Is anyone looking at the entire lifecycle of whatever structure they're aiming to build? Green building is not just using sustainable materials and energy efficiency, but accounting for the structures impact over its entire life: design, construction, and eventual renovation or removal. By using designing for deconstruction/disassembly building plans are made much more flexible and able to incorporate not only green materials, but also to specify using materials with high potential for reuse or recycling in the future.

Is anyone out there using these principles in their designs, and what success or issues have you had with this process?

I think that approach is trying to cure a symptom instead of a problem. One of the main reasons people have to deconstruct houses in the first place is because certain parts of them break down two quickly, for example the foundation starts to crumble or the roof leaks and rots out the rafters, or particleboard subflooring absorbs water and disintegrates, ect. If you are talking about deconstructing a house, that implies that most of the “parts”(like the actual pieces of wood or concrete) of the house are still good, but for some reason the house is not. Why not design a house where the whole is as strong as the parts. Whoever tries to take the structures that I build apart will be cursing under every breath. Rebar in every piece of concrete, glue and screwed subfloor and plywood, hardened ring shank nails that won't pull, double diaphragm walls that would be a bear to pull the first diaphragm. Advantech water resistant plywood used everywhere, with metal fasteners holding all wooden connections solid. Basically, I build houses that will last until the wood literally breaks down, and as long as I keep a good roof on it and keep enemy number 1 (water) out, that will be a very long time.

This similar idea same can be said for other newer construction techniques, like an ICF house which would be a bear to take back apart(anyone volunteer to remove the reinforced concrete?), but who needs to if it lasts a very long time.

Just think about how much energy goes into taking all the raw materials and putting them into a structure. Even something as simple as the gas burned as all the construction workers drive back and forth to work each day can really start to pile up. Even if you had the greenest materials possible and were able to reuse every single material used in the old structure, not having to build another structure in the first place would still be “greener”.

If there was a way to design for dissasembly alongside designing for ultimate strength, I would be all for it, but unfortunately most of the time those are conflicting goals.

In my opinion from a green design, here is the best in my opinion.

http://www.greenrightnow.com/wabc/2009/06/22/schools-go-net-zero-in-kentucky-and-win-national-award/

Why local, state, and federal government agencies can't follow the blue prints set forth in this story is way beyond me.

Ren,
Thank you for the link. That info is fantastic! I sent it to every member of our county School Board and all the individuals who are Directors of the organization.
If every one who reads this forum sends it to their School Board members it would do so much for so many problems every community faces. To all who read this forum: PLEASE READ the article in the link provided by Ren. You will thank him AND YOURSELF!

http://www.greenrightnow.com/wabc/2009/06/22/schools-go-net-zero-in-kentucky-and-win-national-award/

Bulldozers and wrecking balls quite efficiently can tear down a building he he he. sorry smartaleck comment. Really, though, I think deconstruction is the least of the concerns. If it was built to be easily taken apart, yet not mobile, then your other efficiencies (heating, cost, etc) are non existent. It certainly wouldn't last as long as a house built by aardvarcus