmental organizations have pushed to recognize how the construction industry affects the climate and the planet. One of these is the International Energy Agency (IEA). They research issues and provide policy recommendations relating to the world’s energy use. Knowing that time is running out, they’ve offered up six big ideas to help the construction industry reduce emissions. And one of them calls for incentivizing renovation over tearing buildings down.

European Commission

In the spirit of the IEA’s recommendation, the European Commission has created a program to preserve existing buildings. It’s called Renovation Wave. The European Commission has said the following about ending building demolition.

Europe aims to be the first climate neutral continent in the world. To achieve this ambitious goal and align all agents within the EU, the European Green Deal aims to overcome the challenges of climate change and guide the continent towards carbon-zero by 2050, while creating economic growth.

One of the key actions identified by the European Green Deal is the need to renovate the existing building stock. The building sector is one of the largest energy consumers, accounting for 40% of the EU’s total energy consumption and over one third of total energy-related greenhouse gas emissions. To date, however, the pace of deep renovation across Europe is lagging. This is not only a threat to the achievement of climate targets, but also impacts the far-reaching social, economic and environmental benefits that could be brought by renovation at scale, creating jobs and improving the lives of communities across the EU.

European Commission

World Economic Forum

Even the business-friendly World Economic Forum understands that building demolition is the wrong way to proceed.

Urgent action is needed in cities if countries are to meet their net zero targets. However, the established model of demolishing existing structures and rebuilding is hard to justify; new construction brings its own issues of embodied carbon, material shortages and global supply chain pressures.

World Economic Forum

UK RetroFirst Movement

In 2019, the Architect’s Journal, the UK’s top architecture magazine, started a movement called RetroFirst. Over 200 architects support RetroFirst, but it doesn’t yet have the equivalent backing of the European Commission in the UK. However, the House of Commons has held meetings about the movement, and more UK politicians are calling for an end to the wasteful and harmful cycle of tearing down and rebuilding. In the video below, RetroFirst explains how demolition affects the climate.

In recent years, municipal councils in a handful of UK cities such as Bath, Camden, and Westminster have adopted “retro-first policies.” In the biggest move so far, London announced in 2025 that it will enact a similar policy.   

A Broader Discussion Around Demolition and Climate Change

Many organizations, besides those highlighted above, have made public statements regarding the importance of ending building demolitions. One of the most important points made is to dispel the myth that refurbishing a building is more costly than demolishing and building anew. 

Portland’s Levels of Demolition are a Small Fraction of the Halifax Demolitions

Different cultural values in Maine and Nova Scotia have pointed Portland and Halifax in opposite directions regarding building demolition. Here, I just want to reiterate a couple of points to help clarify why there’s relatively little demolition taking place in Portland.

Portland’s master plan, Portland’s Plan 2030, begins by saying that it is “a statement of community values and a framework to advance those values.”[i] One of the main ideas in the plan is that the community wants to make Portland a better place to live by improving upon the features that make its historic neighborhoods unique.

In contrast to Halifax, there is no part of Portland’s master plan that suggests they aim to demolish large swaths of older sections of the city. It’s quite the opposite. There’s a section of the plan titled Environmental Benefits of Historic Preservation which reads, “the re-use or rehabilitation of existing buildings offers significant environmental benefits over new construction.”

Portland’s climate action plan falls short of explicitly calling for the end of building demolition, and as I’ll touch on shortly, Portland’s municipal council is not above making questionable decisions regarding demolition. Yet, Portland has seen far less demolition than Halifax over the past two decades.

Portland recently created its 12th historic district in a neighborhood called Munjoy Hill. Before making this decision, the city commissioned a study to clarify trends inside and outside historic districts. The study looked at things like population, housing costs, building conditions, and construction. They published their finding in a report called Trends in Portland’s Historic Districts. Their findings showed historic districts in Portland provide many benefits and have no downsides. Of relevance here is what the study had to say about building demolition in Portland.

Portland covers 21.5 square miles and has a busy, urban peninsula and a less intensively developed mainland. The peninsula is synonymous with the “city” and is home to 36% of Portland’s people. About 70% of these people live in one of the city’s eight historic urban districts.

Per the study, demolition makes up only 3% of all development activity in Portland and less than 1% in historic districts. Almost two-thirds of the work in historic districts comes from renovations, while the rest is new construction on empty lots.

Over the 6-year period from which these figures come, Portland demolished an average of 11,700 square feet each year within the city’s historic districts. This equates to losing a handful of buildings each year.

To put this into perspective, in Halifax, entire blocks have been demolished in a day and there’s more to come. For example, in the near term, two different Halifax developers will demolish 17 of 25 historic buildings on the block shown below.

In Portland, widespread demolition of this sort would be problematic. Their master plan speaks not only about the “significant environmental impacts associated with demolition and waste disposal, the production of new raw materials, and new construction.” This plan also lays out a strategy for Portland to “document and designate resources of historic, architectural, and/or cultural significance to encourage thoughtful building rehabilitation, deter demolition, and support neighborhood revitalization.”

As shown below, Portland’s demolition figures are consistent with this strategy.

You can find evidence of demolitions in Portland, but it’s not widespread. For example, in the Munjoy Hill neighborhood I mentioned above, there are cases where monied individuals have torn down an older home and built a larger, modern-looking house in its place. Residents concerned over the loss of the area’s unique character responded by pressing the government to grant the neighborhood historic district status. And, after much discussion, debate, and analysis, it happened.

Risks in Portland

Keeping Portland’s low rate of demolition in mind, there is the risk that the municipality may contradict the stated goal of reducing demolitions. Two things stand out.

First, the city’s recent rezoning overhaul (i.e., ReCode) has also increased the height limits in the downtown. It’s a part of town that is currently chock full of distinctive, historic, commercial, and residential buildings. Now, Portland’s council can approve new buildings up to 21 stories tall, which would mean tearing down these older, more distinctive structures.

A councilor who voted for the height increases says, “The intent is not to radically reshape most of the city.” I’ll talk more about this in Part 6. Ideally, Portland’s neighborhood groups and civic organizations, like The Urbanist Coalition of Portland, can continue to work with the city to preserve and expand the city’s human-scale architecture.

The second issue is that Portland’s council recently approved tearing down a well-known historic building. This building, built in 1830, sits in a national historic district. The reason given for demolition was that the building’s appearance changed over time. Yet this holds true for some of the world’s most famous historic buildings, like the Pantheon.

The council’s decision went against the advice of Portland’s planning board and its historic preservation board. In doing so, they set aside the city’s objectives to “deter demolition” and “encourage thoughtful building rehabilitation.”

A preservation nonprofit is fighting the decision in court, but if the building is demolished, it would likely set the wrong precedent for the future.

Reticence to Discuss Versus a Willingness to Go to Jail

Hundreds of people have been involved with HalifACT, Halifax’s climate action plan. Many come from Dalhousie University’s College of Sustainability and the School of Planning (where I did my planning degree). Yet, in these circles, there has been a collective silence regarding the environmental impacts of demolition. There is reticence to even discuss, much less criticize, the choices Halifax has made.

No one has ever been sent to jail in Halifax for protesting the destruction of a historic building, as they have in Portland. In Portland, people appear to be more willing to stand up for what they believe in. Fewer people there mask passivity, dishonesty, and bad decisions with politeness and good manners.

---

1. See Grant, Jill & KRONSTAL, KARIN. (2010). The social dynamics of attracting talent in Halifax. Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe canadien. 54. 347 – 365. 10.1111/j.1541-0064.2010.00310.x. ↩︎

Up Next: Part 5 looks at both the research showing that building tall maximizes emissions and very different development outcomes in Halifax and Portland concerning high rises. Previously: Part 3 illustrated the extent to which a municipality’s climate action plan can be little more than an exercise in virtue signaling.