
By James Way
Last week Mark, Jessica and I hit the opening for the National Design Triennial: Why Design Now? at the Cooper-Hewitt. Definitely an A-list crowd (including Craig Dykers and Stefan Sagmeister), and a crowd it was. Not only was it shoulder to shoulder at the bar, but also in the foyer, in the garden, and in the exhibits, which sadly I could not peruse as closely as I’d have liked. But, it’s on view until January.
The problem with triennials is that by the time they occur most of the work has been over-publicized to death. For example, Snøhetta’s National Opera House: fantastic design, but I’ve seen the same model and renderings in every publication and every major design exhibit since the Van Alen’s OPEN exhibition in 2003. Thankfully, Kieran Timberlake includes a full-size detail for their Loblolly House. Many are either socially or ecologically sensitive, thereby reinforcing the museum’s agenda and design paradigm, a worthy one at that. Even the more aesthetic-driven designs frequently rely on using a minimum of materials, especially products from Muji-sponsored designers or nearly the entire “Materials” section. Meanwhile, product design adheres more closely to a social agenda: clean drinking water, prosthetics, and universal design.
A few designs pop up throughout that baffled me by their inclusion, either by their design merit or by the curatorial categories, which thematically divide the exhibition into: Energy, Mobility, Community, Materials, Prosperity, Health, Communication, and Simplicity. There should have been a “Whimsy” category for objects selected merely for their aesthetics or form. However, traditional disciplines tend to dominate the organization: architecture, product design, graphic design, materials, furniture, with the occasional mix-and-match. Regardless, plenty of inspiring examples occupy every room. Some intriguing textiles and product design did indeed beckon me back on a quieter occasion. My favorite objects, however, are a tie between the Book LED Floor Lamp (Simplicity) a book-shaped LED lamp with a unified shade and rheostat and the Return to Sender Eco-Casket (Simplicity) a bio-degradable light wood coffin. One now and one later.
And, yes, the exhibit answers its own question.
Co-authored by Bruce Fowle and Ilana Judah
Last December, New York City passed the legislative component of its landmark Greener, Greater Buildings Plan to improve energy efficiency in large existing buildings and, by 2030, to reduce the city’s greenhouse gas 30% below 2005 levels. The Plan prioritizes five key areas, four of which fall within the building sector. The targeted incentives aim to curb demand among the city’s largest energy consumers—buildings.
With almost one million buildings totaling 5.2 billion square feet emitting 80% of citywide greenhouse gas emissions, addressing building energy consumption provides the greatest opportunity to achieve these greenhouse gas reduction goals. The initiative, while not the city’s first, intends greater impact. Existing legislation targets new construction, which constitutes a fraction of potential measures. 85% of energy use in 2030 is projected to come from buildings existing today. Addressing existing buildings is critical.
The content of the four bills follows:
1. New York City Energy Code – Previously, the Energy Conservation Construction Code of New York State only applied when an alteration led to the replacement of at least fifty percent of a building’s system or subsystem. This loophole has been eliminated. All upgrades must meet the energy code.
2. Lighting Upgrades and Sub-metering – As non-residential lighting is responsible for 18% of carbon emissions from buildings, non-residential buildings over 50,000 square feet will be required to upgrade their interior and exterior lighting fixtures, controls and wiring to meet the new energy code by January 1, 2025. Each floor or tenant space over 10,000 square feet must have a sub-meter (or meters,) with monthly statements of electricity consumption provided to each tenant.
3. Benchmarking – Buildings over 50,000 square feet and city buildings over 10,000 square feet will be required to benchmark their annual energy consumption using the EPA’s Benchmarking Tool, as well as benchmark water usage. Individual dwelling units are exempt from reporting this data, though common spaces must be included. The benchmarking information will be made public and compare statistics in several indices.
4. Audits and Retro-commissioning – Buildings over 50,000 square feet will be required to perform an ASHRAE level II energy audit by a certified energy auditor on all base building systems every 10 years, and file an energy efficiency report. In addition, all existing base building systems must be retro-commissioned to ensure optimal efficiency.

Source: Mckinsey Analysis
The complete article appears in Interraction
Last Friday, I stopped by the latest exhibition presented by The Architecture League, The City We Imagined. I mainly went to check out the photographs of the city taken by those fortunate enough to have their pictures selected out of what was surely a LARGE pool. One of FXFOWLE’s own, Coe Will made the cut with eight of her photos on view. Wandering around the perimeter of the show, which summarized and exhibited The City We Imagined “sustainably” with cardboard tubes and boards forming the display walls, I found the collages of photos fun to take in. I recognized the majority of places and discovered some new spaces in what was essentially a speed tour of the city I live in but don’t always see.

My favorite board was themed with a collage of patterns, textures and shapes from buildings and structures throughout the city—an image of the latest Nouvel building (100 11th Avenue) next to the Frank Gehry IAC building. However, I found myself most excited about the center ring of the exhibit which chronicled the City We Imagined by a visual timeline of proposals, news headlines, project milestones and completed structures. Maybe it was the wine and the fun company, but reviewing the last 10 years of design and construction in the city caused me to look back on the city that I have gotten to know and love. Some of the built projects were early fantasy design competitions when I was finishing school (such as the TKTS booth in Times Square). Others faded with the recession or loom in the future, like the Barclays Arena. The city certainly has changed a lot over the years and it was satisfying to see that compressed into a digestible nugget. A must-see to reflect on the city we live in.
The City We Imagined/The City We Made
On view until June 26, 2010
Recently, I returned from a trip to Asia, where I spoke at the 2010 Think Green Global Forum, an international sustainability conference. Supported by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and co-organized by the New York Institute of Technology and the Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunication, the two-day forum explored sustainability challenges and solutions to drive changes in energy practices that will benefit China and the world-at-large.
I spoke about FXFOWLE’s award-winning City Regenerative Plan for the Nordhavnen Peninsula in Copenhagen and designing the sustainable city for the 21st century (see illustrations). My talk, “Copenhagen and Beyond,” was published in World Architecture News and further explores the project’s exploration of connecting to existing urban infrastructure, integrating open space, and developing commercial and residential networks. (www.worldarchitecturenews.com)
Part of my trip included visiting India where the School of Architecture and Planning at Anna University in Chennai invited me to speak to. I gave a second talk to the Indian Institute of Architects (IIA) in Bangalore. My lecture “Top Down/Bottom Up: Architects and Public Policy” focused on the historic role of architects in urban planning and defining public policy in America; it also examined planning trends in the 21st century and innovative planning projects in response to these trends. I spoke about the need for design leadership, the necessity to address political and economic interests, as well as the opportunity to define a sustainable vision in response to planning issues and concerns.
The talk also emphasized the importance of cities from a sustainable perspective and that high densities and large scales are appropriate when accompanied by transit and integration of world-class public open space. One can’t divorce sustainability from urbanism. Integrated thinking is not just a process for designing sustainable buildings; it can also create truly sustainable cities.
I found that this talk had special interest in India where many developers are abandoning the urban centers to focus development efforts on former agricultural sites on the periphery. As illustrated by a cartoon that appeared in an issue of Times of India the day after my talk in Bangalore – it might be easier to shift the city to a place without traffic rather than trying to control and regulate the city traffic. Everywhere I went massive developments were sprawling into the countryside and as a consequence, the congestion already pervasive in urban cores throughout India is getting worse because most of the peripheral sites are only accessible by automobile.

"Times of India," Tuesday April 13, 2010
In both Chennai and Bangalore, the discussion was the same: Architects in India need to become more engaged in policy issues. Public officials and planning regulators must become more appreciative of good design and sound planning. The only way that such objectives can be realized is if architects and public officials engage in a dialogue with each other. It was interesting to me that such issues are not just an American concern. They resonate around the world.