This is particularly obvious in the realm of materials selection. Green architects and engineers must at the moment select from a fairly limited palette of materials if they are to design ecologically. With the development of less toxic and energy-intensive materials, and the generalization of design-for-disassembly (on the product and building level), the palette will increase. But at the moment, designers must make hard choices for the environment and community development. There are few simple answersso much depends on context. Wood, brick, concrete, metal, even plastics: all have their proper places, but it is likely quite different than their current uses. Wood: North America is using way too much wood, over 15 percent of global production by only 5 percent of the worlds population (Edminster, 1997). It is being used for inappropriate applications (e.g. paper, roofing) and not recycled or reused. Yet, as Guy and Shell (2002) point out, wood is a highly preferable material in design for deconstruction since it is flexible for both reuse and recycling, a natural material, and can be readily connected using interstitial connecting devices such as bolts. Wood is a key element in deconstruction efforts today. In fact, of all materials, wood has thus far been the main prize of deconstruction, especially in residential building. It is not uncommon for wood to comprise a third of recovered materials, and for wood recovery rates to achieve 90 percent. The average house in North America contains 13,000 board feet of lumber, most of which is ordinarily bulldozed and dumped (Holmes, 1997). The rise of new industrial subsectors that make comprehensive use of wood residuals (e.g. for engineered wood or composite decking lumber), combined with