The most recent set of flashy renderings of Apple’s new headquarters in Cupertino, California make the goals of the building unmistakably clear. With a design from Norman Foster, the tech company’s mothership is depicted as a pristine white ring nestled in a large site strewn with greenery. When we look at the images that include different combinations of white, glass and foliage it is hard not to say “of course.” Of course this is Apple’s new corporate club house. The design is sleek and detailed for modern simplicity. Everything about the building’s appearance resonates with an image of next generation technology. It is kind of like a big iPhone. I would say that the new campus is the perfect manifestation of Apple’s entire business in almost every way, save for one thing: it is trying to be green. This new headquarters is making some strides in its attempts to be more environmentally friendly, but some key aspects still raise the question of whether it is really all that sustainable. Continue Reading…
Archives For architecture
Imagine a group of dedicated architects banding together to march up to Capitol Hill and lobby for our government to create new mandates to increase the average home size in the country. It is hard to wonder what the argument would be. ‘Two car garages just are not enough.’ ‘That second guest bedroom really comes in handy once or twice a year.’ ‘The survival of the American Dream depends on more space!’ At this point, consumers are supporting purchases along those lines by themselves without the help of architects. Continue Reading…
A Lighter Image of Power
All Imagery Courtesy of COOKFOX Architects & Terrain
Talking about the “power grid” in the U.S. can bring to mind images of high tension wires strung across massive metal towers and hefty brick buildings with large smokestacks built in the mid-20th century. For a lot of our electricity infrastructure this picture would be accurate. Our power grid is showing its age–not only in our continued reliance on a dirty fuel source, but in the plants that burn it as well. The boom of building coal-fired generation in this country spanned from the 1960’s to the 1990’s when new capacity turned to natural gas. While most of the natural gas plants we have are less than 20 years old, 71% of their coal-burning cousins have been around for over three decades. These older plants represent not only the dirtiest, but often least efficient components of our grid–sometimes with net efficiency as low as 33%.
Fortunately, we are at a pivotal point where the nature of how we produce power is changing. COOKFOX Architects along with landscape architecture firm Terrain are working together on a new breed of power facility in Salem, Massachusetts that questions many of our infrastructural assumptions not only in functionality, but urban presence and response to the local community. The Salem Harbor Station exemplifies the near term transition that we need to encourage in order to take quantifiable steps in improving the rate of pollution and carbon emissions attributed to our power supply.
In less than a year since its devastating run-in with Hurricane Sandy, the City of New York is already adopting new measures geared towards higher levels of urban resiliency. Yesterday, the City Council approved the first batch of proposals from the Building Resiliency Task Force, marking the first step for updating codes that leave the city better equipped for future storm events. Continue Reading…
Our migration to more sustainable buildings is an evolving process that requires a consistent combination of goals, results and critiques. Without any one of these components, we run the risk of stagnation and dampening our progress towards more ecological responsibility in our buildings. However, it is important that the level of effort and investigation put into criticism is commensurate with the amount contributed to the process of designing the results in the first place. When sustainability is critiqued (and it should be) it has to be weighed as a series of components and relationships rather than being boiled-down into one or two metrics to make its retention more palatable.
Sam Roudman’s recent New Republic article condemning Bank of America’s Tower at One Bryant Park that sped through the blogosphere is indicative of one of the largest hurdles that our culture faces for sustainability: the propensity we have to shrink its definition down to fit into sound bites and online rants at the expense of removing large portions of its meaning and resulting importance. Not only does this diminish the progress we have made, but it perpetuates an inaccurate idea of what we are striving for in the first place.
The success of a thriving downtown hinges on achieving a critical mass of businesses and homes inside a given radius. The allure of the city is built around having quick access to a myriad of amenities just a short trip away. Having public space, shopping, cultural institutions and employment all within minutes of your front door is the boon of urban living–made possible by tens of thousands of people in close proximity in order to support all of those individual destinations. The value placed on that access translates into higher home prices that tend to shrink the average size of urban residences by shedding “extra” uses.
But some of our cities are becoming the victims of their own success. As a finite amount of land becomes more desirable, prices begin to migrate outside the realm of accessibility for a larger portion of the population. The degree of socio-economic diversity begins to wane and lower-income residents are forced to move farther to the urban edge. The very density that defines the city is beginning to run counter to the forces of its own market inertia. Continue Reading…
Why are streets with trees better received than those without? Why is dappled light through leaves more pleasant than sun beating against the pavement? What is our affiliation to rolling streams and bubbling brooks? Why do little kids love playing in piles of fall leaves? According to biologist E.O. Wilson, the answer is because a connection to nature is hardwired into our DNA, leaving us with a biological propensity to feel better in the presence of natural systems.
We often use the utilitarian, rational deployment of street grids as a boon to our best cities. American cities like New York, Philadelphia and Washington D.C. stand as the result of a preplanned order deployed to guide expansion over time. In many ways it has worked. Partitioning up the city has helped to shape a straightforward process for development, creating defined districts for zoning along with a web for transportation. But as the way we interact with the city evolves, including the buildings within it, the grid lags behind, representing the same functions that it did centuries ago. These massive infrastructural frameworks have grown to the point of being outmoded, trailing the urban evolution around and within them. We are at a point for a reassessment for how best to use this wealth of connective tissue that provides access to and from our homes, our jobs and our leisure both inside and outside of the city. Continue Reading…
Outside of Seattle, the design-build firm Dwell Development is in the process of building out their vision of transit oriented development. They are calling it Columbia Station. Pitched within the rising popularity of the term “microcommunity” the project plan includes 15 residential homes all built on the same block and within a quick walk to buses and the commuter rail. As more of the designed units get built the proposal could be an example of the elusive search for a middle ground between urban centers and suburbia. Continue Reading…
In a previous article I dug into the first half of the Midcentury (un)Modern study conducted by Terrapin Bright Green that raised the question of what we should do with a group of over 100 energy deficient New York office towers built between 1958 and 1973. Once it became clear that a series of unique conditions were making this particular group of poorly performing buildings unadaptable the question became if there was a positive scenario for demolition and reconstruction. There could be a number of ways to stimulate or incentivize the replacement of these buildings to coax building owners into action–essentially paying them to make a change. However, even though it’s possible, is it positive? Is there a process that creates a new building while providing a net gain? Not only a monetary gain for the city, but a net gain in things like energy use, water consumption and air quality. Continue Reading…