Last July, I posted that the Department of Housing Preservation and Development’s adAPT NYC competition was seeking proposals for “micro-units,” meaning apartments less than the minimum 400 square feet normally required by zoning. On January 22, the city revealed the winners – a team composed of Monadnock Development LLC and nARCHITECTS , and the Actors Fund Housing Development Corporation. (Rumors that the team tried to celebrate with a pizza party in a mock-up of the micro-apartment, but realized a large pizza would not fit, were greatly exaggerated.)

While not everyone would want to live in a micro-apartment (although many do), they are a great way to meet several overlapping objectives. All else being equal, a smaller residence means less construction material and waste, lower energy use, and reduced consumption of things like furniture.  Small apartments also help meet PlaNYC goals that attempt to determine how New York City can remain livable while accommodating the one million new New Yorkers expected to arrive by 2030. The competition will be a testing ground for some interesting concepts, such as a targeted zoning exception for micro-apartments and all-modular construction. And according to the city,  40 percent of the units in the building at 335 East 27^th Street will be offered at below-market rates, increasing affordability in a tight market.

You can see the winning design, which actually includes surfboard storage (I am not making that up) at a Museum of the City New York exhibition on new housing options for the city. Bring a camera to take snap a photo of the brilliant new design for micro-units! (Macro lens suggested.)

adAPT NYC’s Innovative Micro-Apartment Housing Model
Photo Credit: NYC Mayor’s Office

Photo Credit: NYC Mayor’s Office

On January 15 I had the bright idea to attend Let There Be Daylight, an event discussing a report (of the same name, released in December) showing that at least 114 million square feet of New York City office space can easily be retrofitted with advanced daylighting controls. The presentations and discussions took place at the New York Times Building, which actually uses this technology to cut both energy use and peak electric demand.

The report makes a persuasive case: since daylight is often strongest when needed most to cut building energy peaks (summer afternoons), and prices have dropped substantially (from ~$100/ballast 10 years ago ~$30/ballast now), daylighting can be accomplished cost-effectively. NYSERDA and Con Edison incentives can shorten paybacks further, reportedly in the 4-5 year range for new construction. Wireless sensors can help overcome the obstacles of working in existing buildings, where entering the asbestos- or insulation-laden ceiling cavity is to be avoided if possible. Since New York’s central business district has more office area appropriate for daylighting than Chicago and San Francisco’s central business district areas combined, this is a major opportunity that cut could NYC peak demand by 160 megawatts.

The report contains a fantastic roadmap for future installations. By focusing on occupant comfort first, mostly by reducing glare, buildings maintain light quality and views while managing heat gain and energy savings. Best of all, the research included actual energy monitoring of existing installations to prove the savings, and polled occupants to ensure satisfaction with their daylighting systems. Since New York City buildings will have to upgrade their lighting in accordance with Local Law 88, it’s worth considering cost-effective additions to basic upgrades at the same time.

While daylighting control may be near-future technology, it still takes commitment, capital, and good design and installation. That makes it worthwhile to consider some easier and cheaper strategies that don’t include daylighting controls: implementing lighting schedules, reducing overlighting through retrofits and task lighting, and installing simple occupancy sensors. In fact, the report’s results show that daylighting controls play a smaller overall role in savings than these inexpensive, straightforward, and proven ways to greatly reduce lighting loads. Don’t wait for advanced controls to hit your block to start staring at the lights!

Many thanks to Richard Yancey of Green Light New York (which hosted the presentation and panel, co-sponsored by Urban Green) and his co-authors Stephen Selkowitz (Berkeley Labs) and Adam Hinge (Sustainable Energy Partnerships) for a great event.

At the request of City Council Speaker Christine Quinn and Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Urban Green Council has convened a special Building Resiliency Task Force of leaders in the NYC real estate community. The Task Force is taking an in-depth look at how to better prepare our buildings for future extreme weather events and infrastructure failures, and the grand kickoff was this morning, with Task Force members assembled for the first time.

Held in the Council Chambers at City Hall, over 100 Task Force members gathered to hear Speaker Quinn, Deputy Mayor Cas Holloway, and Commissioner of Buildings Robert LiMandri welcome them and describe the urgency of their work. Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability Director Sergej Mahnovski described some of the challenges facing New York City infrastructure and how this may affect buildings during future extreme events.

Members also learned more about the purview and structure of the Task Force. As described by Russell Unger, Urban Green Council’s Executive Director, the Task Force will consider both direct effects of extreme weather on buildings, such as flooding or wind damage, as well as secondary effects on buildings caused by infrastructure outages like loss of electricity and water. The Task Force will be fully focused on buildings, both new construction and potential retrofits to existing structures. The Task Force will not take up the important issues of infrastructure or zoning, which are being considered simultaneously by other city groups; as the city’s overall response to Sandy and preparation for other potential risks develops, the Task Force will adapt its process to fit in harmoniously with the larger effort. The Task Force will also include a “rapid rebuilding” component, to fast-track the review of policy proposals affecting buildings currently under consideration by City agencies and the City Council.

My role was to explain the inner workings of the Task Force itself. The main technical efforts will take place in Working Groups, organized by functional area and expertise and co-chaired by designers (architects and engineers). With input from cost, code, and legal experts, the Working Groups will develop proposals based for all types of buildings. These proposals will then be considered  by Committees, organized by building type (Residential, Commercial, and Critical buildings, the latter including hospitals, senior centers, shelters, fire stations, and so forth) and co-chaired by owners. The Committees will consider what parts of the technical proposals should apply to which buildings, with the most stringency likely given to Critical buildings, then Residential, and finally Commercial buildings, with the latter perhaps leaning more towards suggested best practices rather than new requirements. Put simply, Working Groups work in their technical area of expertise to describe what could be done, and Committees work in their building type area to decide by should be done.

There is also a separate Homes Committee, since the issues facing 1-3 family structures are unique. The Task Force will also have At-Large members, with wide-ranging expertise who will consult across all proposals, and a Steering Committee made up of the co-chairs plus representatives from Urban Green Council and New York City government agencies, the Mayor’s Office, and the City Council. The Task Force is blessed with an incredible array of highly experienced experts, including owners, property managers, architects, engineers, contractors, subject matter specialists, and representatives of utilities, city agencies, code consulting, cost estimating and law.

To dive in as deeply and as quickly as possible when meetings begin in the new year, it’s important that all members of the Task Force have a common understanding of what risks the city is facing, now and in the future. We were very lucky to hear remarks from Dr. Cynthia Rosenzweig, Senior Research Scientist at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University. Dr. Rosenzweig was able to compare current risks to those New York City may face in upcoming decades due to climate change. 100-year coastal floods may occur every 15-35 years by 2080, with flood heights increasing by 1-2 feet. Similarly, the risks of heat waves and intense rains will also increase. It was sobering to see the extent of the hazards we may encounter, but knowing the science gives the Task Force a firm base upon which to begin its work.

The Task Force will release a report in summer, 2013. Stay tuned for updates between now and then!

For many years folks in green building and sustainable development circles have questioned the logic of developing in coastal areas and flood plains.  As the New York City region now knows firsthand, coastal areas are susceptible to harm and when development is pursued a loss of habitat (like wetlands) inevitably follows, directly or indirectly.  LEED, for instance, provides credit to projects that avoid areas like wetlands, water bodies and habitat of endangered species.  Notably, this is not a prerequisite to achieve LEED, but a voluntary credit (though making this a pre-req has been proposed in LEED v4, slated for 2013 rollout.)

Typically this issue is raised only when new developments are under consideration.  Very few people in the mainstream conversation have advocated for retrenchment from established communities, no matter how vulnerable.  Exceptions that come to mind include regions like the Mississippi River flood plain, where recurring floods have required an almost annual outlay of significant funds to reconstruct devastated communities, and post Katrina New Orleans- when many questioned whether there should be a city in that location at all (though presumably those people have never been to Mardi Gras.)  After Katrina and the BP spill in the gulf there were spikes in conversation about the impacts of human development and how we had managed to remove 34 square miles of wetland habitat from Southern Louisiana EACH YEAR for five decades- habitat that might have softened the blow of Katrina and helped clean crude oil and other toxins out of the ecosystem.   A similar discussion point has been heard after Sandy, with people pointing out that wetlands and oyster habitat used to be extensive in New York Harbor (and around Staten Island and the Rockaways) with lots of speculation about how the presence of these ecosystems might have mitigated the impact of the storm.

Credit: ARO, dLand Studio

Among the most reproduced images post-Sandy was this rendering, by the design firms Architectural Research Office and dLand Studio, of New York Harbor redesigned to withstand dramatic sea level rise, for the Rising Currents exhibit at MoMA- a prescient examination of the impacts of sea level rise on the NYC waterfront in 2010.

But for the most part, no one questions the right of cities and towns to exist much as they are- mostly folks wonder what can be done to make our communities more resilient in the face of dramatic events, whether it be storm surges or heat waves.

But we may be witnessing a turn in this conversation.

Last week it was reported that City Councilman Brad Lander of Brooklyn asked Lightstone Development to withdraw their application to build a 700-unit housing complex alongside the Gowanus canal.  For those not familiar, the Gowanus canal penetrates almost two miles into Brooklyn from New York Harbor and it suffered severe flooding during Sandy.  Exacerbating the situation, the canal is a Superfund site–laden with myriad toxins and other nasties left over from its industrial past. The Gowanus is also an active outfall for our combined sewer system (in New York City, and most northeast cities of the same age, the sewer and stormwater systems are combined and when it rains the system can be quickly overwhelmed, resulting in raw sewage being diverted to surrounding waterways.)  All of which makes the Gowanus quite a noxious body of water (sarcastically nicknamed Lavender Lake by the locals) but, property values being what they are in New York, there is significant pressure to develop around it.  And Lightstone has responded that they intend to move forward with the project.

Credit: Lightstone

New York City is a place that revolves around, and is largely defined by, real estate. Property ownership is sacrosanct, in some circles probably considered more fundamental than access to oxygen.  The Lightstone proposal is essentially “as of right”- meaning they are not requesting any variances to zoning or codes like more bulk or more square footage than allowed by the baseline codes, and therefore will not have to go through extensive environmental reviews.  Whether you agree or disagree with a new housing complex being located alongside the Gowanus, it is a significant change in the conversation for a public figure to openly request that the developer withdraw their proposal.  Will Lander be suggesting a wholesale review of the zoning around the Gowanus?  Or will the city be reviewing proposals near water bodies with a renewed scrutiny?  The former seems complicated and the latter seems a little vague, and probably unfair.  That said, Lander raises good questions about the ability of the project to withstand storm events.  There are not easy answers to these questions, and I’m certainly not suggesting solutions here.  But the conversation has started.  We should all take note.

Greenbuild kicked off on Wednesday with a great welcome from San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee and an inspiring presentation about the USGBC’s Center for Green Schools.  Arguing that “where we learn matters,” Geraud Darnis (President & CEO, UTC Climate, Controls & Security, and Urban Green 2012 Gala Honoree) and Rachel Gutter (Director, Center for Green Schools at USGBC) spoke about the educational and social benefits of healthy schools. We worry about what our children eat and what they watch on television, but we often neglect to think about the buildings in which they learn. The Center for Green Schools is trying to change that.  In New York, Urban Green Council’s Emerging Professionals have been involved in sustainability-focused curriculum development at a Manhattan green school under the GELL program, so we’re well aware of the benefits of this type of work.

No presentation about green schools is complete though without a video of adorable children in day-lit classrooms. Gutter obliged and, by the end of the video, the audience at the Opening Plenary seemed fully convinced by the tiny voices that told us  ”where I learn matters.” Now with a young child of my own, those cute little kids totally got me – I was ready to to run out of the conference hall and get to work designing and building a great green school for every child everywhere!

That sentiment would have to wait though, because Rick Fedrizzi was next. I’ve heard USGBC President and CEO Fedrizzi speak on several occasions, and even had a chance to chat with him at Urban Green’s Gala.  Had he not founded USGBC, he could have been a motivational speaker. Fedrizzi’s talks are often inspirational, but this speech at Greenbuild was one of the most rousing I’ve seen.  He seemed fired up and ready to go in a new way. Fedrizzi called on the green building community to collaborate more with other groups and to talk not just to each other, but also to those outside of our circle. Here I was reminded of Urban Green’s conference, Cooling on Climate Change. This concept was exactly what we were arguing there; panelists spoke about climate change messaging and how to better communicate with those concerned about carbon pollution versus those indifferent about mitigating or adapting to a changing climate.

Fedrizzi linked the green building movement to social justice campaigns from women’s suffrage and civil rights to today’s gay rights and marriage equality efforts, all of which required hard work, lots of discussion, and time. Like these movements, widespread acceptance of healthy and sustainable building is not a question of if but of when. The USGBC leader argued for collaboration and, referencing Majora Carter’s sentiment about improving one’s neighborhood, stated “you don’t have to leave this country to build a better one.”

That’s good news and it’s up to us to make the change we want to see.  As we learned at Cooling on Climate Change, to do so requires that we speak about the issues we are concerned about to a variety of audiences. Fedrizzi also reminded us that our mission (healthy buildings, neighborhoods, and cities) is not only a just cause, but also supports a strong economy and offers a sound business case. He called on us to get to the hard work of reaching out and making green building standard building and left us with this mantra to remind us why we are working so hard: “We are right.”

Our firm has come across a way to substantially lower energy use in many commercial buildings using a simple, readily implemented measure. This observation arose from our work on two large energy conservation efforts for NYC office buildings.  The first was NYC’s Energy Conservation Capital program (the largest municipal program at that time) highlighted in this 1980s article. The other was our more recent effort to identify and implement energy efficiency projects in high-rise commercial buildings in New York City (August issue of ASHRAE Journal).  Despite the intervention of almost three decades, at least one large wasteful concern persists: the excessive amounts of outside air most buildings draw in through defective outside air dampers.

Though not always inexpensive, this is a relatively straightforward issue to correct and one that most building owners and managers should consider.

In one major office building, after the outside air quantities were field tested, we found that leaking dampers allowed several times more outside air in than that recommended by ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2007 (see Test Building 1 in Table #4 below, taken from our ASHRAE article). Even with ostensibly closed dampers, the leakage rate exceeded 40% in this building. Testing in subsequent buildings confirmed that a large majority of the ubiquitous 1960’s and 70’s commercial office buildings are over-ventilated, resulting in wasted energy, some for heating, but mostly for cooling.  Many of these dampers date from the original construction of the building.  Table #4 shows the results of air testing of a number of other properties.

Table #4: Excess outside air is common in older large, commercial buildings

If a majority of Manhattan office buildings have excess outside air quantities similar to Table #4, installing new dampers would significantly reduce wasteful energy use as well as overall energy costs.

Another measure connected with curbing excess outside air is demand controlled ventilation (DCV), a process for reducing the cooling and heating costs associated with excess air. It has wide ranging applications not only in office buildings but in hospitals, recreation spaces, auditoriums, museums and many other facilities. The DCV technique employs equipment that measures the freshness of air in a building, typically done by measuring carbon dioxide (CO2). Although typically associated with global warming, in this case CO2 turns out to be an excellent proxy for determining appropriate ventilation conditions. (Because people breathe CO2 out, the concentration of CO2 reflects the number of people in a space.) Typically outside air in New York City is 400 to 450 ppm of CO2. An occupied air environment is normally considered “fresh” when the CO2 level is less than 1100 ppm.  Clearly, unless tightly-closing dampers are in place, DCV will not be fully effective since it relies on being able to stop outside air exchange when ventilation is not needed.  Using Test Building 1 as an example, Figure #2 shows the extent to which installing low-leakage dampers can be key to the effective use of DCV.

Figure #2: Test Building 1 proportional outside air savings; low-leakage dampers vs. DCV.

Unfortunately, some dampers constructed by local shops are not always engineered appropriately.  The linkages and damper motors often do not properly close the large damper assemblies and the damper blades become deformed, further limiting closure.  Outside air dampers must be installed on a modular basis, with appropriately sized damper motors and linkages, to provide adequate torque to close the dampers leaktight. High quality dampers, properly installed and adjusted, are the key to reducing outside air to appropriate levels and employing DCV effectively.

The following was blogged live from our Fall Conference on September 18, 2012 – Cooling on Climate Change: Designing the Message. Panelist Doug Hocking, Principal at Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates, emphasizes the importance of using data and sound architectural design to construct truly sustainable buildings.

The media coverage of the earthquake that devastated Haiti and the city of Port au Prince on January 12, 2010 stopped long ago, creating a silence that allows many of us to remove the event from the list of immediately pressing concerns.

For a moment, let us think back to 2010 when initial reports stated that the total cost of the earthquake was between $8 billion and $14 billion and the death toll was approximately 316,000.   Later, in June 2011, the International Organization for Migration reported that an estimated 634,000 people were still living in displacement camps (New York Times).  Now, two and a half years after the natural disaster, hundreds of thousands are still living without safe housing and much of the infrastructure in Port au Price remains in disrepair.  Tent camps and damaged buildings provide unstable housing for those remaining in the city, while others have moved to the countryside to build homes with tarps and sheet metal. The crisis is far from over, and the need to build more permanent housing and infrastructure in Haiti still persists.

During times like these, it seems that our role as architects, engineers, developers, and builders is obvious.  The concepts of social entrepreneurship, social architecture, or social engineering have been around for a long time, all of which revolve around the goal of mitigating a social problem through conscious organization, planning, or design.  Shortly after news of Haiti’s earthquake reached this country, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) committed to helping the people of Haiti rebuild and recover from the disaster.  The current USGBC-led initiative, Project Haiti, is an effort to build a LEED-certified orphanage in Port au Prince.  Once complete, the Orphanage and Children’s Center will provide shelter and safety, immediate care, and a hopeful future for children.

Upon hearing about USGBC’s effort to raise money for this noteworthy project, the Urban Green Council Emerging Professionals came on board to support the cause.  At a fundraiser on August 15, 2012, the group raised over $1,700 to be donated to USGBC and used exclusively for expenses related to the design and construction of Haiti Orphanage and Children’s Center.  The evening was a cultural celebration with a brief presentation of the project and a performance by local Haitian drumming group, La Troupe Makandal.  A generous donation of raffle prizes from the Four Seasons Restaurant, TJ Allan, Rachel Goldfarb, Volta, Alexandra Weiss Designs, and Urban Green Council contributed to the funds raised.  See photos from the event here.

This project has been designed as a model for high-performance green building practices that can be tailored to any culture.  As sustainable builders, we cannot just rebuild buildings and infrastructure; we must “rebuild them better”. Project Haiti aims to inspire and teach how construction can both minimize impacts on the environment and, through maximizing energy and water conservation, be financially sustainable.  Sponsored by USGBC with partnership from the Foundation L’enfant Jesus and pro-bono design by HOK, Project Haiti has been recognized as a Commitment Maker by the Clinton Global Initiative.

The Urban Green Council Emerging Professionals are a dedicated group of young professionals who work to create a network of leaders in the field of sustainability.  Led by a core group of volunteer leaders, they develop opportunities for involvement through Urban Green Council to further generate momentum for the green building industry.

Want to learn more about how the green building industry is practicing “social design”?  Urban Green Council’s conference Cooling on Climate Change: Designing the Message on September 18, will examine how the green building industry should be responding to climate change by asking questions such as: How can the green building movement better communicate the threats of climate change?  What role do designers, developers, operators, and other real estate professionals have in climate change activism?  What role does marketing play regarding climate change in the green building industry?  How are marketing strategies adjusted for clients who are uninterested in mitigating climate change?

“Cracking the Energy Code training was excellent. The departure from the ‘bullet point slideshow with code clauses’ was refreshing…. the course manual is an extremely well thought out, graphically clear product, which I have already referenced a dozen times since the training.”

This is quite a statement for a course outlining code material!  We’re happy to say it’s consistent with other feedback from students who have taken Cracking the Energy Code, which Urban Green developed with the New York Chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA).  Data compiled from the 44 courses delivered since last September show that 85% of students feel that the course has met or exceeded their expectations.

The Course was funded by New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and gives an overview of the 2010 Energy Conservation Construction Code of New York State (ECCCNYS-2010), including compliance methods.  It also covers some of the fundamentals of low energy design.

Wanting some insight from an insider, I asked instructor Paul Reale to share his thoughts on why Cracking the Energy Code is keeping students revved up and excited to learn.

Jessica Cooper: How long have you been teaching Cracking the Energy Code?

Paul Reale: The first time I ‘cracked it’ was March 6^th and I’ve taught another five since.

JC: Who is your primary audience for the course?

PR: The main target audience is architects, building engineers, lighting designers and code officials, but I believe the course helps lots of people working in or with the building industry: sustainability service providers, policy makers, building inspectors and even to some degree environmentalists. Thus far, the vast majority of students have been architects, but so many more can benefit from it.

JC: How does this course compare  to similar courses?

PR: Umm, have you ever read any energy conservation construction codes?  Let’s put it this way – it’s good material for your nightstand if you’re an insomniac.  Yet the vast majority of students that have taken this course find it excellent.

JC: What are the biggest areas of concern for students?

PR: Roughly speaking, the level of code requirements, administration, and scrutiny by code officials has increased by an order of magnitude.  This is definitely a “wow, I’m glad I learned this” kind of class!

JC: Any personal favorites in the curriculum?

PR: I particularly like the practical parts about thermal bridging in a building envelope as well as techniques for energy efficient lighting.  And the heat wheel slide? I’ve gotten some pretty good reactions from that one.  It’s like a 2-minute rock concert to an engineer.

JC: So where do you see this code having the biggest impact?

PR: There are three main areas addressed: building envelope, mechanicals (like HVAC equipment) and lighting.  It’s hard to pick one of the three because they’re all addressed to a great degree, though perhaps the longest-term impact is on the envelope, because an envelope retrofit is not easy.  You really need to try to get it right from the very beginning, and the effects last for the life of the building.

JC: Do you have any insights on future policy in energy conservation and/or sustainable building? 

PR: Ok, serious question so let’s close on a serious note.  As much as the new code will tighten energy consumption (and greenhouse gas emissions, for that matter) resulting from buildings, it’s still a far cry from a sustainable energy and emissions budget.  In the not-so-distant future, our buildings will have to be much more efficient, and you can’t get there without an incredibly tight, well-insulated envelope.  That’s fundamentally incompatible with a glass tower.  There – I said it.  But if you come take the class, I’ll tell you how it’s possible to use a lot of glass yet still comply with the current code!
Cracking the Energy Code sessions are being scheduled in New York City and throughout New York State through November 13, 2012.  Register on NYSERDA’s website (more Course dates coming soon) or e-mail us if you want Cracking the Energy Code offered near you. 

Paul is teaching his next session is Thursday, August 9 at the Center for Architecture.  Sign up today!