Thank you Mike, Bill and Ed for participating in this dialog about the proposed development around Penn Station.
I submitted my Public dings.comment to the Draft EIS and GPP by Empire State Development Corp. for Empire Station Complex Civic and Land Use Improvement Project, Chapter 16 Greenhouse Gas Emissions which ignored to include the loss of the embodied carbon in the existing 43 buildings, demolition of the buildings and removal of the debris from these buildings.
To achieve our 80 x 50 commitment, citywide emissions from all sources will need to be reduced by 44.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) from a 2005 baseline by 2050. Advocacy for retrofitting has been growing within the built environment sector.
AIANY Policy recommendations include, "2. Encourage the adaptive reuse of existing structures to reduce carbon emissions and pollution from demolition (known as embodied carbon), as well as preserve architecturally significant elements of buildings which are not designated landmarks."
Advocacy for retrofitting has been growing within the built environment sector.
While preparing my comment I learned a lot from many sources including invaluable work by Carbon Leadership Forum. My calculation of the embodied carbon is limited to the potential loss of carbon in the existing structures based on some basic information from CLF research. Thank you, Ed.
Due to length of the text, I am sharing the link to access my comment.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i7ywsrUWqmL9XPwLI7WvNoHwMcDoRyxB/view?usp=sharing
Original Message:
Sent: 03-04-2022 07:07 PM
From: Bill Caplan
Subject: An Open Letter to Ed Mazria and the AIA Committee on the Environment (COTE)
Mr. Gamelsky, thank you for a question very relevant to COTE members in response to Mike Mense's call "to prioritize the value of saving existing structures" in regard to climate change. You asked: "can those buildings be retrofitted, remodeled and/or renovated to be energy efficient, net zero, in a cost effective manner as compared to new construction, or are they just obsolete".
This question goes to the root of how reducing emissions is usually addressed by focusing on energy efficiencies. This typically equates to operating emissions. New York City's Penn Station redevelopment proposal represents more than a local planning issue. It exemplifies a dilemma that COTE members face during this time of increased global warming, weighing the environmental cost of all building options. Such subjects must be explored with specifics rather than generalities.
First, whether newly constructed or renovated, let's rule out true "net zero" construction for any large building in the center of Manhattan. Absent surface area to harvest sufficient solar energy, or other sufficient means to generate enough onsite energy, achieving net zero is not realistic.
Can the existing buildings be retrofitted, remodeled and/or renovated to be energy efficient, in a cost-effective manner? Absolutely. Compared to new construction? Without doubt. But this necessitates a broader discussion. It's not the amount of energy we consume, it's the volume and timeline of carbon emissions that accelerate global warming. The upfront emissions related to materials fabrication and building construction, "embodied" carbon, is significantly more toxic to the climate change timeline than "operating" emissions from those same new buildings over a 10-year timeline. This is where the importance of cutting "embodied" carbon in the 2020s comes into play, especially comparing reuse to demolition and building. A few excerpts from my book "Thwart Climate Change Now: Reducing Embodied Carbon Brick by Brick" (Environment Law Institute, Nov. 2021) address the question:
"Retrofitting and refurbishment clearly outshine demolition and replacement in regard to embodied emissions. Not only do they eliminate the massive carbon embodied in would-be replacement, but the emissions attributable to disassembly and processing for disposal or reuse-there is no comparison. A Material Economics study published in 2018 emphasizes that "increasing the building lifetime is one of the single most effective actions that can be taken to reduce the need for construction materials," noting about 85% of their CO2 footprint is associated with structural elements, most of which are perfectly sound when buildings are demolished. Extending the life of a structurally sound building with a renovation that reduces operating energy consumption as well is doubly effective. The benefits are two-for-one, major savings in both embodied and operating emissions for the price of reducing the latter. By prolonging useful life through refurbishment, retrofit, or alternative use, these benefits derive not only from the materials and components, but from the buildings themselves. It is one of the best ways to eliminate the accretion of embodied emissions from new construction."
"A stunning example of a well-executed plan to achieve energy savings while minimizing the embodied emissions invested is the Empire State Building renovation in New York City, completed in 2019. Rather than replacing 6,500 heat-leaking double-hung windows, they were removed and rebuilt onsite, reusing 96% of the existing 26,000 glass panes and frames. But there was more. By suspending a low emissivity (low- E) film insert between the existing double panes to reflect thermal radiation, using new spacers, and filling the gap with a mix of krypton and argon gases, the windows were rebuilt as super-insulating units. Their insulating R-value-resistance to heat flow-was increased from R-2 to R-6, cutting the heat gain by more than half. In addition, insulated heat-reflective barriers were installed behind 6,000 perimeter wall radiators. These two retrofits alone were projected to save 8,400 metric tons of carbon emissions over 15 years, yet they added minimal embodied carbon of their own-a substantial energy-saving retrofit with little expenditure of retrofit carbon emissions. Compared to the embodied carbon intensity of new aluminum-framed triple-pane replacements, this effort was an exemplary retrofit with an extremely high net gain. Six additional upgrades and retrofits were made to the lighting, air handling, refrigeration, temperature, and electrical service monitoring. Each was evaluated against its own carbon footprint. The entire program was devised to achieve a 38% energy reduction that would save $4.4 million per year. More importantly, from the standpoint of global warming, it was devised to save 105,000 metric tons of carbon emissions over 15 years while minimizing the carbon emissions invested upfront."
Yes, the architecture community can make a significant impact on global warming – especially with 95,000 AIA members who can take up the cause. Retrofits, remodeling and renovation are far superior to new construction in that regard.
But plans such as Penn Station redevelopment present a broad dilemma to architects, urban designers and developers – how to revitalize, rebuild and grow the built environment without exacerbating the concentration of atmospheric carbon. As always, the answer is in the details; generalities do not apply. As proposed, the current plan envisions the demolition of approximately 5.5 million gross square feet (gsf) of existing buildings, to be replaced with 12.5 million gsf of tall and super-tall towers. The upfront emission from demolition and disposal is bad enough – 5.5 million buildings' square-feet worth of concrete, steel and stone. The upfront emissions from constructing 12.5 million gsf of tall and supertall structures could be deemed a nonessential expansion, an irresponsible venture at a time so crucial to our battle with climate change. Without question, with all new construction as well as retrofits, remodeling and renovation, embodied carbon should be factored in design, planning and construction decisions. And whatever the outcome, architects and designers can impact embodied emissions through building design and material selections.
------------------------------
Bill Caplan Associate AIA
ShortList_0 Design Group LLC
Bronx NY
Original Message:
Sent: 02-27-2022 11:07 PM
From: Mike Mense
Subject: An Open Letter to Ed Mazria and the AIA Committee on the Environment (COTE)
I posted this to COD and COF a couple of weeks ago, but I want it to also be seen by the members of COTE. I have just this weekend managed to join COTE so that I can do so. Hope you find this a valuable contribution.
Dear Mr. Mazria
In New York City, we are facing the immediate possibility of some 4 million square feet of structure (some of historical significance) being demolished to make way for a number of new glass towers around Penn Station. You are a respected leader and so I am asking you to use your bully pulpit at this time to specifically advocate for the extended use of existing structure.
Your various suggestions, recommendations, policies and so on have recognized the value in saving existing buildings when possible. But that is lost in the complex enormity of the problem and its possible solutions.
This is the elephant hiding in the details of our struggle to diminish climate change. Many in the profession appear to see this as an existential threat. Contractors and architects alike prefer blank slates. It isn't going to be easy. I know full well how much harder it is to predict the cost of adaptive reuse projects. We will still need to retrofit mechanical and electrical systems and sometimes upgrade the strength of existing structures. That said.
Isn't it time to prioritize the value of saving existing structures? Especially in large cities?
Isn't it time to demand that we measure the real costs of demolition and new construction against the real costs of adaptive reuse?
To wit:
- The wasting of the resources, materials and labor, used to create the existing structures
- The expenditure of energy, equipment and labor in demolishing existing structures
- The temporary disruption of the existing, and still alive, experience of the adjacent streets
- The inevitable air pollution generated by the demolition
- The expenditure of energy, equipment and labor in carting away demolished materials
- In the case of large cities, the unjust foisting of these waste materials on less wealthy communities
- On top of all of that, then, the myriad environmental costs of new construction.
The impending demolition around Penn Station makes this a fine time for you, Mr. Mazria, and COTE, to rise up and say,
"It's time for architectural education and the policies of AIA to adjust our understanding of who we are as architects. The real cost (to the earth and our communities) of adaptive reuse is actually less than the cost of demolition and new construction. As architects, we must adjust our skill sets. We must adopt as our first and foremost recommendation the preservation and productive use of existing structure."
I sincerely appreciate all of your efforts, and those of COTE, on behalf of the planet, our cities and our profession. Nothing I say in this letter should be seen as a criticism of those efforts.
Thank you for your consideration. Be well and keep on doing good.
------------------------------
Mike Mense FAIA
Architect, Writer, Planner, Painter
mmenseArchitect
mensenyc on Instagram
Hamilton Heights, NYC + Snohomish WA
former Chair AIA COD
active member AIANY Planning and Urban Design Committee
------------------------------