PDHonline Course C800 (3 PDH)

Audubon House: From Here to Sustainability

Instructor: J.M. Syken

2015

PDH Online | PDH Center

5272 Meadow Estates Drive

Fairfax, VA 22030-6658

Phone & Fax: 703-988-0088

www.PDHonline.org

www.PDHcenter.com

An Approved Continuing Education Provider

1

AudubonHouse

From Hereto

Sustainability

2

Table of Contents

Slide/s Part Description1 N/A Title2 N/A Table of Contents3~91 1 A Breath of Fresh Air92~122 2 A Model “Green Building”123~175 3 Under the Hood

3

Part 1

A Breath of Fresh Air

4

Good Enough to Bottle

5

“It’s been more than six months since the National AudubonSociety moved its headquarters into what has been calledone of the most environmentally friendly office buildings inthe world. And while it will be a full year before the peoplewho retrofitted the 102-year-old New York City building knowfor sure how well it’s performing, Audubon staffers alreadyknow at least part of the answer…”RE: excerpt from Designing a Sustainable Future, Spring 1993

6

“…‘The air in here is so fresh,’ said Tom Exton, Audubon’scorporate relations director. ‘We have as close to a toxic-freeenvironment as you can get. I can’t emphasize enough howfresh the air is.’ People who used to feel tired and suffer fromheadaches after a day at work now say they don’t, Tom said.‘We’re thinking of bottling the air,’ staffer Dave McGowanadded…”RE: excerpt from Designing a Sustainable Future, Spring 1993

7

“I love coming here to work every day. I love knowing that I’mnot breathing crud. In the other building I’d look up at the airvents and they were always full of grime. Maintenance peoplewere in here cleaning the vents just yesterday. I like to seethat.”Elizabeth Hax, Executive Secretary, NAS Membership Dept.

8

What’s Old is New Again

9

“…One of Audubon’s first decisions was to retrofit an oldbuilding instead of spending an estimated $33 million on anew headquarters. The organization bought the Schermer-horn Building in 1989 for $10 million. Audubon then askedthe Croxton Collaborative, a New York City architectural firm,to apply as many energy efficient and environmental tech-nologies as could pay for themselves in three to five years.Total cost of the renovation was $14 million…”RE: excerpt from Designing a Sustainable Future, Spring 1993. Thebuilding is eight stories high (a penthouse was later added) with grandattenuated arched windows (there’s a basement and sub-basement belowgrade). The structure has an exterior of sandstone (brownstone) masonryand terra-cotta. Just under the cornice line is a row of gargoyle faces(caricatures of political figures of the era in which it was erected). There’sa total of 98K square-feet of office space. The cast-iron construction issupported by basement-level masonry piers (typical of late 19th CenturyNYC buildings).

10

11

“From the 1840’s to the early 1900’s, the mile-long stretch ofBroadway between Houston Street and Union Square bloss-omed as a bastion of New York aristocracy, thrived as a fancyshopping district and then hardened into an over-crowdedgarment district…”The New York Times, November 16th 1990RE: formerly the Schermerhorn Building, 700 Broadway is located on thecorner of East 4th Street and Broadway in the Greenwich Village area ofManhattan (a/k/a “NOHO,” short for “North of Houston Street”). The eight-story loft building was erected in 1891 and is a classic example of the“Romanesque Revival” architecture of the period. It was designed bynoted architect George B. Post, whose other works include the Williams-burg Savings Bank Building (Downtown Brooklyn) and the New YorkStock Exchange (Lower Manhattan). Originally, the building was designedby Post to be a store. After the turn-of-the-century, the structure wasconverted to showrooms, offices, storage and workshops, then it becamelofts. The building was vacant and abandoned for most of the 1980s, untilthe National Audubon Society (NAS) purchased it for their nationalheadquarters in 1989. In 1999, the building received desig-nation as a NYC Landmark building.

12Above: caption: “700 Broadway – South and West Exterior Elevations”

13

“…One of the most powerful arch-itectural compositions anywhere onBroadway is the Schermerhorn Build-ing, No. 700. Four-story arched baysmarch boldly across its brick andterra-cotta facade, topped by two-story arches and a ring of humanmasks wearing grotesque facial ex-pressions. It was completed in 1890to designs by George B. Post and isnow being recreated as AudubonHouse, headquarters of the NationalAudubon Society…”The New York Times, Nov. 16th 1990

14

15

“…The Schermerhorn Build-ing begins a marvelous en-semble of nine towers whosefeatures compete raucouslyfor attention but create a re-markably harmonious whole.Nos. 708, 710 and 714 ex-emplify early skyscraper de-sign, when steel frames madethe narrowest sites usable.These are 10- or 11-story buil-dings on 25-foot lots, no widerthan a typical brownstone.Richly adorned in decorativework, they look like orna-mented slivers…”The New York Times, Novem-ber 16th 1990

16

“…Broadway above Houston Street was a swank residential address bythe 1830’s…The business invasion started in the 1840’s; an 1851 directorylists Charles Hiffert, a pianist, and E.M. Thurston, a whip manufacturer, at700 Broadway…Commerce of another sort soon settled on the block, asdevelopers streamed in to replace the ancient houses with modern bus-iness structures. At No. 700, at the northeast corner of Fourth Street, whatis now called Audubon House was designed for the Schermerhorn estatein 1890 by George B. Post. It is a cozy round-arched Romanesque designof sandstone and brick. It should be lovable, but a 1990’s restoration bythe Audubon Society - although a textbook preservation project - seemsto have suburbanized it, with milky reflective windows and carefully hom-ogenized ground-floor signage. By comparison, photographs circa 1911show almost every floor covered with a wild yell of signboards, bannersand other advertising for dolls, china, cloaks, undergarments and othergoods…”The New York Times, September 26th 2004

17

18

“700 Broadway, the longtime headquarters of the National AudubonSociety, has been acquired by Dallas-based Lincoln Property Co. The 8-story, 100,000 square foot building is situated on the northeast corner ofBroadway and 4th Street in Greenwich Village. It was an abandonedproperty when it was purchased by the National Audubon Society in 1989.The not-for-profit conservation organization renovated the facility andmade it a model of green office technology…Audubon’s sale of thebuilding follows a decline in the number of staff based at the organ-ization’s headquarters, driven by a strategic decision to decentralize oper-ations and increase its presence at conservation-focused field officesnationwide. With less need for space and a big gain on its real estateinvestment, Audubon saw a big opportunity to advance its work…Theorganization plans to honor its long history by keeping Audubon's head-quarters in New York City. It will lease a new facility. Once a location isselected, Audubon will once again seek to demonstrate leadership in theuse of green office technology.”National Audubon Society, December 7th 2006

19

20

Facade Restoration

21

“When a simple facade cleaning and repair project turnedinto an extensive deconstruction and restoration, the buildingowners and architect Philip Toscano turned to engineer BrianE. Flynn, P.E., and Seaboard Weatherproofing & Restorationto assist in restoring the historic building. The facade wasfound to have extensive structural and surface damage cau-sed by years of freeze-and-thaw cycles and constant vib-rations from the nearby subway line. As work progressed, theproject was complicated by structural damage that was moreextensive than initially anticipated…”Seaboard Weatherproofing & Restoration

22

23

“…The wall was 32-inches thick and hadlarge arched window openings encased withornate terra-cotta stones. An additional 100linear-feet of wall required removal of theterra-cotta fascia and the face brick. Thisnot only required Seaboard to repair and re-sculpt 900 terra-cotta pieces, but also topatch brownstone, replace deteriorated ter-ra-cotta balustrades, install metal flashingand a liquid membrane on the cornice atroof level, and restore the sandstone entran-ceway…”Seaboard Weatherproofing & RestorationLeft: restored entranceway at 700 Broadway

24

Top Left: caption: “A crafts-man repairs terra-cotta sculp-tures”Top Right: caption: “Sculp-tures restored at 700 Broad-way”Left: caption: “Work in prog-ress at 700 Broadway”

25

“…Pipe scaffolding and sidewalk protection maintained ped-estrian safety throughout the project. The pipe scaffold at theupper floor and the roof were completely enclosed and‘winterized’ so that work could continue on the massive brickwalls through the winter months. Delicate repairs to the terra-cotta sculptures were done in heated interior spaces. Theproject team worked closely with the New York LandmarksConservancy to ensure historic accuracy and comply withthe building inspection requirements of New York City LocalLaw 11…”Seaboard Weatherproofing & Restoration

26

27

“…Approximately 900 pieces of terra-cotta were tagged, removed, cata-logued, organized, cleaned, and repaired mostly in the basement of thebuilding. They then were reinstalled in their original locations on thebuilding’s two street front facades. Several hundred additional pieceswere repaired in place. Terra-cotta bricks were salvaged wherever pos-sible and new glazed bricks were ordered to best match the color, shape,and size of the old bricks…”Seaboard Weatherproofing & RestorationLeft: caption: “Heads and other terra-cotta pieces that had to be tagged, removed,catalogued, organized, cleaned, repaired and sequenced for resetting”Right: caption: “Measuring the proper distance between each head”

28

“…Throughout the project, wehad to create new solut-ions…Our years of restor-ation experience came intoplay as we worked to restore700 Broadway to its formerglory.”Seaboard Weatherproofing & Re-storationLeft: caption: “Exterior detail sho-wing capital on window pilaster.The carved series of grotesquefaces along the cornice line can beseen at the top of the photograph.”

29

The Integrated Approach

30

“In searching for professionals to work on Audubon House,we used several guidelines. Each team member was expectedto have a broad understanding of and commitment to en-vironmental and energy issues; a basic grasp of manufac-turing processes; the ability and commitment to conduct re-search; and above all a willingness to work in an integratedfashion with other team members. In particular, we looked foran architect who could conceptualize beyond the material de-sign – a viewpoint not trapped by the purely aesthetic.”Peter A.A. Berle, NAS President

31

Above: caption: “Audubon House, sixth floor at start of reno-vation. By purchasing and renovating an entire office build-ing, Audubon and its architectural team were able to incorp-orate environmental goals in an integrated fashionand in every aspect of the building process.”

32

“…Because the architects, engineers, and other design pro-fessionals worked as a team, they were able to break loosefrom predictable design patterns and come up with imagin-ative solutions. Lighting experts talked with builders aboutpositioning walls and windows. Chemists talked with furnish-ing suppliers to minimize chemical out-gassing. Air qualityexperts talked to architects about installing air intakes on theroof instead of at street level. A full-time researcher inves-tigated new and old technologies for designers to consider.With all this input, the process took longer, but ‘all thesethings have a payback and a financial benefit for the client,’said Lauren Reiter, Croxton’s project architect…”RE: excerpt from Designing a Sustainable Future, Spring 1993. The storyof Audubon House was a partnership of dozens of design/constructionprofessionals who shared a vision for the future of urban architecture.Their non-hierarchal “team approach” (willingness to listen to theideas/concerns of all parties concerned in the design/construction proc-ess) is commonly referred to today as “Integrated Design.”

33

Left: caption: “ AudubonHouse, schematic diag-ram showing integratedenvironmental approach.The integrated approachis based on coordinatedplanning of architectural,interior design, lighting,and mechanical engine-ering components of thebuilding in order to pro-duce the desired envir-onmental and energy-eff-icient results.”

34

The Future is Now

35

“The grandeur and rich history of the urban environment are written in itsarchitecture. Unfortunately these qualities are fast disappearing in favorof cookie-cutter skyscrapers. By choosing to renovate this building wewere able to preserve a piece of New York history, as well as to achieveour environmental goals.”Peter A.A. Berle, NAS PresidentRE: in 1988, the need to relocate the headquarters of the NAS presented asingular opportunity. In the wake of skyrocketing rents in midtown-Manhattan(NAS had been leasing office space for +$1 million annually), unhealthy workingconditions and a rapidly expanding organization, NAS President Peter A.A. Berlemade a decision that would profoundly affect the NAS, its own work environmentand the future of Sustainable Design and Construction. In 1989, the purchase ofan abandoned building made sense for multiple reasons. The building had beenvacant for a decade and its $10 million purchase price reflected little more thanthe cost of the lot itself. The NAS was also saving a part of NYC’s cultural heritageby preserving a century-old architectural gem. During the next two years, theinterior was transformed into a model of an energy-efficient, environmentally res-ponsible workplace while the exterior was completely restored to celebrate itsoriginal turn-of-the-century grandeur.

36

Overarching Concerns

37

“There are three broad over-arching dimensions of value thatdrive the Audubon project: res-ource sustainability, environmen-tal consequence, and the human-istic response. From these we de-rive the subsets related to recy-cling, energy efficiency, indoor airquality, pollution reduction, etc. Nomatter what the unique local char-acteristics of a project are – forinstance the climate, utility fuelmix, geology, watershed – keepingthese overarching concerns inmind will help the architect in anysetting begin to organize prioritiesand come to the appropriate sol-utions for that site.”Randolph R. Croxton, Principal, Crox-ton Collaborative

38

Key Statistics

39

“…The work cost $142 per square foot, compared to the $120to $130 a square foot to renovate a typical Manhattan officebuilding using conventional technology, according to Crox-ton. Audubon hopes to save $100,000 a year in energy costsby using 60 percent less energy than a conventional buildingof similar size – 98,000 square feet. CFCs have been virtuallyeliminated, and greenhouse and acid-rain gases are expectedto be cut by 60-80 percent…”RE: excerpt from Designing a Sustainable Future, Spring 1993. The Scher-merhorn Building was purchased by the NAS in 1989 for $10 million. Therestoration began in 1990 and was completed in 1992 at a cost of $14million. It was dedicated in a ceremony on December 3rd 1992. The projectwas made possible by the generous support of more than 15K NASdonors nationwide.

40

“…Here is a partial list of the innovations at Audubon House:• Separate chutes on every floor carry plastic, glass, aluminum, organic material, anddifferent types of paper to a recycling center in the building’s sub-basement. In thefuture, the in-house compost will nourish a rooftop conservatory. Audubon’s goal is torecycle 79 percent of all products coming into the building, including 42 tons of paper ayear. Audubon also wants 80 percent of all the products it purchases to contain recycledcontent.• Countertops are made of recycled plastic, ceramic floors from recycled glass, drywallfrom recycled newsprint, insulation from a component of sea water, and wood from non-endangered sources.• Air is conditioned with a high-efficiency, gas-burning heater/chiller; faucets conservewater; pumps, fans, and motors are ‘smart’; windows are thermal resistant; and internalstairwells discourage unnecessary elevator use.• To help prevent sick-building syndrome, indoor air is changed 6.2 times an hour (sixtimes New York’s standard); wall coverings and furniture give off few or no chemicals;un-dyed wool carpets contain neither formaldehyde nor CFCs; carpet padding is madeentirely of recycled paper; and 80 percent of the particulates are filtered from the air.• Lighting energy is saved by using high-efficiency fluorescents, clerestory windows,motion sensors, pendant light fixtures, low work-station walls, a skylight, an east-westoffice design, compact-fluorescent task lights, full-range dimming linked to the amount ofdaylight and highly reflective surfaces. Filing cabinets are positioned near windows…”RE: excerpt from Designing a Sustainable Future, Spring 1993

41

• Audubon House was designed to use 62% less energy than a “conventional” New YorkCity code-compliant office building. Its energy-efficient features - from the thermal shell tothe lighting reductions - were designed to save the NAS an estimated $100K each year, thusreducing the NAS’s energy costs by 64%;• Green architecture is affordable. The basic renovation and design costs of Audubon Housewere completed at a cost of $122 per square-foot - well within the market rate for projects ofcomparable location, size, and time (which average $120-128 per square-foot);• Where conventional office buildings use 2.4 watts of electricity per square foot of lighting,Audubon House was designed to reduce that figure to 0.6-0.7;• Audubon House uses no CFCs, chlorofluorocarbons, which contribute to ozone loss - in itscooling or insulation;• Audubon’s gas-fired chiller-heater emits no sulfur dioxide and 60% less nitrogen oxidesthan would result from the use of a conventional unit (both gases contribute to acid rain);• Audubon’s in-house recycling system is designed to capture up to 80% of our office refuse(mostly paper);• Natural and recycled materials were used widely in renovating and furnishing AudubonHouse. Rugs and padding, wood and fabric, tiles and countertops were all selected tominimize off-gassing and combined with a high efficiency ventilation system, make Aud-ubon House an exceptionally healthy indoor environment, and;• By recycling an existing structure, the NAS saved not only the existing resources of theSchermerhorn Building, part of New York City’s historic urban fabric.National Audubon Society

42

Energy Efficiency

43

• Large windows on Southern and Western exposures and a central reception areaskylight permit large quantities of natural daylight to flood workspaces;• Pale furnishings and interior surfaces enhance “reflectance” of natural light;• Clerestory windows in perimeter offices ensure that walls or corridors do notblock daylight, so even the most interior workstations are illuminated by naturallight;• By placing ducts, pipes, and interior wiring toward the interior of the officespace, it was possible to raise the ceiling near windows, allowing for still morelight penetration;• A “Task/Ambient” lighting system bathes offices in soft background light whiletask lighting can provide focused light where needed;• Window blinds are stippled with pin-sized perforations, resulting in diffuse, softlighting in exterior office spaces;• T-8 Triphosphor fluorescent lamps provide high-efficiency, natural-tone lightwithout emitting heat;• Pendant ceiling fixtures give light near 360-degree dispersion and reflect 88% oflight;• Daylight dimming sensors (southern exposure only) dim light levels in inverseproportion to incoming daylight, and;• Occupancy sensors throughout working spaces automatically turn off lights inunoccupied zones.National Audubon Society

44

“The perforated venetian blindsinstalled at Audubon House are aperfect example of an aestheticallypleasing and ingenious energy-saving technology; simply byhaving tiny perforations in theslats, these blinds create the op-tion to block out the sun’s directbeam light, while letting in adiffuse light, rather than reflectingall the sunlight back outside.When the blinds are closed, it ispossible to still see the outline ofthe cityscape outside.”Kirsten Childs, Director of InteriorDesign, Croxton CollaborativeLeft: caption: “Interior, typical windowwith venetian blinds. These uniqueblinds have tiny pinholes in the slatsthat allow diffuse light to penetrate.DOE-2 software indicated that theenergy savings would justifythe premium cost.”

45

DOE-2

46

“DOE-2” (developed by the U.S. Department of Energy andthe Electric Power Research institute of California) – acomputer software program that provides highly accurateestimates of energy needs and usage by simulating real-lifeconditions, was employed by the AH team to substantiate theinitial estimates of the building’s energy usage and to helpintegrate add-ons into the building’s design and systems.The AH team used it mainly to demonstrate how cost-effective, energy-saving design could perform far beyondcode.

47

Above & Left: caption: “Eighth-floor in-terior, looking west along the southernexposure. Abundant natural daylightfloods the interior from the southern andwestern exposures, dramatically redu-cing the need for electrical lighting. Useof DOE-2 computer software helped con-firm the energy savings to be gainedfrom ‘daylighting’ the interior.”

48

Environmental Impacts

49

“The biggest problem is that we architects have been usingtoo narrow a balance sheet to evaluate our decisions. Thatsheet is not complete; it doesn’t include total efficiency andenvironmental costs. A building may be cheap and pretty, butwill it go on to become an environmental and financial burdento those who occupy and maintain it?”Randolph R. Croxton, Principal, Croxton Collaborative

50

• The gas-fired absorption heater-chiller uses no CFCs, emitsno sulfur dioxide and 60% less nitrogen oxides than do con-ventional units;• “Economizer” cycle can replace the use of the chiller-heaterduring moderate seasonal temperatures, further reducing en-ergy consumption and resulting pollution, and;• Use of an on-site energy source, gas, for cooling reduceselectricity needs during peak summer demand, thereby dim-inishing pressure on the local utility to seek new sources ofhydro-energy in wilderness areas in Canada.National Audubon Society

51

Resource Conservation

52

“…During the 20-month-long refurbishing project, all thedemolition material that could be salvaged was sent off torecyclers. Concrete, masonry, wood, steel, iron, glass – eventhe scrap metal from the old boiler was hauled off; a smallamount of the salvaged material was used on site. Many ofthe other building materials contain recycled material…”RE: excerpt from Designing a Sustainable Future, Spring 1993

53

“Simply by ‘recycling’ an existing building, Audubon saved 360 tons ofsteel, 9,000 tons of masonry and 560 tons of concrete (not to mention abuilding of great character and historical significance). Demolished mat-erials from renovation, including scrap metal, wood, and masonry, weresent out for recycling. The recycled materials we used include:• Homasote subflooring, which is made from 50% recycled newsprint;• Tiles made from 60% post-industrial recycled light bulbs (in the elevatorfoyers);• Bathroom countertops made from recycled plastic containers, and;• Drywall of partially recycled gypsum and recycled newsprint.At every workstation, employees are provided with special bins or foldersfor recycling. This feature is part of Audubon’s in-house recyclingsystem, which includes four recycling chutes (currently used for whitepaper, mixed paper, and redeemable aluminum and plastic containers)that run throughout the building and lead to a sub-basement recyclingroom.”Croxton Collaborative

54

“Resource conservation involves a cradle-to-cradle approachto building. Audubon House offered us the opportunity toreduce significant levels of consumption and waste in thebuilt environment.”Jan Beyea, NAS Chief Scientist

55

Low-Toxic and Natural Materials

56

“…Despite the Audubon House’s revolutionary design, itsprinciples are not hard to duplicate. All components areavailable off the shelf. ‘We want this building not to be asolitary symbol of energy efficiency and indoor air quality,’Tom said. Audubon was interested in measures that otherscould replicate, he said. ‘The building is, in effect, an edu-cational tool’…”RE: excerpt from Designing a Sustainable Future, Spring 1993

57

• Interior paints contain no VOCs (Volatile Organic Com-pounds);• Wherever possible, furnishings avoid plywood, glues, PVCplastics, and other substances that emit formaldehyde andother VOCs;• Carpeting is all natural, un-dyed, 100%wool; three breeds ofsheep provided the three colors. The carpet under-laymentconsists of jute (plant fiber). Carpets were tacked down,avoiding the use of glue except on the stairs, and;• Custom-made conference tables were made from certified,sustainably managed rainforest woods.National Audubon Society

58

HVAC

59

• The heater-chiller is located on the roof rather than the basement. Thus,the fresh air intake is located at the rooftop level, away from street fumesand exhaust vents;• High-efficiency filter (ASHRAE 85%) immediately eliminates most partic-ulates and dirt from the incoming air. Conventional filters remove approx-imately 35%;• The fresh air ratio of 26cfm (cubic-feet per minute) per person greatlyexceeds standards and guidelines (which range between 10 and 20cfm).This high rate of indoor air exchange (6x per hour compared to 1-2x perhour in conventional buildings) prevents build up of stale “air pockets”;• Air-handling units are located on each floor with additional filteringcapacity. In many buildings, only one air-handling unit is installed for theentire structure;• Thermafuser ceiling air outlets allow a high degree of targeted temp-erature control, and;• The HVAC system cooling capacity is 180-tons; it uses lithium bromideinstead of CFCs and its heating capacity is 1.7 million Btu/hour.National Audubon Society

60

Role Model

61

“…Croxton designer Kirsten Childs saidthe building is ‘performing as planned,’though she won’t be able to back up thatassessment with actual data until mid-November, the first anniversary of thebuilding’s re-opening.RE: excerpt from Designing a Sustainable Future,Spring 1993Left: Kirsten Childs, Director of Interior Design,Croxton Collaborative

62

“With over 500,000 members and more than 500 chaptersthroughout the Americas, the National Audubon Society is aleading grassroots organization working to protect and con-serve the environment - from natural ecosystems to theurban landscape. Audubon House, headquarters of the Soc-iety, is a restored and remodeled century-old RomanesqueRevival loft building in Manhattan. It reflects our national roleby serving as a model for the energy-efficient, environmen-tally responsible workplace. Achieved at market rates withreadily available technology, the renovation of AudubonHouse proves that environmentally conscious design can beboth practical and affordable.”National Audubon Society

63

“We hope that Audubon House is not seen as an isolatedexample of a building created by environmentalists but as avehicle for real change in the way building is practiced world-wide”Peter A.A. Berle, NAS President

64

For Biodiversity’s Sake

65

“The survival of the Earth’s diverse ecosystems and thespecies that inhabit them, or ‘biodiversity,’ was the highestpriority for Audubon. Ultimately, the steps taken at AudubonHouse to reduce environmental impacts and the consumptionof energy and resources all comeback to the issue of bio-diversity.”Jan Beyea, NAS Chief Scientist

66

“To conserve and restore naturaleco-systems, focusing on birdsand other wildlife for the benefit ofhumanity and the earth’s biologicaldiversity”RE: NAS Mission Statement. For more than acentury, the NAS has built a legacy of conser-vation success by mobilizing the strength of itsnetwork of members, chapters, Audubon centers,state offices and dedicated professional staff toconnect people with nature and give them thepower to protect it. A powerful combination ofscience, education and policy expertise combinein efforts ranging from protection and restorationof local habitats to the implementation of policiesthat safeguard birds, other wildlife and resourcesin the U.S. and across the Americas.Successes include:• Protection of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge(ANWR) and other fragile habitats;• The ongoing recovery of the imperiled Californiacondor and brown pelican;• Adoption of innovative policies that balancehabitat protection with green energy developmenton millions of acres, and;• Continuing restoration of the Evergladesand Long Island Sound.

67

A Few Minor Adjustments

68

“…Despite a few minor adjustments – like walking the dis-tance of a city block to get to copy machines located nearrecycling chutes – the building’s design is fostering a morecongenial work environment. Staffers talk face to face insteadof over the phone. Offices have glass walls. ‘The open workarea to a certain extent breaks down the imagined walls andinhibitions people have,’ Tom said…”RE: excerpt from Designing a Sustainable Future, Spring 1993

69

70

“We were always sick in the old building, and by three in theafternoon we were dragging and had to get coffee. Here wedon’t have to do that. The lighting is better, for one thing. Therecycling is working out very well, too. At first, we had to getused to separating envelopes and paper. Now it’s secondnature. You just do it automatically.”Cathy Lynch, NAS Mailroom Supervisor

71

“…But workers are already giving thebuilding high marks. ‘There’s alwaysdaylight flooding into your office,’Dave McGowan said. ‘The layout isvery open’…”RE: excerpt from Designing a SustainableFuture, Spring 1993Above & Left: caption: “Main ReceptionLobby, eighth floor. The skylight not onlycreates a light-filled space but also emph-asizes the abundance of natural light andmarks the natural rhythms of the day,themes that are central to the build-ing project as a whole.”

72

“It’s been great here from the first day. There was no che-mical smell in the carpet. The ventilation system has beengreat. I think this is the first time in my work life that I’ve beentotally comfortable for a whole winter. I don’t feel tired orhave a headache at the end of the day, and I don’t need totake a deep sigh of relief when I get into the street. As for therecycling system, I think it’s time we ‘walked the talk.’ In thisbuilding, it’s possible to do so.”Wayne Mones, NAS Director of Planned Giving

73

“I like the building so much that Igive tours. It’s very sunny, veryvisually appealing. I like workingin an open area rather than anenclosed space. I like how acc-essible people are here.”Elizabeth Hax, Executive Secretary, NASMembership Dept.

74

Embracing the Philosophy

75

“…Interest in the building hasjust been ‘staggering,’ Kirstensays. Croxton, which prev-iously applied similar thoughless extensive improvementsto the National Resources Def-ense Council’s New York Cityheadquarters, has plans forother projects that embracethe same philosophy. ‘There isa built-in resistance to doingwork this way. It takes moretime and more effort,’ RandallCroxton, the firm’s chief arch-itect, was quoted recently assaying. ‘But anyone could goout tomorrow morning and usethe technology we have.’”RE: excerpt from Designing a Sus-tainable Future, Spring1993

76

“…Twenty six years ago, Croxton helped define sustainable architecturewhen the firm completed two and half floors for the NRDC in a 12-story,early-20th-century building. The design featured elements such as an em-phasis on daylight and the monitoring of energy use…”GreenSource, September 2014Left: caption: “Typical floor plan, Natural Resources Defense Council. Many of themethods used at NRDC were adapted or built upon at Audubon House, such asthe ‘daylighting’ of the interior with open plans and the installationof clerestory windows in the perimeter offices.”

77

“In 1988, NRDC began renovating a former light industrial loftspace in New York City’s Flatiron district to house our mainoffice. The goal was to put our environmental principles intopractice by designing an office that would dramatically cutdown on our energy use, while at the same time demon-strating to architects, builders, and businesses around thecountry (and as it has happened, the world) that ‘greenbuilding’ concepts can go hand in hand with pleasant,productive, professional workspaces. In 1989 vision becamereality and NRDC’s New York staff moved into a bright, airynew home…”NRDC

78

“…When we began our NewYork office project, greendesign was a fledgling idea,largely untested in real-lifesettings. So while the NRDCchose an existing building forour New York office, the proj-ect broke new ground. But inone aspect of the renovationwe decided against innov-ation: to ensure that our officewould be a model otherscould replicate, we insisted onusing only materials and tech-nologies already commerciallyavailable and cost-effective…”NRDC

79

“…Major strides have been made in greendesign since NRDC’s New York officeopened, yet it remains a model of energyefficiency. The idea: let there be naturallight. We chose our office space, the topthree floors of a 12-story Art Deco buildingin a neighborhood with few skyscrapers,for its abundance of natural light. Using acombination of this free-flowing - and free-resource and energy-efficient technolog-ies, we have cut our energy consumptionby 70 percent compared to conventionaloffices…”NRDC

80

“…Some of the energy-saving features of NRDC’s New York office in-clude:• Ribbons of glass around private offices, open-ended hallways, and anopen interior staircase all help distribute natural light, captured throughskylights and windows;• Highly efficient fluorescent tubes in specially designed polished alum-inum fixtures are 40 percent more efficient than standard fluorescents;• Occupancy sensors, which turn the lights off when a room is empty forsix minutes, yield an additional 30-percent energy savings;• Sandwiched within each double-paned window is a thin polymer filmthat admits visible light while repelling ultraviolet and infrared rays,keeping the office cooler in summer and warmer in winter;• Because NRDC’s efficient electric lighting and thermal-paned windowsreduce unwanted heat gain, our air-conditioning system is 30 percentsmaller than for a conventional office.NRDC's New York office won the Interiors Magazine award for environ-mental design in 1990. The office was designed by the Croxton Collab-orative.”NRDC

81

Two Cultures

82

“The ‘energy crisis’ of the 1970s, coupled with the emergent environ-mental movement, produced two responses, or ‘cultures,’ in architecture.One, concerned mainly with reducing energy, utilized a high-technologyapproach to energy conservation; the other, concerned more with thewidespread environmental impacts of development, used a low- or no-technology ‘back to nature’ approach. There was also a divide betweenenergy conservation (which meant minimum fresh air) and improved in-door air quality (which required maximum fresh air and more energy).During the 1980s, common ground was established among these differentpoints of view, illustrated in the 1988 redesign of the NRDC offices, wherewe were able to reconcile high levels of energy efficiency with high indoorair quality. In 1990, the American Institute of Architects, through theleadership of Bob Berkebile, merged the previously separate committeesobserving energy and indoor air quality, among others, to form theCommittee on the Environment, which mirrors this ‘holistic’ perspective.”Randolph R. Croxton, Principal, Croxton Collaborative

83

Top: caption: “President’s office withopen windows. The choice of oper-able windows provides a ‘humanizingtouch’ to the workspace, allowingworkers direct access to the outdoorenvironment and a degree of individ-ualized ‘climate control’ on temperatedays.”Bottom: caption: “Ninth floor: con-ference center, skylight and rooftop.Audubon commissioned constructionof a ninth-floor conference centeraddition to the building. The confer-ence center is available for use byother non-profit organizations andadds value to the project for Audu-bon. Audubon employees have acc-ess to the rooftop, which is to beenhanced with plantings.”

84

“Two decades ago, sustainability was a relatively unknown concept, andits precursor, ‘environmentalism,’ was not generally associated with citiesor buildings. Environmentalism was about clean air and water, recycling,and saving endangered species or ecosystems; the environment wasassociated with agrarian values or pristine wilderness - anywhere butcities. If buildings were involved at all, they tended to be passive solarhouses in rural settings. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, two ground-breaking New York City projects, designed by the Croxton Collaborative,started to transform this paradigm. Both projects - the Natural ResourcesDefense Council (NRDC) offices and the headquarters for the AudubonSociety - were renovations of older buildings in Manhattan. They dem-onstrated that urban environments could be designed sustainably withgreen buildings, and that the concept of the ‘environment’ needed toincorporate populated landscapes, including the places of densest occu-pation and most massive impact: cities…”NYC Mayor’s Office of Sustainability

85

The Worst the Law Will Allow

86

“I did not like the old building. There was a perfume manu-facturer on another floor and sometimes the odors comingthrough the air system were enough to drive you out of youroffice. The building did a lousy job of providing an eventemperature in summer and winter. People constantly hadheaters out in winter, and fans in summer. And between thestillness of the air and the flickering lights, by 4 p.m. everyday I was dragging…”James Cunningham, NAS CFO

87

“Traditionally, the building industry has been dominated by an approachthat is minimally code-compliant. This inherently results in buildings thatare the worst the law will allow. At Audubon House we focused on highestcost justifiable performance. Code minimums were left far behind.”Randolph R. Croxton (above), Principal, Croxton Collaborative

88

Kick-Off

89

“The rebirth of the handsome 1890 George B. Post, Romanesque stru-cture as Headquarters for the National Audubon Society in New York City,exemplifies a sustainable approach to the reuse of such turn-of-the cen-tury buildings. In the internationally renowned renovation of this building,completed in 1993, the work of Croxton Collaborative Architects yieldedthe highest integrated levels yet achieved for environmental/sustainableperformance. Audubon House, with some 98,000 gross SF, required acomplete gut and rehabilitation of the interior, along with preservation ofkey facade elements and conservation of the basic structure. It representsa breakthrough in the reuse of older buildings for new occupancies andestablished a leadership exemplar that engages the ‘whole’ building, in-cluding a massive thermal shell upgrade and completely new mechanicaland lighting systems within the limited, rigidly imposed budget of a not-for-profit organization. As a result, the building used 64% less energythan code compliance required and annual savings exceeded $100,000.00per year. This building kicked off the ‘green’ movement in architecture.”Croxton Collaborative

90

Stretching the Imagination

91

“…It’s nice not to deal withthose problems any more. AtAudubon House I’m in theoffice at 8 a.m. And I stay until7 p.m. And I still have a littleenergy at the end of the day. Ithink the air is so much betterhere, and there is greater pro-ductivity. Everyone is enthu-siastic about what we’ve acc-omplished. When you invitefriends here, they say, ‘Wow,this place looks great!’ Some-times it just stretches theirimagination.”James Cunningham, NAS CFO

92

Part 2

A Model “Green Building”

93

Background and Context

94

“Although the concept of sustainable cities has gainedacceptance as an ideal goal, few urban areas are approachingit. As an integral component of any urban area, buildingshave a strong impact on both their immediate environmentand the more global one, as well as on the people occupyingthem. To date, little attention has been paid to that impact.Buildings are enormous consumers of electricity. The peoplewho live and work in buildings consume large amounts ofmaterial and produce large amounts of waste. Buildingmaterials are often toxic, causing damage to human healthand to the outside environment…”The Mega-Cities Project (ca. 1993)

95

“…The way buildings are designed and constructed largelydetermines the level of their negative long-term environ-mental impacts. In recent years, the relationship betweenbuildings and the environment has gained recognition and anumber of building renovation and construction projectshave included environmentally-beneficial measures. As a pre-cursor to relocating and rebuilding their national headquar-ters, the National Audubon Society, one of the largest andmost widely respected environmental organizations in theUnited States, recently began to place focus on the urbanenvironment and particularly the effect buildings have on thatenvironment. Specifically, they researched the energy con-sumption of buildings, the production and disposal of waste,and the overall effect buildings can have on the environmentand human health…”The Mega-Cities Project (ca. 1993)

96

“…Office buildings currently account for a third of the UnitedStates’ peak electricity demand and represent the largestdemand for new energy, as cities grow and new office spaceis constructed. The Audubon estimates that office buildingsand the power plants that supply them emit 740 million tonsof carbon dioxide annually (14% of U.S. total CO2 emissions)and four million tons of sulfur and nitric oxides. If energyconsumption continues at the same rate, some difficult de-cisions between the environment and increased consumptionwill have to be made. Construction of new power plants,burning more coal and oil, or pursuing nuclear energy will allhave continued and heightened negative effects on the en-vironment. Urban centers, with their dense concentration ofoffice buildings, are the primary centers of this energy con-sumption. As such they also hold great potential for positivechange in energy consumption patterns and environmentalimprovement…”The Mega-Cities Project (ca. 1993)

97

“…Waste related to buildings is generated both in one-timewaste from office construction and renovation, and in thedaily waste from office operations. During the construction orrenovation of a building, an enormous amount of waste isproduced in the form of concrete, metal, and wood. Typically,these materials are replaced by new materials which depletenatural resources. In addition, the service sector has grad-ually outstripped the manufacturing sector in most urbanareas, which has led to an enormous daily stream of paperand other waste. The Audubon estimates that the averageoffice worker disposes of 100 pounds of waste paper eachyear…”The Mega-Cities Project (ca. 1993)

98

“…Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) has gained widespreadattention in recent years. The U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) estimates that this ‘hidden’ syndrome coststhe U.S. economy $60 billion a year through worker illnessand lost productivity. Many office workers experience slug-gishness and respiratory problems which are symptoms ofthe syndrome, but which they take for granted as normaleveryday occurrences. Yet buildings, particularly bacterialand fungi growth, and materials with toxic emissions such asvolatile organic compounds (VOCs), may be causing suchsymptoms. Poor air circulation further compounds the neg-ative effects. Many urban residents spend considerable timein an office, so the quality of the office environment has adefinite impact on their physical and mental well-being…”The Mega-Cities Project (ca. 1993)

99

“…Finally, these specific problems with office buildings arecompounded by another problem; the traditional approach ofarchitects, designers, and construction firms many times isto disregard the natural environment. Buildings are not de-signed and built to be harmonious with the natural environ-ment, and the surrounding context is treated as alien perip-hery. However, the expanding search for solutions to envir-onmental problems has begun to reach those who designand construct buildings. There is a growing recognition thatbuilding plans can integrate environmental concerns andaddress some of the mentioned problems of energy con-sumption, waste disposal, and worker health…”The Mega-Cities Project (ca. 1993)

100

Project Description

101

“…After performing the necessary preliminary research, theNational Audubon Society designed and constructed a newheadquarters office, using environmentally safe materials,low energy use systems, and a building-wide recycling chutesystem. By attempting to achieve cost-efficiency and easyreplicability, the main goal of the project was to serve as a‘green building’ model which would encourage others toadopt similar building practices. The components of the‘green building’ model were chosen to fulfill several obj-ectives:• reduce energy consumption;• save on operating expenses;• allow for aggressive office recycling;• mitigate worker illness, and;• benefit the global environment by leading to less green-house gas and ozone-depleting emissions…”The Mega-Cities Project (ca. 1993)

102

“…In the past, the National Audubon Society’s lobbying andactivism efforts focused mainly on the protection of wildlife,such as the spotted owl of the Northwest, and its habitat, theancient forests of the Northwest. A network of local Audubonchapters is spread throughout the country, which provides avoice for conservation on the community level. The Societyhas also participated in joint projects with environmental org-anizations on the international level…”The Mega-Cities Project (ca. 1993)

103

“…But although better known for their work on the naturalenvironment, the Audubon Society recently became inter-ested in the built environment. They had their headquarters inmidtown Manhattan for over 100 years, but gradually outgrewthe office space. Their need to relocate became a testingground for their progression from wildlife protection into theprotection of the urban environment…”The Mega-Cities Project (ca. 1993)

104

“…A search was first made for an appropriate site. TheAudubon Society chose the Schermerhorn Building, locatedin lower Manhattan on Broadway at East 4th Street. It wasopened in 1891 and designed by George B. Post, who isknown for designing the New York Stock Exchange. Thebuilding’s original use was as a department store, which hadevolved into a garment sweat shop. It was abandoned in re-cent years except for street level retail use. Due to its poorcondition, the Audubon was able to purchase the building fora relatively inexpensive $10 million, which allowed a majorityof the total project cost to be dedicated towards renovation.The Society envisioned the shell of the building as thestructural framework for a comprehensive renovation project.By starting from scratch, Audubon could ‘build-in’ a varietyof environmentally beneficial components…”The Mega-Cities Project (ca. 1993)

105

“…A team of experts was compiled, consisting of internalstaff, an architect, an interior designer, and a lighting con-sultant. This approach allowed the concerns of Audubon tobe combined with the experience of the consultants who hadpreviously retrofitted the headquarters of the Natural Re-source Defense Council (another respected environmentalnon-profit organization based in New York City) with a highlyenergy-efficient lighting system. A significant amount of re-search was put into the product specifications. The in-depthprofiling of environmentally-benign building materials was alearning experience for the team and provided a compre-hensive view of the market for these types of products…”The Mega-Cities Project (ca. 1993)

106

“…The team established three criteria upon which they basedtheir product selection decisions. First, the product had to beenvironmentally responsible. An in-depth search was con-ducted to identify building products - flooring, insulation,paint, rugs, etc. - with minimal side-effects and environmental‘profiles’ assembled on each product. Second, the producthad to be readily available in the marketplace in order to be areplicable model. Third, the purchase had to be cost-effec-tive. This was perhaps the most critical criteria in terms of thetransferability of the Audubon model. The team used a bus-iness-like, bottom-line approach that required a three to fiveyear pay-back period on environmental measures, such asthe super-efficient lights, which cost more than traditionallighting systems. This criterion also ensured that cost sav-ings, such as lower electric bills, would continue to occurafter the pay-back period…”The Mega-Cities Project (ca. 1993)

107

“…After performing the product research, the critical de-cisions were made and an overall plan carried out. Theleading measure in fighting the energy consumption problemwas an extremely efficient lighting system. Lighting fixtureswere placed only where needed and ambient (background)lighting was kept to a comfortable minimum. The combin-ation of tall windows, skylights, and an open office designallows ample sunlight to flow through the building and pro-vides a viable substitute for artificial lighting (which is usedmore on overcast days). Occupancy sensors were installed toinsure that lights were in use only when they were needed,and daylight sensors were added to adjust lighting levelsbased on the amount of outside light permeating a room…”The Mega-Cities Project (ca. 1993)

108

“…The windows and walls were also vital components in thequest for energy efficiency, as it was important to addressheating and cooling costs. Double-paned windows with ‘heatmirror’ sheets were installed throughout the building, and thewalls were insulated at a level three times the applicableenergy code. Audubon also opted for a gas-powered heatingand cooling unit, which emits no chlorofluorocarbons (whichcontribute to ozone depletion) and minimal acid-rain ingre-dients. Solar energy was analyzed as a supplementary powersource, but it did not meet the payback criteria. Auduboncompleted feasibility studies to determine where solar panelscould be installed when the costs reach a more competitivelevel. The installed lighting system cost approximately$100,000 more than a conventional lighting system. However,this premium will be recouped quickly with projected annualenergy savings of $40,000…”The Mega-Cities Project (ca. 1993)

109

“…The project team also addressed both aspects of theoffice waste problem - waste from the construction or ren-ovation of an office and waste from daily operations. Aninitial decision was made to renovate the interior of thebuilding, instead of reconstructing the entire structure. ‘Re-cycling’ the building would save 9,000 tons of masonry, 560tons of concrete, and 300 tons of steel – and preserve thehistoric character of the structure. Audubon also helped to‘close the loop’ by recycling as much demolition material aspossible and using recycled post-consumer building mat-erials. Because there is an expanding network of re-proc-essors who accept demolition materials and suppliers whosell post-consumer materials, this approach was feasible andreplicable…”The Mega-Cities Project (ca. 1993)

110

“…To handle the daily office waste of the Audubon workers achute system was installed. Four internal chutes descend tothe basement, with each devoted to a particular waste type.Special composting equipment handles the food waste,which is mulched into fertilizer for use in potted office plantsand the rooftop garden. Other waste – newspapers, glass,and hazardous items – can be disposed in recycling binslocated in kitchen areas on each floor. The chute systemcosts $185,000, which unfortunately has no pay-back po-tential at this point…”The Mega-Cities Project (ca. 1993)

111

“…Efforts were made to address Sick Building Syndrome byimproving the air quality and circulation and by using non-toxic materials. The team designed and installed a circulationsystem with high-speed air flow (double the highest rec-ommended standard), a high ratio of fresh outside air, and an80% filtration rate for outside particulates (compared to a30% industry average). This new system ensures a supply ofbreathable, high-quality air and prevents the build-up ofbacteria and fungi, the organisms that infect a building. Non-toxic building materials were identified and used, sometimesin a creative fashion. The mix of products chosen by the teamincluded both the use of traditional products for non-trad-itional uses and non-traditional products for traditionaluses…”The Mega-Cities Project (ca. 1993)

112

“…Other actors have participated in making the project asuccess. Consolidated Edison (Con Ed) and Brooklyn UnionGas – the New York City energy utilities – were very inter-ested in the undertaking. Con Ed provided a $72,000 rebate tooffset a portion of the cost for the gas-powered heat-ing/cooling unit due to its high efficiency. The utilities willkeep an update on the energy savings from the Audubonbuilding, as such solutions help achieve their goals of energyconservation as a financially sensible and environmentallybeneficial alternative to supply expansion. Audubon hascontinued this partnership with the utilities, working withthem to encourage performance rebates instead of one-timerebates…”The Mega-Cities Project (ca. 1993)

113

Obstacles

114

“…Given the innovative and experimental nature of the proj-ect, a number of obstacles were encountered in renovatingthe Audubon Headquarters. First, prior to undertaking theproject, relatively little research had been conducted on waysto construct a ‘green building’ and products which can beused to do so. The Audubon overcame this obstacle by incl-uding extensive research as an initial step in the under-taking. However, continued research on the success of theheadquarters experiment as well as on other environmentallysound products and alternatives will be needed to fully over-come this obstacle for future projects…”The Mega-Cities Project (ca. 1993)

115

“…The objective of cost-efficiency created a need for re-search, since the few products which have been designed forenvironmental purposes are often expensive. The Audubonwas able to overcome this obstacle through more researchand by adopting creative and innovative ways of using tra-ditional yet non-toxic materials and products. Again, effortsto make the information available on cost-effective environ-mentally sound products, as well as to make such productsaccessible, will be necessary if this obstacle is to be over-come in encouraging the widespread construction of ‘greenbuildings.’ Finally, one of the greatest obstacles in achievingthis larger goal is a traditional mindset which fails to recog-nize or address the negative impact a building may have onthe environment. Extensive public education will be requiredto address this issue…”The Mega-Cities Project (ca. 1993)

116

Project Impact

117

“…Although the Audubon’s larger goal of encouraging othersto adopt similar ‘green building’ models has yet to be evalu-ated, the construction of the Audubon’s headquarters is lar-gely viewed as a success. For example, with the new energysystem, the Audubon building now uses less than one watt ofelectricity per square foot, in comparison to the 2.8 wattaverage for typical offices. This clearly demonstrates theconnection between energy efficiency and economic con-cerns and provides the global benefits of decreased green-house gas emissions…”The Mega-Cities Project (ca. 1993)

118

“…The chute system and other recycling efforts are oper-ating effectively and efficiently. The Audubon estimates thatthis effort will lead to an 80 percent recycling rate and willannually conserve 42 tons of paper. Although the measurewas enacted at a loss for the Audubon, at a larger level it ishelping to save resources and improve the environment. Interms of the health of workers and Sick Building Syndrome,the Audubon staff has reported feeling fresher. One staffmember remarked that proof of this ‘freshness’ came after along budget meeting – a time normally characterized by leth-argy and exhaustion - when the staff member felt active andalive…”The Mega-Cities Project (ca. 1993)

119

Scaling Up the Impact

120

“…The ‘green building’ project has only begun at Audubon.While the renovation has been completed, the challenge ofspreading the word and getting the building accepted as amodel for the future still lies ahead. A number of initiativeshave been undertaken as a means to meet the goal of re-plicability. A video documenting the project is available and atechnical manual targeted at architects, engineers, and otherdecision-makers in the field will soon be released. Thismanual will describe the decisions and materials which wentinto the project, and Audubon hopes it will serve as abaseline guide for similar projects. Audubon also has beenworking with government officials on two fronts: integratingcost criteria into the bidding process to encourage ‘greenbuilding’ measures, and changing local building codes tomandate some of the measures used in the Audubon ren-ovation…”The Mega-Cities Project (ca. 1993)

121

“…The fact that the building successfully combines environ-mental measures with economic concerns makes it a trans-ferable model. However, a number of pre-conditions must bemet in order to ‘green’ a building. Owners, as well as arch-itects, designers, and builders must be willing to considerthese measures and accept a more comprehensive view of abuilding. They also must be willing to experiment to someextent with new methods and products. To be truly environ-mentally conscious, they may even have to be willing to ex-perience some financial losses…”The Mega-Cities Project (ca. 1993)

122

“…Those interested in promoting these measures, such asenvironmental groups, public utilities, or governments, mustalso continue to encourage ‘green building’ projects andcreate incentives. Information regarding the way such proj-ects can be undertaken must be easily available and spreadto necessary parties. With the progress of experiments likethe Audubon’s Headquarters, information must be consis-tently updated as it becomes available. Efforts must be madeto make environmentally safe products both available andaffordable. Finally, if necessary, both financial incentives andgovernmental mandates should be put in place to encouragethe use of environmentally sound products and the const-ruction of ‘green buildings.’”The Mega-Cities Project (ca. 1993)

123

Part 3

Under the Hood

124

Let There Be Light

125

“Lighting is the simplest area in which to make substantialenergy-saving decisions. If architects or designers were to doonly one thing to make a building more energy efficient, Iwould suggest they look at the lighting design.”Kirsten Childs, Director of Interior Design, Croxton Collaborative

126

Above: caption: “Drawing of a typical floor plan at Audubon House. The centralworkspaces feature open plans with modular workstations, enhancing the day-lighting of the interior. Enclosed offices are grouped along the western and north-ern perimeters, minimizing interference with daylighting, and core elements (elev-ators, fire stairs, pantries, and mechanical rooms) are grouped on the north andeast solid exterior walls, away from the sunlit southern and western expo-sures.”

127

Above: caption: “AudubonHouse, exterior facing Bro-adway, prior to renovation”Left: caption: “Installationof windows. Floor-to-ceilingwindows on the southernand western exposures ofAudubon House ensured anabundance of natural light.The windows themselvesuse heat-mirror technologyto achieve a highlevel of insulation.”

128

Top: caption: “Interior, typicalcentral workspace. Notice thatthe workspace partitions alongthe perimeters are shorter thanthose away from window, allow-ing daylight to penetrate. Walls,floors, and furnishings are allfinished in light colors for great-est reflectance of natural light.”Bottom: caption: “Overview of acentral workspace area, showingmodular workstations. The arch-itectural elements and interior de-sign of the renovation were care-fully coordinated to take max-imum advantage of daylight, orie-nting the positions of offices andworkstations for full daylightingpotential.”

129

Above: caption: “Interior workstation showingtask/ambient lighting system. Unlike conventionaloffices, Audubon House employs a greatly re-duced level of ambient (background) light, whilebuilt-in task lights in each workstation providedirected light for working. Both the task andambient lights use high-efficiency tri-phosphorfluorescent lamps that produce natural colors.The task lights feature a three-way switch toadjust brightness.”Left: caption: “Linear Lighting’s pendant(hanging) fixture”

130

“The typical lighting fixture you find in most office buildingsconsists of an array of fluorescent tubes recessed into theceiling and covered by a plastic lens. As a consequence, a lotof light is absorbed inside the fixture and never reaches thespace where it belongs. That’s an incredible waste of energy.Our design negates that problem with open pendant fixtures,reducing glare and concentrations of light while maintaininga level of ambient light with a more residential feeling.”Randolph R. Croxton, Principal, Croxton Collaborative

131

Above: caption: “Typical ambient light fixture and lamp, technical drawing. Thependant (hanging) fixture open on top and bottom, provides nearly 360-degreesdispersal of the light. The high-efficiency T-8 lamp is fired by an electronicbalast that further boosts efficiency and virtually eliminates flicker.”

132

Above & Left: caption: “Occupancy sensor (left) and day-light dimming sensor (above). Occupancy sensor (strip atbottom), which automatically switch off lights if no motionis detected after six minutes, are installed in almost alloffices and workspaces at Audubon House. Daylight dim-ming sensors are installed along the southern expo-sure.These devices adjust the level of ambient lighting in re-sponse to the level of incoming daylight. Use of the twocontrol devices alone saves more than 0.4 watt persquare foot, almost half of what the wattagewould be without them.”

133

“The savings to Audubon from the lighting design alone willpay back the initial investment in less than three years, andthis savings will continue to grow dramatically as energycosts climb”Randolph R. Croxton, Principal, Croxton Collaborative

134

Not too Hot, Not too Cold

135

“A well insulated thermal shell is key to an energy-efficientbuilding. Otherwise, all your energy savings will go right outthe window.”Jordan Fox, Flack + Kurtz Consulting Engineers

136

Audubon House’s “thermal shell” includes:• Air-Krete wall insulation - made of non-toxic salt waterderived magnesium and dolomite compounds - contains noCFCs. Sufficient thickness of Air-Krete was used to insulatewalls to R-12 rating, which is three times that required by theCity’s Building Code;• Heat-Mirror windows feature a polymer sheet between twolayers of glass, which retains heat in winter while deflecting itin summer. The windows insulate to R-4 rating, equivalent toa brick wall;• A great deal of heat in buildings is lost through the roof. Theroof of Audubon House insulates to R-33 value, again, threetimes that required by NYC code.National Audubon Society

137

Air-Krete is a cementitious foammade of magnesium comp--ounds mixed with dolomite andother minerals. It was air-blown(as a wet foam) into the newlycreated cavity walls at AH’sperimeter. Because it is blownin as a wet foam, it is onlysuitable for horizontal applic-ations (i.e. walls). On the roof,rigid insulation boards wereused.Left: caption: “Air-Krete insulationin cavity wall. This high-efficiencycementitious foam insulation isblown into the wall, where it hard-ens. It is made with magnesiumcompounds extracted from sea-water and contains no chlorofluo-rocarbons (CFCs), which con-tribute to ozone loss andglobal warming.”

138

Above: caption: “Sketch showing howheat mirror technology works. Audubon’shigh-efficiency windows feature this tech-nology – a polymer film suspended be-tween two panes of glass. The chemicallytreated film is wavelength-sensitive, re-sisting the transfer of heat through thewindows.”Left: caption: “Installation of high-eff-iciency windows. The windows at Aud-ubon House have an insulation valueclose to R-4, equivalent to that of a brickwall. The overall insulation of Audubon’sthermal shell exceeded code byas much as 80 percent.”

139

Originally developed by scientists atM.I.T., Heat Mirror is a thin film that,when suspended between two sheets ofglass, can make a 1-inch thick windowjust as insulating as the 6-inch thickwall around it. Heat Mirror creates twoairspaces in an insulated window andprovides maximum energy savings innine different climates. In November1999, Heat Mirror was voted one of the“Top 100 Inventions of the Millennium”by Popular Science magazine. PS calledHeat Mirror film: “one of the moredramatic advances of the millennium.”It is credited with saving millions ofbarrels of oil since its commercial re-lease in 1980.

140

“Utility companies are realizing the opportunities for avoidedcosts and optimizing their systems through energy reductionand fuel strategies. We see more people – building owners aswell as utility executives – becoming advocates for integratedhigh-performance design.”Randolph R. Croxton, Principal, Croxton Collaborative

141

Left: caption: “Fully installedYork gas-fired absorption chill-er-heater at Audubon House.This high-efficiency heater-chi-ller runs on a six-step chillingcycle and a three-step heatingcycle. The tight thermal insul-ation and efficient lighting atAudubon House resulted in thedownsizing of this equipmentby almost half. The choice ofnatural gas fuel had major imp-lications for Audubon’s envir-onmental goals.”

142

The chiller-heater at AH has a cooling capacity of 180-tons and a heatingcapacity of 1.7 million Btu per hour. It is known as an “absorption chiller-heater” (a reference to its operation). The three-step heating cycle heatswater that is circulated through pipes along the perimeter of the buildingon each floor. The six-step cooling cycle produces chilled-water coolingcoils, cooling and dehumidifying the air before directing it to the occupiedoffices. The unit itself can be fueled with either fuel oil or natural gas (AHchose gas).Left: caption: “Schematic diagram of the heating cycle”Right: caption: “Schematic diagram of the cooling cycle”

143

Left: caption: “The cooling and ventilationsystem at AH doesn’t rely on a central airdistribution unit. Instead, there are individualfan rooms (containing air-handling units) ateach floor. Highly filtered outdoor air entersthe building at the roof then is distributeddirectly to the fan rooms where it is mixedwith re-circulated return air from each floor,Fans at each floor draw air through coolingcoils containing chilled water and distributethe air through ductwork to air terminal out-lets. These outlets have temperature-sensingdevices (Variable Air Volume controls or VAV)which modulate the air volume passingthrough each outlet in response to space tem-perature. The amount of air can also be mod-ulated by a fan using a static pressure sensormounted in the ductwork and a variablefrequency drive that electronically slows thefan motor, which reduce energy significantlywhile maintaining comfort levels.Left: caption: “Audubon House – diagram ofelevation with overlay of ventilation system. A highfresh air ratio and high-performance filters ensurethat indoor air quality will exceed stand-ards.”

144

A B

Above L&R: caption: “Cross section of a typical work area, showingfeatures that enhance thermal comfort:A. In colder months, hot water flows to fin-tube convectors located at thebuilding’s perimeter. Warm air rising from the convector acts as a‘curtain’ to block colder air along the windows and wall.B. In warmer months, chilled water flows to cooling coils in the air-hand-ling rooms on each floor. There, fresh and re-circulated air are mixed andcooled. Variable air volume (VAV) outlets conduct the air into officespaces; each VAV box is fitted with adjustable temperature-con-trol diffusers, allowing a high-degree of individual thermal comfort.

145

Top: caption: “Diagram of an air-handling unit. Each floor at Aud-ubon House has its own air-hand-ling room. Here, outdoor and re-circulated air are mixed and re-filtered. Variable speed drives onthe unit fans adjust fan speed acc-ording to a pre-set static pressurepoint – an energy-saving feature.”Bottom: caption: “Variable air vol-ume (VAV) outlet. Located at regularintervals in the ceilings, theseboxes conduct air from the air han-dling rooms to the interior space.Each has a Thermafuser to adjusttemperature within a pre-set range,allowing each employee a highdegree of control over personalcomfort.”

A

B

146

Using the central computer system, thebuilding operator’s computer can inter-actively select the least energy-inten-sive system or combination of systemsfor a given situation. Thus, it can re-spond to individual needs and adjust toprovide optimal comfort conditions. Inits use of passive solar alternativesrequiring little or no energy input (i.e.Heat Mirror windows), it is partially anature-driven rather than an energy-driven system, thus saving significantamounts of energy.Left T&B: caption: “Computerized buildingman-agement system at Audubon House:A. The building manager’s computer comm-and center, 7th floor;B. Diagram of the system.The building manager can adjust temp-eratures on individual floors, and the sys-tem can automatically choose from amongthree cooling options, saving sub-stantially on energy.”

A

B

147

“The combination of advanced technology and energy-efficient design modifications at Audubon House has createdan environment in which the mechanical system operatesalmost like a high-performance sports car: It has the ability torespond to changing environmental conditions with greatspeed and accuracy. The heating and cooling performance ofthe building as a whole has exceeded our expectations. It’smore than just an energy-efficient building.”Jordan Fox, Flack + Kurtz Consulting Engineers

148

The Air in There

149

“The placement of fresh air intake vents is one of thosethings engineers take for granted – with unfortunate results. Ihave seen plenty of intake vents built over loading docks orright next to the exhaust. At Audubon House, we considerednot only the placement of the intake vent but also protectingit from moisture and nearby pollution. As a result, we get thefreshest air possible.”Jordan Fox, Flack + Kurtz Consulting Engineers

150

At AH, the intake vent was/is located at the rooftop level, onthe southern exposure (most open side of the building), farfrom the street below. Such placement ensured that thecleanest available air enters the building. The intake vent isfitted with a grill to filter-out the largest particulates and anoverhead rain-guard “eave” minimizes moisture entering thesystem. AH also provides more outdoor air to each buildingoccupant than did standard office buildings of the era (26 to30cfm). ASHRAE recommended 20cfm while many existingoffices provided 10cfm or less.

151

Left: caption: “Air intake vent, rooftop level; bag filter for fresh air. Be-cause it is located on the rooftop level and away from the exhaust, thefresh air intake at Audubon House draws the freshest available air. Thegrill filters large particulates and an overhanging eave minimizes moistureintake. Inside, the fresh air passes through a high-efficiency (AHRAE 85%)bag filter.”Right: caption: “Schematic diagram showing fresh-air intake andventilation system. Note that the fresh air is filtered twice – initially with ahigh-efficiency bag filter (ASHRAE 85%) and again on each ex-change.”

152

Dealer’s Choice

153

“When the environmental advantages of one product overanother were minimal, I would agree to purchase the lessexpensive product. This gave me a degree of flexibility toargue for products with clearly superior environmental ad-vantages even when they cost substantially more.”Jan Beyea, NAS Chief Scientist

154

The process of purchasing materials/products for the building was one ofthe most complex and challenging aspects of the project to the AH team.There was a wide array of choices and factors such as:What was more important?• The product’s impact on Indoor Air Quality (IAQ);• Upstream environmental impacts from the manufacture of the product;• Downstream environmental impacts from its use and disposal.Comparing upstream vs. downstream impacts, IAQ generally affects thebuilding occupants more directly. As well, information on chemical comp-osition of materials/products was/is typically more readily available thandata on manufacturing processes and/or disposal thus making predic-tions on IAQ impact/s much more reliable. As such, first priority wasgiven to IAQ by the AH team, followed by downstream impacts and, lastly,upstream impacts. Criteria also considered were:• Embodied Energy;• Manufacturer’s environmental policies/social responsibility;• Health/safety conditions at factories;• Product: performance / economy / comfort/ aesthetics;• Natural vs. synthetic;• Chemical off-gassing;• Recycled content / recyclability.

155

Left: caption: “Embodied energy insteel and aluminum. Energy inputsaccumulate in the extraction andprocessing of any material; this cu-mulative energy is known as ‘em-bodied energy.’ Aluminum man-ufacture is a much more energy-in-tensive process than steel manu-facture, and thus aluminum gen-erally has more embodied energythan steel. However, factors such astransportation must also be takeninto account. Waste is also gen-erated at each step in the process.Recycling can recover all or most ofa material’s embodied energy.”

156

“No choice is perfect. We have to find the best possiblesolution under the circumstances, and any analysis dependson site-specific considerations.”Jan Beyea, NAS Chief ScientistRE: the AH team relied on Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) to establishthe presence or absence of harmful chemicals in material/product. MSDSsheets list the name and amount/s of any substance that poses a poten-tial risk. If such a substance was found on the MSDS sheet, it waschecked against a list of cancer-causing compounds (carcinogen/s) pro-vided by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and/or atoxicology handbook. Thus, this careful analysis established the leastharmful choice affecting IAQ, primarily, and the least negative environ-mental impact/s, overall. Jan Beyea – a recognized expert on paper andplastic products, ranked various plastic products as follows:• Polyethylene and/or Polypropylene – Benign;• PET and Polystyrene - Intermediate;• ABS – Questionable;• Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) – To be avoided whenever possible.

157

Above L&R: caption: “Every manufacturer of a building material is required by law toprovide a MSDS sheet (sample above). Following standards set by OSHA, the sheet listspercentages and names of hazardous materials that are components of a product.However, trace amounts of chemicals/toxins are not required to be listed.

158

Above: caption: “Homasote, stackedprior to installation as sub-flooring.This material, made primarily of re-cycled newsprint pressed and boundwith a low-toxic bonding agent. Con-ventional plywood sub-flooring is asource of formaldehyde and VOCs”Left: caption: “Wool carpeting at Aud-ubon House. The use of all-natural, un-dyed wool carpeting illustrates theteam’s use of natural products as wellas to reducing VOC emissions. In add-ition, the carpeting was tacked downwithout glues (except on the stair-cases), further reducing poten-tial sources of VOCs.”

159

“A legislated standard for a product or product assemblymay not be the right one to target. You might have to createyour own standards for acceptable thresholds of pollutants inmaterials. It is also important to look for anomalies in the testresults of products – for instance, if emissions increase overthe test period (despite initial testing results conforming toyour chosen threshold). Here may be reason to investigatethe product further to determine the source of the increase.”Kirsten Childs, Director of Interior Design, Croxton Collaborative

160

DRYWALL:Rather than standard gypsum wallboard, a type with a partially recycled core andouter layer/s (face/s) of 100% recycled paper was usedPAINT:Finding suitable interior paint/s was one of the most difficult tasks encounteredby the AH team. Five different “qualities” (for different surfaces) was required.Paints include numerous chemical constituents including:• Pigments;• Brighteners;• Fillers;• Preservatives (i.e. Biocides);• Drying agents;• Solvents.After struggling with the various pros and cons of different lines of paint, coin-cidentally, a line of paints came on the market during construction that did not off-gas any VOCs, had acceptable chemical composition/s and was available at a rea-sonable price. This environmentally friendly choice completely eliminated odorsduring its application.ADHESIVES:The AH team purposely avoided glues made with phenol compounds. Given theonly option to use tile adhesives with VOCs, the choice to use the one with “nat-urally occurring” VOCs rather than man-made (a/k/a “synthetic”) wasmade.

161

Pressed wood furniture (a major sourceof chemical off-gassing) was avoidedwhenever possible by the AH team.Chairs were made from aluminum orsteel with low-toxic fabrics and withfoam containing no CFCs and/or toulene.Rubberized components were substit-uted for compounds made of PVCplastic. Recycled materials were alsoused (i.e. recycled steel for workstationshelves, recycled plastic for bathroomcountertops) whenever/wherever feasibleto do so throughout the building.Left: caption: “Reception desk, eighth floor.Customized wood furniture at AudubonHouse is made with sustainably harvestedrainforest mahogany certified by the NewYork-based Rainforest Alliance. The purchaseof such products is intended to encouragethe sustainable use of rainforest resources,ultimately aiding in conservationefforts.”

162

The Three R’s

163

By purchasing and renovating an existing building instead ofbuilding a new one from the ground up, the NAS made apowerful statement in support of conserving both energyand resources. By “recycling” 700 Broadway, the resultingpreservation of materials included:• 300-tons of steel;• 9K-tons of masonry;• 560-tons of concrete.Had the building been conventionally demolished, all thismaterial would have wound up in a landfill, further burdeningthe environment. Now a landmark NYC building, recycling thebuilding also preserved an important part of NYC’s richarchitectural heritage. Significantly, had a new building beenbuilt on the site, the cost would have been about one-thirdhigher than the $24 million the NAS spent on purchasing andrenovating the structure. The spirit of the “Three R’s” –Reduce/Reuse/Recycle, was alive and well on theAH project, from beginning to end.

164

Deja Vu All Over Again

165

AH used recycled building materials whenever and whereverpossible (as long as they were readily available and eco-nomically feasible). Some examples include:• Bathroom countertops made with a high-density polymerresin compound, part of which comes from recycled post-consumer plastic bottles;• Floor tiles in the elevator vestibules were made from 60%pre-consumer recycled incandescent glass light-bulbs;• Gypsum wallboard made from a partially recycled (8 to 15%)recycled gypsum core and paper faces made from 100% re-cycled paper;• Recycled steel partition framing and for library and work-station shelving;• Partially recycled aluminum furniture frames (also 100%recyclable);• Sprayed-on fireproofing made from recycled newsprint;• Homasote (recycled content) sub-flooring.

166

Top Left: caption: “These bathroomcountertops are made with recycledplastic from used detergent bottles”Top Right: caption: “Decorative tilesmade of recycled glass in the Groundfloor entryway and lobby”Left: caption: “These tiles, made inpart of recycled waste glass from themanufacture of light bulbs, were in-stalled in the ground-floorlobby and elevator vestibules”

167

In-House Recycling System

168

“The average office worker throws away 100 pounds of paper every year.If you consider all office workers in the country, this amounts to an estim-ated 30 million trees. Our landfills – where plastics, metals, and otheroffice waste are buried – are stretched to the limit. Yet a number of con-struction and office products made of reconstituted materials are now onthe market, and their widespread use would go a long way towards con-serving resources and alleviating the crisis in solid-waste disposal.”Jan Beyea, NAS Chief ScientistAbove: caption: “Breakdown of solid waste in the United States. Paper and paperproducts are the leading sources of solid waste. In office buildings they make upan even greater proportion of the waste stream. Recycling of paper willthus be crucial to any efforts at mitigating the growing ‘garbage crisis.’”

169

At the heart of AH’s recycling pro-gram is a comprehensive, building-wide recycling system that can re-cycle approximately 80% of theNAS’s office waste. At a cost of$185K, Waste Management, Inc. pro-vided both grant money and adviceto the project’s architect who de-signed a series of chutes to takesorted materials for recycling from asub-basement recycling room. Therecycling system includes four re-cycling chutes running the height ofthe building. The 20-inch steelchutes are similar to garbage dis-posal chutes used in apt. buildings.Left: caption: “Audubon House, elev-ation showing recycling system. Fourrecycling chutes, one each for whiteoffice paper, mixed paper, organicwastes, and plastic beverage containers,run the entire elevation of thebuilding.”

170

Above: caption: “Pantry recyclingarea. Employees are responsiblefor bringing their sorted wasted toone of four recycling chutes (onenot shown). Some materials, suchas glass and newspapers, arepicked up from pantry shelves andbrought to the sub-basement re-cycling room.”Left: caption: “Recycling chutesunder construction. Four chutesrun the length of the building,from the 8th floor to the sub-basement recyclingroom.”

171

Above: caption: “All employeesat Audubon House receive two‘waste’ baskets for separatinggarbage from mixed paper, aswell as two desktop trays foraccumulating white paper andreusable paper, in order to fac-ilitate the pre-sorting of recycl-ables”Left: caption: “Sub-basementrecycling room. Ample storagespace and the installation of sep-arate sprinklers make thisan ideal recycling room.”

172

“Audubon adheres to a 10 percent limit in cost premiums forindividual green purchases of office supplies, but that doesnot mean that total purchasing costs will rise by that much.Not every alternative costs more. We don’t expect more thana 2 to 3 percent increase in the cost of office supplies.”James Cunningham, NAS CFO

173

In a Very Real Sense

174

“In the year since Audubon has occupied its new head-quarters at 700 Broadway I lower Manhattan, Audubon Househas been featured on network television, In TIME and News-week, the New York Times and the New Yorker, and in nearlyevery architecture and interior design publication. It hasdrawn visitors from every corner of the globe, hundreds ofwhom have toured the building asking perceptive questions.In a very real sense, Audubon House has spurred a newworldwide interest in ‘green’ architecture.”Peter A.A. Berle, NAS President (1994)

175