Archivo de la etiqueta: Politics

Groups Urge Congress: Keep Energy Conservation Requirements for Government Buildings

Posted on by

The American Institute of Architects today released a letter from more than 350 different associations and companies expressing opposition to efforts by special interests to gut energy conservation requirements for federal buildings.

The letter, which is addressed to Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and ranking Republican Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, was released one week ahead of the scheduled mark-up of the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee May 8.

That legislation, introduced by Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio), would promote greater use of energy efficiency technology in commercial and residential buildings and by manufacturers.

However, efforts by special interests to weaken energy conservation requirements for federal buildings are likely to surface during the mark-up. In particular, an amendment is expected to be offered that may weaken or eliminate Section 433(a) of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). The 2007 law requires federal agencies to phase out the consumption of energy from greenhouse-gas-emitting sources in newly constructed or renovated federal buildings by 2030, unless they can show such reductions are not technically feasible.

“According to the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration,’’ the letter states, “the building sector accounts for 39 percent of total U.S. energy consumption, more than both the transportation and industry sectors. The same study found that buildings are responsible for 71 percent of U.S. electricity consumption and that buildings in the United States alone account for 9.8 percent of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.

“Weakening or repealing federal building energy policies will dramatically harm the federal government’s ability to design and build facilities that use less energy, save taxpayers money, and protect the environment,” the letter concludes. “Therefore, we urge you to oppose efforts to weaken the energy consumption and GHG emission requirements of EISA Sec. 433(a) and other important energy-saving policies.”

A full text of the letter can be found here. A “Myth vs. Fact” document about Section 433 of EISA can be found here.

News via AIA 

Groups Urge Congress: Keep Energy Conservation Requirements for Government Buildings originally appeared on ArchDaily, the most visited architecture website on 02 May 2013.

send to Twitter | Share on Facebook | What do you think about this?

New York City Preserves Public Housing by Leasing Infill Land

Posted on by

For the past four decades, as cities faced financial pressures, high-rise public housing met its decline.  Cities throughout the country demolished public housing that was failing financially and socially, like Chicago’s Cabrini-Green Housing Project whose demolition was completed in 2011, to make way for mixed use developments that encouraged economic and social diversity by way of the HOPE VI Program. This strategy resulted in the uprooting and relocation of former residents who faced uncertainty throughout the process.

The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) stands out among housing authorities in the United States due to its size – 179,000 units in 2,600 buildings across the city – and the fact that the buildings are relatively well maintained.  NYCHA has avoided resorting to demolitions to deal with its issues, instead resorting to special police services that costs NYCHA a purported $70 million a year.  Over the past decade NYCHA has been underfunded by approximately $750 million causing backlogs in necessary repairs.

To address the mounting costs of public housing, New York City’s Mayor Bloomberg has proposed an infill strategy that would attract developers onto NYCHA land and create a new layer of commercial space and residential units in public housing developments.  The goal over the next five years is to develop methods of preservation for the housing development and promote mixed-use and mixed-income developments to generate income for NYCHA.

More on the plan after the break.

Public Housing is notoriously insular.  There are few opportunities on NYCHA development sites where groceries, and other daily amenities are easily accessible.  These campuses of public housing have usable open space that has been developed into playgrounds and community centers, but can also benefit greatly from having access to a greater variety of services that can be shared by other members of the surrounding community.  The new source of funding that will come through the leasing program will certainly help ensure financial stability and address maintenance issues and repairs.  Incorporating mixed-use and mixed-income development can also serve as a social strategy to de-stigmatize the negative perceptions of public housing by incorporating it into the public and commercial sphere.

But current residents are wary of this plan to lease land within NYCHA’s housing projects for 99-years to private development.  As Rosanne Haggerty of Shelterforce Magazine writes:

But the tension seems to be about something else, in fact, something largely unspoken: disbelief that new development could be beneficial for current tenants as well.  We are without sufficient models for preserving and regenerating existing public housing. Public housing tenants in New York suggest it’s a slippery slope when developers draw near. Might that be because the principal model we have of addressing the financial, physical and social challenges of public housing in this country is the one where the tenants are required to leave, the buildings are demolished, and new, mixed-income developments appear in their place?

The Hope VI program, which replaced failing public housing with mixed income developments never made much sense in New York City, but one doesn’t need to have witnessed a public housing development emptied and demolished to know that this is the dominant practice nationally. 

The skepticism is warranted and NYC’s government has attempted to quell these fears by emphasizing the value that these lease agreements will have for current residents – After all, this is a Public Housing Preservation strategy.  The plan will generate $30 million – $50 million dollars and generate approximately 8000 low-income housing units.  The land on which NYCHA is currently developed will not be privatized, buildings will not be demolished, residents and NYCHA personnel will not be displaced, and this program will not increase rent.

The plan focuses on eight lease sits, all located in Manhattan, most of which are concentrated below 14th street on the east side. The lease plans are available on NYCHA’s website and indicate the components of the developments: buildings, open space, community facilities and playgrounds.  In the Campos Plaza and Carver Houses developments, for example, the spaces that are listed for leasing are the parking lot and bulk container/compactor area.  It is notable that this strategy does not sacrifice the open space available for community use throughout other parts of the development.  

The residents from these housing projects stands firmly against the plan. Community groups fear that NYCHA is moving too quickly without addressing tenants’ concerns or following appropriate procedures to redevelop or lease the land.  Requests for Proposals that were scheduled to be sent out this month may be delayed until May as residents fight against NYC’s proposal.

New York City Preserves Public Housing by Leasing Infill Land originally appeared on ArchDaily, the most visited architecture website on 24 Apr 2013.

send to Twitter | Share on Facebook | What do you think about this?

New York City Preserves Public Housing by Leasing Infill Land

Posted on by

For the past four decades, as cities faced financial pressures, high-rise public housing met its decline.  Cities throughout the country demolished public housing that was failing financially and socially, like Chicago’s Cabrini-Green Housing Project whose demolition was completed in 2011, to make way for mixed use developments that encouraged economic and social diversity by way of the HOPE VI Program. This strategy resulted in the uprooting and relocation of former residents who faced uncertainty throughout the process.

The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) stands out among housing authorities in the United States due to its size – 179,000 units in 2,600 buildings across the city – and the fact that the buildings are relatively well maintained.  NYCHA has avoided resorting to demolitions to deal with its issues, instead resorting to special police services that costs NYCHA a purported $70 million a year.  Over the past decade NYCHA has been underfunded by approximately $750 million causing backlogs in necessary repairs.

To address the mounting costs of public housing, New York City’s Mayor Bloomberg has proposed an infill strategy that would attract developers onto NYCHA land and create a new layer of commercial space and residential units in public housing developments.  The goal over the next five years is to develop methods of preservation for the housing development and promote mixed-use and mixed-income developments to generate income for NYCHA.

More on the plan after the break.

Public Housing is notoriously insular.  There are few opportunities on NYCHA development sites where groceries, and other daily amenities are easily accessible.  These campuses of public housing have usable open space that has been developed into playgrounds and community centers, but can also benefit greatly from having access to a greater variety of services that can be shared by other members of the surrounding community.  The new source of funding that will come through the leasing program will certainly help ensure financial stability and address maintenance issues and repairs.  Incorporating mixed-use and mixed-income development can also serve as a social strategy to de-stigmatize the negative perceptions of public housing by incorporating it into the public and commercial sphere.

But current residents are wary of this plan to lease land within NYCHA’s housing projects for 99-years to private development.  As Rosanne Haggerty of Shelterforce Magazine writes:

But the tension seems to be about something else, in fact, something largely unspoken: disbelief that new development could be beneficial for current tenants as well.  We are without sufficient models for preserving and regenerating existing public housing. Public housing tenants in New York suggest it’s a slippery slope when developers draw near. Might that be because the principal model we have of addressing the financial, physical and social challenges of public housing in this country is the one where the tenants are required to leave, the buildings are demolished, and new, mixed-income developments appear in their place?

The Hope VI program, which replaced failing public housing with mixed income developments never made much sense in New York City, but one doesn’t need to have witnessed a public housing development emptied and demolished to know that this is the dominant practice nationally. 

The skepticism is warranted and NYC’s government has attempted to quell these fears by emphasizing the value that these lease agreements will have for current residents – After all, this is a Public Housing Preservation strategy.  The plan will generate $30 million – $50 million dollars and generate approximately 8000 low-income housing units.  The land on which NYCHA is currently developed will not be privatized, buildings will not be demolished, residents and NYCHA personnel will not be displaced, and this program will not increase rent.

The plan focuses on eight lease sits, all located in Manhattan, most of which are concentrated below 14th street on the east side. The lease plans are available on NYCHA’s website and indicate the components of the developments: buildings, open space, community facilities and playgrounds.  In the Campos Plaza and Carver Houses developments, for example, the spaces that are listed for leasing are the parking lot and bulk container/compactor area.  It is notable that this strategy does not sacrifice the open space available for community use throughout other parts of the development.  

The residents from these housing projects stands firmly against the plan. Community groups fear that NYCHA is moving too quickly without addressing tenants’ concerns or following appropriate procedures to redevelop or lease the land.  Requests for Proposals that were scheduled to be sent out this month may be delayed until May as residents fight against NYC’s proposal.

New York City Preserves Public Housing by Leasing Infill Land originally appeared on ArchDaily, the most visited architecture website on 24 Apr 2013.

send to Twitter | Share on Facebook | What do you think about this?

Britain’s New Baseline School Design Sacrifices Style for Savings

Posted on by

Britain’s Education Secretary Michael Gove and the Department for Education have released blueprints for the baseline design for schools that they believe “demonstrate good practice that can be achieved within [a] set cost and area allowances.” The government’s goal is to reduce the cost of new school buildings from the previous £21m to less than £14m each for the replacement of 261 of the most run-down schools in the country.

These new schools, however, will be 15% smaller than the ones designed originally under the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) program, potentially compromising important spaces such as corridors, assembly halls, canteens and atriums. Many teachers have expressed concern for these changes, as they could lead to congestion, bad behavior among students and would “undermine attempts to maximize the value for money of school buildings by making them available for community functions after hours.”

Architects and the architecture community at large are also worried about the design implications of such a standardized school building prototype – how will it interact with the existing school buildings and how could restricted design affect Britain’s educational system?

More after the break…

One of the new templates released by the government reads: “A standardized approach should be taken, with the aim of creating simple designs that have the potential to be replicated on a number of sites. This may be achieved by using standardized dimensions for similar types of spaces that are integrated into an efficient planning and structural grid.”

There are ways of making standardized yet good designs, as The Guardian’s Oliver Wainwright explains in his article on Oscar Niemeyer’s homogenized yet great school blueprints in Brazil. However, many of the new limitations on British schools are not conducive to this and are, frankly, a little ridiculous: no folding internal partitions to subdivide classrooms, no roof terraces that can be used as play areas, no glazed walls or translucent plastic roofs and, perhaps the most extreme, no curves. It’s as if government officials decided to list off and prohibit every architectural element they believed to be costly instead of seeing the design as flexible within a pre-determined budget and without considering each element’s social and educational implications.

The government has made it clear that money is what is at stake here, and they are doing what they can to send a clear message to architects that this program will be a no-frills operation. Gove even told a conference on free schools last year that they would not be hiring ”any award-winning architects to design [the blueprint] because no one in this room is here to make architects richer.”

Many architects, such as Peter Clegg of Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios, feel that the government’s attitude shows an “extreme lack of trust in the architectural and construction professions to deliver schools to budget.” It’s also unclear if it’ll even be possible to apply the prototype to every single situation, as the blueprint claims. Clegg also believes that it’s best to just go the traditional route and evaluate existing schools on a case-by-case basis and then decide where to invest a limited amount of money.

These blueprints also bring up the question of how important a building is to a student’s education. Most can agree that an innovative, state-of-the-art design doesn’t inherently make a school perform well, as with the case of Perry Beeches academy in Birmingham, one of the worst-performing schools in 2007 with one of the priciest designs. But while some believe that the teachers and curriculum are the only things Britain should be focusing on, others have confidence that the learning environment plays a very vital role.

Will these new blueprints stifle not only students but also smart, effective designs and designers that are concerned with more than just saving money? Isn’t it possible to cut down costs without cutting out case-specific architectural choices that will improve and even revolutionize education? Where is the bigger picture and why are Gove and his team excluding those who could arguably best handle the problem?

References: The Guardian (1, 2, 3), The Centre for School Design, RIBA, British Department for Education

Britain's New Baseline School Design Sacrifices Style for Savings originally appeared on ArchDaily, the most visited architecture website on 26 Mar 2013.

send to Twitter | Share on Facebook | What do you think about this?

Britain’s New Baseline School Design Sacrifices Style for Savings

Posted on by

Britain’s Education Secretary Michael Gove and the Department for Education have released blueprints for the baseline design for schools that they believe “demonstrate good practice that can be achieved within [a] set cost and area allowances.” The government’s goal is to reduce the cost of new school buildings from the previous £21m to less than £14m each for the replacement of 261 of the most run-down schools in the country.

These new schools, however, will be 15% smaller than the ones designed originally under the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) program, potentially compromising important spaces such as corridors, assembly halls, canteens and atriums. Many teachers have expressed concern for these changes, as they could lead to congestion, bad behavior among students and would “undermine attempts to maximize the value for money of school buildings by making them available for community functions after hours.”

Architects and the architecture community at large are also worried about the design implications of such a standardized school building prototype – how will it interact with the existing school buildings and how could restricted design affect Britain’s educational system?

More after the break…

One of the new templates released by the government reads: “A standardized approach should be taken, with the aim of creating simple designs that have the potential to be replicated on a number of sites. This may be achieved by using standardized dimensions for similar types of spaces that are integrated into an efficient planning and structural grid.”

There are ways of making standardized yet good designs, as The Guardian’s Oliver Wainwright explains in his article on Oscar Niemeyer’s homogenized yet great school blueprints in Brazil. However, many of the new limitations on British schools are not conducive to this and are, frankly, a little ridiculous: no folding internal partitions to subdivide classrooms, no roof terraces that can be used as play areas, no glazed walls or translucent plastic roofs and, perhaps the most extreme, no curves. It’s as if government officials decided to list off and prohibit every architectural element they believed to be costly instead of seeing the design as flexible within a pre-determined budget and without considering each element’s social and educational implications.

The government has made it clear that money is what is at stake here, and they are doing what they can to send a clear message to architects that this program will be a no-frills operation. Gove even told a conference on free schools last year that they would not be hiring ”any award-winning architects to design [the blueprint] because no one in this room is here to make architects richer.”

Many architects, such as Peter Clegg of Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios, feel that the government’s attitude shows an “extreme lack of trust in the architectural and construction professions to deliver schools to budget.” It’s also unclear if it’ll even be possible to apply the prototype to every single situation, as the blueprint claims. Clegg also believes that it’s best to just go the traditional route and evaluate existing schools on a case-by-case basis and then decide where to invest a limited amount of money.

These blueprints also bring up the question of how important a building is to a student’s education. Most can agree that an innovative, state-of-the-art design doesn’t inherently make a school perform well, as with the case of Perry Beeches academy in Birmingham, one of the worst-performing schools in 2007 with one of the priciest designs. But while some believe that the teachers and curriculum are the only things Britain should be focusing on, others have confidence that the learning environment plays a very vital role.

Will these new blueprints stifle not only students but also smart, effective designs and designers that are concerned with more than just saving money? Isn’t it possible to cut down costs without cutting out case-specific architectural choices that will improve and even revolutionize education? Where is the bigger picture and why are Gove and his team excluding those who could arguably best handle the problem?

References: The Guardian (1, 2, 3), The Centre for School Design, RIBA, British Department for Education

Britain's New Baseline School Design Sacrifices Style for Savings originally appeared on ArchDaily, the most visited architecture website on 26 Mar 2013.

send to Twitter | Share on Facebook | What do you think about this?

Construction of China’s Tallest Building On Hold Due to Concrete Scandal

Posted on by

Scheduled to be the tallest tower in China and the second tallest building in the world by 2015, Kohn Pedersen Fox’s 660-meter-high Ping’an International Finance Center has received a major unexpected set back. Following an industrywide inspection conducted last week, Shenzhen government officials have discovered that a low-quality sea sand has been used by developers to create substandard concrete for KPF’s supertall skyscraper and at least 15 other buildings under construction. 

Although sea sand lures contractors by costing half as much as standard river sand, it contains a deadly mixture of salt and chloride that corrodes steel in concrete and threatens the structural integrity of a building over time. 

According to Bloomberg, Shenzhen’s Housing and Construction Bureau found 31 companies violated industry rules and ordered eight of them to suspend business for one year in the city for using substandard sea sand to make concrete.

via Bloomberg 

Construction of China’s Tallest Building On Hold Due to Concrete Scandal originally appeared on ArchDaily, the most visited architecture website on 21 Mar 2013.

send to Twitter | Share on Facebook | What do you think about this?

Construction of China’s Tallest Building On Hold Due to Concrete Scandal

Posted on by

Scheduled to be the tallest tower in China and the second tallest building in the world by 2015, Kohn Pedersen Fox’s 660-meter-high Ping’an International Finance Center has received a major unexpected set back. Following an industrywide inspection conducted last week, Shenzhen government officials have discovered a low-quality sea sand has been used by developers to create substandard concrete for KPF’s supertall skyscraper and at least 15 other buildings under construction.

Although sea sand lures contractors by costing significantly less than standard river sand, it contains a deadly mixture of salt and chloride that corrodes steel in concrete and threatens the structural integrity of a building over time.

According to Bloomberg, Shenzhen’s Housing and Construction Bureau found 31 companies violated industry rules and ordered eight of them to suspend business for one year in the city for using substandard sea sand to make concrete.

Construction of China’s Tallest Building On Hold Due to Concrete Scandal originally appeared on ArchDaily, the most visited architecture website on 21 Mar 2013.

send to Twitter | Share on Facebook | What do you think about this?

House Bill Proposes to Eliminate Funding for Eisenhower Memorial

Posted on by

The Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial saga continues, as Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) proposed legislation that would forego Frank Gehry’s controversial design and eliminate federal funding. Although Bishop’s radical bill would save $100 million in future funding, it ignores any possibility of compromise.

In response, the AIA stated:

“Representative Bishop’s legislation allows Congress to exercise governmental authority in a wholly arbitrary manner that negates the stated selection process. It is nothing more than an effort to intimidate the innovative thinking for which our profession is recognized at home and around the globe. We intend to vigorously oppose it.”

Since the commission’s selection of Gehry in 2010, opposition has grown exponentially, with strong criticism from Chicago investment manager and philanthropist Richard Driehaus, neo-traditionalist architect Leon Krier, the National Civic Art Society, the Eisenhower granddaughters and many others. Regardless, support for Gehry’s design has also grown, making compromise a seemingly viable option with Gehry admittedly open to change.

With an estimated price tag of $142 million, Gehry’s proposal features a triptych of sculptures and text with “heroic-scale” stone bas relief’s representing Eisenhower as a president, general and “barefoot boy from Kansas”. The sculptures are located within a lush pedestrianized park on the four-acre Eisenhower square, which is framed by a series of 25 meter-tall columns supporting a boarder of woven metal tapestries – one of the most criticized elements of the design.

via Architect Magazine, AIA  

House Bill Proposes to Eliminate Funding for Eisenhower Memorial originally appeared on ArchDaily, the most visited architecture website on 18 Mar 2013.

send to Twitter | Share on Facebook | What do you think about this?