Norman Alston Architects

The Empire State Building continues to demonstrate that historic preservation and sustainability can coexist.

I posted a report back in March about sensitive energy upgrades on the Empire State Building and how this looked to be a good example of how to upgrade an historic building without sacrificing historic significance. Now comes an update from the National Trust further outlining the ongoing success of this effort.

Renovation of the Empire State Building: Perhaps some lessons for historic preservation

Thanks to Bob O'Neal for bringing this article from Daily Finance to my attention. Not normally a place to find useful historic preservation information, this article recounts the recent energy upgrades performed on this most recognizable landmark. Of interest on the historic side are the windows. In the article, Bruce Watson recounts how the existing windows are retained and retrofitted to substantially improve their energy efficiency. This was not done at the mandate of the powerful New York Landmarks Preservation Commission, but to SAVE MONEY. As it turns out, they retained the existing metal sashes, frames and even the existing glass, but added a low-e film and other improvments. The result was a retrofit cost of $700 per window versus the original $2,500 per window costs when the default replacement option was considered. To me, another example of what can happen when working with design and construction team members that are not intimidated by the notion of retaining, renovating and restoring.

In fairness, there are a few questions. The article notes that the existing windows are already double paned. This suggests that they have been replaced previously, but I have so far not found information on this one way or the other. I have confirmed that the building is a listed New York City Landmark, as I knew it would be, and subject to the control of the Commission, which is not known for suffering foolish preservation attempts. So clearly, they have approved the work, right down to the color. This appears to be another contradiction to the widely held misconception that historic preservation necessarily costs more than conventional new construction.

Restoration of the Inland Steel Building in Chicago

The restoration of SOM's Inland Steel Building in Chicago has some angles to it worth noting. This article in the New York Times describes how the building has long been a favorite of starchitect Frank Gehry and his involvement is one of the most newsworthy aspects of the story. I was surprised to find, however, that he has played the role primarily of motivator, deal-maker and minor partner, not architect. Instead, Mr. Gerhy impressed me by his insistence that the building's original design firm, SOM, lead the renovations.

Renovation,  not true restoration, appears to have been the original intent even of SOM. It is not surprising that sustainability was a primary goal and that the Chicago Landmarks Commission stepped in to perhaps temper the changes proposed.

Note the exchange between the parties described in the article, language all too familiar to preservationists:  “They didn’t want us to change so much as a doorknob,” Mr. Cohen said. But in a telephone interview last week, he said that most of the issues had been resolved and that renovations, which will turn Inland Steel into a Class A office building, were moving forward." The next paragraph makes it clear that the renovations have qualified for the 20% Federal Historic Tax Credits, although the program is not called out by name.

So to me the  point of the story is the illustration of two important aspects of modern preservation practice; 1) No matter how successful, respected or talented, modern architects do not by default practice modern preservation techniques and 2) despite the initial knee-jerk reaction to the preservation approach, such as “They didn’t want us to change so much as a doorknob", preservation concerns can be incorporated into an economically sound project.

The image above is from the blog of John W. Darrow, LEED AP. Other really good information and images of the project are also available at this post.

Reknowned preservation and economic development consultant Don Rypkema speaks, uh, clearly about a common misconception.

Don Rypkema is well known among the historic preservation community as perhaps the best source for real data regarding the economic development aspects of preservation. In this post from his blog back in 2008, he has some surprisingly not-so-subtle thoughts on a technique that I commonly refer to as a "facadectomy", essentially the demolition of an historic building except for the facade. I've written (complained) about it here before. He calls it "facadomy". I may like that one better.

I came across his thoughts as part of a discussion about building material salvage being a both a preservation technique as well as a sustainable building practice. No, I'm not joking. Let's just say that I'm with Don on this one.

The other shoe begins to drop on "Green"

As I have noted previously, the move toward sustainability and living "Green" is a great idea that I enthusiastically support. However, I have been concerned that much of the early technology that is coming available does not really live up to its promises. In many things, the only "green" is the color of the money people will be spending on it.

This article in the Washington Post is the most pointed I have seen to date, casting doubt on the effectiveness of some of the most widely accepted and eagerly anticipated technologies, like wind power and electric cars.

Good, affordable options for sustainable practice exist and should be utilized. Some technology is not as good as it will be one day, but continued support of some products and techniques will help bring better things to market. Think of your personal computer and how it has developed over the past 25 or so years. The early ones could do nothing like the current ones, but we had to buy the early ones to encourage development of today's machines. How many times in the past have you heard someone say they were hesitant to get a new computer because as soon as they got it, it would be out of date? You can't wait forever, so at some point you have to upgrade. It's like that with the technology of sustainability. We know some things, like electric cars, will be much better one day, but we won't get there if we don't embrace the technology available today.

And some supposedly "Green" technology is just in the way. Compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL's), for instance. I railed against them before so I won't repeat myself much here, but they are an old technology that leads us nowhere but to compromised environmental quality. They have excellent marketing, however.

What we take from this is the validation of taking a thoughtful approach to sustainability. Not everything should be taken at face value.

Norman Alston on Mother Earth News Radio this Saturday - Updated

Talk about a blast from the past. Back in architecture school in the mid 1970's, long before anything was termed "green" or"sustainable", I had quite by accident become involved in an effort that studied how buildings could be not just energy efficient, but more self-sufficient and friendlier to the Earth. This was, of course, enthusiastically embraced by and associated with the counter-culture (hippie) movement of the time.  Hallmarks of this time were the cartoon Mr. Natural (pictured here), The Whole Earth Catalog (described by Steve Jobs in a 2005 commencement speech at Stanford as "one of the bibles of my generation) and the Mother Earth News magazine.

Turns out that Mother Earth News is still with us. Last week I found that my old friend Andrea Rideout has teamed with another old friend, Dan Lepinski to do a "Green" radio program on Mother Earth News Radio. As a result of Andrea seeing our efforts at the Parks Estate during her live tv segments last Thursday (see my previous post), I was briefly interviewed by Andrea and Dan about the Parks Estate for broadcast on their upcoming show.

It's only about a 4 minute segment and will be broadcast this Saturday In the Dallas area, at 9:00 am on CNN Radio 1190 AM. 

For those who are interested but missed the broadcast, a podcast of it can be heard at this location.

New LEED Standards take effect Monday, August 3.

In April, the US Green Building Council rolled out LEED version 3, a significant revision to both the LEED certification process for projects and to the credentialing process for "green professionals" who hold the LEED AP designation. The intention is for the new processes to reflect the rapidly advancing technology and evolving techniques of green building. The credentialing, as universally understood, will be much, much more rigorous for those seeking the new designations, such as LEED AP BD+C. I have found the information about this transition difficult to follow until I saw this article by Tristan Roberts which showed up in my Linkedin update today. As an author for the tests, he has many interesting and useful insights for those looking to stay abreast of this fast-moving field.

Austin Energy Audits: Commentary in the Advocate Magazine's Back Talk Blog

Yesterday I read a piece in the Wall Street Journal that recounted how the City of Austin has enacted an ordinance that requires home sellers to obtain energy audits in order to sell their homes. Unfortunately, I see this as just another example Green actions getting out in front of Green thinking, a subject that seems to come across my desk alot these days.

In my role as a guest blogger on the Advocate Magazine's Back Talk Blog, I have posted my thoughts on this subject and what it may mean in the larger effort to improve energy efficiency and sustainability.

The post can be found at the following link:

Energy Audits: Will Dallas require them?

Texas Governor's Mansion: Capstone restoration funding in place.

This article from the Austin American Statesman notes that Federal stimulus money has been secured to finalize the restoration of the Governor's Mansion. I'll let the article speak to the details. Almost as interesting, however, are the comments posted at the end of the article. Even with this building, you will see caustic commentary to the effect that fixing the mansion is a waste of taxpayer money. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, it's just that I thought that this project would be as close as we get to one that could be immune to such complaints.

The comment I find the most concerning, however, was posted by CommonCents on 5/23. In it, a plea is made to discard the historic concerns and construct the building to "...the highest of LEED Green building certifications." I point this out because I am convinced that we are only just beginning to see the coming struggle between the value of historic integrity and what some will view as the social responsibility of sustainable practices. Supporters of sustainable design are clearly ready to match supporters of historic preservation, passion for passion, blow for blow. I have already experienced this first hand.

Light Bulbs: We're not sure what a bright idea looks like.

I just read an article in the Wall Street Journal about Compact Fluorescent bulbs (CFL) and how the struggling economy has been manifested in lower sales of CFL's, both the total number sold and as a percentage of all light bulbs. Seems that energy is still not expensive enough to motivate folks to go to the much more expensive bulbs. I have written previously about my concern regarding these bulbs, here and here. I just don't see them as the solution. Judging from the comments posted at the WSJ article, I'm not alone.  So bring on the next technology, be it LED or whatever.

However, the article also got me thinking about this issue in another way. Maybe it's all perception and timing. What if the roles of the bulbs were reversed? What if things had develolped differently over the years, and most light bulbs in common use were CFL's? Most of that technology has been with us since the 1930's anyway so it's not too far fetched. So what all we had known over the years were CFL's. What, then, if the incandescents and halogen lights were a relatively obscure technology that had burst upon the scene, championed by government initiatives and Wall-Mart? Imagine how they would be marketed and how we might feel about them.

The new bulbs (incandescent) would be promoted based on their advantages. They would be the new bulbs that were Mercury-free and more environmentally friendly than the standard CFL's. They would have a whiter light that performed much better on the Color Rendition Index, giving you more realistic skin tones and better color in fabric and artwork, or even wall paint. They would be truly, completely and elegantly dimmable (which the CFLs really are not), allowing previously unknown flexibility in lighting design and mood setting. Best of all, they would be a tiny fraction  of the price of the current bulbs, which would be more than a fair trade for the added energy they use or their shorter life span.

That sounds like a technological advancement to me.