Down, but not OUT!

Over the past month we have been regrouping, reexamining where we are, and looking at various strategies to keep the dream of Redhook Green alive.   Luckily there has been a huge out pouring of creative ideas, support, and advice in response to my last post “Buyer Beware”.  I have gotten emails from city officials (confidentially of course), architects, lawyers, real  estate developers, members of the Redhook community, and readers from as far away as Australia, all overwhelmingly supporting the project and offering their views and expert advice to help me find a way to align my building with the City of New York’s plans, policies and procedures.

Of all of the various emails I’ve received, the most interesting were from other neighborhood leaders, communities and towns (some out of NYS) asking me to consider changing my venue from Redhook to another that would embrace my vision and support it in many ways that Brooklyn has been unwilling or unable to, some including offers of land grants and tax subsidies.  Did you hear that Mr. Brooklyn Borough President?  All I was looking for were some permits. My enthusiasm has been routed in not simply creating a building, but one that could serve as a proof of concept for a net zero energy structure in an urban setting.  

Redhook Winery

One of the key issues facing me is that much of Redhook has been designated an Industrial Business Zone (IBZ) by Mayor Bloomberg.  The Mayor’s Office of Industrial and Manufacturing Businesses website says “These areas foster high-performing business districts by creating competitive advantages over locating in areas outside of New York City”.  Sounds great, I run a business, where do I sign?  But they went on to say “The IBZs represent areas in which the City provides expanded assistance services to industrial firms in partnership with local development groups.  In addition, IBZs reflect a commitment by the City not to support the re-zoning of industrial land for residential use within these areas.”  What about mixed use?  Why wouldn’t that work?  Interestingly, my land is on the very edge of the Redhook Industrial Business Zone, not sure why it begins there, since much of my block is and has been residential for decades.  

I love NYC and I fully support Mayor Bloomberg’s vision for it, but I think we should consider expanding the definition of “modern” manufacturing.  Redhook, like many of the other 16 IBZ’s are already experiencing what I would consider  a renaissance in manufacturing.  I am not speaking of the kind of manufacturing that once called NYC home, but of the new and highly specialized “manufacturing” such as software/web development companies, wineries, boutique distilleries, coffee roasters, bakers, furniture makers, and jewelry designers just to name a few.  The city has developed an impressive plan to attract business “Protecting and Growing New York City’s Industrial Job Base” but I think that  a modern live/work strategy should be able to fit into this vision.  

Interestingly, at the same time the city published it’s plans for attracting new business, a New York based think tank, The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, disagreed with the City’s premise in it’s report “Up From the Ruins: Why Rezoning New York City’s Manufacturing Areas for Housing Makes Sense”, it said that “Because New York City has space for 500,000 more manufacturing jobs than actually exist, we propose to rezone some of this manufacturing space for housing and for mixed use. By rezoning the five areas suggested in this report, the city would increase its tax revenues, raise its employment rate, and substantially alleviate its long-standing housing crisis.”  One of those areas pointed out was Redhook.

I say lets all just get along!  One of things that I love about Redhook is the true “mixed use” nature of the area.  I want to clarify that I am not asking someone in the city to allow me to break or change a rule, but rather exercise the discretion they have on the narrow interpretation of that rule so I can build something good for Redhook, for NYC and myself.   I have not given up, I believe there is a way to make this happen.

Keep those emails coming, I love hearing your thoughts and ideas.

Buyer Beware

As of yesterday, my dream of building the first net Zero-Energy work live building in Brooklyn seems to be officially DEAD!  Thanks in part to the never ending bureaucracy and stale thinking at the NYC Department of Buildings.  I think its best for us to go back to the beginning of this project to understand the roots of my current predicament.  

On November 10th of last year, in my post “How To Become A Land Owner”, I discussed the land situation in Brooklyn, specifically as it refers to zoning .   There are three general classifications of zoning here in NYC: C=Commercial M=Manufacturing and R=Residential .  Since I was planning on devoting a large percentage of space to garages, a workshop and offices, it seemed I could justify building on manufacturing or commercially zoned land.  Actually, I later discovered another classification MX=Mixed Use, which would actually have been perfect for my use as it was precisely design for the I envisioned.  While life would have clearly been simpler if I could have purchased a plot that was designated “R” or "MX", nothing that met my need was available on a corner (optimal for solar power).  I was advised that given my particular use, I could  make an “M” zoned plot work.  What that means is that given the majority of my structure was to be dedicated to commercial use, the living quarters would be an ‘accessory’ to the true function of the building.  Therefore we would request the building department grant us permission to live in what would is called a “caretakers apartment”, which would be incidental to it’s primary use.   Jim Garrison assured me on the advice of a former NYC Building Commissioner and “a careful and correct reading of the zoning law”, that this was very common and would “sail through the building department” without incidence.  

So on November 16th, 2009 I posted “It’s A Deal”  announcing my purchase of a 5,000 square foot plot of land, zoned M2-1 in Redhook, Brooklyn and began developing plans confident that I would be allowed to use the land to realize my dream.  We filed the permits and with them a ZR § 12-10 (“Accessory use”) request (July 21st), continuing to believe that we were doing something great for the community, building a state of the high performance, energy conserving building in the place of an weed infested lot.  Beyond that I was clearly and regularly communicating our dreams, ideas, progress and even actual plans to the community  and beyond through this blog. 

After two months, I received an email from Garrison Architects with an update  “Our expeditor has just received word that the "reconsideration for caretakers apt" review has been performed by the borough commissioner.  This was a review required in addition to the general documentation”.  Days later I was advised that “The Brooklyn Borough Commissioner denied the caretakers request.  As expressed by the expeditor, reasons for refusal are “bogus”.  A resolution (basically an appeal, see link) form has been drafted to present to a higher power.  It clearly lists all restrictions and how our building complies.  This will be submitted first thing Monday morning to technical affairs”.  It looked like we had crossed all the t's and dotted all the i's.

That brings us to where I am today (basically screwed)!  After a telephone hearing last week, the all knowing, politically charged and narrowly minded men and women of the NYC building department capriciously determined “that the proposed living or sleeping accommodations for caretakers in this case is not incidental to the principal use”.  To quote James P. Colgate; Assistant Commissioner of Technical Affairs and Code Development “ The request to have a living or sleeping accommodation for caretakers as per ZR 12-10 as an accessory use to this new office building is DENIED.” 

How can they say that, when a former commission basically said it was usual and customary?  What is it that these underpaid public servants could possibly be protecting the “unsuspecting” public from in this case?   It seems like the DOB no longer exists for the individual, but only for the largest developers and their deep pocket political contributions.  I wish I could let our Mayor (who thankfully does not need those deep pockets) know that a prime example of his green vision PLANYC 2030, died on the table of HIS Building Department.  If this bothers you, please HELP!  I am running out of ideas.

The only options left to me as I see them are:

1. Build a green office building - It’s too small and off the beaten path to make a sound business case for such a structure in the next few years.
2. Apply for a zoning variance - 60 to 100K in professional services expenses, one year and no guaranty that it will be successful.
3. Walk

None of these seem particularly appealing.  Any thoughts, ideas, recommendations, contacts or kind words of encouragement would be appreciated.  I will think about this a bit and keep you posted on my progress.

Oh, by the way, we did figure out a way to build it very close to budget, but alas that seems to be a bit of a moot point.  More later.


Jay

ZRD1: Zoning Resolution Determination Form

The Evolution Continues

The design team has been hard at work completing the details of the design, testing assumptions and continuing to prepare the drawing for submission to obtain permits. During this process, it became obvious that the solar (PV) panels would not drive a high enough yield positioned on the top of the garage/workshop as the sun is partially obstructed a point in the day.  The decision was made to relocate them to the top of the main building, but in order to do so; a redesign of the roof and associated terraces would need to be done. 

As you can see in the newest rendering, Jim and his team have done an amazing job of integrating the panels on to a new roof awning that cantilevers over the fourth floor deck.  This provides us protection from the sun and double the usable roof square footage.  Another change is the integration of the glass panels that sit atop the brick; they are nearly two and a half tall glass panels that wrap both structures.   They provide light and flow-through ventilation, given half of them are fully operational.  There are many other evolutionary changes and will be more obvious as I post different views and new renderings.

During early January, we will begin to develop a “thermal model” in order to maximize engineering options and to validate final design. Thermal modeling answers questions about airflow and temperature distribution under various weather conditions.   In addition it allows control over PV design and performance. The goal of energy modeling is to accurately predict the energy use of this building.  While costly, this will allow us to play ‘what if’ with various products, finishes, and design options to insure we reach our goal of net zero-energy, before we actually begin construction.

Make sure to check out a great article on the project on gbNYC.

US lab aims to build better, cheaper, zero-energy buildings

Reposted from Greenbang
While cars, trucks and planes might come to mind first as carbon emissions Enemy No. 1, all our buildings aren’t quite as environmentally innocent as they might appear.

In the US, for example, buildings account for 40 per cent of the country’s carbon dioxide emissions. In the UK, that figure is even higher: around 44 per cent. Much of those emissions are related to the energy needed to keep our buildings liveable, heating and cooling in particular.

In an ideal world, our buildings should be able to generate all the energy they need all by themselves, both cleanly and on-site. And that kind of “net-zero energy building” is exactly what a new test facility in the US aims to develop.

Using $15.9 million in stimulus funds from the US Department of Energy (DOE), the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory plans to build and operate a new National User Facility for Net-Zero Energy Buildings. The facility will contain all sorts of testing systems to figure out how best to tackle the technical challenges of building net-zero energy buildings.

“This facility will serve a national audience — and need — in an aggressive pursuit of DOE’s energy efficiency goals for widespread implementation of affordable net-zero energy buildings by 2030,” said Stephen Selkowitz, head of the Building Technologies Department of Berkeley Lab’s Environmental Energy Technologies Division.

Berkeley Lab researchers plan to tackle the effort with a broad base of users in the building design and construction communities, as well as manufacturers, building owners and operators, and the academic community.

“We will also take maximum advantage of Berkeley Lab’s proximity to Silicon Valley and the growing interest in ‘Greentech’ innovation and investment to draw on experts there, as well as our location in a state that leads the country in applying research and advanced technology, supported by aggressive policies, toward reducing greenhouse-gas emissions,” Selkowitz added.

Net-zero energy buildings generate as much energy as they use on an annual basis through highly aggressive energy efficiency and on-site renewable energy generation, making them a key element in the effort to cut carbon emissions. The new laboratory facilities will help researchers develop, test and validate the technologies, systems and design approaches that will allow net-zero energy buildings to be built and operated affordably.

The new test facility will feature a series of unique energy-efficient building systems testbeds to be located in new and existing buildings at the lab. Researchers will be able to change out prototype building systems such as windows, lights, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, energy control systems, roofs and skylights.  The idea is to measure initial energy use and environmental conditions to understand how the systems perform, and then to redesign and optimise their capabilities and performance.



An exciting use of stimulus funds to help push the envelope (here in the US) on products to make projects like ours a bit easier in the future.

Have a great weekend.  I am off to look at electric cars at the LA Car Show :-)

Jay

So Much Confusion, So Little Time

Since the press release last week, publically announcing Redhook Green, there has been so many questions, comments, criticisms and confusion regarding the project that I thought I would devote a few posts to clearing up some of them.

There seems to be a general lack of clarity on the relationship between “Zero-Energy Building (ZEB)”, “Carbon-Neutral”, and “Sustainable” when it comes to construction as a whole and specifically as it relates to this project.  Each of these very important strategies are tools in helping the way we live fit more cohesively with the needs of others and our planet in general, but practicality needs to play a role as the various objectives are weighed and implemented.  For me they include feasibility, environmental impact, upfront cost, long term cost, availability and reliability.

There are three primary concerns relating to the energy consumption of Architecture:

1.  Energy to construct

2.  Energy to heat and maintain

3.  The total of both over the lifespan of the structure

From my simpleminded perspective, a net zero energy building is a great place to start.  It seemed to me if we could design a home that based on the nature of it’s construction, could consume significantly less electricity heating and cooling and then generate the power we needed using the sun and trade the rest for times we can’t, we would have to be a great start.  I like the fact that it’s reasonably easy to measure success here, if I sell ConEd as many kilowatts of electricity as I buy, then I am net zero energy.  Cool.  Right?

Next if you do a search on the web for a definition of “carbon-neutral”, in many cases it defaults to the ZEB definition and discusses renewable sources.   As I understand it, a building that is carbon-neutral uses no fossil fuels in its operation, creates no direct greenhouse gases, and, as a result, does not contribute to global warming. Also power drawn from the utility grid but it must be “clean,” produced by wind turbines, photovoltaic, or other renewable energy system. So, a building that is both Carbon Neutral and Net Zero Energy produces at least as much renewable energy as it uses each year.   But (big BUT) most definition neglects to discuss a very important use of energy that must be taken into consideration for a true carbon neutral structure.  That is embodied energy or as I mention above the energy to construct.

The Wikipedia defines “embodied energy (or emergy) is defined as the available energy that was used in the work of making a product. Embodied energy is an accounting methodology which aims to find the sum total of the energy necessary for an entire product lifecycle. This lifecycle includes raw material extraction, transport, manufacture, assembly, installation, disassembly, deconstruction and/or decomposition. “   Basically all the materials used in the house consume energy during manufacturing, delivery and installation on site.  Would you imagine that aluminum requires more energy than steel to be manufactured?  Or that recycled aluminum and steel use half of the energy to fabricate (just a few fun facts from a discussion with Jim)?  There is embodied energy in any processed product, from a drinking cup to a car. In embodied energy terms, buildings represent a huge, relatively long-duration energy investment.

Material	Unit	Energy Coefficient Mj per unit
Timber, rough	m3	848
Timber, air-dry, treated	m3	1,200
Timber Glulam	m3	4,500
Timber, kiln-dry, treated	m3	4,692
Timber, form work	m3	283
Plywood	m3	9,440
Building paper	m2	7.5
Gypsum board	m3	5,000
Glass	kg	31.5
Structural steel	kg	59
Aluminum	kg	145
Fiberglass	kg	150
Asphalt, strip shingle	m2	280

It seems to me that as the operating energy required for buildings declines, the embodied energy they represent becomes a more significant percentage of the total energy buildings use. In coming years more efforts will probably be directed toward measuring and reducing the amount of embodied energy in buildings.

So as you can see, this all gets very difficult to measure accurately. Measuring embodied energy is still in an early phase, but is very important.  But from my perspective for this project (right now) while I think that it is an important objective to build carbon-neutral buildings,  it might be less practical to get 100% there.  Remember ability to execute is everything!  So we move forward to reach our net zero goal while keeping our carbon footprint to a minimum via the materials we choose and construction methods employed (modular really helps).

If you want to learn more about what you can do, or how much embodied energy is used in different popular products visit, WattzOn.  It is an early stage online tool to quantify, track, compare and understand the total amount of energy needed to support all of the facets of your lifestyle with the goal of helping you find ways to reduce your personal power consumption.

More to come, including my thoughts on sustainability.