Counting Down to a Green New York

This could have been an informative article. However, the reporter chose to leave out specific regulations and codes stipulated in the numerous bills he cites (Perhaps there were none). How could a developer, landlord or co-op board ever know how to budget for, design or retrofit their buildings and attempt to guess what the next lunatic 'greenhouse-gas-emission-carbon-footprint' regulation coming out of the City Council will be? Hopefully, a future article will mention specific building codes and deadlines and provide some guidance, so that tenants, apartment owners and shareholders can get a better idea of what their out-of-pocket costs will in the City Council's effort to 'save the planet.'

I just recently moved to NYC and let me tell you it's just amazing! I've been in the city many times before traveling for work but never had a chance to explore it and see different pieces making up that breathtaking puzzle at the end. Even though I like urban Downtown buildings a lot, I would still prefer to live somewhere more green. Any suggestions? Does anyone have a great Manhattan broker recommendation? That would help a lot.

As a Non-New Yorker, I doubt the ability of the Republican-Democratic WASPish-Judaic cabal of the city administrators to make New York really green within three decades.

Truly green starts with great design. Orientation and sitting are fundamental. Having solar panels is a form of class signaling.......

I have tried to install solar panels on my roof for years but keep getting thwarted by Landmarks because they’d be slightly visible, only from certain angles, from the street. How shortsighted! (No pun intended) But seriously, NYC is going nowhere until it reconciles it’s competing and often contradictory laws and requirements. Another perfect example is these new rent laws. How are building owners going to recoup the value of things like better windows, more insulation and solar arrays when they are capped at $15k in capital improvements, which can only be recouped over the course of 15 years?!?

These are all laudable developments - though it should be noted that LEED certification is relatively easy to game, and this being New York, I expect that to be the norm. But if we're really going to be serious about drastically cutting down the city's emissions, we're ignoring the biggest culprit: private vehicle emissions. But no present local politician has the will to do so - especially not our mayor who is driven 12 miles to the gym on a daily basis in a gas-guzzling SUV. Bloomberg might have done something about it - he was clearly someone who took climate seriously - but I don't see anyone waiting in the wings who would spend their capital to reduce private vehicles in the city.

'These and other features added about 5 percent to the construction costs, Mr. Namer said, but could ultimately reduce utility bills by 20 to 50 percent.' 5% increase in construction cost is a lot more that utility bills being reduced by 20-50% and the time value of money. If everyone reduces their utility bills by 20-50% the utility companies will be asking for rate hikes because of reduced energy used. I know; this happened me (in the MidWest) as we started to use less energy. The same thing will happen with car licenses and tire taxes as more electric cars use less gasoline.

The main downfall of this intention is what to do with existing buildings. Many were built with no insulation on the exterior walls except perhaps for an air space between the inner and outer masonry. Roofs often had no insulation, though this can be added when the roof is changed. Most building abandoned their dreadful casement windows that leaked air, rain, and snow, for modern double hung, double glazed, units when the city offered a tax rebate some years. This was so successful that the vast majority of window companies went out of business for lack of work when this period was over. I suppose it might be possible to "wrap" buildings in insulated paneling, hopefully something better than that used at Grenfell Towers in London. I am sure an aluminum Park Ave. would be a striking sight. Boilers do not last forever, and like refrigerators and AC, newer units are more efficient. However, changing the heating system as from steam to more controllable hydronic would likely cost more than a building is worth. There is a solar map on the web from CUNY showing how much solar panels could generate for each building in the city. I looked up my 6 story building that would require a 6 foot clear perimeter and walkways to fire escapes on the roof, and the payback time given was 15-20 years. Do panels even last that long?

While middle income coops like mine will spends millions to make our buildings greener, the City abrogated their responsibility by excluding public housing and hospitals (including those run by the City) from the Climate Mobilization Act. Climate Change is the equivalent of the efforts during WW II, when everyone did their part. New York politicians are not doing theirs by excluding municipal run structures.

Reducing the energy demand of large buildings, and indeed all buildings, in New York City is only going to happen when every resident becomes involved and demands it from their management company. . The cost of retrofitting to reduce use 20% which involves simple changes, can be recouped in 5 years in lower energy bills. Further reduction will involve greening the electric grid. Residents can advocate that Con Ed becomes more aggressive in incentivizing the build out of utility scale wind and solar. Right now, they are barely complying with the weak state clean energy standards. They will not change unless residents demand it, as has happened in Westchester.

It’s all well and good to promote green building practices, but they must be seen in context: New Yorkers emit significantly less than the average American because of the efficiencies that come with transit oriented density. It would be great to see some Times coverage of ways NYC could bring more people into the city to participate in our low(er) carbon lifestyle, and also of the ways that NYC can combat inefficient land use patterns. Upzoning, anyone?

Silly story. It starts out with big grandiose statements about how the skyline of New York will change, then gets bogged down in individual projects that together don't add up to much. What happened to my skyline? I reached the end of the story without a clue on how the skyline is going to change. All these individual projects mentioned are already there, aren't they? That doesn't change the skyline, does it? Lousy editing. Also, all you green writers & editors pls note: LEED has long been ridiculed by carbon counters because it's possible to amass enough points for a LEED certification without ever addressing your energy use. You can earn points by putting in bike racks and other such superficial changes, enough points to win you a LEED certification. But such changes don't even touch your CO2 emissions. Basic LEED certification can be won without doing anything meaningful on carbon.

Let's start by getting rid of the Comptroller Scott Stringers SUV. He can take the subway like everyone else.

This saving the planet biz in reality will further create two classes of people. Those who will be taxed and regulated in the interest of green theory and those who because of wealth and leverage will be unregulated and tax exempt. I don't even dispute that there is a problem that needs addressing. If the war economy and war makers are allowed to continue, all of this is so much empty rhetoric. So much of this is self-congratulation like the fantasy of feel good "carbon offsets".

The law that requires large reductions in carbon emission for large buildings is not really a Green New Deal law because it probably will lead to homelessness especially among the elderly on fixed income. Low- and middle-income coops are especially vulnerable to the financial consequences of this simplistic law. The Green New Deal envisions carbon reduction and social progress (not regress). Will those who are enthusiastic about large reductions in building carbon emissions take in the people who suddenly will not be able to afford their apartments? It's a question analogous to whether those opposed to abortion will care for the babies born unwanted and to mothers unable to care for them.

The green building laws are a total joke as long as the new rent laws are on the books. The entire NYC housing market is on the verge of collapse, but the writer of this article doesn't have a clue. Totally amazing! 90% of NYC real estate investors are leaving NYC. This article Is complete bunk.

I am really disappointed in the City's apparent ineptitude in showing the way on solar! The city owns a large number of buildings with substantial, often flat roof space that has little or no shading from neighboring buildings or trees. I often pass the building downtown at 100 Gold Street - home of the City's DHCR. A full square block of flat roof space, and just one of many. Those roofs, the total area of which is many millions of square feet, are ideal for the installation and economic operation of solar panels. As the City is both the key regulatory body and the landlord of these buildings, this could be done expeditiously, and serve as effective proof of concept. Lastly, using these roofs would generate the most (non-polluting) electricity when we need it the most - on hot, sunny Summer days! As the song by Elvis says: A little less conversation, a little more action please! So, how about it, New York City - Council and Mayor?

Most people think of solar first when they think of how best to start making buildings green. This is incorrect. Reducing the building’s energy demand is the place to start. Get it down by 60%, 80% or more. THEN think about how much solar you need (solar has a footprint of its own, in the form of materials needed, esp precious metals, and no one know what to do with them yet at the end of their useful life). My wife and I reduced the energy demand of our home by 85%. Heating bills for most homes of our size and type of construction (1865 brick townhouse) in our area are $500 to $700 per month. Ours was $530 for the entire five months from Nov 1 to March 31. We have started a business doing this with vintage historic homes - a particular challenge - in the Hudson Valley. See dwellstead.com

I am really disappointed in the City's apparent ineptitude in showing the way on solar! The city owns a large number of buildings with substantial, often flat roof space that has little or no shading from neighboring buildings or trees. I often pass the building downtown at 100 Gold Street - home of the City's DHCR. A full square block of flat roof space, and just one of many. Those roofs, the total area of which is many millions of square feet, are ideal for the installation and economic operation of solar panels. As the City is both the key regulatory body and the landlord of these buildings, this could be done expeditiously, and serve as effective proof of concept. Lastly, using these roofs would generate the most (non-polluting) electricity when we need it the most - on hot, sunny Summer days! As the song by Elvis says: A little less conversation, a little more action please! So, how about it, New York City - Council and Mayor?

Most people think of solar first when they think of how best to start making buildings green. This is incorrect. Reducing the building’s energy demand is the place to start. Get it down by 60%, 80% or more. THEN think about how much solar you need (solar has a footprint of its own, in the form of materials needed, esp precious metals, and no one know what to do with them yet at the end of their useful life). My wife and I reduced the energy demand of our home by 85%. Heating bills for most homes of our size and type of construction (1865 brick townhouse) in our area are $500 to $700 per month. Ours was $530 for the entire five months from Nov 1 to March 31. We have started a business doing this with vintage historic homes - a particular challenge - in the Hudson Valley. See dwellstead.com

We need to keep in mind that New York City's buildings, even its older ones, inherently are much more energy efficient because they have fewer exterior walls through which energy can escape. The reason that New York City's buildings have such a disproportionate share of carbon emissions is because New Yorkers comparatively pollute so little for transportation because of their use of mass transit. In fact, New York State ranks virtually last in per capita residential energy use (https://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/) and would be dead last if but for the rest of the state. New York City, by virtue of its density, transportation system and large buildings is in and of itself part of the solution to global warming. It is the rest of the country that needs to really shape up.

A very important subject! And that made me wonder why this article is not also prominently featured in the Times's "New York" and "Climate" sections, at least online. I'd appreciate a response - thanks!

If 'building green' or 'retro-fitting green' made financial sense, every profit-seeking owner (99% of owners) would do so. Obviously that is not happening. It is simply too expensive (thank you author for dismissing the fantasy 2-5% cost increase and providing a truer 10% figure), and not economically justified. The 'government subsidies and loans' (taxpayer money) are well-intentioned, but let's be honest about the effects (more taxes, more expensive housing, less affordability, more inequality). There is no free lunch. There is no free carbon-minimizing widget. Someone always pays. Championing green initiatives and decrying the city's lack of affordability is disingenuous, but will win politicians lots of votes. Especially when the proposed solutions are 30 years away, and the unintended consequence will be someone else's problem. My solution: make energy extremely expensive. It is of course a regressive tax and extremely unpopular. People just want easy solutions I guess.

This article suggests that goal of staying under 1.5C or close to that is realistically out of reach and that reaching 4C this century and perhaps higher still seems highly probable given the track we are on. But even if we fail to stay under 1.5C or 2C the effort to do so is worth it as 3C is much worse than 2C and 4C is much worse than 3C, etc. In all likelihood goals of emissions reductions will not be achieved but they are important to get people motivated and organized. Retrofitting housing is one of the biggest obstacles to success. And there are others such as converting to electric vehicles, reducing emissions of ships and planes, reducing emissions in agriculture and in certain industrial processes such as making cement and steel. New York City produces only a very small percentage of the world's emissions but it can act as a leader. It is very influential on the surrounding suburbs which produce more emissions in aggregate than NYC and can also influence cities and countries around the world.

How about turning rooftops into gardens as well as for solar panels? The plants absorb the CO2 and produce food to eat as well.

Two years ago the De Blasio administration increased the legally required night time temperature in apartments 7 degrees, from 55 to 62. In the small low income co-op where I live the yearly increase in fuel costs is nearly $10,000. That's a double digit percentage increase. AS a result our little building is putting out a double digit increase in CO2 emissions.People in my building complain the heat is too hot. Windows are open during the winter. Houseplants are dying. The boiler is kicking on and sending up steam practically all night. In the winter I used to sleep with a fleece blanket over a light blanket. Now I'm sleeping with only a light blanket, even during the Polar Vortex! It's not healthy. Lips are chapped in the morning. Everybody is gonna pay except the oil and gas companies. Landlords will be going to the Rent Stabilization Board asking for big rent increases because of the additional heating fuel costs. This well intentioned, but misguided law should be reconsidered and with public debate. It was 55 degrees at night seemly forever, and New York was fine.

"2050" is pure ideology. There's no way NYC can be carbon neutral in 30 years. Wall Street will block it at all costs.

How much space in those luxury tax dodge apartments are heated and cooled with no one in them 90% of the time? What NYC needs is a very stiff tax on owned but unoccupied residential space.

With affordable housing already a crisis, who pays the massive costs of retrofitting buildings? Many old buildings would be cheaper to tear down and build new than trying to retrofit. Construction produces a lot of carbon too, not to mention massive amounts of waste. I see this as our biggest challenge in fighting climate change. Far more challenging than switching from gas to electric vehicles.

We need to initiate a glass or view tax on the square inches of glass used above the sixth story if it is attempting to capture views. This should be done not just to tax oligarchy, but to provide an additional deterrent to these glass ecological disasters that developers love to build.

When I was a kid in the 1940's, my apartment building in upper Manhattan had awnings on all south-facing windows; the super installed them in spring and removed them for cleaning and repair in fall. Small metal brackets were built into the brickwork around the windows. Old photographs show that before air conditioning awnings were very common in Manhattan. Now many buildings built with energy efficiency in mind have window shading as part of the structure. In summer, when the sun is high, it shades the windows; in winter, when it's low, it lets the radiation reach them. I'm surprised that the designs shown in this article lack such structures.

Educating drivers about how idling their engines contributes to air pollution and global warming might encourage them to turn off their engines. Pass anti -idling laws and put up signs listing fines for offenses. Cars idle for up to 2 hours waiting for alternate side of the street parking. 2050 is too long to wait. Climate change is here now.

Not soon enough.

Retrofitting all six-story and up apartment buildings with solar panels and requiring all new buildings to have them -- or reinforce and grass over the roofs -- would go a long way towards decreasing energy costs. And more trees. Wonder whether that idiot in Windsor Terrace, who wrote in these pages about his indignation in regard to a tree the City planted, actually did poison and remove it. I see two houses on Prospect Park Southwest, near Bartel-Pritchard Square, that have new sidewalks. Good way to disguise the empty pit where the new, young tree stood.

Wait... Buildings both green and affordable...? Might there be a Democrat in the local administration?

There are many ways for New York to go solar. Not all of them need to be grand. For example: Solar panels come in several sizes. Some are small and portable and others are large and permanent. Some come in ‘folding briefcases’ that can be expanded.G And if you have one or more panels, you’ll need a battery to store this energy. Batteries can be large and immobile or very small. (See Rockpals, Goal Zero, and Jackery on Amazon). New Yorkers can hang their panels in their apartments on a sunny window. Charge a portable battery or charge a series of phones directly because some panels have 5v USB ports. Take portable panels to the park and spread them out to listen to music. New York is perfect for electric bikes. Even small, folding electric bikes that can be carried inside and up stairs. Recharge your electric bike battery from your solar panels. Got an electric scooter? They’re a blast. Got a ‘one-wheel’? How about an electric skateboard? These all have lithium-ion batteries. They all need charging. Check out electrek.co for solar news, mostly Tesla. Want to do it yourself? Check out DYI Solar Power by Micah Toll. He also has a book about building lithium batteries, if you’re so inclined. Do you drive daily? The Nissan Leaf, Tesla Model 3, and others are excellent. The Leaf can be charged at home with a simple 240/220v connection. Even a 110v household plug works but takes a long time. NY, what are you waiting for?

As usual City government has legislated before analyzing the impact of its legislation. Remember when all the building had to give up oil and to to natural gas? Now it would appear that developers want all the buildings to come down so that they can make more money by building for “luxury” ....not a green alternative. Demolition is an ecological disaster but hey the developers want it done sooooo.

Several new NYC buildings have black masonry surfaces which absorb more solar heat in the summer and radiate more heat in the winter. They are highly inefficient energy users. Their construction must be prohibited

These new laws and policies are well intentioned, but they are poorly thought out, and seem likely to do far more harm than good. A major problem with NYC’s Climate Mobilization Act are the onerous requirements for retrofitting existing buildings, including housing, to improve energy efficiency. It sounds like a good idea, but it is notoriously expensive to implement, the $4 billion is likely a gross underestimate. Renovation of older buildings is very expensive in NYC, particularly given costs such as asbestos abatement. Coupled with NYC’s new rent control legislation, the effect will be to dramatically increase housing costs in NYC. State energy policy is a bigger concern, and there is a good chance NYC will suffer major electricity shortages in the near future. Gov. Cuomo may the understandable decision to close Indian Point, which supplies a quarter of NYC’s electricity. The problem is the environmental movement has blocked other energy projects, including the Storm King Mountain pumped storage in the 1970’s, and natural gas pipelines in recent months. Natural gas generation was planned to replace Indian Point, but there is now a gas shortage in the NYC region, and it takes years to build a pipeline. A dense city like NYC is not well suited to solar and wind power. Energy efficiency and renewable power are good things. But you can’t get something for nothing, and well intentioned but poorly conceived policies are usually not a good idea..

It’s going to be easy to be green in 2050 because only really rich people will be able to afford to live in NYC under the “green” bureaucracy that is envisioned. Meanwhile, the middle class will migrate to states that are reasonably green and therefore affordable. The reasonably green cities and States will use a mix of fossil fuels and alternative fuels to stay warm/cool and will, by using innovative ways to burn natural gas and coal and oil more cleanly, create an even more reasonably green place for the non-wealthy to live.

Individual house solar panels are still too expensive and complicated for the average homeowner. The process and cost need to be streamlined and subsidized until it is basically an off-the-shelf commodity no-brained. Right now, it isn’t even close. Get to work people (people of NY and NYC government - people whose salaries we pay and who work for us)!

Solar energy is, of course, a no-brainer. However, power companies and their rates are regulated by the State's Public Service Commission. By law power companies are entitled to a certain rate of return as profit. If enough people go solar the power companies will be permitted to increase rates so as to make up for lost profit due to lagging sales and we, the public, will all pay more for the power that we purchase. All of which fuels, (pardon the pun), an argument for a government takeover of power companies so as to negate the profit motive.

How can Sendero Verde be called a passive house project, when you can see adjacent sides of the building with similar amounts of glazing, and when there is no external window shading? This just shows that the term has become fashionable, but has lost all real meaning. The article mentions solar arrays - in other words active solar, not passive.