1. 

   gerrrg
   October 13th, 2009 - 19:37

   It’s not a fixed equation, and anyone telling you so, is lying to themselves.

   Just because NYC packs in a lot of people doesn’t necessarily mean that NYC is greener because of density. You have to also consider that the electricity NYC uses is much dirtier (coal) than in the NW. By comparison, the total CO2 output as a result of energy use, per capita, NY ranks 3rd highest in the nation, while Oregon ranks 41st, Washington 30th, and Idaho 47th.

   Just because a project is located in the suburbs does not necessarily mean that people are commuting long distances to the suburbs; in many cases, those jobs are located where the population lives. LEED 3.0 provides for points based upon such connectivities to neighborhoods and transit nodes.

   See http://www.eredux.com/states/ for energy use and CO2 output comparison.

   ( REPLY )
2. 

   joshuadf
   October 14th, 2009 - 08:59

   I think Owen is mostly selling his book. He makes some other weird claims about open space in cities being “waste”, too. While it’s true that people in Manhattan use less energy per capita than anyone except the Amish, that doesn’t make it easy to replicate. For example, in Seattle there are far more jobs than housing in downtown. You can’t walk from home if there’s no home available.

   ( REPLY )
3. 

   Tom
   October 14th, 2009 - 11:21

   Twenty years ago, I did a comparison study of a high-rise block in the Lincoln Square district of Manhattan and a low-rise (six stories or less) block in my neighborhood of Chelsea, also in Manhattan. The Chelsea block had more residents on it than the Lincoln Square block; due to our smaller apartments.

   So which is greener? I’d say low-rise Chelsea; which also has less impermeable surfaces (more street trees and backyards) than Lincoln Square, and more sunshine. )

   ( REPLY )
4. 

   Matt the Engineer
   October 14th, 2009 - 18:01

   // it’s worth noting that cities across the nation have vacant high-rise buildings that currently are not at capacity, and are likely wasting large amounts of energy//

   And also well worth noting that there are far more low-rise offices that are sitting vacant, wasting energy.

   I think [gerrrg] has a point about location (the same building being more green in WA than a coal state), but assuming you’re building an office in Issaquah vs. a highrise in Seattle there isn’t any comparison. Many people here commute to the city via bus. But there isn’t a bus option for commuting between suburbs.

   Looking at overall infrastructure gives you a whole new level of green. Bringing sewer, water, roads, electricity, etc. to 50 suburban offices (and the associated 2500 houses, and the associated malls to serve those houses, etc.) is much more wasteful than the centralized utilities required for a highrise office near highrise residential.

   ( REPLY )
5. 

   Anne Tambling
   October 15th, 2009 - 21:33

   Ultimately, there is not a “cookie cutter” solution that will work across the board. A sustainable approach requires us to look at a holistic analysis of the existing buildings and consider the possibilities of adaptive reuse vs new construction. To simply consider new construction of a green building is short sited: sustainable communities incorporate the features of all aspects fo the communtiy, including infrastructure, transportation costs, embedded energy and impacts for both people and the built environment. LEED is most effective when it is considered in that holistic context.

   ( REPLY )
6. 

   Anne Whitacre
   October 15th, 2009 - 21:37

   I always wondered why the Rocky Mountain Institute — way the heck away from anything — could be considered green, since the only way to get there is driving a car. I’m absolutely on the same page as Owen regarding high rises versus the suburban campus. The infrastructure is there, the transit is there, and the supporting development is there. And furthermore, there is generally little delay because the zoning is there.
   People not only drive to and from their work — but because campus developments are usually far away from anything, any lunch time errand involves more driving — in fact, lunch itself requires driving (unless there is a cafeteria on campus ) , which means that everything associated with working in a campus type environment involves being in a car. (and let us not forget the cost of constructing, securing and the land involved in all those parking garages. Any project located more than 1/4 mile from regularly running transit — and calling itself green — is simply delusional, along with the owners and developers.

   ( REPLY )

Leave a comment