Green

What do you do if you find a prime location for your dream house but an existing house is in the way? Well, you can purchase the house and try to demolish it. This week I went to the New Orleans City Council to speak against a proposal to demolish an undamaged 1890’s Queen Anne style house on Henry Clay Street in the Audubon Park neighborhood so that the owners could build a new "green" house. The couple bought the house for $900,000, and they and their realtor contend that they didn’t realize they would have to get approval from the Housing Conservation District Review Committee (HCDRC) for its demolition. This is a committee that has been around for over seven years to hear demolition cases in historic neighborhoods outside of the local historic districts.

This urge to demolish is especially shocking given that its goal was supposedly sustainability, as it is a complete contradiction of what the green building movement envisions. It would be more responsible to apply green building principles to the current building--exploring ways to conserve energy, preserving its original materials, and ensuring that the building continues to exist for another 100 years. The resources contained in this house will be wasted and lost forever with its demolition.

When the committee unanimously turned them down, they appealed to the City Council. The Council voted unanimously to uphold the HCDRC. It’s hard to believe that in a city that can ill-afford to lose its historic built environment, someone would think nothing of demolishing a sound building in a historic neighborhood—but obviously even post-Katrina New Orleans is not immune from the national tear-downs trend.

• More Posts (104)

I have been mulling over Patrice’s vinyl sadness since last week which probably explains the violence with which I responded to a Building & Grounds Manager from one of our 29 historic sites today when he called to ask if I would approve “vinyl replacement” windows in one of our rental houses (I am the Director of Architecture for the National Trust’s 29 historic sites). “No vinyl” I said. “But vinyl lasts longer and doesn’t need any maintenance,” he responded. Why does this misperception continue in the general public and bleed over into those of us who should know better? As Mike Jackson (Chief Architect of the Illinois SHPO’s office) says, “No Maintenance required” really means “can’t be repaired” - so they end up in the landfill much sooner than say a wood window which can be repaired and repaired and repaired, or recycled. Vinyl can’t be repaired, and it can’t be recycled. So, maybe you don’t need to repaint it every 10 years, but within 20 years you will need to buy new windows yet again, and the heavy imprint on the environment starts all over.

To quote my colleague Patrice’s recent "White Paper on Sustainability": There is a common perception that windows are a major source of heat loss and gain. Yet retaining historic windows is often more environmentally friendly than replacement with new thermally resistant windows. Government data suggests that windows are responsible for only 10% of air infiltration in the average home. Furthermore, a 1996 study finds that the performance of updated historic windows is in fact comparable to new windows. Window retention also preserves embodied energy, and reduces demand for environmentally costly new windows, typically constructed of vinyl or aluminum… There is the widespread perception that air leakage through windows is responsible for the majority of heat gain or loss in historic buildings. Yet information from the U.S. Department of Energy indicates that windows are responsible for only 10% of air escape in the average American home. Floors, ceiling and walls are responsible for 31% of heat loss and gain, while ducts and fireplaces are each responsible for about 15% of heat loss and gain.

Now this assumption is only true for traditional windows, typically in buildings built before 1920. All the tables are turned when looking at buildings built after World War II, or even earlier International Style or mid-century modern buildings. Many of these windows and/or curtain wall systems were experimental, and most of the energy loss in these buildings is attributed to the curtain wall system.

So, what sage advice did I give our Building and Grounds Manager after I stopped hyperventilating? First, absolutely no vinyl. It doesn’t matter that this building is not the National Historic Landmark that the site is known for. It’s the vinyl in all the good sound background buildings that are contributing to the problems in our environment. Second, maybe the perceived energy loss is not from the windows (or the windows alone), so let’s get an energy audit first before we jump to conclusions. And third, get me options for repairing the windows or replacing with new wood. Yes, they will probably be more expensive than the vinyl, in the short term. But as stewards for the site we need to always be looking at the long term and the big picture. And so that means, NO VINYL!!

UPDATE, November 15th, 2007: The Building and Grounds Manager from the offending site called me yesterday to tell me he got prices for new wood windows that match the badly deteriorated ones, as well as prices for vinyl and clad windows. Guess what, the difference was pretty minimal, so he thanked me for the recommendation and now we'll be staying away from the vinyl!!

Barbara A. Campagna, FAIA, LEED AP BD+C was formerly the Graham Gund Architect of the National Trust in the Stewardship of Historic Sites office. She is currently a sustainability consultant to the National Trust and can be reached at bcampagna@bcampagna.com.

• More Posts (49)

1. Plant Only Native Plants - Naturescaping
   Native plantings typically reduce maintenance costs over their lifetime by minimizing inputs of fertilizers, pesticides and water. Whenever you are planting flowers or vegetation in non-historic landscapes, utilize native plantings - this is called “naturescaping”. Contact your local nursery or go to www.plantnative.org. Have you heard about Xeriscaping? It’s a comprehensive approach to planting and gardening. See www.xeriscape.org.
2. Evaluate Your Irrigation System
   Install low-volume micro-irrigation for gardens, trees and shrubs. Micro-irrigation includes drip (also known as trickle), micro spray jets, micro-sprinklers, or bubbler irrigation to irrigate slowly and minimize evaporation, runoff, and overspray. Ensure that there are no leaks in your irrigation equipment.
3. Evaluate Your Fountains
   Do not install or use ornamental water features unless they recycle the water. Use signs to show the public that water is recycled. Do not operate during a drought.
   ... Read More →

Barbara A. Campagna, FAIA, LEED AP BD+C was formerly the Graham Gund Architect of the National Trust in the Stewardship of Historic Sites office. She is currently a sustainability consultant to the National Trust and can be reached at bcampagna@bcampagna.com.

• More Posts (49)

Blissfully, this morning the Trust’s e-mail is down. (Not that I don’t enjoy each of the 150 messages I get every day, but it’s good to get away from it.) So I’ll take this opportunity to skip the Morning Roundup – since much of my news comes from Google Alerts dumped in my inbox -- and talk about something that’s really bothering me and still very relevant to discussions about green building: vinyl, and specifically the vinyl I now own.

I just bought a teeny tiny condo in a historic building. I adore it. The problem? My closet doors are made of vinyl – that nasty substance made from PVC, or poly vinyl chloride that is sometimes referred to as the “poison plastic.” PVC is a derived from fossil fuel – usually oil or natural gas -- and chlorine. The PVC manufacturing process produces highly toxic (read carcinogenic) chemicals, especially dioxins. And it’s the gift that keeps on giving because at the end of its life cycle, PVCs release even more dioxins if they are incinerated. According to the US Green Building Council, burning PVCs in landfills may now be the single largest source of dioxin release in the United States.

There are claims that PVC has been linked to cancer and birth defects, though not everyone agrees there is conclusive evidence of its toxicity. For example, vinyl manufacturers insist that the manufacturing of vinyl is highly-regulated and well controlled process, and does not present a public health hazard in the manufacturing, use, or disposal stages of it life cycle. I trust them, don’t you?

PVC is the material of choice for window manufacturers – witness those vinyl windows you see everywhere. Some green building advocates sing the praises of these windows because of their thermal resistance, while others have smartened-up about vinyl's enormous life cycle costs. For a thoughtful commentary on the choice between vinyl and wood windows – see the House In Progress Diary, a blog on the renovation of a 1900 bungalow.

So back to my problem – vinyl closet doors. They mock me and my environmental sensibilities, and I long to replace them with some wood doors – even a curtain would be better. But instead, I'm stuck with them. Because being stuck with them -- forever -- is the most environmentally responsible thing to do, since there isn't anywhere dispose of them safely. And that’s exactly the problem with Vinyl.

• More Posts (65)

Last week’s conference in St. Paul featured a presentation by Mike Jackson of the Illinois Historic Preservation. Among preservationists, Mike is known as an Energy Guru on the subject of the energy embodied in historic buildings, and on the operational efficiency of historic buildings. During his presentation, Mike referenced a recent article by BuildingGreen.com that found that commuting by office workers can account for far more energy use than building operations. According to BuildingGreen calculations, commuting “accounts for 30% more energy than the building itself uses.” As building efficiency goes up, the proportion of energy used for transportation is even more significant. “For an average new office building built to code, transportation accounts for more than twice as much energy use as building operation.”

So what does the mean? While new green buildings – such as those certified under the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED standards -- may be energy efficient, the context in which they are located isn’t necessarily sustainable. I’m reminded of an excellent piece I ran across recently in Greener Buildings in which Shari Shapiro discusses "green sprawl," -- development in which green buildings are located in unsustainable contexts. Under most green building standards, buildings are certified as “green” because they incorporate energy efficient features, provide adequate daylighting, – and meet a host of other criteria. While these standards may encourage development in existing urban areas, they do not require it.

I’ve done a bit of research that seems to substantiate concerns about “green sprawl.” About 19% of LEED-NC (New Construction) projects have earned a credit for being located in a densely developed area – that means 81% of LEED-NC certified buildings don’t meet the USGBC’s requirement for dense development. Though a relatively small number of historic buildings have been LEED certified (about 35 out of more than 400), more than 50% of historic projects have earned the credit for dense development. Furthermore, over 90% of LEED-NC certified historic projects earned a credit for providing access to mass transit, as compared to about 60% of newly constructed projects.

The research bears out expectations that many historic buildings are located in sustainable contexts – and location matters. Rehabbing and re-using these buildings allows us to capitalize on existing infrastructure – including mass transit -- reducing those gas guzzling commutes. 

• More Posts (65)