New York Times Building's Sunscreen Removed, Emissions Increased, Thanks To Climber "Fighting Carbon Emissions"
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 07.10.08
David Dunlap, New York Times
When Alain Robert climbed the sunscreen on the New York Times building I wrote:
"the screen was an elegant and creative way for the New York Times to make a graphic expression of environmental concern by wrapping its building in an exterior sunshade like this. Alain Robert may claim to have climbed it for environmental causes, but in fact he has done the environment a huge disservice- it will be a long time before architects put exterior shades on buildings again. Thanks for nothing, Alain." Robert had written that his climb was "a peaceful way to create support for far greater and urgent action from world leaders on global warming. Emissions are still climbing. So am I."
Two copycats later, the New York Times is removing the ceramic tubes. Now the system which cut down the heating load by almost 50% is being removed from the lower portion of the building, directly contributing to the use of more fuel and contributing to global warming. Once again, Thanks for nothing, Alain Robert.
David Dunlap writes in the Times:
The alteration of the facade designed by the Renzo Piano Building Workshop amounted to a very public and visible admission of defeat, at least temporarily. One of the aesthetic and functional elements that had garnered worldwide attention for The Times’s building at 620 Eighth Avenue was being transformed in the name of security.
It was unclear how far the removal would extend: eight feet, nine feet, 10 feet from the canopy that had offered inadvertently easy access to the three climbers who have scaled the tower.
The screens of ceramic rods that float in front of the clear glass curtain wall are in many ways the building’s signature. “The complexity comes from the skin, the surface of the building actually vibrating, working with the weather,” Renzo Piano, the architect, said in 2001. Likening it to a “fabric of ceramic,” he called the screens a “suncoat” — as opposed to a raincoat — that would cut the transmission of light and heat into the interior, thereby permitting the use of clear, rather than tinted, glass. ::New York Times
More on the New York Times Building
Stair of the Week: New York Times Building Sunscreen
Frenchman Uses Spidey-Sense to scale Times building and fight global warming
Architecture Can Make Us Fit
Stair of the Week: New York Times Building
Survey: Was Climbing the Times Building Sending the Right Message ...
I fail to see how this is his fault. I see a suspicious and paranoid news center doing something that HURTS THEM and claims themselves as a victim when all someone did is climb their building, which by the way, Roberts could have easily scaled had it been made of shiny black marbe coated with oil. The guy is a freakin' spider.
Regardless, this is the companies decision, not his, and a poor one at that to make themselves look like they got "hurt".
They did the only sensible thing. Three times in such a short period is a bit too much; it was becoming an invitation. Sounds as if a significant portion of the screen will remain.
Why bother .. just put up a sign saying its dangerous and will kill you .... safe from liability other peoples stupidity is just Darwinism in action.
There are ways to deal with this. Make the fins flexible/breakable so they can't be climbed. And of course, they're only removing them from the bottom, which gets the least sun anyway.
Or put the fins INSIDE.
Let's just look at the facts had he not climbed the shading it would still up. I have a problem with eco activists vigilantes target companies that are making good on promises to change their energy use and approach toward the environment. The only reason this was done was because they are high profile company. Was it really worth the 30 second sound bite at the expense of doing more harm.
Lets focus on solutions rather than just complaining about the problem.
I'm not saying I would have climbed it to try and prove a point, but there is still no reason it had to come down because people were climbing it. What another poster already said, put a sign on it saying it could kill you and it's a really bad idea. All done.
(legally, they don't have to even do that, they were already insured in case of accident and this was placed in such a fashion as to not be a trap or design flaw, it is clearly not the purpose of the slats to climb them so they were already safe, they did it because they don't like people climbing it and they don't want to hire a guard, nuff said)
"Now the system which cut down the heating load by almost 50% is being removed from the lower portion of the building..."
I doubt that the system cut down on the heating load at all (unless it significantly reduced convective heat transfer from the windows). I would believe, however, that it reduced the COOLING load by 50% by reducing solar gain.
LA: you are correct, that is what I meant.
Don't let the alleged concern for the environment fool you in this article. The beneficial effects the ceramic tubes are creating are achievable by other less enticing means. Insulated tinted glass, film, interior shades, etc. Get over it Mr. Architect. The buildings you have been constructing over the years have had a tremendous negative impact on the environment in the name of design and artistic expression. Hang the fact that they are bad for the environment and bad for their inhabitants. As long as your ego has been satisfied that has been good enough. You have forgotten one of the primary rules in architecture: "Form follows function." In this case if it looks like a ladder, some creep will climb it.
Cybercat,
A sign does little to protect the NYT from liability. With the apparent ease with which people are able to climb the building (and the frequency that it is occuring) failing to take action could easily end in a huge judgement against the NYT.
Let's not forget that they may be self insured for the first XX million of their CGL, or that they may not want to pay the attorney to defend them when some idiot falls off the building and injures an innocent third party. Why run the financial risk when the solution is so easy??
They've made the best decision, IMO.
They took down all that when they could have added a little bit of barbed wire on the side. Emissions increased because of closed minded CEO's living in their life of luxury not worrying about a damn thing. Nice biased headline against the peaceful activist. Why not put as a title protesting doesn't do anything so don't bother. This guy should be awarded a metal for taking action instead of being an armchair quarterback, maybe the person who wrote the story is just that!
you know, there should be a thing called the ralph nader awards, for over zealous leftists whose actions end up doing great damage to progressive causes. this guy would def get nominated for one.
They should plant some bamboo to replace the shade from the ceramic tubes, with some claymores and bouncing betties on tripwires to discourage prowlers and lurkers.
Hi, an architect here, and a LEED AP. To Gary Double-Yah- with your enumeration of 'alternatives' that the Times should have taken you describe all the attributes of crappy same-old corporate buildings that the Times building was turning away from. The fact is that reducing heat gain BEFORE the energy (sun) enters the building is cooling that doesn't have to be done- so solar shades work amazingly well, curtains, blinds etc. are after the fact- the energy is IN the building, and has to be taken out- typically with air conditioning. Low-E coatings help, tints help with glare only, not solar gain, and insulating glass doesn't reduce solar gain. Dishing on the Times is weak- half the news articles that are quoted here come from them. Dishing on architects who have consistently challenged the profession to be more sustainable is worse. And it ain't architects' egos that make all those glassy buildings, it is corporate ego, need for office space, and budget. Furthermore and finally, solar shades are a device common in Europe for decades and have been virtually non-existent here in the US, and given the litigiousness here, now less likely to become common, too bad for us all.
The 'news' paper industry is on the way out anyway. They destroy the environment to print up disposable propaganda every day.
That said, they shouldn't be held liable for what fools do. Darwin works in mysterious ways.
It's the Architects' fault. The skin 'AFFORDS' to be climbed. The ladder pattern of rods is an AFFORDANCE for people to interpret it as a ladder and use it to climb.
Had the Architect thought of that and addressed the issue properly, he would have done something else.
DESIGN FLAW
It's the Architects' fault. The skin 'AFFORDS' to be climbed. The ladder pattern of rods is an AFFORDANCE for people to interpret it as a ladder and use it to climb.
Had the Architect thought of that and addressed the issue properly, he would have done something else.
DESIGN FLAW
Lloyd, I think you're being a little harsh. If the building had less glass they wouldn't need the ceramic rods. They're just greenwash
barbed wire? breakable ceramic tubes? come on. get serious. even the security guard -- they have to pay tens of thousands of dollars, plus benefits, for multiple guards on the off chance someone starts to climb ... and then if someone gets about two feet up (which would take about two seconds to do) they can't do jack. what do you think would happen if the security guard tried to pull them down and they got hurt?
just because you want to "think green" doesn't mean you evacuate logic from your brain.
they had to take it down, it's a huge liability issue if they don't. honestly, this is a real non-issue. I'm sure the impact of taking 10-15 feet of the stuff off is not that big a deal.
The article says they are removing the rods from the lower portion of the building.
Its a 50 floor 700 foot tall building!
They only need to remove the rods from bottom floor or two, and this would have a minimal impact on the overall heating / cooling load on the building.
I think this story mainly illustrates that the claim-culture in the US has gotten out of hand. Nor reasonable person would expect the NYT be liable for some idiot endangering himself while trespassing on their building. Still this liability is the reason for removing the shading device.
Seriously... this is American society's fault for allowing a culture of liability lawsuits to dominate decision making.
Rather than assign personal responsibility for people that might climb something dangerous we make our corporations spend millions to protect themselves from billions of dollars of lawsuits.
It seems to me that this article was totally meaningless. NYT got tired of people climbing their building, Alain is probably still doing more good than bad with his spidey-campaigns, and the building is still kept cool with the rods on its upper portion.
*nothing in excess
*shades of gray
*golden mean
something to think about, to both the eco-villains and the treehuggers!
I'm with Nick. This is a design flaw. As much as I love the work of Renzo Piano he should have anticipated that people would try to climb the building and kept the screen at a height to keep it from happening.
Soooo are they just going to throw out the rods they are removing or what??