Committee on the Environment

 View Only

Community HTML

ALBION DISTRICT LIBRARY BY PERKINS + WILL IS A 2018 COTE TOP TEN RECIPIENT. IMAGE: DOUBLESPACE PHOTOGRAPHY

Quick Links

Who we are

The Committee on the Environment (COTE®) is an AIA Knowledge Community working for architects, allied professionals, and the public to achieve climate action and climate justice through design. We believe that design excellence is the foundation of a healthy, sustainable, and equitable future. Our work promotes design strategies that empower all AIA members to realize the best social and environmental outcomes with the clients and the communities they serve.

Enjoy our latest on COTE news (and follow us on X and LinkedIn). 

To learn about the Framework for Design Excellence (formerly the COTE Top Ten Measures), click here.

Check out COTE's history and timeline. 

Starting a local COTE or sustainability group and need some guidance? Check out the AIA COTE Network Resources here.

A big thank you to our 2024 sponsors: 
Founding sponsors: Building Green
Premier sponsors: Sherwin-Williams
Sustaining sponsors: GAF Roofing, Milliken, Andersen Windows,
BlueScope Buildings
Green sponsors: EPIC Metals
Allied sponsors: TLC Engineering, Sierra Pacific Windows

Expand all | Collapse all

An Open Letter to Ed Mazria and the AIA Committee on the Environment (COTE)

Anonymous Member

Anonymous Member03-02-2022 03:57 PM

Anonymous Member

Anonymous Member03-02-2022 03:57 PM

  • 1.  An Open Letter to Ed Mazria and the AIA Committee on the Environment (COTE)

    Posted 02-28-2022 09:22 AM

    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
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: An Open Letter to Ed Mazria and the AIA Committee on the Environment (COTE)

    Posted 02-28-2022 03:57 PM
    Edited by Eana Bacchiocchi 03-02-2022 10:54 AM

    As a New Yorker well aware of the misguided Penn Station redevelopment plan, and a world citizen concerned with the ill-advised and unnecessary carbon emissions the plan will cause, I join in your advocacy for its adaptive reuse. Beyond my desire to revitalize New York City neighborhoods rather than tear them down, the urgency of avoiding unnecessary carbon emissions is indeed the elephant in the room – we are running out of time. Four million square feet of demolition and new construction will release a mushroom cloud of upfront carbon emissions – embodied emissions – at the very time we must cut them. We are currently on a pace to exceed the remaining 'carbon budget' for global emissions by 2027 to cap warming to 1.5°C, or by 2042 to cap warming to 2°C. We must buy additional time through emissions conservation until we achieve significant decarbonization of our global energy supply, not increase them through unnecessary surges within this decade – especially of this magnitude.

    A recent webinar on this issue presented by the Environmental Law Institute might interest you, and everyone else interested in the current reality of built environment's impact on global warming.

    The webinar/panel discussion Thwart Climate Change Now – Reducing Embodied Carbon Brick by Brick is available on YouTube at Webinar: Thwart Climate Change Now – Reducing Embodied Carbon Brick by Brick .

    The webinar is based on a new book with the same title, Thwart Climate Change Now: Reducing Embodied Carbon Brick by Brick, available at https://www.amazon.com/Thwart-Climate-Change-Now-Environmental/dp/1585762334 .

    Thank you for bringing this to the attention of COTE members, a current and pressing example whereby the expertise of architects and planners can be voiced to fight climate change.



    ------------------------------
    Bill Caplan Associate AIA
    ShortList_0 Design Group LLC
    Bronx NY
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: An Open Letter to Ed Mazria and the AIA Committee on the Environment (COTE)

    Posted 03-02-2022 10:55 AM
    An excellent letter - thank you.

    ------------------------------
    Hubert Murray FAIA Member Emeritus
    Hubert Murray Person
    Cambridge MA
    ------------------------------



  • 4.  RE: An Open Letter to Ed Mazria and the AIA Committee on the Environment (COTE)

    Posted 03-02-2022 10:55 AM
    Thank you Mike for this letter. Well said.

    ------------------------------
    Patricia Grimes AIA
    CBRE, Inc.

    ------------------------------



  • 5.  RE: An Open Letter to Ed Mazria and the AIA Committee on the Environment (COTE)

    Posted 03-02-2022 10:55 AM
    I am interested to read what my fellow New Mexican architect  has to write ,but in the  meantime  i need to ask : can those buildings  be  retrofitted, remodeled and/or  renovated  to be energy  efficient, net zero, in a cost effective mnaner as compared to new construction ,   or are they just  obsolete.   
    good luck .

    ------------------------------
    Lee Gamelsky AIA
    Lee Gamelsky Architects PC
    Albuquerque NM
    ------------------------------



  • 6.  RE: An Open Letter to Ed Mazria and the AIA Committee on the Environment (COTE)

    Posted 03-02-2022 03:56 PM
    Hi Lee,

    Mike's note was originally posted on the AIA Fellows Discussion site. I answered on that site with the following post:

    Dear Mike, Dear David,

    The runaway pace of climate change and the importance of the building sector in achieving climate solutions make it especially crucial today that decarbonization takes priority in our design and planning decisions. Your posts to the AIA College of Fellows and Committee on Design illustrates the importance of considering whole-life carbon accounting when comparing building re-use and replacement scenarios.

    Our focus at Architecture 2030 is to provide resources to architects and the countless professionals, policymakers, and concerned citizens who shape the built environment. We are currently working on producing the free CARE (Carbon Avoided: Retrofit Estimator) Tool with Larry Strain from Siegel & Strain Architects, Lori Ferris from Goody Clancy. The tool compares the total carbon impacts of reusing and upgrading buildings vs replacing them with new construction. The CARE Tool will give building owners and AEC professionals access to embodied and operational carbon data, and a dynamic platform for analyzing that data and comparing the carbon impacts of retrofit and replacement options. The tool can also be used to support policies, incentives (tax credits, fast-track permitting, rebates, etc.), and codes to drive building reuse and upgrades. As soon as the tool goes public, we will alert the AIA, AIA Chapters and our colleagues.

    We do not as a rule engage in project advocacy, others are in a better position to engage all appropriate stakeholders and achieve the best results. We suggest starting by engaging your colleagues at the AIA New York Chapter, if you haven't already.

    Mike, thank you for raising your voice to encourage holistic carbon solutions. Using existing resources wisely is an essential first step to that end.


    ------------------------------
    Edward Mazria FAIA Member Emeritus
    Architecture 2030
    Santa Fe NM

    ------------------------------
    Edward Mazria FAIA Member Emeritus
    Architecture 2030
    Santa Fe NM
    ------------------------------



  • 7.  RE: An Open Letter to Ed Mazria and the AIA Committee on the Environment (COTE)

    Posted 03-17-2022 03:19 PM
    Mr Gamelsky
    No, they are not obsolete.  Most are occupied and in good use.
    As to the other part of your question, here is a quote from an EPA document.

    • Rehabilitating historic properties can be a critical part of promoting energy efficiency by preserving the energy already represented by existing buildings (known as "embodied energy"), rather than expending additional energy for new construction. A new, green, energy-efficient office building that includes as much as 40 percent recycled materials would nevertheless take approximately 65 years to recover the energy lost in demolishing a comparable existing building.1
    t

    ------------------------------
    Mike Mense FAIA
    Architect, Writer, Planner, Painter
    mmenseArchitect
    mensenyc on Instagram
    Hamilton Heights, NYCf
    ------------------------------



  • 8.  RE: An Open Letter to Ed Mazria and the AIA Committee on the Environment (COTE)

    Posted 03-02-2022 01:37 PM
    Mr. Mense,
    I read recently that "According to the U.S. EPA, it takes about 65 years for an energy efficient new building to save the amount of energy lost in demolishing an existing building."
    -Best Regards,  Russ Ver Ploeg

    ------------------------------
    Russell Ver Ploeg AIA
    Ver Ploeg Architecture
    Des Moines IA
    ------------------------------



  • 9.  RE: An Open Letter to Ed Mazria and the AIA Committee on the Environment (COTE)

    Posted 03-02-2022 03:53 PM
    Russell
    Thank you for your comment. Any chance you could show us where you saw that?
    Hope so.
    Thanks

    Sent from my iPhone




  • 10.  RE: An Open Letter to Ed Mazria and the AIA Committee on the Environment (COTE)

    Anonymous
    Posted 03-02-2022 03:57 PM
    This post was removed


  • 11.  RE: An Open Letter to Ed Mazria and the AIA Committee on the Environment (COTE)

    Anonymous
    Posted 03-02-2022 03:57 PM
    This post was removed


  • 12.  RE: An Open Letter to Ed Mazria and the AIA Committee on the Environment (COTE)

    Posted 03-04-2022 09:36 AM

    Dear Mike,


    Thank you for providing an opportunity for AIA COTE to spotlight the work of AIA architects, Knowledge Committees, and other organizations engaging climate action through the reuse and adaptive retrofit of existing buildings. AIA COTE champions building reuse as fundamental to our ability to meet the aggressive carbon targets set at COP 26. This stance is integral to our programs and the work of our Advocacy subcommittee. For instance, we are currently tracking the Biden Administration's recent announcement of the National Building Performance Standards Coalition, prioritizing building retrofit and community and stakeholder engagement as fundamental to industry-wide decarbonization. 


    AIA COTE affirms the conversation within the AIA Committee on Design (COD) on Adaptive Reuse Excellence and supported its efforts to create an Extended Use Award. We also recognize the expertise of the AIA Historic Resources Committee (HRC), which promotes the cultural, social, and environmental significance of building reuse. Finally, we recommend the work of the Climate Heritage Network, which elevates the role of building reuse to address the urgency of embodied carbon. 


    AIA COTE is working to coordinate pervasive action across these various initiatives. Even as we write this, we are organizing discourse on the fundamental importance of building reuse. We are ready to work alongside the COD, HRC, Strategic Council, and others on a resolution that prioritizes building reuse. 


    While we cannot comment directly on the issues pertaining to projects in New York City, we encourage you to connect with your local chapter of COTE, AIA New York Chapter COTE, and the AIANY Historic Buildings Committee, both of which have recently hosted sessions for members to learn about the importance of building reuse and circularity. Please also follow the work of our COTE Advocacy subcommittee led by Chair Mike Davis for work on adaptive reuse at the National Level. Mike includes regular COTE Advocacy updates in our bi-monthly editions of COTE News. You can find his latest update here.


    Billie Faircloth, FAIA

    COTE Chair, 2022


    Lori Ferriss, AIA

    COTE Chair-Elect, 2023


    Betsy del Monte, FAIA

    COTE Chair, 2021



    ------------------------------
    Billie Faircloth FAIA
    KieranTimberlake
    Philadelphia PA
    ------------------------------



  • 13.  RE: An Open Letter to Ed Mazria and the AIA Committee on the Environment (COTE)

    Posted 03-17-2022 03:20 PM
    Thank you for pointing out your efforts.  I wish you continued success.  I wonder if you and COTE would consider adding an adaptive reuse component to our continuing education requirements.
    Thanks and be well.

    ------------------------------
    Mike Mense FAIA
    Architect, Writer, Planner, Painter
    mmenseArchitect
    mensenyc on Instagram
    Hamilton Heights, NYCf
    ------------------------------



  • 14.  RE: An Open Letter to Ed Mazria and the AIA Committee on the Environment (COTE)

    Posted 03-07-2022 12:40 PM

    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
    ------------------------------



  • 15.  RE: An Open Letter to Ed Mazria and the AIA Committee on the Environment (COTE)

    Posted 03-14-2022 09:42 AM
    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

    Damyanti Radheshwar FIIA AIA LEED AP
    DRadheshwar.com

    ------------------------------
    Damyanti Radheshwar AIA Member Emeritus
    D Radheshwar Architect
    Shirley NY
    ------------------------------