Captain Planet

Aright people, you earned it, my senior year of high school Halloween costume....yes that's me in the middle with the red diaper...

Regional Credits for LEED 2009

One of the ongoing criticisms with LEED was that it was too standard and not regionalized. For example, you should get more credits for saving water in Phoenix than in NYC. LEED 2009 addresses this:

http://www.usgbcny.org/initiatives/leed-2009-bonus-credits.html

FYI, I wont be able to make the EGB event tonight because I am getting screwed at work yet again.

Obama and Coal

Interesting look from both sides....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7770979.stm

Why would anyone "overlook the geological blessing of coal?" It's American, indigenous, and plentiful at a time when energy independence is at a premium.

We all know how many of us would respond, but is it not a valid argument?

Another Good Place to Find Methane...

That's right, you guessed it...

"The trillions of farm animals around the world generate 18 percent of the emissions that are raising global temperatures, according to United Nations estimates, more even than from cars, buses and airplanes."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/science/earth/04meat.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

Amazon

I couldn't really believe this when I saw it. Brazil is cutting deforestation by half 'in response to climate change' (couldn't possibly be in response to short term profit as this would be a significant short term loss). Some of the numbers here are pretty striking...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601130&sid=a9J6Yb8ybZZE&refer=environment

Bike Racks

One think NYC is in serious drought of is bike racks. I usually end up using a sign post, an awning post, or sometimes even a tree. A substantial addition of bike racks on every block would create less of a mess when multiple bikes need to be parked in the same area. On that note, I was interested to see a 'bike check' down at BLVD on the Bowery when I swung by there for a Tuesday night Green Drinks. Of course I noticed it AFTER I had already locked my bike up but oh well.

David Byrne, out of all the weird and cool things he's done, also has an enthusiasm for bike racks:

http://www.davidbyrne.com/art/bike_racks/index.php

Electric Cars

Here's an interesting snippet from Forbes about the return of the Volt and electric car...

http://video.forbes.com/fvn/fueldemand08/er_energy110508

And here's an article about a contract to build a bunch of electric charging stations in Cali...

http://www.forbes.com/technology/sciences/2008/11/20/electric-cars-agassi-tech-science-cx_wt_1120cars.html

I wanted to highlight this not only in response to Tim's post, but also because it highlites a crucial element from my presidential policy, which was making the switch away from combustion engines (even if the electric ones are powered indirectly from coal). The next step is upgrading the power grid and swapping to renewable electric generation.

Slowly but surely, my friends...

The American Home

One of the sessions I was able to attend at the GB conference was Kevin O'Conner (host of This Old House) along with Ted Benson (modular homes) and Steve Kieran (architect). The whole theme was the transformation of the American home through the 20th century, and the idea that the pendulum of consumption has swung to its extreme and has no direction to go but back towards normalcy. For example, in 1900, the number of homes in the US was 16mil, compared to 105mil in 2000, which is close to twice the percent increase of population during that time (75mil to 280mil). In addition, the median home size in 1900 was for 7 people (seven!) whereas in 2000 is was 2 people (currently, close to one quarter of all homes in the US are single person homes). We all know the average family size is currently 2.6 people, well, in the middle of the century it was 4.6 people. It's not that hard to grasp the drastic drop in family size, unless you compare it to the fact that average home size has more than doubled since the middle of the century (currently 2300sf). That suggests the average person has over 3 times as much space in their home than they did mid century (from 300sf to 1000sf). Bigger homes for less people.

It is this trend, the trend of excess consumption that has allowed the US to be the world leader in resource consumption and the world leader in emissions. Please do not get me wrong in my accusations, I am not scolding large dwellings in this setting (I'll save that for a different setting), but I am scolding the efficiency of our built environment. Ted Benson had a great quote which was:
"Economic bubbles and cheap energy deepen the ruts and make us stupid. That's what happened to many of us in the 80's and 90's. Energy was cheap, homes got big, people got silly. We built some beautiful homes in that era but they weren't the smartest. But recessions, like this one, and high energy costs jerk us on to new paths and create opportunities, because we get very creative."
The trick, which was mentioned in several forums, is to make the connection from the capital cost of building to the O&M cost that the building developer passes on to the future building owner. Developers need to be more conscience and responsible of the way their building will operate, and purchasers need to be more knowledgeable of what they are buying, and if it is built efficiently with properly sized HVAC systems and adequate insulation so that the price they are paying isn't skewed by the ongoing energy costs.
None of this is new and innovative, but merely an organized onservation from the past 110 years, and what we have become. Learning from history can sometimes give us good perspectives on what what causes our trends and what we have to focus on to fix them.

To view the presentation (unfortunately sans slides) go to: http://www.greenbuild365.org/GreenExpoVideoDetail.aspx?GreenExpoID=34

Greenbuild 365

Just a quick note that many of the master speakers from GreenBuild 2008 (including Majora Carter) were videotaped and you can watch their presentations here:

http://www.greenbuild365.org/pagemaker.aspx?PID=67

You can also see presentations from last year as well. GreenBuild 365 is also a good source for training in a variety of areas.

I wanted to share this because there were several people who had expressed interest in going to the conference but couldn't.

Cenocell

Cenocell is a great development in the use of SCMs (supplementary cementitious materials) to the effect of changing the S from "supplementary" to completely "substitutionary." Many currently used ready mixes already contain a good portion of ash or slag (both considered 100& post-industral recycled), but what is so spectacular about this Cenocell is not only is it 100% SCM, but that it doesn't require aggregates, which are the primary source of compressive strength in typical mixes (I'm sure they would still use steel reinforcement for tensile strength). 7000psi is definitely a high strength mix (although certain large applications require much higher).
The price ($50/yd) actually isn't that outrageous, and I'm sure it will come down after time, but the only catch is it needs to be heated to cure. That means all members have to either be precast when brought to site, or there must be some sort of large oven machine on site. Keep in mind the need to 'bake' it increases the embodied energy (however it's quite possible the net embodied energy is less).
Only other concern would be in regard to leachate, since fly ash contains metals that could leach hazardous materials if coming into contact with acids.
Regardless, this could be really big, the fact that there is a 'renewable resource' that is so light and strong by itself. Thanks Doyoyo (cool name, too).

LEED ND

One of the biggest criticisms of the USGBC and specifically LEED was that for a while it focused too much on a small scale and neglected principles of regional strategies and sustainable planning. However it recently developed LEED for Neighborhood Development and as of today, the 2009 draft version is open for public comment. See below.

----------

LEED for Neighborhood Development 2009 Open for Public Comment

USGBC is pleased to invite the public to comment on the LEED for Neighborhood Development Rating System, which integrates the principles of smart growth, new urbanism and green building into the first national system for neighborhood design. The program is a collaborative effort between USGBC, the Congress for the New Urbanism, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

This rating system is built upon the LEED for Neighborhood Development Pilot Rating System, which nearly 240 projects have been using since July 2007 as part of a successful pilot program. Eighteen projects have been certified. Their invaluable feedback, combined with countless hours of USGBC volunteer time, has produced a more sophisticated, market-responsive rating system. 

Any member of the public may submit comments. To view the rating system draft and comment, please go the LEED Rating System Drafts webpage. The public comment period will be open from November 17th through January 5, 2009 at 11:59 PST.

For more information about the LEED for Neighborhood Development program please visit our website

http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=148

Masdar

http://www.24dash.com/news/Housing/2008-11-17-Team-behind-worlds-first-zero-carbon-zero-waste-city-to-visit-UK

I would imagine there would be some concern over the one of the Es (equity) as I'm sure it would cost a pretty penny to live in this place once it's built (merely because of the prestige). Also with the current financial mess, are foreign investors that unaffected that they are still willing to invest?

Shrooms

I gotta give Damon props for opening my eyes to TED.org (it's all I've done the past 3 nights). This one blew my mind. This guy uses mushrooms to sequester CO2, biodegrade oil spills and provide energy. Be careful, he talks really fast, but I present to you...Paul Stamets:

http://ted.org/index.php/talks/paul_stamets_on_6_ways_mushrooms_can_save_the_world.html

Sky Wind

How about a wind farm in the sky? That's where the big winds are. Check this out...

http://www.skywindpower.com/ww/index.htm

Any skepticism you have is probably valid. I asked a friend of mine who works at a global wind-power company and he said it's pretty far from being 'viable.' There are a lot of safety implications as you can imagine. Maintenance is also considerably more difficult. However once it goes it has great potential.

Bailout = Loan

Remember, the potential GM bailout is actually a loan, not a handout. Yes, it's coming from our tax dollars, but with the understanding that it will be paid back over time. Now for this to actually happen the payback structure would have to be so tightly engineered that the company would be able to handle the ongoing future payments and still stay afloat. A major restructuring of the company will be needed anyway from preventing it from tanking, which means many will lose their jobs regardless (not nearly as many as if it tanked tho). If GM goes bankrupt AFTER the bailout, then we are doubly screwed. That being said it's all or nothing here...

Fresh Kills

Most of you are probably aware of the enormous Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island (which used to take all of NYC's waste back in the middle of the century). In recent years, there have been grand plans to transform the area into a park while creating roads, recreation areas, landfill mitigation (and energy harvesting) and the possibility for renewable energy (AKA wind turbines). That part everybody knows (a dumb Philadelphian like myself just discovered this after I moved to NYC, shortly after I found out Staten Island was actually part of NYC and not Jersey)

Now I know there was a large push from both the public and local reps for providing wind energy on the site (from various articles), and but when the DGEIS (draft generic environmental impact statement) came out in May and then the Public Hearing occured in September, wind power was basically ruled out. Other than a few vague articles I found saying that people were upset, the issue pretty much died. They did mention landfill gas reclamation for energy, but no wind.

Now here we are looking at a real life example of a huge capital project that could become a symbol for minimizing dependance on coal (small but something) and give the public what they are asking for (unlike the Puerto Rico lecture where many were opposed) . I wouldn't be so concerned if it wasn't for the fact that the reasoning given in the EIS was so breif. I saw no potential site maps with wind load studies. You can see for yourself in the "renewable energy supply" of the energy section (pages 15-6 and 15-7)

http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_your_park/fresh_kills_park/pdf/VOLUME%20I/15_Energy.pdf

Many of the narrative talks of 'potential' but ended up not really being included in the master plan.

Now I am asking if anybody has heard anything in the past month or so regarding recent developments, if anything noteworthy came of the public hearing (can't find anything on the NYS Assembly website http://assembly.state.ny.us/Press/). I'm guessing it got pushed on the backburner after the financial mess.

The main reason why I am bringing this up, other than the fact that it is a great land use and environmental case study is that so many of us feel very strongly that pushing renewable energy is a priority. If we really want to make bold statements like "we should reduce our demand for oil" or "reduce greehouse gas emmission" then cases like these are the steps we need to take to get there. We need thousands of these steps to even come close to making a dent.

Now for all I know, this has already been adressed and for all I know it's already been thoroughly proven not feasible to put wind turbines on the island. My point is that I haven't seen the arguments. Have you?

Green Build

Now that we can all stop biting our fingernails over the election, can I get a current headcount of people attending GreenBuild '08 in Boston on Nov 19-21? Since I have a close friend who's on the planning committee, I have access to a lot of the 'extra-curricular' events and can easily reserve tickets for people if I know people are coming.

Again, this is an amazing networking tool for those of you in design, building, materials, etc. There will be hundreds of companies and thousands of people there. Some keynote speakers are social iconoclast Desmond Tutu and also Janine Benyus (author of Biomimicry). Barack Obama will also be there (just kidding). It will definately be an overwhelming source of insight and information, and you will probably meet a lot of great people. For anybody looking for a job, this is a good place to look (since it's in Boston, I'm sure a ton of companies from NYC will be there).

For students (any student, or under 25) the price is $225 for the entire expo (access to educations sessions and keynote speakers) or just $25/day if you just want to browse the exhibit hall trade show. See here on info on how to register:

http://www.greenbuildexpo.org/Register/

None of those costs include lodging. Anthony or other guys, if you want, honestly you can crash in my hotel room at no charge (may have to buy me a drink or something) since my company is putting me up (I have will have atleast one couch and plenty floor space). I can guarantee hotels/motels will be very hard to find because not only is this going on but another building expo (BuildBoston) is happening concurrently. Friends may be your best bet but if you really want to go but don't have a spot to crash, let me know, I may be able to help you find something.

If you go, please visit my company's booth (Lend Lease), just don't ask me anything too difficult.

Trash

Since I love talking about trash so much (I was considering being Oscar the Grouch for Halloween), let me add another perspective to a topic I brought up before that we discussed briefly. A report issue by the RCBC (recycling council of British Columbia), recently came to the conclusion that waste-to-energy efforts are not helping in achieving the end goal of reducing waste from landfills. This was discussed before when we were talking about such facilities fighting over waste. Why create a demand for waste?

http://www.rcbc.bc.ca/documents/resources/policypaper_101024_wteoption.pdf

One topic that I think deserves more focus is one mentioned in Cradel to Cradel (and reiterated by Annie Lonnox) which is the idea that everything (both product and packaging) should be designed specifically not only for durability but also deisgned specifically to be recycled. Most product unfortunately were not designed to be burned, which is the princible of waste-to-energy via combustion (either raw material or methane). This emits harmful toxins into the air and creates a demand for waste. Bad bad bad.

One thing I am trying to push at work is recyclable packaging. Certain things, like fancy kitchen cabinets, for example, are shipped with cardboard corner and edge protectors, then wrapped in plastic fiber bands, then wrapped in thick plastic shrink wrap. Certain things to focus on are reducing such plastics, and definately limiting styrofoams. I will keep you all posted with developments I observe to be relevant.

Piezometrics

Let me just comment in terms of the physics of dance floor energy. Since piezometrics is in essence using a cushion to harness energy from the source, when energy is absorbed from human contact with the floor, it takes more energy to maneuver. The same principle applies when trying to run in the sand as opposed to the asphalt (takes much more effort because the sand absorbs your mechanical energy). In this sense, breakdancers may not appreciate this technology as their moves require the maximum thrust off of a solid surface. I would imagine that walking from one end of a long room to another along a piezometric floor would leave somebody more winded than with a hard solid floor. On the other hand, this would make somebody burn more calories per distance walked, which could be a good thing as well.

I guess this still classifies as using a renewable source, even though it is indirectly powered by redbull & vodka, which I wish was renewable...

Crude Reality

I realize this viewpoint does not represent the majority of the class, but I bring it up not to be a devil advocate but because I think it holds some weight and atleast deserves discussion. Plus the better you understand it, the better you can argue against it (which I obviously welcome).

I would like to follow up my comments about energy independence as it relates to alleviating geo-political tensions and promoting local economy. Let me quickly summarize my point that within the next 50 years or so, as we make the transition to a majority of renewable resources, as we are weaning ourselves off fossil fuels (but still using them nonetheless), the resources we do use should be our own (or atleast a bigger portion than as of current). I would encourage you all to browse the EIA, as there is a buttload of relevant info. Let me direct you to three charts in particular relating to crude oil:

The amount of crude oil we import, by country:
"http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_a.htm"

The amount of crude oil USA produces:
"http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbbl_a.htm"

The amount of crude oil USA currently has in reserves:
"http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_pres_a_EPC0_R01_mmbbl_a.htm"
"http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/rcrr01nus_1a.htm"

As a summary, we annually import about a 5 billion barrels, we produce 2 billion, hence we use 7 billion. We currently have 20 billion in reserves that fluctuates as we use some and find more (but generally decreases since the 70s, see second chart from reserves). So if we use half a billion barrels more domestic crude annually than as of current (i.e. from Alaska), that would be enough to offset all of Saudi Arabia, which is the biggest single country source after Canada and Mexico. Yes, that will deplete our reserve faster, but again, this is in terms of keeping us domestic during our transition period.

Now, comment away!....

Independence

It is agreed that tackling a vast array of conflicts requires clear prioritization, but the debate comes when determining what rank is given to each issue. It must be recognized that in the United State’s current status as a world leader, the principle means of our influence (good or bad), is our economic machine. The US cannot fight unemployment, develop new technology, offer relief to foreign nations, fight for sustainable initiatives, operate an already complex array of government services and also provide the opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if the economy continues to suffer for a prolonged period of time. This applies to the private sector as well. Every major functioning mechanism in this country depends on borrowing money in one way or another, and if credit markets are frozen, it will continue to have a rippling effect on everything. Even sectors that are considered to be relatively immune, such as healthcare, cannot operate at full potential unless our economy is somewhat stable. My generation has taken this for granted.

 If major short term concerns can be adequately addressed, only then it is feasible to focus on long term concerns, like reducing debt, assuring services to future generations, and of course preserving our physical global environment. It would be imprudent to focus on the far-future while neglecting the present and near-future nightmares. Among the many current environmental concerns, global warming is discussed far more than any other environmental issue (even more than the millions of yearly deaths due to lack of clean water for drinking or irrigation). Therefore it will be most relevant if I comment on this as well.

What both presidential candidates have failed to display, and what most politicians are always reluctant to display, is the exact implementation of their strategies and how they can be congruent to overwhelming short term concerns. All we hear are the long-term goals, but what of the exact implementation strategies, incentives and penalties. The US congress failed to pass a bill that cut CO₂ emissions by 66% by 2050. Obama’s goals are close to 80% reduction from 1990 levels, McCain’s are close to 60% reduction. Obama speaks of global forums and exporting technologies to developing countries while McCain meanders about fuel standards and tax credits. Both preach cap-and-trade. Now prove how and why this can be economically viable. 

Some extent of regulation is necessary, but it can only be truly effective when done in harmony with the key principle of capitalism: incentive. Unfortunately, the most powerful incentive that we as humans can grasp is financial. However that can be used as a valuable tool. Rather than saying, “by the year 20xx, we need to reduce CO₂ emissions by x%, and I support this and that policy,” and then end the discussion there (which in all three debates both candidates have done), how about layout a detailed timetable of controlled emission reduction of given industries, saying that the standards are tightened by a certain percent each year, and that economic incentives (such as tax rebates) are awarded at an exponential rate by achieving above and beyond the standards, and that penalties should be imposed for not meeting standards. Emission standards should be carefully determined by industry experts as to not impose unreasonable goals that will cripple a given economy. It’s easy to say, they should suffer if they can’t comply, and it’s easy to say, it will be better for our environment if the price of gas triples and people can’t drive anymore, but the fact of the matter is that there are serious short term implications to umbrella standards that could be far more devastating than lowering the sea level a couple centimeters. Just like we gradually got to this point over several decades, we need to wean ourselves back down to healthier emissions over several decades, in a precise and attainable way.

In light of the current U.S. economic standing, energy independence should be given as much weight as renewable resources. Independence is crucial for strengthening the dollar and eliminating geo-political stresses, both of which has been devastating in recent years. However we can’t just stop burning coal and using oil altogether. If that switch were flipped, there would be mass economic chaos. The maximum possible rate of making the transition to purely renewable resources absolutely cannot be attained rapidly enough for us to not have to use the two most powerful forms of energy we are capable of harnessing: fossil fuels and nuclear power. Since we must use these sources during that transition period, why not use what is local. We need to set a long term time table of making the two fold transition of first become energy independent, and then becoming 100% renewable. As idealistic as it sounds, we cannot jump straight to the end without using the stepping stones in between, especially not in our current economic condition.

Lead in the Air

Along the same theme from the WSJ article of how curbing GHG will be effected by the financial crisis, limits to other emissions are raising the same question (do companies lower emissions, or do they go out of business), let's see how the industry that produces lead emission will adapt.

EPA just lowered the limit substantially, and one industry that will have to figure something out quick is trash incineration. No more mass burning to save space, but rather change the focus to better sorting before hand, or harnessing emissions during the process? Incineration is also a main component used in certain waste-to-energy plants, so I'm interested to see how the industry will adapt.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/10/16/epa.lead.air.standard.ap/index.html

Bailout the Bicycles

Apparently the Federal Bailout Bill has some nice little tidbits attached, such as employers being able to claim a $20/month/biker tax relief, passed down to the biking employee via fringe benefits. Now, a couple extra Jacksons in the wallet isn't going to ease much pain, it actually might not even be worth the extra work required to prove qualification, but it's definitely a pedal in the right direction.

Go to page 205:

http://senateconservatives.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/bailouttext.pdf

It goes without saying but I will say it anyway: using cycling for transportation can save you money regardless, even if you already use an thrifty means, like the subway or bus system.

Now all we need are more bike parking spots, tire pumping stations, and severe prosecution for people who park or open their car doors into bike traffic lanes.

A Bike Lane aint a Bike Lane if...

...if you can't bike in it!  Let me just say, I do commend the efforts of city planners and the cooperation of the DOT to paint green bike lanes on Broadway and other streets throughout the city. HOWEVER, why would you add another space in between the bike lane and the traffic lane with tables and benches for people to occupy? That forces people to walk through the bike lane. ARRRGHHHHHH! Why!?!? Look at this!

Why not just put the seating area next to the sidewalk where the pedestrians belong, not sandwiched between two moving lanes? Did anybody think this through? I almost took out like 8 people in a 3 block span. I ended up just using the road. For this lane: thanks, but no thanks.

CWM

I'm interested in discovering the economics of building relevant regional recycling facilities where there is a market for them, specifically in terms of, allowing a large amount of waste producers to have a venue for their own waste. A public database could be created, of waste producers, what type of waste they produce, and their location (GIS style), that could assist in locating markets for anything, including polystyrene. This is no different from old fashioned market research, but it applies to a relatively newer market and technology. My expertise right now is C&D waste so I don't know much about plastic recycling (and other MSW), but I hope to research this more.

BIfaSP

I bring up this because we were JUST talking about this tonight. Regarding reducing building construction waste, on 'Big Ideas for a Small Planet' on Sundance today there was Michelle Kaufmann, a "prefab architect" who, after building her own home prefab, started a company in the bay area doing sustainable modular prefab homes. Everything is made in the shop in pieces (everything), and brought to site to be "installed." Since it's all manufactured in one place they can also assure quality control and of course environmental standards (recycled content, insulation, etc...). I'd like to think about how this would apply to hi-rises in NYC, but I'm scared I'd wake up in the middle of the night with union rep business agents and large scary men who intend on placing me at the bottom of some river, or in a wet concrete footing somewhere.

Oh yeah, on that same episode, there was bit on Carlton Brown building green affordable housing in Harlem and it showed some Pratt students.

PS:

"The most sustainable material is the one that you don't use."
-Michelle Kaufmann

"If you're standing on the sideline, you don't have the right to complain."
-Carlton Brown

"Bla bla bla, bla bla bla bla"
-Senators McCain and Obama

Flood Proof TA Grates

We talked about this in the first class. Check out the recent prototypes of NYC's new flood proof subways grates, serving other purposes as well.

http://gothamist.com/2008/10/01/mta_installs_second_prototype_of_st.php

Now these are only elevated a mere 6", but target low elevation areas. No doubt it will help, but not if there's a massive flood.

Biking the Bridges

My first one to try was Queensboro Bridge. Not a bad ride at all. It's nice racing the Roosevelt Island cage lift. The downfall of this bridge are the entrances on either side. Although the bridge starts on 2nd Ave in Manhattan, there's a high fence wrapping back down to 1st Ave. This isn't a big issue coming back, since I live on 1st Ave and go that way anyway, but approaching the bridge after coming down 2nd Ave forces me to go an extra block (times 2) out of my way. C'mon, that's not cool. Also, the approach and exit on the Queens side is just a messy long stretch of atypical intersections, which take an effort to cross. My bridge rating = 6/10.

My favorite one thus far is the Williamsburg Bridge. This giant red caged bike platform is wide and splits into two sides on the Brooklyn half. It overlooks the subway tracks and highway below, and offers nice views coming back of midtown to the north and down town to the south.  My only small qualm is when the path splits, the south path is technically for pedestrians only. Because of this they put rumble strips at the bottom, which is very annoying for bikers. As far as I'm concerend, pedestrians are not as important as bikers. I realize I have a long way to go until I fully consider pedestrian safety as important as my convenience, but I'm not quite there yet. It's probalby because pedestrians are so freaking unaware of their surroundings even when given adequate visual or audible warning. This is a topic you can be sure to hear more of from me later on. Regardless of this small inconvenience, my Billiesburg Bridge rating = 9/10.

I have tried the Manhattan Bridge once. It could be the best option if going to or coming from west Fort Greene area, but other than that it's narrow and the entrances are tough to find.  It does offer a nice view down onto the Verizon baseball field on the Manhattan side, but other than that it's not the greatest. My bridge rating = 4/10.

I have yet to ride over the Brooklyn Bridge (although I have walked it), but I look foward to doing it when the opportunity presents itself. I almost did this when attempting to cut the 5 Boro bike tour down to 4 boros to save time, but I never even got to Queens due to the bottleneck at the entrance to the Queensboro and my overwhelming impatience. I also hear that the Verrazano Narrows Bridge offers pretty amazing views of lower Manhattan.

Green Walls

When you think of LEED's "heat island effect" for "non-roof" most people just think of the ground. But what about the walls? Just because a wall is vertical doesn't mean there isn't significant heat gain. And if a nice green roof or ground level garden can offer us other benefits like insulation, mitigating water runoff and absorbing CO2, why can't a wall?

A green wall popped up a block away from my jobsite up on 86th and 3rd, covering the PURE YOGA studio. At first I though it was just a greenwashing gimmick but as I thought about it more, I realized that, most principles applied to a roof can somehow be utilized by a wall as well. AND you can see it!

This morning I found an article in treehugger.com, which is not my favorite website, but regardless...

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/09/11-buildings-wrapped-in-green-walls.php

The company gsky is the biggest manufacturer thus far. And once again I was disgusted to find that, even though these are fairly new in the US, Europe already has a ton of them....

http://www.verticalgardenpatrickblanc.com/

Regarding the inside green wall, are there any methods in place for insect mitigation? That's the only concern I would have. I had a bunch of plants in my office and one of my succulents was attracting these little flies.

The MillionTreesNYC project is pretty extensive, welcoming the efforts of other charities as well. I spent a day out in Kissena Park in Queens with the NYCares program doing just that. Random community residents also joined in throughout the day. It was pretty powerful.

My First Bike Ticket

That's right, I got pulled over on my bike in Central Park. I really hope people find this post and learn from it because I was completely unaware that you can't be in The Park after 1am and before 6am, not even on the roads in a moving vehicle . This is cited in Title 56 of the Parks and Recreation laws in section 1-03 part (a) items (1) and (3). The reason for this completely stupid law is for "safety" not only for bums who would stay in the park and freeze to death in the winter, but for pedestrians who might be attacked by ruthless hoodlums. Yes, people should be careful, but this law is straight up stupid. Riding or driving on the roads in Central Park late at night is much less dangerous than riding on the avenues outside The Park. What could to happen to me? Is somebody going to throw a brick at my head when I'm riding? I don't even have to justify people who run around the resevoir before 6am. This law is straight up dumb.

And I got busted for it. I was out riding home from the West Village on a Friday night and after coming up the bike lane on 8th Ave I shot through the park at Columbus Circle. As I was riding up the east edge of the loop, I see lights and a cop car pulls up next to me, and one of the two officers asks me to "pull over." I was a little surprised when the other cop got out and asked me to dismount my bicycle. The only thing I could possibly think of was that a bike had been stolen matching mine's description. After taking my information, I waited about 10 minutes for them to run my record. I started to wonder if there was more to the story and then a black SUV pulled up and I overheard the driver asking one of the cops for directions and hearing the cops tell the man that the park was closed. The man responded with an apology and drove away. It was then I realized that technically I wasn't supposed to be there. They couldn't be giving me a ticket though, could they? How about a warning? If that was the reason I was "pulled over" I'd be pretty angry.

Well, that was the reason. I was dumbstruck when I was handed a criminal court summons. A summons is an order to appear in court, it's not a fine that I just pay and mail in. Either way this was going to be a substantial inconvenience. One of my personal weaknesses is that my facial expressions are at times pretty transparent to my emotions. Apparently blatantly rolling my eyes didn't make the one officer happy, to which he replied by asking me in an antagonizing manner "What's wrong, you look like you're not happy about this." Oh, that set me off. "Yeah? I look unhappy? I wonder why! Maybe because you just pulled me over and gave me a summons for RIDING MY BIKE IN THE PARK!?" I couldn't help it, I was so livid. We want back and forth for a little bit arguing about if there was a sign and if there was where it was and how I was supposed to see it at night. The cop ended the confrontation by walking back to the car and telling me to leave. What an ass.

Like I said, a summons requires you to attend court regardless of your plea, so of course I pleaded NOT-guilty. After various pro bono consultations with several informed acquaintances, I was prepared to make my case in front of the judge. My first argument was that the part of the law that was cited, item (1) rather than item (3) under part (a) of section 1-03 in Title 56 was not an item with a fine attached. Item (1) says that you may use park from 6am to 1am. Item (3) says you can't use them after the curfew, and that's the item with a fine associated.

http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_about/rules_and_regulations/rr_1-03.html

My second argument was that I was not put under proper notice that such a law existed because the signs (which I went back and found later) we mere 6" wide dark green non-reflective signs that a pedestrians wouldn't even notice, let alone somebody flying by on a bicycle. Straight up lame.

Let's play "Find the Sign!"

Sitting in court, I had to listen to the 20 or so people before me go up and argue their violations. Most were for open containers. Once was for soliciting ads, one was for going the wrong way down 2nd Ave. When I got up there, I whispered to the public attorney that I was going to plead not-guilty for this curfew violation and when he repeated that to the judge I received a confused look and the question "what were you doing in the park"? After explaining that I was riding home the judge responded by asking "don't you work in the morning, what are you doing out so late?" I replied with, "It was a Friday night, you honor, but even so, what the heck does that matter?" I didn't actually say the second part of that, but I sure thought it. Why are people giving me such a hard time about this?!? It's an embarrassment to our legal system! I then heard, to my surprise, the judge chuckle and say "get our of here kid, you're dismissed." I looked at the public attorney with a confused look to which he responded "That's a good thing, you're dismissed. You can leave." I didn't even get to use my arguments. Oh well.

The story would have been better if I had gotten a BUI...

Cap and Trade

I am still getting acquainted with the economic science of this, but one question I'd like to pose back to Mike or anybody who has expertise here: How do you rate "effective?" other than the 10% overall goal. The overall emission reduction is based on a current baseline carbon emission, and if run properly, a company or state could only buy a who bundle of credits if they are sold by another, therefor ideally if they are bought or sold for $4 or $40 wouldn't change the overall emissions, only the profit and expenses of the entities buying and selling them. The price per credit will be solely a product of how difficult it is for the market as a whole to reduce emissions. If 10% is overly ambitious, the credits will sell for much higher. Does anybody know the penalty for exceeding the 10% reduction after 2018, is it just the cost of the allowances needed to satisfy the limit? Could allowance credits be sold by the govt if we (market as a whole) are already at the carbon emission limit?

The cap-and-trade program is something both presidential candidates supposedly support. As far as I can tell, the only major difference between the tho is McCain favors certain free allowances for specific entities as to not drastically disrupt certain key markets, and Obama only favors allowances to be purchased, regardless of how 'delicate' the market is. I will hold off on comments regarding their stances in hopes that this will be revealed more during the debate tonight, if it even happens.

NYC Housing Plan

I'd like to just start a thread regarding local (NYC) updates for planning. As discussed, part of "sustainability" is providing economical housing options for our current and future local residents. It's part of that greater discussion of making our city more socially equitable, especially since the financial future is less certain than it was 3 weeks ago.

Here is one development that's part of a much greater plan. We should track this closely because it's a very significant current case study happening right here...

http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c701c789a0/index.jsp?pageID=mayor_press_release&catID=1194&doc_name=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyc.gov%2Fhtml%2Fom%2Fhtml%2F2008b%2Fpr372-08.html&cc=unused1978&rc=1194&ndi=1

Bethlehem Steel

Since we were talking about industrial relics and also steel today, I thought I would comment briefly on my experience with Bethlehem Steel.

Bethlehem Steel was one of the two large steel mills in the US (along with US Steel in Pittsburgh) from after the civil war and throughout the 20th century. Not only did the mill supply much of the steel for most major cities and structures, including the Empire State Building, Golden Gate Bridge and Hoover Dam, but the company was the perfect case study for the birth of labor unions, industrial social fabric of the US, and the 1980's industrial decline due to cheaper foreign supply. Bethlehem Steel went bankrupt in 2001 and has since been closed off and developers went to work thinking about what they could do with such a "wonderful" opportunity.

After a failed attempt by the Smithsonian to open a museum in the old steel mill, the wall caved for typical glitzy money-making development. Slot machines, hotels, restaurants, a performance venue dominate the master plan, although some of the structures, including the large blast furnaces (visible from miles away) will be preserved and somehow incorporated into the plan. The development, despite the obvious controversy has spawned an enormous amount of commercial developments including shopping centers and various entertainment facilities. The landscape, demographic and culture, especially in South Bethlehem, is changing at an absurd rate. There is too much to say about all of this.

I went to Lehigh for the 5 years right after the mill was closed, and had my opportunities to jump the fence, sneak around, and try to glimpse into the past in a setting in the middle of one of the most significant industrial legacies in the world.

Here are some of my photos:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/18241051@N00/sets/72157607459020390/

Last time I was there was for a wedding in the Spring. They had definitely cleared out many portions of the site in preparation for what looked to be either excavation, or at the very least parking. The blast furnaces and most of the structures still remain. There have been significant condo and multi use development surrounding the site tho that started when I was attending school and is now complete.

Yellowstone

Since we were talking all about Yellowstone today, I figured I would share the photos I took when I was out there last month...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/18241051@N00/sets/72157606938657309/

Green Codes

As far as a green building goes, once the developer/client has agreed to a certain goal (LEED level or other standard), the responsibility lies in the hands of the GC for all aspects of the "construction submission" (as opposed to the "design submission" obviously in the hands of the arch & engineer). GC is in the perfect position to educate (from 1 on 1 discussion to regular meetings) and enforce (hold payments) the subs on these standards.]

I'd also like to add another note, which I hope people can respond to or comment on. In terms of planning and more specifically in terms of changing codes, I am presuming that new standards are never arbitrary, but based on the observation of prior accomplishments. For example, Bloomberg wouldn't have mandated some of his initiatives such as local law 86 (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/downloads/pdf/ll_86of2005.pdf) if i wasn't for so many completed LEED projects in NYC and in other cities. So then it's developers like Durst (Conde Naste bldg, 1 Bryant Park, Helena....) who can provide a template once again for raising the bar even further.

So here is the question I pose: Do progressive developers drive the movement for which the code then adopts, or should the code lead the way and force the developers to adapt?

Learning from Those Who Know

The following is a blog entry I wrote in response to a post made on my company's internal web forum. Our global Sustainability Executive depicted how she has seen blatant resistance to positive change in certain areas. The company I work for is an international Real Estate Investment, Development and Construction Management company. Below is my response to the post:

-----

I will make an attempt to be as specific and direct as possible. I beleive one of the greatest barriers for those of us in environmental sustainability-promoting roles is the fact that we ourselves are too broad with our ideas. Like Amber mentioned, those of us in Construction Management have the amazing opportunity to look at things on a minute scale. We see how the elements physically go together and more importantly, we work with, and have personal relations with the very people who perform the physical labor responsible for our tremendous buildings rising from the ground. Yes, we must utilize the resources of fellow coworkers in other cities, but more importantly we need to utilize the resources that are right in front of us. 

I have an amazing labor foreman. I hear from others that he is one of the best, but I only know from personal experience. I constantly ask him, "Jimmy, how does this work?", "Why do we do this that way", or more frequently, "What the heck am I looking at right now?!?" I have come to realize that he is my biggest ally when it comes to positive change. He's KNOWS how to set up a loading dock and where to put waste containers because he'd DONE it before, many, many times. He is the guy to talk to when it comes to figuring out if it will ever be possible for NYC to embrace source separation of waste rather than comingling. It's the Teamsters that will be able to figure out how to get the drivers to stop idling. It's the Tin-knockers who will be able to figure out the best ways to keep ducts stored so the wrap doesn't get damaged or removed prematurely. The list goes on. We need to make relationships and friends out of these people, not only because they deserve as much respect as any Project Manager or Super or Exec or PIC, but because it's THEM who will be the key players in making a serious and meaningful change. 

I credit my generation in the enthusiasm many of us share, but I blame us in not utilizing the greatest allies we have: the construction workers themselves. Many have been building buildings longer than I have been alive. If I myself fail to embrace the wealth of experience that I have available to me through these workers, than I have failed miserably in doing the best possible job of promoting positive change.

False Green

In general terms, I had always struggled with the concept of commercial "marketing" as it relates to fancy advertisements and clever gimmicks. Although I consider myself a staunch capitalist, it always made me uncomfortable that, when boiled down to simplest terms, convincing somebody to buy or invest in something all boils down to "deceit." How can I convince somebody that they need something more than they actually do. (Yes there is an aspect of need, we all need things, but it's safe to say most of us Americans have much more than we need). Good marketers accomplish this by equating NEED and WANT. They convince people that since something is COOL then you WANT it and somehow therefor NEED it, so you BUY it.

In terms of certain environmental products, such as wind power devices for example, the same strategy has been utilized. The underlying theme is commendable (clean energy, renewable energy, etc...), but since our society is so fixated on what's COOL, we have settled for branding methods based the now-standard form of marketing deceit.

Small scale wind power is one of many new enviro-fads. As observed in Sept 4 NYT article "Assessing the Value of Small Wind Turbines" By KATE GALBRAITH, cities such as San Francisco and New York and Boston are embracing the IMAGE of wind power, in pursuit of the end goal of relaxing dependance on "dirty" power, although on a small scale it is almost impossible to be economically sustainable. It's a noble ambition, but I can't help but relate it to the same silly (and frankly embarrasing) strategies that we use to market everything from extra sharp knives to fancy cars. Many individuals, governments and institutions are even open to the shallow nature of their "environmental" endeavors. The minds behind the small (and pretty much useless) experiemental wind turbines on top of the Holyoke Center office complex are open with the idea that its purpose is to create "outward symbols of our commitment to renewable energy." They know it's an investment not worth the financial return. Wow, talk about 100% image.* (*image has a value and therefor this statement can be argued in terms of "worth" as it may attract clients, tenants, etc..)

It's this "image" that bothers me. For an extreme example, I am currently working on a project that is marketed as "green" (and even pursuing certification), but the fact of the matter is, in terms of the big picture, this is purely marketing. Not only is it "cool" to be green now, but the multi-millionaires who spend way too much money on a high-end condo are feeling a soothing of their conscience by "saving the planet" when in fact, they are doing very little, and spending a lot of money to do so. I will be touching on this idea much more in the future.

Now let me be honest with myself. Going back to wind power, I do believe that these achievements are stepping stones to bigger and better achievements. It hurts me to say, but this marketing, this "image" that is portrayed, while shallow right now, is necessary to justify the means. After all, we are a capitalist society, and when it comes down to it, we have to convince people to pay for things. Right now we are paying off the technology, I suppose. I just hope people don't settle for having done their part in "saving the world" just by throwing 5 grand at a small device on their roof when in fact their personal benefit is merely looking cool.