When is the so called 'green' movment going to mature? Why have air conditioning in seattle in the first place? Why all this hand-waiving, back-patting, and self promotion for something that you shouldn't be doing in the first place? it's like nominating yourself for an award from the humane society for NOT kicking your dog.
these types of articles do more harm for advancing green principles than good. these architects look like idiots here: take for instance the last photgraph in the article. It features the architects who "look out the window of a building that will be torn down to build their "passive cooling" office." TEAR DOWN THE MASONRY BUILDING TO THROW UP THEIR SLOCK BUILDING THAT WILL LAST 30-40 YEARS AND CONSUME ORDER OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER EMBODIED ENERGY THAN THE ORIGNIAL BUILDING? W.T.F? i thought all those sad 'sustainable architecture' books started with an apolyptic chapter on the amount of building material waste in landfills?
if you wnat to integrate, roadly, the principles of susttainability into practice and construction, you cannot do these littel deomstartion projects that thinly layer a green principle or two onto an otherwise mediocre building with otherwise mediocre green strategies and pat yourself on the back wiht the typical amount hand-waiving excercieses in liberal guilt? it is not about saving the planet for all you evangelical green zealots. it is simply common sense not to use air conditioning in seattle. and that is what the LEED and other green-motivated architects need: mor common sense and less pathetic hand waiving.
i agree wholeheartedly! "green architecture" can mean using techniques they used just 50 years ago because they did not have AC. we congratulate those just because they have relearned to position a building, install windows, shade the west side, etc.
but what this does show is what a client really wants when it comes to building a building using these principles is cheaper operating costs. so as the green movement when in the 70s we are just worried about lowering HVAC costs. the hard sell is still materials that reduce the impact on the earth...
so the natural question is do we continue to celebrate baby steps or blast them for having a client who does want an environmentally friendly building and we stop short of really an real impact??
i think we have given too much lip service to architects who have the opportunity but stop SO short!
I agree as well, you have a point, but i think Raj also makes a good point "do we continue to celbrate baby steps"
unfortunately i think you do have to continue to celbrate baby steps. the more celebration given to small, perhaps sometimes meaningless or figurehead projects promoting sustainable architecture, the more aware the public will become. and the public are our future clients, so i dont see the harm. the existing culture is not concerned with sustainability in architecture, and that can not change over night.
it takes baby steps... its frustrating, but its the way it is i guess...
until fuel prices get so outrageous people cant afford them... they are gonna want air conditioning...
hell...
chrysler is set to release 5 new suv's over the next few years, no hybrids... just good old, gas guzzlin, high profit margin, world ruining, SUV's... cause we got at least 25 years of affordable oil left... right? or was it 15? hmmmmm
i had a client who was amazed when i explained the venturi principle to them: that they could actually cool their house without AC using a windworker (props to glenn murcutt). but i was amazed, too, when i found out. this IS one area where we can rightfully and properly educate the public. so many of us can't mentally comprehend a building without AC that this, indeed, is a big step.
the only time i've ever been to seattle it was june and 60 degrees. how in god's name can you possibly need AC? i know, i know, how can we need heat down here in TX when "cold" is 45 degrees...
ok...guys i know you are just not thinking about it...but a building (i.e. office building) with quite a number of people with the amount of latent heat (people, lights etc.) will require many buildings in the coldest climate to still operate the AC in the winter!
come on guys...remember your silly HVAC classes in school before you go on about how a building in seattle doesn't need AC. we aren't just talking about a house!
right-o in that a typical office building with a deep plate and lots of fluorescent lighting and a glass curtain wall and lots of people will need to be AC'd even in greenland.
wrong-o in that what i am saying (and others) is that if the typical office building in seattle needs AC -- then we should not be building the typical office building in seattle -- the wonderment is that it has taken us this long to figure it out.
i was obsessed with putting the blinds down each night on the east side of the SOM chicago office b/c otherwise each winter morning so much heat was trapped that we had to turn the thermostat down to 55 in order to keep from falling asleep.
My question on that silly design is that there isn't much in way of inducing air movement. Hot air does rise, but you really don't want it to burn everyone on its way up.
I've done a few low and high budget green projects, and i must say that the building in seattle doesn't look like it has all its ducks in the right order.
Nice however to see eco-friendly work getting air time. Bad that is a poor example.
either you consent to the Organized Irresponsibility of architectural practice or your refuse to accept that a building with a couple operable windows, some anemic shading, and no presure differential for realizable bouyancy of hot air (in this case) is worth mentioning aas archietcture. (by the way, the architects are the clients and occupants of that new building-so much for demonstrating its 'cross ventilation' to other clients.)
baby steps into more Organized Irresponsibilty doesn't help. either your content and you consent or you refuse to consent.
I've gotta agree w/ Raj on this one. Most large bldgs, even in Seattle, are in 'cooling mode' more often than not. BTW, Seattle ain't like Chicago, or Siberia.
Just because they ARE being air conditioned doesn't mean they SHOULD be air conditioned. My building manager seems to think that because we are in LA, we should run the AC year-round. Now I'm sorry, but the people in my office are FROZEN year-round because of this attitude. People go so far overboard with the AC- it's supposed to increase comfort, not turn your workers into popsicles. I agree that I don't see any need for AC in Seattle. If a building there needs AC, then an architect has probably done something wrong.
Sorry, I wish we had an edit button so that I could add without being a post-whore. But what do you guys think would happen if the default setting for your office's AC was 'Off' instead of set to some pre-determined idea of supposedly ideal comfort, and only turned on when people in the office were actually uncomfortable?
Building a green office building in Seattle without AC means doing a lot of other non-architectural things - getting rid of laser printers & copiers, using notebooks instead of desktops, etc. Many city blocks don't allow for a narrow floor plate of the kind normally associated with passive cooling.
Janosh: Excuse my ignorance, please: do you mean laptop computers instead of desktop computers? Or writing things down on notebooks with paper instead of any computer?
some of the ranting above is more petulant than useful. it is absolutely ok to do such here, but why not write a letter to the editor and copy THAT here instead (like with the grosse pointe library). i think most architects understand the issue and are happy to join in with the incredulity and anger, but that don't get much done....
thing is, reno of old buildings is not always economically feasible. i know because i have been trying to do it here in tokyo and more often than not we end up having to spend so much on the infrastructural upgrades to convert a useage that in the end it is cheaper to just build new. since our investors are not interested in losing money we tend not to follow those projects through.
economics and inertia of past practices are not insurmountable obstacles, but the idea that something is de facto bad on ideological grounds is very dangerous way to approach any issue....and i think especially the issue of sustainability. we cannot afford to be ideologues if we want to provoke or sustain change of this nature. else we will come off as a group of paternalistic assholes who are not capable of doing things in the real world...
so if an office building has computers and lots of staff who cause overheating of spaces and requiring AC even in winter, well the solution really has got to be something better than "you should have kept the original building", or "why is there an AC in this building at all?. those aren't solutions, they are an ideology....
so what SHOULD we do? More insight like Old Fogey's would be very interesting to read...
I was talking about power consumption of laptops versus desktops. Laptops are across the board more efficient and the heat produced by these beasts is purely a function of power usage...
Rule of thumb values for energy usage (the amount turned into light should be the same for both computer and laptop).
Desktop LCD Monitor: 45W
Desktop Computer: 55W
versus an equivalent Laptop: 25W
Even the new top of the line Macbook only has an 85W adaptor.
Laser printers and copiers use enormous amounts of energy, and similarly create a lot of heat. 900W is typical for a desk model. A small floor standing model could be double that. The enormous copier in HR can heat your house.
But whatever. The point was that in order to intelligently design a passively cooled skyscraper, you should also attempt to remove or replace machines that create unnecessary heat loads.
what I want to see is someone run a separate DC solar panel system for the computers. computers are all DC power anyway, and running them off AC you burn abount 20% of the power (which all goes to heat) just in the conversion.
I priced it out a couple years ago...running my home system off solar would have cost about the same as the computer (few grand). But there's probably some economies of scale for a large company with a big array.
"Seattle architects to design passive-cooled office building"
When is the so called 'green' movment going to mature? Why have air conditioning in seattle in the first place? Why all this hand-waiving, back-patting, and self promotion for something that you shouldn't be doing in the first place? it's like nominating yourself for an award from the humane society for NOT kicking your dog.
these types of articles do more harm for advancing green principles than good. these architects look like idiots here: take for instance the last photgraph in the article. It features the architects who "look out the window of a building that will be torn down to build their "passive cooling" office." TEAR DOWN THE MASONRY BUILDING TO THROW UP THEIR SLOCK BUILDING THAT WILL LAST 30-40 YEARS AND CONSUME ORDER OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER EMBODIED ENERGY THAN THE ORIGNIAL BUILDING? W.T.F? i thought all those sad 'sustainable architecture' books started with an apolyptic chapter on the amount of building material waste in landfills?
if you wnat to integrate, roadly, the principles of susttainability into practice and construction, you cannot do these littel deomstartion projects that thinly layer a green principle or two onto an otherwise mediocre building with otherwise mediocre green strategies and pat yourself on the back wiht the typical amount hand-waiving excercieses in liberal guilt? it is not about saving the planet for all you evangelical green zealots. it is simply common sense not to use air conditioning in seattle. and that is what the LEED and other green-motivated architects need: mor common sense and less pathetic hand waiving.
great rant...
i agree wholeheartedly! "green architecture" can mean using techniques they used just 50 years ago because they did not have AC. we congratulate those just because they have relearned to position a building, install windows, shade the west side, etc.
but what this does show is what a client really wants when it comes to building a building using these principles is cheaper operating costs. so as the green movement when in the 70s we are just worried about lowering HVAC costs. the hard sell is still materials that reduce the impact on the earth...
so the natural question is do we continue to celebrate baby steps or blast them for having a client who does want an environmentally friendly building and we stop short of really an real impact??
i think we have given too much lip service to architects who have the opportunity but stop SO short!
I agree as well, you have a point, but i think Raj also makes a good point "do we continue to celbrate baby steps"
unfortunately i think you do have to continue to celbrate baby steps. the more celebration given to small, perhaps sometimes meaningless or figurehead projects promoting sustainable architecture, the more aware the public will become. and the public are our future clients, so i dont see the harm. the existing culture is not concerned with sustainability in architecture, and that can not change over night.
it takes baby steps... its frustrating, but its the way it is i guess...
until fuel prices get so outrageous people cant afford them... they are gonna want air conditioning...
hell...
chrysler is set to release 5 new suv's over the next few years, no hybrids... just good old, gas guzzlin, high profit margin, world ruining, SUV's... cause we got at least 25 years of affordable oil left... right? or was it 15? hmmmmm
i had a client who was amazed when i explained the venturi principle to them: that they could actually cool their house without AC using a windworker (props to glenn murcutt). but i was amazed, too, when i found out. this IS one area where we can rightfully and properly educate the public. so many of us can't mentally comprehend a building without AC that this, indeed, is a big step.
the only time i've ever been to seattle it was june and 60 degrees. how in god's name can you possibly need AC? i know, i know, how can we need heat down here in TX when "cold" is 45 degrees...
ok...guys i know you are just not thinking about it...but a building (i.e. office building) with quite a number of people with the amount of latent heat (people, lights etc.) will require many buildings in the coldest climate to still operate the AC in the winter!
come on guys...remember your silly HVAC classes in school before you go on about how a building in seattle doesn't need AC. we aren't just talking about a house!
right-o and wrong-o.
right-o in that a typical office building with a deep plate and lots of fluorescent lighting and a glass curtain wall and lots of people will need to be AC'd even in greenland.
wrong-o in that what i am saying (and others) is that if the typical office building in seattle needs AC -- then we should not be building the typical office building in seattle -- the wonderment is that it has taken us this long to figure it out.
i was obsessed with putting the blinds down each night on the east side of the SOM chicago office b/c otherwise each winter morning so much heat was trapped that we had to turn the thermostat down to 55 in order to keep from falling asleep.
now this is a good green debate.
My question on that silly design is that there isn't much in way of inducing air movement. Hot air does rise, but you really don't want it to burn everyone on its way up.
I've done a few low and high budget green projects, and i must say that the building in seattle doesn't look like it has all its ducks in the right order.
Nice however to see eco-friendly work getting air time. Bad that is a poor example.
Baby steps?
either you consent to the Organized Irresponsibility of architectural practice or your refuse to accept that a building with a couple operable windows, some anemic shading, and no presure differential for realizable bouyancy of hot air (in this case) is worth mentioning aas archietcture. (by the way, the architects are the clients and occupants of that new building-so much for demonstrating its 'cross ventilation' to other clients.)
baby steps into more Organized Irresponsibilty doesn't help. either your content and you consent or you refuse to consent.
we can do better. we can pratice more deeply.
green is the new black
I've gotta agree w/ Raj on this one. Most large bldgs, even in Seattle, are in 'cooling mode' more often than not. BTW, Seattle ain't like Chicago, or Siberia.
Just because they ARE being air conditioned doesn't mean they SHOULD be air conditioned. My building manager seems to think that because we are in LA, we should run the AC year-round. Now I'm sorry, but the people in my office are FROZEN year-round because of this attitude. People go so far overboard with the AC- it's supposed to increase comfort, not turn your workers into popsicles. I agree that I don't see any need for AC in Seattle. If a building there needs AC, then an architect has probably done something wrong.
Sorry, I wish we had an edit button so that I could add without being a post-whore. But what do you guys think would happen if the default setting for your office's AC was 'Off' instead of set to some pre-determined idea of supposedly ideal comfort, and only turned on when people in the office were actually uncomfortable?
not to mention it's weber/thompson,
...talking about designing more buildings in seattle... this is bad enough
Building a green office building in Seattle without AC means doing a lot of other non-architectural things - getting rid of laser printers & copiers, using notebooks instead of desktops, etc. Many city blocks don't allow for a narrow floor plate of the kind normally associated with passive cooling.
Janosh: Excuse my ignorance, please: do you mean laptop computers instead of desktop computers? Or writing things down on notebooks with paper instead of any computer?
naw lb I think he's saying what you fear/suspect that you couldn't have copy machines or laptops which quite frankly is a load of pull
todays temperature was 29C - our house only has air con in the master bedroom - laptop & desktop run just fine
yes most machines can get damaged under extreme temperatures but to say you must have ac is completely false....sorry
Thanks architechno - I'm just idly wondering if there is a significant power usage/heat exhaust difference between a laptop and a desktop.
I think I'm now going to have to insist on that edit tool for posts "load of pull" what the...
that should be bull
that sounds an intelligent start. Old Fogey.
some of the ranting above is more petulant than useful. it is absolutely ok to do such here, but why not write a letter to the editor and copy THAT here instead (like with the grosse pointe library). i think most architects understand the issue and are happy to join in with the incredulity and anger, but that don't get much done....
thing is, reno of old buildings is not always economically feasible. i know because i have been trying to do it here in tokyo and more often than not we end up having to spend so much on the infrastructural upgrades to convert a useage that in the end it is cheaper to just build new. since our investors are not interested in losing money we tend not to follow those projects through.
economics and inertia of past practices are not insurmountable obstacles, but the idea that something is de facto bad on ideological grounds is very dangerous way to approach any issue....and i think especially the issue of sustainability. we cannot afford to be ideologues if we want to provoke or sustain change of this nature. else we will come off as a group of paternalistic assholes who are not capable of doing things in the real world...
so if an office building has computers and lots of staff who cause overheating of spaces and requiring AC even in winter, well the solution really has got to be something better than "you should have kept the original building", or "why is there an AC in this building at all?. those aren't solutions, they are an ideology....
so what SHOULD we do? More insight like Old Fogey's would be very interesting to read...
I was talking about power consumption of laptops versus desktops. Laptops are across the board more efficient and the heat produced by these beasts is purely a function of power usage...
Rule of thumb values for energy usage (the amount turned into light should be the same for both computer and laptop).
Desktop LCD Monitor: 45W
Desktop Computer: 55W
versus an equivalent Laptop: 25W
Even the new top of the line Macbook only has an 85W adaptor.
Laser printers and copiers use enormous amounts of energy, and similarly create a lot of heat. 900W is typical for a desk model. A small floor standing model could be double that. The enormous copier in HR can heat your house.
But whatever. The point was that in order to intelligently design a passively cooled skyscraper, you should also attempt to remove or replace machines that create unnecessary heat loads.
what I want to see is someone run a separate DC solar panel system for the computers. computers are all DC power anyway, and running them off AC you burn abount 20% of the power (which all goes to heat) just in the conversion.
I priced it out a couple years ago...running my home system off solar would have cost about the same as the computer (few grand). But there's probably some economies of scale for a large company with a big array.
Thanks Janosh. I *thought* that was what you meant but wasn't sure. It's good info to have.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.