With the growing media focus on energy and carbon it is easy to lose sight of all the things that contribute to our energy usage and our carbon footprints. The strict focus on small parts of our economy’s environmental challenges only emulates how prone we are to isolating concepts and events rather than continually viewing our actions as an interconnected whole. Waste production is another prime place for progress that is not so far away from carbon caps and the renewable energy debate. The collection, sorting, compacting, dumping and even recycling of waste all uses energy so to strip down its girth is a boon to our greater goals. When it comes to waste, plastics stand out as a prime target for reorganization and an answer that quickly comes to mind is biopolymers—naturally based plastic compounds. Continue Reading…
I repeatedly suggest that one of the largest barriers to a more sustainable economy is ignorance. Most people are simply not aware of the problems, let alone the solutions, and as such the pitch for a different lifestyle (call is environmentally sound, ecologically efficient or simply “green”) can be a tough sell. So if the problem is a lack of education who is responsible for fixing it? We are quick to point fingers at tech companies, developers, car manufacturers—the producers of “stuff” that we consume to keep our economy afloat. But at the end of the day we cannot pile all of the onus on entities and organizations to force information onto us, we too have a responsibility to seek it out for ourselves. Continue Reading…
With a growing population raising the need for food, water and energy efficiency of spatial utilization is paramount. Our cities should be denser and farmland managed with greater care. But what if we could take some of the harshest land on the planet and use it to supplement these needs at a low cost? Three firms have proposed a method to use the Sahara Desert as the next prime ground for creating fresh food, fresh water and clean energy. Despite the fact that the project has been around for over a year, it exemplifies the kind of coordination and synergy that Intercon promotes and the direction our society should be moving towards.
The center of the project begins in collaboration. I find it no coincidence that innovative thinking is the result of numerous minds from different, but interconnected, fields working together. Shaping the vision are the firms Exploration Architecture, Seawater Greenhouse Limited and Max Fordham & Partners—architects, water specialists and environmental engineers respectively. Like all areas of study, each of these three offer a vintage of expertise that bears opportunities for interconnection with others.
This triumvirate based their innovative offensive in the face of a slow-moving but devastating dilemma: the growing of the world’s deserts. With all of the issues that the planet has on its plate right now (war, recession, healthcare, global warming) the issue of desertification is not on the radar screen of many, but its existence is very real. The miles of flat, arid landscapes with their unyielding temperatures and unforgiving sandy soils expand their borders every year, swallowing more fertile land and stripping it of its moisture. Up until now we have accepted this occurrence as a problem beyond our ability to address.
But then again, maybe we can. Using an interconnected combination of Concentrated Solar Power fields and Seawater Greenhouses the system can theoretically function indefinitely with nearly no influx of new energy or resources.
How it Works:
To begin, seawater is drawn into each greenhouse complex and dripped over evaporators to be turned into vapor, creating a warm, humid environment poised for growing plants. More water suspended in the air reduces the amount of fresh water needed for direct irrigation. When the air is cycled through the greenhouse to bring more carbon dioxide to the plants, the humid air is released back into the atmosphere and adds moisture to the local environment. The design team proposes that with enough acreage, it may contribute enough added moisture to induce local rainfall.
The evaporators find their necessary power from Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) arrays stretched out across the landscape. Using mirrors to focus sunlight and heat liquid for steam production, CSP is viewed by many as the most viable source of renewable energy in the near term. It can be twice as efficient as photovoltaic panels in energy production as it uses the sun’s energy to create power. The system also produces a great deal of waste heat.
By themselves, these two systems are impressive technologies with a great deal of potential, but linked and integrated together, their possibilities rise exponentially. The excess heat of the CSP facilities can be captured through cogeneration and used for the desalination of more saltwater. The project team estimates that onsite power can desalinate 40 million cubic meters of water for terawatt-hour of harvested solar power—that is over 10.5 billion gallons. Strips of greenhouses can be arranged to shield the CSP mirror arrays and reduce dust and sand collection that lowers their efficiency. Three new export streams can emerge from each project location, all of which are in extreme demand around the globe: clean power, fresh water, fresh food.
Cyclical Progress:
As with any good system built on ecological underpinnings, its function begets its own continued success. Theoretically, as the installations grow in size and number more sand is replaced with greenhouses or planted fields. Moisture content in the air will continue to rise while the ground temperature of more acres will continue to fall. The expansion of deserts could be reversed to eventually re-vegetate some of the world’s harshest climates turning them into net producers of vital resources.
While the project is an impressive map for a regenerative, progressive model, I think that the possibilities go even further.
- Plant waste from greenhouses is rich in nutrients and can be composted to produce a base for naturally fertilizing future crops or spread over surrounding area to instigate new native plant growth.
- Another possibility is taking a page from the city of Kalundborg’s playbook and using the wealth of heated salt water for fish farming. This could produce yet another food crop and another organic waste stream that can be used to create organic fertilizers.
- So much desalination will also produce a great deal of salt, which draws us back to CSP. One of the reasons CSP seems so promising is the opportunity for power storage with heated salt solutions being one of the frontrunners. Eventually, excess power could be sold day and night to surrounding townships.
So what’s the catch? Well how much it costs to build solar greenhouses, CSP arrays and the labor to manage them all has to factor in somehow and chart a realistic time frame for expansion. There is also the fact that the Sahara is the world’s largest desert (3.3 million square miles) and constitutes nearly a quarter of Africa. Such statistics begs the question of how many facilities would have to be created before the stated goal of local climate alteration was actually achieved. The number could be staggering.
While I give the project a great deal of respect, we always have to remember that all of our operations and endeavors are subordinate to a much larger system. Even if the project does succeed, I have to ask what affect would a green Sahara have on the rest of the world’s ecosystems? Would rainfall in the Sahara prompt drier spells somewhere else? Could wind patterns or coastal currents change as a result of cooler regional temperatures? As interested as I am about the finer details that all seem to point towards success, I would also be curious about an analysis of the possibilities for global weather repercussions. Even the best of intentions do not occur in a vacuum.
Photo Credit: www.exploration-architecture.com
Many people still seem to be interested in the new Bank of America Headquarters at One Bryant Park. Not surprising really—the greenest skyscraper in the world is something to marvel at. As a result, I decided to do a definitive case study on the building so more people could know exactly how green the skyscraper is. Having had the pleasure of working at Cook+Fox and specifically with Rick Cook and Bob Fox, I can speak to their holistic approach to sustainability and scrutiny that they apply to every design challenge. For those that know Rick and Bob, a finished product like One Bryant Park is no surprise.
The new Bank of America headquarters sits on the corner of 6th Avenue and 42nd Street in New York City, overlooking the trees of Bryant Park leading up to the New York Public Library. Owned by the Durst Organization and designed by Cook+Fox Architects, at 54 stories the glass curtain wall skin of the tower rises to 944 and a half feet above the street with a spire that tops out at 1200 feet, making it the second tallest building in the city beneath the Empire State Building. In its 2.1 million square feet, the building seeks to become the greenest skyscraper in the city, and possibly the globe, being the first building of its height to earn a LEED Platinum rating from the United States Green Building Council and the second in the state of New York (after Cook+Fox’s own office.)
It is impossible to find a sustainable solution to a design problem that is not catered specifically to its immediate environment. Cook+Fox started with the site itself as a storehouse of opportunity. There are few concepts more inherently sustainable than density. Placed in the heart of midtown, the decision to build higher with more square feet anchors the project in efficiency from the start. Its location places the building on the same block as two subway stations, now linked beneath the tower, with access to 17 subway lines. Grand Central Station sits only two blocks away to yield an amazing access to the rest of the city and beyond. Utilizing one of the best mass transit systems in the country is essential to supporting more transit growth in our nation and steering the populace away from car usage.
Despite New York’s accomplishments, there are aspects of its aging infrastructure that remain fragile. Today in New York you can order fast delivery of medicines but on the other hand. One of the most prominent examples is its sewage and stormwater system. Like many old, American cities, New York was built in an age known for unbridled expansion and industrial strength—not environmental stewardship. As a result it has a Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) system which means that rainfall brings stormwater flowing into the sewage pipes. Even a small amount of rain can cause the sewers to reach capacity and stress the treatment facilities of the city. To relieve the congestion a mixture of rain and raw sewage overflows directly into the Hudson river. Any effort that minimizes the release of sewage or stormwater from a site lowers the risk of environmental damage by CSOs.
One Bryant Park collects every drop of rainwater that falls on its site, nearly 48 inches per year. A series of collection tanks distributed throughout the floors can store over 329,000 gallons of water that is used for irrigating plants and flushing the building’s toilets. But it does not end there. Greywater treatment on the site takes water from the building and treats it for use in the cooling towers that returns water back to the atmosphere in the form of vapor—essentially completing a cycle back to nature. Cook+Fox helped to cut the building’s water usage by half employing low-flow lavatory sinks and waterless urinals.
The building also stands as a prime example of how our cities can move towards a decentralized energy grid. Right now, our national grid is a bit clunky and kind of like a leaky pipe. For many power plants, pointedly the throng of aging coal plants in the US, as much as 66% of the energy produced can be lost right out of the stack in the form of heat. An additional 7-10% is lost in transmission so collectively three quarters of the energy we produce can be lost before it even gets used. The tower proves to be perhaps the best example to date of tapping into onsite generation. A 4.6-megawatt, natural gas-fired cogeneration plant provides two thirds of the buildings electrical demand and is expected to reach 77% efficiency (zero transmission.)
The usage of the energy is also maximized to provide the least amount of stress on the surrounding grid. At night, while demand in the building is low, the power will be used to make ice in 44 storage tanks in the basement of the building. During the day, this ice is allowed to melt and used to cool the air of the building, drastically lowering its energy consumption during peak hours.
When it comes to air quality, the building pushes the envelope again to deliver fresh air to the entire building that is filtered of 95% of particulates. Even more commendable is that the air that leaves the building will thus be notably cleaner than the air that goes in, rendering the structure as a public air filter for midtown. When the air does reach building occupants, it comes through an underfloor air system—a pressurized air plenum beneath removable floor tiles, that brings tempered air closer to occupied space rather than originating from the ceiling.
Sustainability is a cyclical concept knowing that there is no finality to the life of any process or product. Rather it is merely the prelude to another use or stage of existence. In order to minimize the impact of new construction it is vital to use materials that decrease the net lifecycle costs of the project including the material that comes in and the waste that goes out. One Bryant Park managed to surpass its goal of recycling 75% of its construction waste to end at 83%. Additionally, with materials such as concrete with blast furnace slag and 60% recycled steel, the building contains 35% recycled content.
One way to tackle energy savings is by incorporating efficient fixtures for workplace illumination. One Bryant Park chose to tap into more daylight for workspaces, evident by its clear exterior. By using baked frit to reflect light outside of the main vision plane, each floor has floor to ceiling glass that allows light to penetrate deeper into spaces and minimizing the need interior lighting and providing views of the city.
In two industries (New York development and corporate banking) where cost is always paramount it may seem counterintuitive that this team placed so much time and equity in making sure that their building embraced green qualities. Moreover, the fact that a financial institution was convinced that sustainable systems would prove profitable investments is a boon to the movement as a whole. So how did that work exactly? Yes, saving water and energy also saves money but the payback on such systems takes time and is likely not large enough to be considered a revenue stream. What turned heads was looking at how work conditions affected the productivity of employees. While the figures for environmental productivity are constantly debated, consider only 1% of a common working day: 5 minutes. The firm estimated that increasing the 1% increase in productivity of the workers in One Bryant Park would yield $10 million every year (a number clearly visible on the balance sheet.)
In many ways One Bryant Park stands as what will hopefully become a new standard in high rise, urban development. Like any successful ecology, all parts of the building process must be in concert in order to create a product of such caliber. From client, to tenant, to designers and builders, all components of creation and use were necessary to reach such an outcome.
[UPDATE: An article on New Republic took a stab at trying to diminish the progress of One Bryant Park while also taking a jab at LEED. My response to that article can be found here]
So maybe harder times are not hitting green goals that hard after all. Recent polling efforts targeting how citizens respond to green issues bears some surprisingly strong support for sustainability in the economy. The numbers come as a welcome counter to the Gallup poll that showed a continually declining support for the severity of global warming, suggesting that either support for green efforts were growing soft or that global warming may not be a great front runner for the movement.
The necessity of environmental reorganization may be sinking deeper into the population. The polling questions by the Washington Post/ABC targeted the regulating of Greenhouse Gases by the government and showed considerable support—counter to the conservative voice of opposition with a strong presence in the media as of late. 75% of American voters are pro regulation with 54% being strongly in favor. Similarly, when asked as to their concern about rising costs associated with GHG regulation, 77% said they were concerned. It is reasonable to believe that, for many, despite their concern for higher prices they are still in favor of a more sustainable goal.
The polling of NBC/Wall Street Journal is somewhat tempered, but still positive. Their more pointed question of whether we should regulate GHG if it will raise energy bills revealed 53% being in favor. Moreover, 68% of voters agreed with President Obama’s plans to devote $121 billion over ten years to develop green energy.
If the numbers carry some truth then we may be avoiding one of the worst fears of environmentalists and green company investors: the economic downturn and resulting financial worries will surmount years of growing interest (and capital) for green spending and policy. If sustainability in the marketplace can survive the worst financial crisis since the depression, then we may be poised for meaningful progress.
News of green trends emerging in cities around the world is becoming commonplace to the point that visions of a “green city” are beginning to enter the minds of the populace, appearing in flashy renderings or news articles. The term incites thoughts of 100% solar power or hundreds of wind turbines on buildings or merely just bounding foliage on every corner. I found a prime example in a New York Times article speaking of plans for a Florida city to be run completely by PVs. When environmental critics come along and call such talk “fantasy,” they may not be mistaken because those technological tactics are not the basis for what will make our cities truly sustainable.
The true conversion to a sustainable economy is to rethink how we organize our cities and how their components can work together to achieve new levels of efficiency and production as part of a reflexively beneficial network. An ecology. If we look hard enough we can find instances of this mentality that have actually been successfully attempted. A prime example is i the city of Kalundborg, Denmark where industry and residents work as part of a functioning ecosystem rather than individual entities in close proximity. The names given to describe the creation are numerous: Industrial Symbiosis, Environmental Industry Ecology, Industrial Ecosystem—but they all spell progress. Continue Reading…
Each time that we choose an avenue for how concepts of sustainability can penetrate deeper into the masses of American citizens we must look at the reciprocal costs of reaching such a market and making a green switch. A post on GOOD Magazine’s blog highlights a new spin on the direction of architecture as a way to tap into the large market of single family homes. The angle of designers David Wax and Ben Uyeda is to produce “stock” house floor plans for green homes and give them away for free, calling it Free Green. At first glance this may seem like a great way to send green knowledge through the society, but what is the real cost to our culture and the architectural profession? In this instance I broadened the scope of reflection by asking some other designers to weigh in on Free Green.
In essence, Wax and Uyeda use an advertising model to create a revenue stream for their business by showcasing the products of paying manufacturers in their home schemes. The plans can then be given away for free to a waiting marketplace of contractors and prospective homeowners. According to the designers, it is opening up greener designs to a group of people that are buying stock plans anyway, thereby allowing more green homes to be built. A seemingly noble endeavor.
“I think that the most positive aspect of this model that they are proposing is with the selection of the green features,” said B. Specketer, an architect working in New York City.
They take the guesswork out of the selection for the average consumer. The big question revolves around whether or not FreeGreen can be a trusted clearing house. Only time will tell. It’s a step in the right direction pairing product placement with a previously under-served segment of the homebuilding market, but what this means for architecture and architects is a different discussion.
As designed homes, their aesthetic success is a question of subjective opinion, but it is fair to say they are better than the standard options of Toll Brothers and their peers. Though attempting to achieve the draw of the vernacular by the use of cliché details and stylistic tactics, they achieve a level of resolution that elevates a composition above the baseline that most would fine from a prefabricated design. More so in their “contemporary” designs, a consumer can tell an architect was behind the scenes to figure things out.
However, Intercon focuses on the reactions of events and their repercussions throughout society and this model has a few potentially dangerous side effects.
As one could imagine, the greenest modern buildings in the world are created by architects. At the same time, the profession battles against a lack of public understanding for what an architect really does and why one is necessary. This is especially apparent in residential construction where only 5% of all single family home projects include an architect. Free Green undermines in this tenuous relationship of architect and potential client by devaluing design work and supplementing the cost with ad-space revenue. If this was marketed as only another source for predrawn plans then we could simply lump them in with the other 30% of homes built in America from stock drawings, but it is claiming to occupy some of the forefront of an innovative field of ecological building. Architectural designer S. Doyle notes the inherent risk:
Although these are the types of buildings which typically would not have had an architect on board anyway it is something to be considered that there is a danger of sponsored architectural plans becoming a viable business model where architects are trading intellectual property for exposure.
Put another way, a pair of designers are devaluing their profession so that they can make a quicker, easier buck. Instead of addressing the problem, they wash their hands of it. Intel could get faster computers in more homes in America if they gave away the schematics for their processors, but what would be the cost of value to their industry? With over 22,000 downloaded plans already, some have clearly already smelled the blood in the water.
How green are these homes? A look through their website uncovered the suggested use of Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs), heating and cooling products, materials like bamboo flooring, LED lighting options and low-V.O.C. coatings. While these are all positive additions to any home, one conversation with a green builder or some dedicated internet research could likely unearth most of these tactics. Doyle points out that “We aren’t going to ‘solve’ climate change by doing what we do know in a better way.” It cannot be said enough that green buildings are not just storehouses of technological gadgets, but designed with a new approach to function and efficiency.
Stock housing plans are also at odds with the idea of achieving sustainability via architecture. Every site, every environment for a home should have a design tailored to make the most of each resource opportunity. By its very nature a green home designed for Worchester would not be the same as a green home designed for Houston. This business venture is potentially misleading consumers into thinking that site-specific design is not inherently linked to performance.
Perhaps the most disturbing eventuality is the false sense of security people can assume after downloading these plans and building these homes, as if they have fulfilled their generational duty to the green movement when they have really only scratched the surface of what green buildings can become. An interesting comparison would be the savings of building a new Free Green home vs. simply replacing windows, a furnace (or air condition given the climate), switching some appliances and using CFLs and not expending the energy and waste on a new house. I imagine the results would be close.
Intercon does champion the goal of educating more people about what can be done to reach a more sustainable society but not at the expense of anything and everything. Is having 200,000 more home customers come into contact with a green concept worth harming the profession that is responsible for the realization of our greenest buildings? I have to say no.
A recent article from the New York Times, courtesy of green correspondent Kate Galbraith, highlighted the shift in opportunity for professionals with experience in environmental policy. With a presidential administration so much more committed to tackling issues of ecological stewardship the need for more green veterans continues to rise. Galbraith points to college professors and state level administrators as ripe pickings for higher federal posts. This reminds us that as we highlight the opportunities for national sustainability to generate job growth, one of the most valuable products needed by a maturing market is experienced human capital. At the same time, the move is a bit of a double-edged sword. Continue Reading…
One cannot talk about sustainability for long without eventually encountering “resources.” Every product stream, mechanical process and human action has a source of incoming energy. Our capitalistic market has a couple of favorites that craft the battlements for daily conflicts between corporations and citizens: wood, oil, water, coal. Businesses stuck in narrow focuses of how to utilize and maximize stores of natural resources are fending environmentalists off with a stick and the fight will only get more painful. Sooner or later they will lose. Our country will no longer drill for new oil and the amount of coal we burn each year will progressively decline. What will define the next surge of resource harvesting in the economy over the next century?
Well renewable energy is an easy pick. Wind and solar power will continue to be perfected to peak levels of efficiency and their position in the marketplace will continue to grow, but one of the greatest latent sources of value in our culture is decidedly unnatural. It is available almost anywhere in the country though its particular characteristics vary from one source to the next. Public demand for it is currently a small portion of the greater marketplace but it will only rise over time. The source is our existing buildings. The resulting growth market is deconstruction. Continue Reading…
Imagine turning off a main road onto the quiet street of a new suburban housing neighborhood. Down the road waits tree-lined streets of energy efficient homes with their organic gardens and hybrids parked in the driveway, but no electric meter hanging on the wall. On the right you pass a building with few windows and judicious planting. Instead of a development “clubhouse” with a substandard weight room that no one uses and cabinets holding communal board games, the structure is actually an anaerobic power plant that takes the food waste of the neighborhood and turns it into the power for their homes. Throughout your trip you travel under no high tension wires. You dip under no telephone poles.
Impossible? Maybe not.