The house next to my parent’s house is in the process of being demolished and rebuilt, and when they knocked down the old house, there was a huge pile of rubble that was then hauled away. I think that in the case of the house-rubble, viewing that waste as archive makes a lot of sense. That house, and the people who lived there, had a history. The people were part of our community, the house was part of our neighborhood, and I grew up with those things as a given, along with the other kids in my neighborhood. From an outsider’s perspective, viewing the scraps of wood and concrete, they wouldn’t know where the house had been or who had lived there, but it still has that history nonetheless. It could also easily be viewed as hazard, since most of the houses in my neighborhood were built during a time when asbestos was being used in construction, as well as the simple fact that there were pokey shards of wood and other potentially unknown hazards in the pile of debris. The construction and waste workers who were dealing with this debris wore PPE and took lots of precautionary measures to protect themselves from harm due to the nature of this waste, which seemed like a good call and made a lot of sense. This waste was also, in a lot of ways, a governable object, in that the house had been condemned by the government (deemed waste by the government even when it was still standing) and ordered to be demolished. It was under government supervision and following government regulations that the house was destroyed, the materials disposed of, and that the plans for the new house have started to be executed. The state had deemed the house either an eyesore or a hazard or both in its prior condition, and took steps to come in and change that. I think all three of these designations make a lot of sense when thinking about this house, but apply to different aspects of its existence and demolition process.