Revisiting 'Green' Architecture // New York, New York

Back in mid-March, I wrote on a post centred on Mehaffy & Salingaros and Peter Buchanan in their description of the end of Modernism and the need to move toward a radical rethink of Green architecture. While that analysis centred on the ‘façade’ of green architecture, this post hopes to present an alternative investigation, understanding that under current circumstances, Modernism is not the solution to sustainability. 

Buchanan highlights how “highly efficient high-tech materials or components are now seen to be very inefficient…it is almost the rule that the more efficient the product when in place, the less efficient it is in process terms.” (Buchanan, 2012). Simply sourcing materials is therefore not enough to combat unsustainability, there needs to be a wholesale reconsideration of the processes which are currently feeding our society and our design approach. Sustainability at the moment is merely the fashionable term which we have a ‘bolt-on’ attitude towards, using apparently efficient facades and systems to provide the impression of ecological awareness (Mehaffy & Salingaros, 2012). 

The Empire State Building scored an impressive 84/100 and the Chrysler Building, 80/100, and are in fact considered 'highly-efficient' buildings on the Environmental Rating.
(Hugo Chan, 2013). 

The green energy research into New York’s skyline revealed some surprising results. Indeed, it would seem that age does give wisdom, with the oldest skyscrapers, The Empire State Building and The Chrysler, scoring 84 and 80 respectively (Navarro, 2012). Mehaffy and Salingaros sees this as evidence that our current obsession with Modernism is the problem arguing that “it is not possible to get meaningful benefits with dazzling new designer permutations and tokenistic ecological thinking within the same essentially industrial design process.” (Mehaffy & Salingaros, 2012). Walter Gropius’ MetLife Insurance building, a triumph of concrete and steel, scored only 39, far short of the 75 required to deem a building ‘highly-efficient’ (Navarro, 2012). Indeed sadly, I must now reveal as well that Mies Van Der Rohe’s Seagram Building, arguably the icon of 20th Century modernism, scored a dismal 3 out of 100 in the Environmental Star Rating, proof as if it were needed that we have been idealising all the wrong approaches to design (Hardesty, 2012). 

Gropius' MetLife building, scored a mere 39/100 but by far the worst performing building in New York is Mies' testament to modernism, the Seagram Building with a score of 3/100.
(Hugo Chan, 2013)

The architect’s obsession with style and aesthetic is in my view another drawback and what is needed is not independence but collaboration, allowing urban designers to “work together with other scales of the city, to achieve benefits at both larger and smaller scales.” (Mehaffy & Salingaros, 2012). For New York, this mindset change is particularly significant, given that “New York racks up most of its carbon dioxide emissions — nearly 80 percent — in heating and cooling buildings.” (Navarro, 2012). Having seen the virtues of taking up Empire State of Mind (no pop song reference intended), we should recognise that these older buildings are in fact, more logical, possessing thicker walls and fewer windows to reduce heat penetration and improve thermal mass (Hardesty, 2012). 

What remains to be seen is how the latest additions to the city will perform, the new 1 World Trade Centre, and Frank Ghery's stainless steel fabric, 8 Spruce Street. (Hugo Chan, 2013). 

Having seen the somewhat disastrous ecological outcome of our modernist utopias, I believe it is necessary to fundamentally rethink our processes. Our approach to design, to how we feel buildings should work and the aesthetics we desire must be fundamentally reassessed. Only then can we begin to redesign our existing urban fabrics with better, smarter and more sustainable solutions. 

Resources:
Peter Buchanan. “The Big Rethink Part 2: Farewell to Modernism and Modernity Too”. The Architectural Review. (2012). Last Accessed 11 May 2014 from: http://www.architectural-review.com/the-big-rethink-farewell-to-modernism-and-modernity-too/8625733.article 

Michael Mehaffy and Nikos Salingaros. “Why Green Architecture Hardly Ever Deserves the Name”. ArchDaily. (2013). Last Accessed 11 May 2014 from: http://www.archdaily.com/396263/why-green-architecture-hardly-ever-deserves-the-name/ 

Mireya Navarro. “City’s Law Tracking Energy Use Yields Some Surprises”. The New York Times (24 December 2012). Retrieved online on 11 May 2014 from: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/science/earth/new-york-citys-effort-to-track-energy-efficiency-yields-some-surprises.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 

Linda Hardesty. “Chrysler Building More Energy Efficient than World Trade Center”. Energy Manager Today. (27 December 2012). Retrieved 11 May 2014 from: http://www.energymanagertoday.com/chrysler-building-more-energy-efficient-than-world-trade-center-087933/