These realizations aren’t new. Interestingly, in 1993 Carl Stein notes in “Energy Conscious Architecture” for the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) that a report from the Energy Policy Project determined:

“From 1965 to 1973, U.S. energy consumption grew at the annual rate of 4.5 percent. This is doubling roughly every 15 years. If we could, miraculously, switch to total solar power in 1995, and if this switch created a return to the “cheap energy” attitudes of the 1960s with the associated exponential growth, by 2010, we would have to devote one percent of our land area to solar collection; by 2025, 2 percent; by 2070…10 percent of the United States would be taken up by collection systems; and before 2110…solar collectors would completely cover the United States.”

Clearly, there is no “silver bullet” to meet our demand for energy consumption and when considering the environmental impact of creating such systems the attitude that renewable energy is the answer is, in fact, directly contradictory to an environmentally responsible point of view. As Carl further points out, “…we must never fall in the trap of thinking of [renewable energy] as easy, cheap or environmentally neutral.” Simply put, there is no free lunch.

The best and most immediate solutions to address the demand for energy are by decreasing the rate of consumption through conservation, resourceful planning and energy conscious design.

Of course, there will almost certainly be some construction, and therefore some energy commitment, required to extend the useful life of older buildings including implementation of measures to significantly improve performance.  The net avoided energy cost will be less than the total energy cost on the new building.  Nonetheless, the new energy that must be “embodied” into the existing building will typically be 1/3 to 2/3 that of starting from scratch.  Additionally, there is that much less debris sent to landfill and that much more “embodied” culture carried forward.

This is not to say that saving older buildings will always be the best choice for the environment, nor is it saying that one should only consider saving important historical buildings if their continued existence can be justified through energy savings or other environmental benefits.  The considerations will be based on a sliding scale.  At one end, there are the truly significant historical and cultural artifacts that must be preserved at all costs.  At the other end, there are the purely utilitarian structures whose continuance will be determined by quantifiable, pragmatic concerns.  In the middle is that vast majority of buildings that make some contribution to the understanding of history and sense of place, and whose reuse will offset some portion of the embodied energy that would otherwise by required for new construction.  These are buildings that are neither historically and culturally indispensable, nor clearly justified by environmental imperatives.  In some cases, the positive attributes embedded in these structures will be outweighed by benefits that can only be achieved through new construction.

Decisions regarding adapting and reusing instead of demolishing and replacing should be informed by multiple factors; some environmental, and some, as Roberts noted, cultural.  What is critical, however, is that all significant considerations be included.  This is particularly true for those middle ground buildings for which no single criterion is likely to prove decisive.  While it’s true that embodied energy itself is not a recoverable resource, it is a valuable asset that can offset the need to expend new energy resources.  And, while it’s unlikely that the energy offsets inherent in building reuse will be the sole determining factor in deciding whether or not to save a building, it is a real consideration that may push the eventual decision in one way rather than another.  To exclude this asset from the equation is to neglect a readily exploitable and relatively benign resource.  To knowingly neglect such a resource at this point in history would be irresponsible.

Bodacious bourbon pours complimented savory vittles at the yet-to-be-opened Hudson Clearwater in Greenwich Village last night. The restaurant’s first event launched Carl Stein’s new book, Greening Modernism: preservation, sustainability and the modern movement (W.W. Norton, $60.00). The affair had a decidedly down to earth flavor, though the elegant crowd resembled intermission at The Met. The venue seemed a natural fit for Stein of Elemental Architecture, since Elemental’s John Barboni designed the space using salvaged material culled from the 180-year-old carriage house.

“From my perspective, it fits into all the themes of the book,” Barboni said from behind a kitchen counter made of the structure’s former floorboards. “Green is not a newfound subject for Carl.”

From atop a small flight of stairs Stein thanked his family and colleagues, then settled in with the band to play banjo.

In Detail> City College’s masterpiece Shepard Hall gets a long-awaited restoration, gargoyles and all. Read Aaron Seward’s full article here.

A primary misconception is the belief that to introduce sustainable measures in low-income communities is problematic because of first cost, and second, that the most effective environmental measures take the form of add-ons such as solar panels.  In fact, many environmentally responsible approaches have equal or lower first costs than their less sustainable counterparts, as well as reducing ongoing operating costs.  Frequently, the only component that must be added is either clearly presented information, or in the case of new buildings or building retrofit, smart design.

This should not be seen as lowering of expectations or of quality of life, but rather as maximizing the usefulness of all resources utilized.  Mt. Airy Woods housing is an example of this strategy.  Completed in 1995, the twelve unit (six one-bedroom, three two-bedroom and three three-bedroom) complex had an average construction cost of just over $50,000 per unit which was very competitive with similar projects of the era.  However, unlike many low-cost housing projects, Mt. Airy Woods incorporated high-performance windows, significantly higher levels of insulation than required by code, responsive heating controls and zoning, earth-buffering, and low-maintenance materials throughout.

The use of higher quality materials and systems without compromising the budget was made possible by providing the maximum useful living space in the smallest possible package.  While the particulars of the Mt. Airy Woods project will not apply to every, or even most projects, understanding their impact is instructive.  The site is steeply sloping, having an average pitch of 1:3.  In general, this would have been considered a serious drawback to development; however, it allowed the design of multi-unit buildings with on-grade, direct access to every unit.  This, in turn, meant that there was no construction for public corridors or stairs.  This not only reduced the amount of building which in itself is a significant environmental benefit, but it also reduced the amount of building area that needs to be heated and maintained.  Further, it improved accessibility and security as well as giving each unit the sense of “entry” and arrival.

This is a limited explanation of a very specific example but is intended to suggest that the careful application of resources, both those that are purchased and those that pre-exist within the boundaries of a project, can address concerns for sustainability while enhancing quality of life issues, and do so within completely conventional budgets.

Land is a finite resource and land within historic districts is a particularly scarce finite resource. Institutions, such as hospitals and schools, which deliver services on a face-to-face basis need space from which to deliver these services. In general, serving more people requires more space and one of the claims made by St. Vincent’s throughout the hearing process was that the new building was needed to meet expanding demand for its services. The capacity to add space and to provide for temporary accommodation during renovation, especially in an historic district, is one of the most valuable assets available to an institution.  One need only look at the ongoing problems faced by both Columbia and NYU in finding opportunities to meet their expanding space needs, or, for that matter, the Department of Education’s difficulty in finding locations for new elementary and intermediate schools.  With this in mind, a red flag should fly when an institution that claims to be growing seeks to sell three-quarters of its land, ostensibly to insure long-term survival.  In the case of St. Vincent’s, even had the new building been economically feasible which certainly appears not to have been the case, the sale of the East Campus would have left the hospital so tightly crammed into an architectural straitjacket with so little swing space that accommodating changing technologies would have been very difficult at best, and likely impossible.  Looking only at the physical constraints, the Rudin/St. Vincent’s plan was not a viable plan for healthcare in the Village or, for that matter, for the west side of Manhattan. This, in itself, should have raised skepticism if not outright disbelief.

The financial conditions, even as they were generally known from the time of St. Vincent’s emergence from bankruptcy in 2007 until the impending collapse became publicly known in late 2009, should have given added warning. In 2007, St. Vincent’s was carrying a $700 million debt.  The sale of the East Campus would have covered less than half of that amount. With more than $400 million in debt carried forward, obtaining financing for a new facility that was estimated to cost nearly $1 billion seems unlikely to say the least.  Even if this had happened, it seems doubtful that the hospital could have remained viable while supporting a debt burden of nearly $1½ billion.

And however dark the pre-collapse outlook may have appeared to those on the outside, it was far less dire than the actual conditions, conditions that must have been known to the hospital’s leadership.  Based on reporting in The New York Times and Crain’s New York Business, we now know that the debt has grown to something over $1 billion, an increase of more than $300 million in three years or average losses of more than $8 million per month. St. Vincent’s argued or at least strongly implied that the new building was the key to its financial viability; however, if the project had gone forward and was completed in four years, a highly ambitious schedule, the intervening 48 months during which the hospital would have had to continue in its present facilities would have added yet another $450 million in debt. In other words, given the current debt, the added operating debt incurred during construction and the cost of construction itself, and allowing for the income from the sale of the East Campus, based on what we now know, St. Vincent’s would have moved into its new facility owing more than $2 billion. Even with subsidized construction financing, this hardly seems like a realistic plan.

In early 2010, the public is just beginning to understand the full extent of St. Vincent’s problems. Given the revelations that are occurring almost daily, the emergence of additional concerns would not be unexpected. On the other hand, again based on newspaper reporting including coverage of the recent bankruptcy filing, the people responsible for management and long-term planning for the hospital must have known for several years that this day was coming. Despite this, the situation had reached a point in January that it was only the last minute infusion of millions of dollars from the State and the creditors that prevented the immediate closure of the hospital. The threat was that without a massive bailout, St. Vincent’s doors would be locked within days or weeks at the most. As it turns out, the results are only marginally better with the shutdown spanning a few months rather than days.

What does all of this say to our community, to historic districts in general and to our society as a whole?  First and foremost, we must insist that the critical decisions that affect us all be based on hard facts and, when analyzing these facts, that we avoid diversions. Looking back on the presentations at the Landmarks Preservation Commission as well as at Community Board hearings and other public events, the discussions of adding or removing a floor or two, changing the shape of the curved wall of the tower, the color of the wall cladding or revising the window layout seems ludicrous. A 2015 St. Vincent’s Medical Center $2 billion in debt is not and never was a realistic option. Further, compressing most of the 2008 hospital program onto a piece of land about one fourth of the current site seems so highly questionable that the question has to be raised as to whether it was ever a serious proposal.  Finally, although the $300 million sale price of the East Campus is a substantial sum, it represents only 15-20 percent of the money that St. Vincent’s would have needed to construct its new facility and to clear up its debts. This seems a staggeringly small amount for the abandonment of its prime physical resource.

To recap, from the outset of the discussions regarding St. Vincent’s attempts to sell the East Campus and relocate onto the O’Toole site, we have known, or should have known, that the undertaking would still have left the hospital very deeply in debt and with a physical plant that would have been profoundly problematic if not completely unworkable. That the project got as far as it did is testament to the fact that the developers were able to keep discussions focused on details rather than on the big picture.  We must not allow this to happen again. For decades, the stated mission of St. Vincent’s – to provide health services to the City as a whole – has informed public planning and zoning decisions affecting the site. This has included a number of very significant concessions that would not have been given to other applicants. As such, any plans for the future use of the East Campus must consider how this critical resource may continue to support community or public purposes, for healthcare or other vital services. Until this is done, I believe that it is imperative that any decision regarding the future of East Campus be reserved. As I said at the outset, land, or in this case real estate, is a finite resource. It is also essentially a non-renewable resource.  Once it’s gone, it cannot be reclaimed within a meaningful timeframe. We must not let this tremendous resource be lost to trivial usage.

Carl Stein, FAIA Principal
Elemental Architecture LLC

(Reprinted from the Greenwich Village Block Associations News  Spring 2010)
To view the entire edition click here.

While we’re fully in support of LEED and the sea change it has created,  Mr. Appelbaum’s view and critique of where LEED certification leaves off is one we also maintain.

Read the full piece here.

As Carl concludes:

“With remarkable shortsightedness, we have come to believe that the petroleum-era paradigm which was made possible by the availability of plentiful, cheap energy represents the natural order. In fact, it is not sustainable and is tending toward catastrophic results. The shift to renewable energies as our primary resources will reconnect us to the cultural/ethical continuum of humankind; a new paradigm.”

Read the article here. or download PDF .

Elemental has actively engaged its commercial clients, particularly building Owners and managers, to offer leasing structures which allow ‘green’ tenants to benefit directly from the economic savings of resource conservation. Suggested measures include individually metering electricity, heating, cooling and water use – and allowing the data of their use to be analyzed/displayed in real-time – as well as  energy and resource efficient upgrades for windows and plumbing fixtures which further reduce energy use for heating, cooling, domestic hot water and circulation. Individual tenant metering means that each tenant can reap the dollar savings resulting from those energy upgrades. In short, energy conservation by Owners can translate into economic benefits for every tenant.

Read more on Aggarwala’s address here:

In the study, researchers Norm Miller, Ph.D., academic director at the Burnham-Moores Center, and David Pogue, national director of sustainability at CBRE, surveyed 154 green buildings nationwide containing over 2,000 tenants, 534 of which participated in the study. The study is the largest of its kind by far; a 2003 study looked at productivity levels in just 33 green buildings. Miller and Pogue used two measurements of productivity: sick days and the self-reported productivity percentage change after moving into a new building.

Forty-five percent of respondents reported that they had experienced an average of 2.88 fewer sick days at their new, green office location vs. their previous non-green office location. An equal amount noted no effect, while 10 percent reported more sick days. The 10 percent that reported more sick days were residents of Energy Star-labeled, not LEED-certified buildings. Unlike LEED buildings, Energy Star buildings do not have air quality requirements.

Based on the average salary of the tenants, an office space of 250 square feet per worker and 250 workdays a year, the 2.88 fewer sick days translate into a net impact of $4.91 per employee, according to the authors.

On the self-reported productivity measure, 12 percent of respondents said that they strongly agree that employees were more productive in green buildings, 42.5 percent agreed that employees were more productive and 45 percent noted no change in productivity. According to the authors’ calculations, the increase in productivity translates into a net impact of $20.82 per employee, based on an office space of 250 square feet per worker and using average salary as an index.

For the full study, go to www.usdrealestate.com.

SOURCE Burnham-Moores Center at the University of San Diego

Truly sustainable architecture results primarily from obtaining the optimal services from the fewest resources. Rather than relying on superimposed equipment and technologies, the most effective measures for improving building performance come from basic planning and design strategies which recognize the programs to be served and the ways in which the building is to be operated.

Being Green, one element at a time…

03Nov08

I met John Barboni following a rather powerful presentation on the societal impacts of consumption given by his colleague David O’Higgins and Jason Levine. Barboni and O’Higgins have formed an interesting partnership with architects Tom Abraham and Carl Stein, FAIA.

Barboni is co-founder of elemental, a New York City-based collaborative where he and his partners concentrate on promoting sustainable energy-conscious architecture. Barboni provides design, strategic creative direction, brand development, management and implementation of elemental projects.

With his background in architecture, Barboni has an interesting perspective on consumption. He is front and center in seeing the very human, visceral desires about space as well as the raw materials which make the spaces in which we live. Given that he is in a position to advise clients on the best approach to meet those needs, and in the midst of “everything new, green, hip and current” I wanted to get his perspective on architectural trends.

“It’s not about simply coming-out with more green products – essentially selling more stuff so businesses can make another buck under the guise of social consciousness. The current escalating consumption of resources by humankind is having a catastrophic effect on our planet. This over-consumption has been the direct result of a business paradigm that equates success with consumption. The consumption=success paradigm can not be sustained.

Businesses will enjoy steadier, more manageable growth if they are able to evolve an operating strategy in which the definition of success is decoupled from consumption.

The average American hasn’t really come to terms with the severity of some of these issues…what it means in the way we live our lives. The real price of goods must begin to take shape as a way to educate the consumer. For example, the price of a bottle of Poland Spring water is selling in NY for $1. The true lifecycle costs of that bottle when considering the resources that go into is production, transport, disposal, and full environmental impact, are actually much higher than $1. There is price adjustment going on to promote consumption. This mode of consumer behavior is parasitic.

The divide is ever deeper; the top ,01% of the upper class control the same wealth as the bottom 90% of the world’s population combined. That has severe consequences for our society, from both an economic and a cultural perspective. As the middle class is wiped-out, social nodes for creative thinking and interaction are ever-more endangered by the extraordinary price escalation resulting from speculation.

The world population is approaching record numbers, and much like a Petri dish with finite edges, we are reaching the limits of sustainable growth. Elemental’s feeling is not to back away from this issue; they want to talk about the message. “Available resources are finite. We must curb exponential consumption and maximize efficiencies. These are not new, revolutionary ideas – we are simply reasserting their importance.”

elemental remains optimistic that the current green trend is not just a fad. “This has been Carl’s life’s work. He’s had almost 40-years of uphill struggle to communicate the message that green architecture is important. This time reception of the message feels different. People are realizing that it’s beginning to affect every American.”

Can Government help?

The issue of government control and regulation is a sensitive one. Germany placed a significant government subsidy on solar panels, so everyone got one, thereby creating a temporary shortage of silicon in the world, and driving-up prices. Yet, in a typical year, Germany gets less sunlight than almost anywhere else in the world. As a result of the government subsidy the raw resource (silicon) flowed into a part of the world where it was least efficient to use it.

Energy coupons could be an effective alternative. Everyone (rich or poor) could be allocated coupons or credits for x BTUs of energy per month. If you exceed your given allowance, then the price for extra energy would be at a premium. Un-used coupons could be traded on the open market.

It’s not up to any one discipline (government, scientists, economists, architects) to resolve these issues. It will take cross-discipline collaboration. Consumer education will be a powerful component.

Look Outside Your Discipline, Network Through Values

For nearly ten years, Tom Abraham and I worked under Carl Stein. Carl and Tom , committed to education, were also teaching together at the City College of New York. Through our work together on various projects, we realized that we connected on many levels and kept returning to the same values and themes.

Several events converged: I was approached by a client that was interested in doing a project with us; it was the perfect opportunity to launch Elemental with Carl, Tom, and David, who had come to us through Tom’s wife after having just left his branding agency in search of socially meaningful work. David initially directed the branding for elemental prior to becoming a partner.

It has been incredible adding David and his 20 years of branding expertise to a bunch of architects. He’s able to express our own views in such revolutionary ways – we quickly realized we were on to something special, and wanted to offer the same service to our clients.

David is instrumental to evocative communication with our clients while our experience as architects helps to substantiate the conversations. As with many technical professions, there is a definite methodological process involved in taking our projects to fruition. Before that happens though, we need to get “inside” businesses and understand who they are, what they do, who they want to be, and how does that relate to the changing cultural, environmental, and economic context. Once that foundation of understanding has been achieved, we then work to communicate that message in authentic, clear and constructive ways. The result or product generated from completing this approach effectively is beauty.

Help Define Your Space

We actively lecture and contribute to articles as a way to keep people talking a remain part of the larger conversation. Tom, Carl and David are actively teaching as education continues to be something that we all care profoundly about. Carl is also currently finishing a book called “Greening Modernism” which discusses the interconnections between green architecture and Modernist architectural thinking.

In our work, we consider both the social aspects and the business model. The more that people are becoming aware of some of the issues that we have discussed today, the more interest there is in our business. Our efforts in this space of education and communicating the message of sustainability are beginning to actually work out that way.

Many people think being green or sustainable is about a compromised “nuts and berries” or “hippie” aesthetic. In our experience, we have found that an appropriate green approach actually enhances the beauty of the product and elevates the human spirit. One of the examples we like to use: think of the experience of lying against a large stone in the desert to enjoy its radiating warmth stored from the sun. Compare that to the experience of using a radiator blowing hot air on you for warmth. The natural opportunity offers a much richer, dynamic, and greener experience.

There remain many misconceptions in the current green market trend. For example, a couple may build a giant 10,000 sq foot house, put solar panels on it, and say “I have the greenest house in the neighborhood” and someone might even write some articles about how innovative it is. The notion of curbing consumption asks: do two people really need 10,000-sf?  Why not build a 1,000-sf home and spend your resources making the project as beautiful and efficient as possible? Even without solar panels or any other green add-ons, they would be much greener than the alternative; it’s an issue of consumption.

Another misconception is that it has to look green to be green. Green should look and feel like the best quality out there. It’s not about just sticking a recycled logo on things – it’s about maximizing the potential of material and resource use.

Understand The Climate In Which You Live

The period we are entering now is much closer to the great depression than the energy issues of the 70s. There is a very severe period of change coming. Roosevelt’s New Deal enacted a whole series of programs that changed the way money was distributed in this country. We are at the brink of that now, and it will require a major change in the way everyone is doing everything. We want to help people to understand that and work to guide people through the upcoming transitions.

In the US we have been taught a culture of consumption because it fed the markets. It was a very conscious decision to steer things in that direction and it was good for short-term business growth. We are just beginning to feel the consequence of that behavior now. Americans are in love with cookie-cutter solutions to problems. We find a house design that is perfect for one particular climate and we scatter a million of them across the country because its fast, easy and cheap. Then you end up with a lot of things that have no contextual relevance and you’ve wasted a lot of precious resources.

The priority is here has been about immediacy.

The internet came along and the attitude was the same “just get it out there”, “publish first, edit later”, “build it and they will come.” The faster you were, the more successful you were. Those days are over. People need to take the time to measure twice and cut once. Be exceedingly mindful of how we use our resources…

That’s where the optimism comes in. There is nowhere to go but up. Now is the time to lead – be a pioneer in your industry.

Justine Cottrell writes:

Each year at New York Fashion Week Lacoste selects 6 men to be part of a photo shoot where they are dressed in the new season of Lacoste.  These guys are dubbed The Cool Guys of New York.  They are successful, powerful men with presence and ambition and their own senses of style.  They are the modern men who demonstrate the same qualities as those of Rene Lacoste.  They pay attention to detail, invest in quality, and have a tendency to buck the trend.

It’s clear to find the inspiration needed for all this flavourful fashion on the very streets of New York.  In a country like South Africa the key word among creative industry professionals is exposure.  Big budgets are obliterated at high class events in Johannesburg and Cape Town while in New York owners of restaurants, clubs and bars are trying to hide their locations in order to preserve their cosy and exclusive atmospheres.

It’s these spots that the genuine, native New Yorker frequents.  Hidden down a dark street behind a roughly nailed door and a thick velvet curtain, Milk and Honey is a bar like this.  Here John Barboni co-founder of Elemental Architecture reclines in a cushioned booth in dusty lamplight and a waiter who looks like something out of the Rat-Pack, hands him a cocktail which he says is called a “Dark and Stormy”.

With 2 partners, one of whom he calls his greatest mentor, John specializes in what New Yorkers term Green Architecture, “the method of designing buildings that work in conjunction with natural forces for daylighting, ventilation, water and shelter instead of trying to draw power from natural resources and in turn depleting them.  As opposed to sheltering yourself form the environment, we draw inspiration and knowledge from the architects of the pre-industrial era and ask how we can work with nature to be comfortable and fulfil our modern requirements,” he says.

With New York constantly under construction and development John is at the heart of architecture’s progressive elite who seek to make their buildings sustainable through a poetic assimilation of building techniques that ensure as little damage to the environment as possible.  “In my opinion architects have made the mistake of building first and then trying to make that building green.  I believe that green buildings, like nature, need to be organic, they need to be conceptualised with green at heart from the very beginning” he says.  Having grown up in California and spending time in both Italy and France, John moves easily in front of the camera for Lacoste’s shoot.  It’s clear that though his buildings may be green they certainly don’t compromise on aesthetic.