RedhookGreen

Movin On Up to Redhook!

noreply@blogger.com (Jay Amato) — Fri, 24 May 2013 19:56:00 +0000

Big changes coming to Red Hook, it appears that the enormous warehouse at 160 Imlay Street will be converted to luxury apartments. As you may remember 162 (next door) was converted to an art warehouse a few years ago.

160 Imlay Now

The building, which was slated to be developed during the boom years, before litigation by local residents held it up, has received a variance to become a mixed-use building. The very zoning I seek eight blocks away in order to build my structure.

It is rumored that prices will range from $1,200 to $1,500 USD per square foot making it the priciest loft development in Brooklyn and clearly meeting or beating some of downtown Manhattan's most aggressive pricing.

Do you think this will change the face of retail on Van Brunt? Maybe there is hope for my project after all.

From buzzfeednews.com

We’ve uncovered more intel on 160 Imlay Street, the will-they-or-won’t-they Red Hook warehouse conversion.

Architects Adjmi & Andreoli are revamping the vacant former warehouse of the New York Dock Company and posted the above exterior rendering to their site. A rep at the Adjmi & Andreoli office told us that there will be 70 residential units at the six-story, mixed-use development.

The developer is Est4te Four, according to permits filed with the Department of Buildings on March 28th. Floors one and two will be commercial, while floors three through six will be 134,000 square feet of apartments. The existing concrete warehouse has 12- to 16-foot ceilings and large open windows, which the developer will be taking full advantage of: ”Due to the significant ceiling heights of the property, the apartments will be loft-style and high-end for the area,” says the Est4te Four site.

We spotted this overhead rendering from Est4te Four, and we really hope that rooftop pool is happening:

Also in the ‘hood, Est4te Four is in the process of transforming an empty, aging warehouse at 202 Coffey Street into a “global hub for creativity, contemporary art galleries, fashion, design and events.” So basically, we’re going from derelict to derelicte.

Tags: 160 Imlay Street, Adjmi & Andreoli, ESTATE FOUR, Red Hook - Brooklyn

Jerry Seinfeld visits Redhook

noreply@blogger.com (Jay Amato) — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:43:00 +0000

Watch Comedians In Cars Getting Coffee, I Hear Downton Abbey is Pretty Good...,

A hilarious series that has found it's way to Fort Defiance in Redhook! A bit of comedy is always helpful at a time like this in NYC.

Red Hook’s Zoning Battle: Housing versus Industry

noreply@blogger.com (Jay Amato) — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 15:24:00 +0000

Today's Brooklyn Ink. featured a very interesting article from a young journalist, Lea Khayata. For a few months she patiently examined the labyrinth, that is Redhook's zoning issues. This article is a good overview of what I think is a huge opportunity in Redhook as well as many other areas in New York. Love to hear your thoughts about this issue. Happy 2011!

Wed, Dec 29, 2010

By Lea Khayata.

Department of City Planning zoning of Red Hook.
(Credit: The Manhattan Institute)

Jay Amato thought he had it all planned. He was going to build his own house on a piece of land he bought at the corner of Van Brunt and Conover streets in Red Hook, Brooklyn. But the city rejected his construction permit for not complying with the zoning requirements. Amato’s property is zoned M (manufacturing). His construction plan called for workshops and offices on the ground floor of the building, with his apartment on top of it. But the residential part of the building was considered too important to comply with the requirements of an M zone.

Amato’s struggle is one of many identical fights over zoning in the neighborhood, a battle that has been going on for years. In 1961, the city zoned the five boroughs for the first time and designated almost all of Red Hook for manufacturing.

Historically, it had always been a mixed-use neighborhood with factories and houses standing side by side. Coffey Street, for example, is zoned manufacturing even though one side of the block between Ferris and Conover streets is lined with 19^th century brick houses.

But manufacturing has been on the decline in the area for decades and the demand for housing is growing in the city, leading to a growing movement to revitalize Red Hook around a core of new housing. The advocates in the community and allies like the conservative Manhattan Institute for Policy Research are pushing for rezoning to convert the M zones to residential or MX (mixed-use).

Part of the community has been advocating for decades for more housing as the key to redevelopment of the neighborhood and their voices are getting stronger. The Red Hook Civic Association paired with local businesses and proposed a plan with guidelines for developing the area around the creating of 2,600 housing units.

During the first half of the twentieth century, maritime industry was thriving in Red Hook. The Erie Basin was a major shipping hub and the Atlantic Dock Company was the most important employer in the neighborhood. Longshoremen would live in Red Hook and walk to work every day.

Containerization in the 1950’s ended Red Hook’s status as a major harbor. Big shipping companies preferred to move their business to New Jersey’s larger harbor. The land on the waterfront was abandoned and seized by the city, which undertook major reconstruction projects, demolishing some warehouses and renovating others. Maritime workers left the neighborhood, unable to find a job.

The neighborhood then went through a dark period plagued with crime and drug. New Yorkers didn’t go there, it was considered too dangerous.

In the last twenty years, Red Hook has undergone a revitalization process. Local businesses have flourished on Van Brunt Street, from restaurants to clothing shops, and the number of people moving to Red Hook is increasing every day. People come to the waterfront during the weekend, whether by car, by bike or by ferry. They go to the Ikea and the Fairway supermarket, which both opened in 2004, visit the farmer’s market and enjoy the sun on Valentino Pier, watching the fishermen set their lines on the dock facing the Statue of Liberty.

Despite this renewed interest, Red Hook’s population is still only half of the 20,000 people who lived there in the 60s.

“It means that Red Hook has the infrastructure to accommodate a much more bigger population.” says Mitchell Korbey, an urban planner and land use attorney in New York City and a former director of the Department of City Planning’s Brooklyn office.

The movement to redevelop Red Hook around the twin pillars of rezoning and new housing began in 1994 with Plan Red Hook.

Red Hook, a Plan for Revitalization, identified guidelines to turn Red Hook into a dynamic neighborhood where light industry and mixed-income housing could cohabit harmoniously.

In addition to the extra 2,600 housing units, the plan identified thirteen blocks on Van Brunt Street down to the waterfront to be rezoned from manufacture to mixed-use, precisely to reach this balance between housing and industry. The plan only enunciates recommendations in the hope that they will be followed when decisions concerning the neighborhood will have to be taken by the City or the Community Board. The City approved a lighter version of the plan in 1996, but it isn’t binding in any way.

For example, only a portion of those thirteen blocks was rezoned in 2004 as a private zone change. It belonged to Greg O’Connell, Red Hook’s biggest landowner. He was consequently able to turn the Civil War era warehouse he bought into a Fairway supermarket, adding rental housing units on top of the building. A member of the Community Board, O’Connell first opposed the plan advocating for this area to be rezoned.

One of the main arguments in favor of keeping zoning as it is in Red Hook is that there is still some unused land in the residential zone and that no change should be made before this space is occupied. Tom Angotti, an urban planning professor at Hunter’s college who worked on the plan, refutes that idea: “It’s strictly a market approach. It’s logical from a short planned point of view but if the Department of City Planning were real planners, they would see beyond that to what is needed for Red Hook’s future.”

For John McGettrick, a member of the Red Hook Civic Association, the math is simple: “More housing means more workers for the area, and more customers for local businesses.” It also means replacing industry with houses, and raising the value of the land, if one takes the other point of view on the question.

Officially, the Department of City Planning keeps an “open door policy” to any zone change request. But Red Hook’s waterfront has been identified as an Industrial Business Zone (IBZ). According to the mayor’s office website, “the IBZs represent areas in which the City provides expanded assistance services to industrial firms in partnership with local development groups. In addition, IBZs reflect a commitment by the City not to support the re-zoning of industrial land for residential use within these areas.”

Manufacture is not dead in Red Hook. “It is certainly changing, and niche manufacturing, particularly in the food industry and design, is still on the rise. “ says Southwest Brooklyn Industrial Development Corporation (SBIDC) executive director, Josh Keller. Those activities are compatible with M zonings, and even protected by them, because the zoning designation ensures low rents. If it was to be switched to MX zoning, the price of rent would rise and small manufacturing businesses might get pushed out by commerce or housing.

Jay Amato, the unlucky owner of the corner of Van Brunt and Conover Streets, thinks his construction permit was rejected to avoid “setting an example” in the neighborhood. According to him, a lot of people expressed interest in his project and in reproducing it in Red Hook.

Amato didn’t want to build just one more building in Red Hook. He wanted to build a house that wouldn’t consume any energy, a project he labeled “Red Hook Green”. Renewable technologies were to provide the house with the energy it needed, making it completely independent from the traditional energy suppliers.

Amato has been blogging about it for a little more than a year, and now considers attracting too much attention on the project might have been a mistake after all. He is considering going for a variance – an appeal that would take between one and two years and cost him as much as $100,000 in various fees, with no guarantee of succeeding. It would allow him to build his house despite the zoning, a process many people decide to go through in the neighborhood to get around the zoning issue.

But some disagree with this strategy. Greg O’Connell, who built the Fairway and owns more than 80 properties in Red Hook considers zoning in Red Hook as the chance to keep it as a balanced neighborhood. “People want to live here. I can understand why and there’s nothing wrong with that. But the small business owners are happy here and it’s productive for them. If you lose the working waterfront, if you give it up to residential development, you never get it back.” said O’Connell to the Center for an Urban Future in 2005.

The zoning issue is at the heart of Red Hook’s future. Keeping the dominant M zoning on the waterfront would preserve and supposedly bring back industries to the neighborhood, a prospect about which there is much skepticism among developers like Amato.

“It’s like waiting for Santa Claus to come,” he says.

On the other hand, allowing for more residential zoning has its own risks. It would bring more people to Red Hook, but some fear the threat of high-rise building being erected on the waterfront and pushing away manufactures.

For Mitchell Korbey, Red Hook is a very complicated area, with a lot of history and undergoing changes. “It is hard to strike the right balance."

Down, but not OUT!

noreply@blogger.com (Jay Amato) — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 03:28:00 +0000

Over the past month we have been regrouping, reexamining where we are, and looking at various strategies to keep the dream of Redhook Green alive. Luckily there has been a huge out pouring of creative ideas, support, and advice in response to my last post “Buyer Beware”. I have gotten emails from city officials (confidentially of course), architects, lawyers, real estate developers, members of the Redhook community, and readers from as far away as Australia, all overwhelmingly supporting the project and offering their views and expert advice to help me find a way to align my building with the City of New York’s plans, policies and procedures.

Of all of the various emails I’ve received, the most interesting were from other neighborhood leaders, communities and towns (some out of NYS) asking me to consider changing my venue from Redhook to another that would embrace my vision and support it in many ways that Brooklyn has been unwilling or unable to, some including offers of land grants and tax subsidies. Did you hear that Mr. Brooklyn Borough President? All I was looking for were some permits. My enthusiasm has been routed in not simply creating a building, but one that could serve as a proof of concept for a net zero energy structure in an urban setting.

Redhook Winery

One of the key issues facing me is that much of Redhook has been designated an Industrial Business Zone (IBZ) by Mayor Bloomberg. The Mayor’s Office of Industrial and Manufacturing Businesses website says “These areas foster high-performing business districts by creating competitive advantages over locating in areas outside of New York City”. Sounds great, I run a business, where do I sign? But they went on to say “The IBZs represent areas in which the City provides expanded assistance services to industrial firms in partnership with local development groups. In addition, IBZs reflect a commitment by the City not to support the re-zoning of industrial land for residential use within these areas.” What about mixed use? Why wouldn’t that work? Interestingly, my land is on the very edge of the Redhook Industrial Business Zone, not sure why it begins there, since much of my block is and has been residential for decades.

I love NYC and I fully support Mayor Bloomberg’s vision for it, but I think we should consider expanding the definition of “modern” manufacturing. Redhook, like many of the other 16 IBZ’s are already experiencing what I would consider a renaissance in manufacturing. I am not speaking of the kind of manufacturing that once called NYC home, but of the new and highly specialized “manufacturing” such as software/web development companies, wineries, boutique distilleries, coffee roasters, bakers, furniture makers, and jewelry designers just to name a few. The city has developed an impressive plan to attract business “Protecting and Growing New York City’s Industrial Job Base” but I think that a modern live/work strategy should be able to fit into this vision.

Interestingly, at the same time the city published it’s plans for attracting new business, a New York based think tank, The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, disagreed with the City’s premise in it’s report “Up From the Ruins: Why Rezoning New York City’s Manufacturing Areas for Housing Makes Sense”, it said that “Because New York City has space for 500,000 more manufacturing jobs than actually exist, we propose to rezone some of this manufacturing space for housing and for mixed use. By rezoning the five areas suggested in this report, the city would increase its tax revenues, raise its employment rate, and substantially alleviate its long-standing housing crisis.” One of those areas pointed out was Redhook.

I say lets all just get along! One of things that I love about Redhook is the true “mixed use” nature of the area. I want to clarify that I am not asking someone in the city to allow me to break or change a rule, but rather exercise the discretion they have on the narrow interpretation of that rule so I can build something good for Redhook, for NYC and myself. I have not given up, I believe there is a way to make this happen.

Keep those emails coming, I love hearing your thoughts and ideas.

Buyer Beware

noreply@blogger.com (Jay Amato) — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 04:44:00 +0000

As of yesterday, my dream of building the first net Zero-Energy work live building in Brooklyn seems to be officially DEAD! Thanks in part to the never ending bureaucracy and stale thinking at the NYC Department of Buildings. I think its best for us to go back to the beginning of this project to understand the roots of my current predicament.

On November 10th of last year, in my post “How To Become A Land Owner”, I discussed the land situation in Brooklyn, specifically as it refers to zoning . There are three general classifications of zoning here in NYC: C=Commercial M=Manufacturing and R=Residential . Since I was planning on devoting a large percentage of space to garages, a workshop and offices, it seemed I could justify building on manufacturing or commercially zoned land. Actually, I later discovered another classification MX=Mixed Use, which would actually have been perfect for my use as it was precisely design for the I envisioned. While life would have clearly been simpler if I could have purchased a plot that was designated “R” or "MX", nothing that met my need was available on a corner (optimal for solar power). I was advised that given my particular use, I could make an “M” zoned plot work. What that means is that given the majority of my structure was to be dedicated to commercial use, the living quarters would be an ‘accessory’ to the true function of the building. Therefore we would request the building department grant us permission to live in what would is called a “caretakers apartment”, which would be incidental to it’s primary use. Jim Garrison assured me on the advice of a former NYC Building Commissioner and “a careful and correct reading of the zoning law”, that this was very common and would “sail through the building department” without incidence.

So on November 16th, 2009 I posted “It’s A Deal” announcing my purchase of a 5,000 square foot plot of land, zoned M2-1 in Redhook, Brooklyn and began developing plans confident that I would be allowed to use the land to realize my dream. We filed the permits and with them a ZR § 12-10 (“Accessory use”) request (July 21st), continuing to believe that we were doing something great for the community, building a state of the high performance, energy conserving building in the place of an weed infested lot. Beyond that I was clearly and regularly communicating our dreams, ideas, progress and even actual plans to the community and beyond through this blog.

After two months, I received an email from Garrison Architects with an update “Our expeditor has just received word that the "reconsideration for caretakers apt" review has been performed by the borough commissioner. This was a review required in addition to the general documentation”. Days later I was advised that “The Brooklyn Borough Commissioner denied the caretakers request. As expressed by the expeditor, reasons for refusal are “bogus”. A resolution (basically an appeal, see link) form has been drafted to present to a higher power. It clearly lists all restrictions and how our building complies. This will be submitted first thing Monday morning to technical affairs”. It looked like we had crossed all the t's and dotted all the i's.

That brings us to where I am today (basically screwed)! After a telephone hearing last week, the all knowing, politically charged and narrowly minded men and women of the NYC building department capriciously determined “that the proposed living or sleeping accommodations for caretakers in this case is not incidental to the principal use”. To quote James P. Colgate; Assistant Commissioner of Technical Affairs and Code Development “ The request to have a living or sleeping accommodation for caretakers as per ZR 12-10 as an accessory use to this new office building is DENIED.”

How can they say that, when a former commission basically said it was usual and customary? What is it that these underpaid public servants could possibly be protecting the “unsuspecting” public from in this case? It seems like the DOB no longer exists for the individual, but only for the largest developers and their deep pocket political contributions. I wish I could let our Mayor (who thankfully does not need those deep pockets) know that a prime example of his green vision PLANYC 2030, died on the table of HIS Building Department. If this bothers you, please HELP! I am running out of ideas.

The only options left to me as I see them are:

Build a green office building - It’s too small and off the beaten path to make a sound business case for such a structure in the next few years.
Apply for a zoning variance - 60 to 100K in professional services expenses, one year and no guaranty that it will be successful.
Walk

None of these seem particularly appealing. Any thoughts, ideas, recommendations, contacts or kind words of encouragement would be appreciated. I will think about this a bit and keep you posted on my progress.

Oh, by the way, we did figure out a way to build it very close to budget, but alas that seems to be a bit of a moot point. More later.

Jay

ZRD1: Zoning Resolution Determination Form

Alive and Kicking

noreply@blogger.com (Jay Amato) — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 20:25:00 +0000

Over the last four months I have attempted many times to compose a post that accurately portrayed the status of this project, my frustration with it, and my associated state of mind. But I just couldn't find the words, as shit seemed to be coming at me from all directions. To my friends, neighbors in Redhook, supporters and readers, we are still alive and kicking, even though I feel like the featured "kickee"!

Since my last post we have encountered many delays, clearly it’s almost October and we have not dug up a spoon of soil. Those delays were primarily in three areas, but none will be huge surprises to any of you. First, was Garrison Architects completing the final construction drawings, with the not so surprising realization that this is one complicated building, finalizing all of the moving pieces was much, much more time consuming than ever imagined. Next the NYC permitting process (need I say more), not simply at the city level, but also with what is ironically named the “expeditor”, which in total was was slower than even anticipated (or communicated to me). And finally we recently received the “knock out punch”, when we requested final pricing from a few qualified construction teams, only to find out that given the complexity of the building, so goes the price. OK, I guess I should have figured that one out on my own!

Jim Garrison and his team have done an amazing job, integrating design, technology and function into this fabulous net zero energy building! But given the uncharted nature of we set out to accomplish in an urban setting (new building processes, materials, energy creation just to name a few), it is no wonder that the timeline has stretched to the point of breaking (my sanity and budget that is).

Completed plans to the Department of Buildings, originally projected to be submitted by December of 2009, did not arrive there until late July for many reasons. One that deserves special mentioned is the “expeditor”. That is a person that is alleged to assist the architect and developer in reviewing the plans and making sure they are ready for submission to the Department of Buildings, in order to obtain the various permits required to build in the City of New York. Given the “supposed” knowledge of the intricate workings of the DOB, they are to shepherd the project throughout the entire process. They claim to insure that our package does not get “stuck” anywhere within those intricacies and are well paid for it. Well months later, we technically don’t HAVE permits, or very much good usable information, even though the list of issues raised by the DOB were microscopic as compared to the complexity of the project. In my humble opinion, our expeditor (write me if you want to know who to avoid) has been a drag on this project and is a prime contender along with our mechanical engineers for “REDHOOK GREEN TEAM LAGGER*” (*defined as to fail to keep up a pace; straggle). In almost every case they have not never met a date they could not miss or follow-up they could not avoid. I am paying for all of this, so I am entitled to my opinions :)

The last and most devastating blow during these last four months was in the construction pricing. In late August, three reputable and qualified general contractors were paired with the same caliber of steel modular builders to bid the complete project(see construction drawings). In mid-May one of those teams, provided us with a rough estimate for the project that came in at 125% of budget (aargh). At that point I was comforted by the fact that no real competitive bidding was done amongst the trades and the real bidding process between GC’s was yet to begin. So it seemed that the budget was still do able. Well, on August 23rd, this all came crashing down, as the bids came in from 150% (that was from our May estimator) to 280% of budget (sadly, this one came from my out of town underdog team that I was really rooting for)! HOLY SHIT. Where did we go wrong? Did this spell the end of Redhook Green? There was no way I was going to raise the budget, so what to do?

Jim assured me that he would stand behind his commitment to build me a great house at the agreed to budget, even if he needed to go back to the drawing board and redesign the house. So at post time, it seems like a full re-design won’t be necessary as Jim and his team have extensively rebid various trades, reviewed materials and are working hard to get the home back to budget. In my next post I will review some of the changes proposed and where we see our next steps.

With this blogs one year anniversary around the corner, I will be getting more prolific and will discuss lessons learned and whether I'd do this again if I knew what I know now. Stay tuned.

Jay

P.S. Check out the recent press posting and CNN story!

One Step Back, Two Steps Forward

noreply@blogger.com (Jay Amato) — Thu, 06 May 2010 02:26:00 +0000

Let me put your minds at ease, I have not abandoned this blog or my project. I started to write this post many times over the last month, but most were unproductive diatribes on those responsible for our delays. While we are 60+ days behind schedule, I actually am impressed when I look back and realize this all started with an idea on July 20th, 2009 (check out "Looking in the Rear View Mirror at 90MPH" for more historical detail), that equates to just a little over nine months to where we are today.

Since my last post we have completed the mechanical design, including a new solar power/HVAC system (third one is a charm, more in a future post) closed the land deal and completed all drawings and applications for the NYC Department of Buildings. It is our hope that given the level of detail and adherence to zoning and code, we will obtain our permits in 45-60 days. We will keep our fingers crossed.

Here are a few detailed drawing submitted this week, they are from over thirty submitted.

This weekend, Garrison Archtects will be showing at the 8th annual BKLYN DESIGNS™ show, which will be held May 7 – 9, 2010, at St. Ann’s Warehouse, 38 Water Street in DUMBO, Brooklyn. They will be featuring the designs and technology of Redhook Green, hope to see you there.

Thanks again for your interest. Jay

Cutting vs. Bleeding Edge?

noreply@blogger.com (Jay Amato) — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:13:00 +0000

Well here we are nearly a month since my last post. So what's going on? Well, as they say the devil is in the details, and we have been finalizing lots of the details on the energy generation, HVAC and construction of this amazing building. Good news is the design is locked, and I have included some new images, a cross section and 3-D visualization of assembly and views of the house. But there has been a lot of back and fourth on the final energy generation plan and associated HVAC system. You may remember from and earlier post "Getting to Zero" we were wrestling with how to generate enough power for the main building, garage including electric car charger and workshop with the 850 feet of we had for solar panels. Well the solution that I described that utilized the PVT or Hybrid Solar Panels, seemed at that point to fit my "Keep it simple"mantra, but after a great deal of investigation, much of it dealing with a German manufacturer, it became much more complex and expensive.

While wrestling with what was technically elegant, and very "bleeding edge", we stumbled on a great solution from Sanyo to increase our solar yield from a more traditional, but "Cutting Edge" solution. Sanyo's HIT® bifacial solar panels capture additional ambient or scattered sunlight to produce more power at any angle and any direction than single sided panels, therefore addressing our yield issues. If you notice on the cross section drawing the solar panels are now lifted off the roof to allow abient light to be captured as well as under the awning over the fourth floor. With this solution in hand we SHOULD be able to lock this part of the plan and go to press with the final drawings for the NYC Building Department.

We have gotten some very preliminary numbers back from one of our possible builders and we are within our planned budget, so that is good news. So while we are now behind an additional 30 days, we should be able to pick up the time and get back on schedule. Thank you for you continued interest, I will be posting more regularly as we move out of this more cerebral phase, into the more action oriented one (my favorite).

Take a minute and review this new 3-D rendering, it illustrates the modular assembly as well as 360 degree views of the structure.

Redhook Green On The Road

noreply@blogger.com (Jay Amato) — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 21:43:00 +0000

Interest in zero energy construction is building all over the country and with it interest in Redhook Green.

Garrison Architects and I will be presenting the Redhook Green Project at the 9th annual Architectural Digest Home Design Show at Pier 92 (55th street at the West Side Highway, NYC) starting March Friday March 18th through the Sunday March 21st from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. We will be presenting new graphical and model representations of the building designs and systems. We will have samples of some of the materials planned to be utilized and additional information from manufactures. The team involved will be on hand to answer questions. We expect the show to really begin to have a sustainable/green focus.

Running concurrently to the Home Design Show (same admission) will be the Go Green Expo, the nation’s leading eco-friendly trade and consumer showcase. Uncover new ways to live and work in a greener world through expert panel presentations and 250 + exhibits in areas such as energy, transportation, food, health & beauty, home & building, business& electronics and fashion. Hope to see you there.

Jay

Breaking Radio Silence

noreply@blogger.com (Jay Amato) — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:42:00 +0000

Sorry about the increased time between postings, we had been waiting for additional feedback from the team before we presented you with these two views of the finalized design. Changes have been made to respond to suggestions from the structural and mechanical engineers, to simplify construction, reduce cost and generally hone the design.

Some specific changes you may notice include:

We decided to open the second floor south wall to expose the steel substructure and sheath it in translucent glass to provide overall protection, shading and privacy. Our thermal modeling showed that it would not change the temperature balance in the heat or cold, so we thought it looked great and it added to the consistency between the second and fourth floors.

The fourth floor canopy was modified to allow the overall design to provide a more symmetric relationship with the lower structure and simplify the construction process. Instead of having a separate canopy (as provided in earlier drawings) to fabricate and install separately, it will now be integrated as part of the modular structure.

The schematic diagram below is the visualization of the power generation and HVAC system I described in my post "getting to zero" a few weeks ago. While it might look like a plate of spaghetti, this diagram actually has been simplified to leverage the combination PV/thermal solar collectors to provide electrical power to the POWER TO LOAD (better know as the house) and hot water to the thermal storage tank. That hot water will be used to heat and cool (via the absorption chiller) the house with fans blowing over the coils. A small electric powered boiler and demand hot water heater will provide backup.

Last night I presented the vision for Redhook Green as well as these renderings to a group of my new neighbors in Redhook at the The Redhook Economic Development Association meeting. Steve LaMorte, a RHED board member wrote me today, "As you can see, there is a good deal of interest coming from the neighborhood for your respective projects (the other being the Beautiful Earth Group). There's a palpable level of excitement that is growing around the changing face of Red Hook. We believe your projects are going a long way in helping us define the new identity of Red Hook and we're hopeful that they will aid in galvanizing other like-minded environmentally conscious entrepreneurs to also find a home in this very special and unique neighborhood." I am glad to be part of this great community!

Moving The Ball Up The Hill

noreply@blogger.com (Jay Amato) — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 13:40:00 +0000

After a great review meeting with Jim Garrison and his team , it seems as if we are in the final weeks of the design and documentation phase of the project, that includes final plans for the mechanical (including the solar component), electrical, plumbing and structural components of the plan. This rendering illustrates the evolution of the design, including the the windows, the use of wood and exterior finishes.

As we continue to move the ball up the hill, this is the rough timeline for us to reach the "top":

Complete design development	now - 2/15
Obtain preliminary costing	3/1
NYC Building Depart Submission	3/15
Foundation/First Floor Construction	5/15 - 8/1
Module (floors 2-4) Fabrication	5/15 - 8/1
Set Modules on Foundation/First Floor	8/1 - 8/3
Interior/Exterior Finishing	8/3 - 10/1
Certificate of Occupancy/Move - In	10/1

As we look back, the current timeline has us about sixty days behind our original thinking. The complexity of balancing conservation/generation with design has driven many iterations of the design, but at this point it seems all elements are in check. I am so excited about how this is progressing, what do you think, love to hear from you with thoughts and questions.

BTW, check out new coverage from Metro's International Edition "Adding To It's Appeal" an article about our role in Red Hook's evolution.

Getting to Zero

noreply@blogger.com (Jay Amato) — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 23:05:00 +0000

As promised we have gotten back the results of the thermal modeling from our mechanical engineers, which was a simulation designed to test our energy conservation and generation assumptions.

The great news is that Jim and his team have designed a very efficient "high performance envelope", basically put roofs, ceilings, walls, windows, doors, external floors and soffits are components of the building "envelope". A high performance envelope means that each component is designed to minimize the transfer of thermal energy which in turn creates an energy efficient or "tight" building. That is very important since we first want to conserve or minimize the amount of heating and cooling required to make the building comfortable which in turn reduces the amount of energy that we need produce to cover those requirements, while meeting our objective of NET ZERO.

But in order to provide addition energy savings we are investigating a new technology for the interior walls and ceilings in the house, called "Phase-Change Wallboard". Phase-change materials (PCMs), usually a paraffin that can be embedded in gypsum (wall) board, form a class of building material that functions as a storage medium. Materials undergoing a phase change (freezing, melting, condensing, or boiling) store and release large amounts of heat with small changes in temperature. PCMs offer an order of magnitude increase in heat capacity, and for pure substances they discharge their heat with almost no change in temperature. This is extremely cool (in the great sense, not the cold sense) because it allows the thermal storage of our building to become part of the building's structure, permitting substantial energy storage without changing the temperature of the building. Because the heat is stored within the building where the loads occur rather than externally, additional fans or other air movement is not required.

The real challenge came when we looked at the other side of this coin, energy generation. As you may remember from our December 29th post, the roof area was redesigned to accommodate the solar PV array, providing about 850 square feet of usable space. The simulation indicates on a conservative basis that while the area on the roof would be sufficient to power the main building, it would not provide the necessary KW's to provide any heating or cooling for the garages and workshop, any equipment usage (i.e. power tools) or electric vehicle charging stations. So it's back to the drawing board for us to find about a 25% increase in renewable power generation.

Since the heating/cooling and power generation are joined at the hip, we needed to revisit the entire process to get those gains that we need to get to NET ZERO. So this morning we met with our team of mechanical engineers Imtiaz Mulla and David Goldstein of Plus Group Consulting Engineering to revisit our current plans. What a great education I got today.

Our options seem to be:

1. Re-design roof to accommodate 25% more PV panels.

2. Re-design the entire building, to create additional higher elevation roof space, much like "Option 1", in our original designs.
3. Evaluate the addition of wind turbines to supplement the PV's

4. Evaluate the addition of a geothermal heating system to reduce the heat generation and therefore the load on the solar output.

5. Evaluate other heat collection options to reduce the heat generation and therefore the load on the solar output.

The team decided:

Option 1: No way to ascetically add that much more area to the roof without "disfiguring" the building. - NO

Option 2: While definitely possible, I rejected a previous design that "spread" the building across the lot more evenly. We all love the design and don't want to re-think it again, not to mention the delay and cost associated. -NO

Option 3: This weekend, I feel in love with the idea of supplementing the PV's with wind turbines, there are some very cool ones out (check out this one from Helix Wind, it's functional sculpture). But as in many love affairs it fizzled fast, it seems that while advertised performance of this technology in small applications look great, the actual output has been less than promising. BuildingGreen.com has a great article on wind that presents the pro's and con's of wind. - NO

Option 4: While geothermal technology has been implemented successfully across the world, especially in Germany, it seems very complex and expensive. The expense is driven by the cost of drilling, in most case at least 1,000 feet at a cost of over $20/foot. Geothermal ground loops can be installed in a variety of ways, depending on the region, climate, cooling/heating requirement, excavation costs and soil conditions. The three most popular loop configurations are vertical, horizontal and pond loop. - NO

Option 5: As the discussion progressed it became apparent that the application of some new technology, could potentially solve our problem, while adhering to my "keep it simple" mantra. - YES!

So it was decided that we would investigate a different HVAC system, one based on using the sun to heat water through coils, rather than the original plan of using the south facing thermal solar wall to generate warm air that would be fed directly to the building ventilation system.

Enter a new technology, Hybrid Solar Panels or PVT's. PVT's make more effective use of valuable solar roof space. This ‘technological convergence’ effectively more than doubles the per square foot solar power output of PV alone. This is accomplished by passing water under the PV producing hot water as a byproduct, in effect, a solar co-generation process. We then can store that hot water for use in the heating/cooling system. Another benefit leverages the fact that PV solar panels grow less efficient as they get hotter, the water passing through the panel cools the underside of the PV panel therefore lifting effective output. For more information I encourage you to read a very good executive summary on this technology, it's pros & cons and challenges from the PVT Form, sponsored by the European Union.

Finally under this new scenario we would eliminate the heat pump and cooling compressors originally specified and replace them with a much more energy efficient system using a new device called an "Absorption Chiller". With this device, it is now possible to cheaply produce cold from warm temperature flow. Using solar generated heat this is more environmentally friendly and cheaper to operate than conventional compression chillers, in fact there is no freon or alternative refrigerants. This is a viable option for generating cold from heat supplied from the Hybrid Solar Panels and with applying very little electrical energy. Another positive from my perspective is that it contains so few moving parts susceptible to wear and tear, maintenance of the unit is very limited. So Imtiaz and David are off working through the details and will re-run our thermal energy model to see if this combination of technology and engineering will help us reach our goals.

Green is The New Red, White and Blue!

noreply@blogger.com (Jay Amato) — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:46:00 +0000

Happy 2010! Sorry for the large gap between postings, but planning activity is ramping up as we prepare for a spring kick-off. On the progress front we’ve refined the design a bit and added tongue and groove cedar to the fourth floor and some other portions of the exterior. Our mechanical engineer is working on the thermal model and as soon as we have the results we will tune the amount of insulation and glazing to meet our zero energy target. We are looking at a variety of energy production options, their cost and incentives, as well as how the building needs to be insulated etc. Our next few posts will be interesting ones.

I could not be more excited about this project and how it’s progressing. One of my personal objectives for Redhook Green (and this blog) is to show by example that a net zero energy building is viable in a place like NYC, and that it can be built cost effectively (with some support available from the government) using new designs and building methods. But why isn’t it happening faster? There are lots of good common sense reasons to adopt some or all of the ZEB strategies, it makes sense, it can save money, it’s the right thing to do, but that does not seem to be enough. It’s like eating healthy and staying fit, many of us just never get around to it.

So each of us that have developed a 'sense of urgency' need to evangelize this issue with our friends and family. I am talking about a serious dialog. What exactly will resonate with folks from different walks of life will vary, but there is one that will fit, be creative. There are at least three major 'roman numeral' level talking points that should be the basis for nearly all compelling “why renewable energy NOW” discussions. We need to get beyond the belief that we can recycle our way out of this problem!

I. The continued warming of the planet based on quickly increasing carbon dioxide levels requires real action and sacrifice on each of our parts.
II. Dependency on oil from “friendly countries” (aka petro-dictators) like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia or Venezuela.
III. The United States needs to take a leadership position in the world market place of renewable energy technology as we did with computing and Internet over the past 25 years.

For most, one or a combination of these positions are generally enough to get people to think. For one of my friends, who does not buy into the urgency of climate change, but who is a true patriot, oil dependency and American Industrial Supremacy resonated loud and clear. He by no means is he alone in his disbelieve in climate change, in fact the Gallop Poll says that a record-high 41% now say that the seriousness of global warming is exaggerated. As recently as 2006, says author Lydia Saad in her Gallup Poll article, "significantly more Americans thought the news underestimated the seriousness of global warming, than said it exaggerated it".

Thomas Friedman, author of "Hot, Flat and Crowded" said in his NY Times article "We will need to find a way to reknit America at home, reconnect America abroad and restore America to its natural place in the global order — as the beacon of progress, hope and inspiration. I have an idea how. It’s called “green.”

So, once you convince someone on why "Green is The New Red, White and Blue", what's next? I admit it's not easy yet. The simplest way to think about what can accomplished is in the areas of conservation of energy (use less) and alternative ways to generate it and what resources there to help cover some of the costs. Unfortunately there is no Whole Foods of renewable energy and sustainability to just walk around and soak up a new lifestyle, that green-ish lifestyle that I aspire to. There is no REI-like super-store of trusted gear where you can take your solar panels for a ' test ride' or a place to 'try on' the newest home insulation products for yourself. And were can companies who are innovating go to showcase their newest products? Who do you go to to build a multi-year plan to conserve and/or generate clean power. How do you maneuver the many government programs, regulations, tax breaks and subsidies? And once you do establish the plan, where will you find contractors that have been trained on really maximizing conservation and energy production options?

Lots of good questions, a few of them I am seriously focusing on as I move through the maze myself. Standby for some answers. Please post your thoughts, I'd really love to hear from you.

Redhook Becoming Center of NYC's Solar Awareness

noreply@blogger.com (Jay Amato) — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:36:00 +0000

It seems like great minds think alike when looking for places to drive change. I am excited to see the work that the Beautiful Earth Group is doing to drive the awareness of a solar powered option as well as a electric vehicles. I guess that Redhook will be the first stop on a NYC Eco-Tourist vacation. Hey that's an idea!

Our building will include provisions for a solar powered charger for a car and motorcycle. All we need is the electric car. If any electric car manufactures (GM, Telsa, Fishker, Mini or Audi) are looking for great places to test new products keep me in mind. I just love evaluating and writing about new technology, especially in cars!

New York Gets Its First Solar Electric Vehicle Charging Station

by Yuka Yoneda, 12/15/09

We have great news for green-eyed New Yorkers who have been coveting San Francisco’s sophisticatedelectric vehicle charging systems. Beautiful Earth Group, a New York-based sustainable energycompany, just unveiled its solar-powered electric vehicle (EV) charging station in Red Hook, Brooklyn. The new station is the first ever in our city and another momentous stepping stone of a greener future for NYC.

Located on an industrial lot near the Beautiful Earth’s headquarters overlooking downtown Manhattan, the off-grid, modular station is constructed of recycled steel shipping containers and powered solely by 235 wattphotovoltaic panels. The car that is currently being charged at the station is a 100% electric BMW MINI E, and is now one of the few cars in the world to run exclusively on solar power. The vehicle has a range of just over 100 miles and takes about 3 hours to charge.

With so many major car companies planning to launch electric or plug-in hybrid cars next year, it makes sense that one of the biggest cities in the world, NY, will need charging stations. And BE’s station isn’t just for charging automobiles. It can also produce enough energy to power a small home, and has a battery bank that can store electricity 24/7 for on-demand usage.

“It never ceases to amaze me, when I get behind the wheel of this 95 mph sports car, that it doesn’t use a single drop of gasoline, and that all of its power comes from the solar energy we collect right here on the Brooklyn waterfront,” said BE president and CEO Lex Heslin about the groundbreaking development.

+ Beautiful Earth

The Evolution Continues

noreply@blogger.com (Jay Amato) — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:38:00 +0000

The design team has been hard at work completing the details of the design, testing assumptions and continuing to prepare the drawing for submission to obtain permits. During this process, it became obvious that the solar (PV) panels would not drive a high enough yield positioned on the top of the garage/workshop as the sun is partially obstructed a point in the day. The decision was made to relocate them to the top of the main building, but in order to do so; a redesign of the roof and associated terraces would need to be done.

As you can see in the newest rendering, Jim and his team have done an amazing job of integrating the panels on to a new roof awning that cantilevers over the fourth floor deck. This provides us protection from the sun and double the usable roof square footage. Another change is the integration of the glass panels that sit atop the brick; they are nearly two and a half tall glass panels that wrap both structures. They provide light and flow-through ventilation, given half of them are fully operational. There are many other evolutionary changes and will be more obvious as I post different views and new renderings.

During early January, we will begin to develop a “thermal model” in order to maximize engineering options and to validate final design. Thermal modeling answers questions about airflow and temperature distribution under various weather conditions. In addition it allows control over PV design and performance. The goal of energy modeling is to accurately predict the energy use of this building. While costly, this will allow us to play ‘what if’ with various products, finishes, and design options to insure we reach our goal of net zero-energy, before we actually begin construction.

Make sure to check out a great article on the project on gbNYC.

US lab aims to build better, cheaper, zero-energy buildings

noreply@blogger.com (Jay Amato) — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:43:00 +0000

Reposted from Greenbang
While cars, trucks and planes might come to mind first as carbon emissions Enemy No. 1, all our buildings aren’t quite as environmentally innocent as they might appear.

In the US, for example, buildings account for 40 per cent of the country’s carbon dioxide emissions. In the UK, that figure is even higher: around 44 per cent. Much of those emissions are related to the energy needed to keep our buildings liveable, heating and cooling in particular.

In an ideal world, our buildings should be able to generate all the energy they need all by themselves, both cleanly and on-site. And that kind of “net-zero energy building” is exactly what a new test facility in the US aims to develop.

Using $15.9 million in stimulus funds from the US Department of Energy (DOE), the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory plans to build and operate a new National User Facility for Net-Zero Energy Buildings. The facility will contain all sorts of testing systems to figure out how best to tackle the technical challenges of building net-zero energy buildings.

“This facility will serve a national audience — and need — in an aggressive pursuit of DOE’s energy efficiency goals for widespread implementation of affordable net-zero energy buildings by 2030,” said Stephen Selkowitz, head of the Building Technologies Department of Berkeley Lab’s Environmental Energy Technologies Division.

Berkeley Lab researchers plan to tackle the effort with a broad base of users in the building design and construction communities, as well as manufacturers, building owners and operators, and the academic community.

“We will also take maximum advantage of Berkeley Lab’s proximity to Silicon Valley and the growing interest in ‘Greentech’ innovation and investment to draw on experts there, as well as our location in a state that leads the country in applying research and advanced technology, supported by aggressive policies, toward reducing greenhouse-gas emissions,” Selkowitz added.

Net-zero energy buildings generate as much energy as they use on an annual basis through highly aggressive energy efficiency and on-site renewable energy generation, making them a key element in the effort to cut carbon emissions. The new laboratory facilities will help researchers develop, test and validate the technologies, systems and design approaches that will allow net-zero energy buildings to be built and operated affordably.

The new test facility will feature a series of unique energy-efficient building systems testbeds to be located in new and existing buildings at the lab. Researchers will be able to change out prototype building systems such as windows, lights, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, energy control systems, roofs and skylights. The idea is to measure initial energy use and environmental conditions to understand how the systems perform, and then to redesign and optimise their capabilities and performance.

An exciting use of stimulus funds to help push the envelope (here in the US) on products to make projects like ours a bit easier in the future.

Have a great weekend. I am off to look at electric cars at the LA Car Show :-)

Jay

So Much Confusion, So Little Time

noreply@blogger.com (Jay Amato) — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:49:00 +0000

Since the press release last week, publically announcing Redhook Green, there has been so many questions, comments, criticisms and confusion regarding the project that I thought I would devote a few posts to clearing up some of them.

There seems to be a general lack of clarity on the relationship between “Zero-Energy Building (ZEB)”, “Carbon-Neutral”, and “Sustainable” when it comes to construction as a whole and specifically as it relates to this project. Each of these very important strategies are tools in helping the way we live fit more cohesively with the needs of others and our planet in general, but practicality needs to play a role as the various objectives are weighed and implemented. For me they include feasibility, environmental impact, upfront cost, long term cost, availability and reliability.

There are three primary concerns relating to the energy consumption of Architecture:

1. Energy to construct

2. Energy to heat and maintain

3. The total of both over the lifespan of the structure

From my simpleminded perspective, a net zero energy building is a great place to start. It seemed to me if we could design a home that based on the nature of it’s construction, could consume significantly less electricity heating and cooling and then generate the power we needed using the sun and trade the rest for times we can’t, we would have to be a great start. I like the fact that it’s reasonably easy to measure success here, if I sell ConEd as many kilowatts of electricity as I buy, then I am net zero energy. Cool. Right?

Next if you do a search on the web for a definition of “carbon-neutral”, in many cases it defaults to the ZEB definition and discusses renewable sources. As I understand it, a building that is carbon-neutral uses no fossil fuels in its operation, creates no direct greenhouse gases, and, as a result, does not contribute to global warming. Also power drawn from the utility grid but it must be “clean,” produced by wind turbines, photovoltaic, or other renewable energy system. So, a building that is both Carbon Neutral and Net Zero Energy produces at least as much renewable energy as it uses each year. But (big BUT) most definition neglects to discuss a very important use of energy that must be taken into consideration for a true carbon neutral structure. That is embodied energy or as I mention above the energy to construct.

The Wikipedia defines “embodied energy (or emergy) is defined as the available energy that was used in the work of making a product. Embodied energy is an accounting methodology which aims to find the sum total of the energy necessary for an entire product lifecycle. This lifecycle includes raw material extraction, transport, manufacture, assembly, installation, disassembly, deconstruction and/or decomposition. “ Basically all the materials used in the house consume energy during manufacturing, delivery and installation on site. Would you imagine that aluminum requires more energy than steel to be manufactured? Or that recycled aluminum and steel use half of the energy to fabricate (just a few fun facts from a discussion with Jim)? There is embodied energy in any processed product, from a drinking cup to a car. In embodied energy terms, buildings represent a huge, relatively long-duration energy investment.

Material	Unit	Energy Coefficient  Mj per unit
Timber, rough	m³	848
Timber, air-dry, treated	m³	1,200
Timber Glulam	m³	4,500
Timber, kiln-dry, treated	m³	4,692
Timber, form work	m³	283
Plywood	m³	9,440
Building paper	m²	7.5
Gypsum board	m³	5,000
Glass	kg	31.5
Structural steel	kg	59
Aluminum	kg	145
Fiberglass	kg	150
Asphalt, strip shingle	m²	280

It seems to me that as the operating energy required for buildings declines, the embodied energy they represent becomes a more significant percentage of the total energy buildings use. In coming years more efforts will probably be directed toward measuring and reducing the amount of embodied energy in buildings.

So as you can see, this all gets very difficult to measure accurately. Measuring embodied energy is still in an early phase, but is very important. But from my perspective for this project (right now) while I think that it is an important objective to build carbon-neutral buildings, it might be less practical to get 100% there. Remember ability to execute is everything! So we move forward to reach our net zero goal while keeping our carbon footprint to a minimum via the materials we choose and construction methods employed (modular really helps).

If you want to learn more about what you can do, or how much embodied energy is used in different popular products visit, WattzOn. It is an early stage online tool to quantify, track, compare and understand the total amount of energy needed to support all of the facets of your lifestyle with the goal of helping you find ways to reduce your personal power consumption.

More to come, including my thoughts on sustainability.

It's Out In The Open

noreply@blogger.com (Jay Amato) — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:54:00 +0000

At 8:00 AM today, this release hit the wire, unveiling our very ambitious project to a larger group. The reaction has been great and I have been getting a bunch of press inquires.

New York City’s First ‘Zero Energy Building’ Coming to the

Red Hook Section of Brooklyn

Innovative Facility To Be Completed by Summer 2010

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE New York, NY – December 03, 2009 Designs for New York’s first sustainable zero-energy, live/work building are nearing completion, with ground-breaking scheduled for February and completion planned for summer 2010. This structure is expected to become a distinctive new addition to the Red Hook section of Brooklyn.

As defined by the US Department of Energy, “a net zero-energy building (ZEB) is a residential or commercial building with greatly reduced energy needs through efficiency gains such that the balance of energy needs can be supplied with renewable technologies.” Basically the ZEB concept is the idea that buildings can meet all their energy needs from low-cost, locally available, nonpolluting, renewable sources such as solar or wind power.

This approximately 4,000 square foot facility will house a studio/workshop, offices for a digital business, garages and an apartment, as well as outdoor green space. The form of the house is inspired by the shipping containers stacked along the adjacent waterfront. Modular units, proportioned similarly to shipping containers are stacked and shifted to create a variety of terraces and overviews to take advantage of the areas amazing harbor views.

The project, called ‘Redhook Green’ is the brainchild of New York technology and media entrepreneur, Jay Amato.

“I’m thrilled that Redhook Green will become a very visible symbol of the continuing reinvention of one of New York City’s oldest neighborhoods,” said Mr. Amato. “But I’m even more excited that I could practically illustrate the movement towards zero-energy building to the world’s greatest city. Bringing to bear exciting new building materials, improved wind and solar technologies and more energy-efficient HVAC and home appliances, as well as state of the art sustainability strategies, Redhook Green will be a powerful answer to the question of what urban centers can do to reduce our dependency on foreign oil via renewable resources and to significantly reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

With a long history as a shipping port and industrial district, Red Hook – not quite two miles across from the Battery at the tip of Manhattan – is thoroughly urban. In the evenings, however, it is as quiet as a remote and leafy suburb, bounded by water on three sides and the elevated Gowanus Expressway on the remaining side. While other Brooklyn waterfront neighborhoods like Williamsburg and Dumbo have developed an image of youthful urban chic, Red Hook remained a gritty industrial district until the recent addition of Fairway, IKEA and the New York Water Taxi. Now, Red Hook's eclectic mix of artists and industrial businesses has created a neighborhood dubbed "Residustrial" in 2008 by artist and resident John P. Missale.

Award winning New York firm, Garrison Architects, located in Dumbo, Brooklyn, is the chief designer overseeing Redhook Green. Garrison has assembled a unique group of designers, engineers, and manufacturers to innovate for this project.

"Jay Amato’s Red Hook project draws from several promising trajectories – abstract modernism, modular construction, and zero energy consumption. By combining state of the art approaches to all three in one structure we have moved the potential for affordable, ecologically sound, urban dwellings several steps forward," said James Garrison, Principal in Charge of Garrison Architects.

Simple and cost effective sustainability strategies are used to conserve and produce energy, conserve resources, and create a healthful environment. This sustainability approach was developed though an extensive research project that included digital energy modeling, detailed life cycle cost analysis of construction components and their related maintenance and replacement costs. Here are a few of its features:

· 8kw annual photovoltaic generating capacity, grid connected.

· 8kw annual comprehensive household energy budget including heating and air conditioning.

· High performance building envelope that eliminates thermal bridging and achieves an average thermal resistance of R50.

· Wall and roof systems vented to eliminate moisture build up and use “smart” moisture barriers to allow air movement in warm months.

· Integrated south facing thermal solar wall generates warm air that is fed to the building ventilation system.

· Heating and cooling provided by high efficiency electric heat pumps.

· Whole house heat exchange ventilation system insuring air quality and recovering energy from conditioned air.

“In my entire career building and leading businesses, nothing has given me more satisfaction than developing this project,” added Jay Amato. “We are transforming what is essentially an empty space into a structure that can serve as an example of how we can live and work responsibly. This is truly gratifying.”

To view a chronicle of Redhook Green, design plans, technology and project status, visit: www.redhookgreen.com

For more information, contact:

Laura Landers

PersonalScreen Media LLC

information@personalscreen.com

917-720-8953

Tamara Gruber

Garrison Architects

info@garrisonarchitects.com

718-596-8300

It's All in The Details

noreply@blogger.com (Jay Amato) — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:32:00 +0000

The original schematics for our building are being detailed and a finalized design is emerging. It is our hope that we will be presenting the completed package to the NYC Department of Buildings for permit approval. I promised that I would share details as they became available, so as I asked Jim Garrison to describe the building from his perspective as well as more of components that get us to zero-energy!

This structure combines open and flexible planning with integrated gardens, state of the art sustainability strategies, and modular factory fabrication. It is designed to be a zero energy structure, as it will produce as much energy as it consumes.

The first floor consists of large live/work loft areas arranged on either side of an exterior court. Glass walls adjoining the court (see images) can be opened to allow the complete integration of the garden, living, and work areas. The form of the house is inspired by the shipping containers stacked along the adjacent waterfront. Modular units, proportioned similarly to shipping containers are stacked and shifted to create a variety of terraces and overviews.

8kw annual photovoltaic generating capacity, grid connected.
8kw annual comprehensive household energy budget including heating and air conditioning.
High performance building envelope that eliminates thermal bridging and achieves an average thermal resistance of R50.
Wall and roof systems are vented to eliminate moisture build up and use “smart” moisture barriers that allow air movement in warm months.
Integrated south facing thermal solar wall generates warm air that is fed to the building ventilation system.
Heating and cooling provided by high efficiency electric heat pumps.
Whole house heat exchange ventilation system insures air quality and recovers energy from conditioned air.

We are putting the final touches on the press release. It's an amalgam of many of these postings, but I will put it up as soon as it hits the wire. Thanks for your interest. Jay

Zero-Energy Building - A World Wide Movement to ZEB

noreply@blogger.com (Jay Amato) — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:26:00 +0000

I need to develop a press release to announce this project. My goal is drive awareness of Redhook Green in an effort to obtain technological, equipment and product support from green-minded manufacturers of appliances, electronics, and furnishings, just to name a few. I discovered there was no concise way to describe the movement towards lower or zero energy building, so I decided that I needed to give it a try myself.

As the United States moves to reduce its dependency on foreign oil via renewable resources and to significantly reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, automobiles have typically been the favorite targets of the press and politicians, but in reality buildings have a huge impact on energy use and the environment. According to the Energy Information Agency, commercial and residential buildings use almost 40% of the primary energy and approximately 70% of the electricity in the United States.

There is a perfect storm of sorts brewing in the world of new construction. As building technology improves, architects have developed exciting passive designs to reduce energy needs in order to maintain temperature throughout the sun's daily and annual cycles while reducing the requirement for active heating and cooling systems. Next add to that the ever-improving performance of wind and solar generation while continuing to drive lower costs to implement. And finally, manufactures are engineering more energy efficient HVAC and home appliances to reduce consumption and increase efficiency. The intersection of these phenomena’s is the Zero-Energy Building.

As defined by the US Department of Energy, “a net zero-energy building (ZEB) is a residential or commercial building with greatly reduced energy needs through efficiency gains such that the balance of energy needs can be supplied with renewable technologies.” Basically the ZEB concept is the idea that buildings can meet all their energy needs from low-cost, locally available, nonpolluting, renewable sources such as solar or wind power. That building can generate enough renewable energy on site to equal or exceed its annual energy use. A zero energy building typically uses traditional energy sources such as the electric and natural gas utilities when on-site generation does not meet the need. When the on-site generation is greater than the building’s loads, excess electricity is sold to the local utility via the power grid. By using the grid to account for the energy balance, excess production can offset later energy use.

There is a growing trend to for governments around the world to embrace the concepts of zero-energy buildings; a few examples include California and the European Union.

Every two years, the California Energy Commission (CEC) releases an Integrated Energy Policy Report, in which it makes recommendations for energy policy in the state, including changes to the energy efficiency portion of the building codes. In its 2007 report, CEC recommends adjusting the code to require net-zero-energy performance in residential buildings by 2020 and in commercial buildings by 2030. There are only a few examples of ZEB building in the U.S. according to the Department of Energy's Zero Energy Buildings Database that features profiles of commercial buildings.

The European Union has taken a huge step toward zero-energy building. Earlier this month an agreement was reached by representatives of the European Parliament and the Council, aiming to extend the scope and strengthening the current directive to upgrade the national building codes and by launching an ambitious policy of nearly zero energy buildings, so that all new buildings will be nearly zero energy as of 2020.

In the EU buildings are responsible for 40% of energy consumption and 36% of CO2 emissions. It is estimated that, by strengthening the provisions of the directive on energy performance, they could achieve a reduction in its greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 70% of the current EU Kyoto target. In addition to this, these improvements could save citizens around 300€ per annum per household in their energy bills, while boosting the construction and building renovation industry in Europe. Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs said: "Energy performance of buildings is key to achieving our EU Climate & Energy objectives for 2020, namely the reduction of Greenhouse gas emissions and the achievement of a 20% of energy savings. By this agreement, the EU is sending a strong message to the forthcoming climate negotiations in Copenhagen. Improving the energy performance of buildings is a cost effective way of fighting against climate change and improving energy security, while also boosting the building sector and the EU economy as a whole."

So what do you think? Let me know, any edits, upgrades or thoughts would be greatly appreciated! BTW, if you know of any companies that might like to participate in this exciting project, please forward them this blog or my email at jay@redhookgreen.com

It's Option Two - Plus

noreply@blogger.com (Jay Amato) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:39:00 +0000

It certainly is exciting being part of a team designing and building New York City's first zero-energy office/studio/home. Yes that's right, I have researched quite a bit and I am fairly certain that we are blazing a trail less (or never) traveled. There are many great examples all over the country, but the Big Apple does seem to be lagging a bit on adopting new building technologies. If you can find any examples please pass them along, I'd love to post them.

Thanks to all of you, who posted comments and sent emails with your thoughts and opinions on your favorite design for the building. Option two was the overwhelming winner amongst the readers as well as mine.

This first 3D rendering of the project, represents the second option as it was originally envisioned. This design, as presented to me by Jim Garrison and his team, makes an attempt to integrate key neighborhood themes.

While the brick ground floor provides the structural support for the modular buildings, the walls for the garage and the green space, it also works to blend with the historical nature of the many neighboring Civil War era warehouses. The very container-like metal and glass factory-built modular sections (aka "boxes") pay tribute to the rich stevedoring history of Redhook. This floor plan provided for 3,031 square feet, including about 800 for the garages/workshop/studio, but not including outdoor space and balconies.

As the design evolved, the rooms began to grow to accommodate live/work needs and code requirements. Actually it grew quite a bit, all the way to 3,964 square feet. At that point the "boxes" shifted from a perpendicular orientation with Dikeman Street, to a parallel one in order to accommodate the larger rooms. The design below, illustrates those changes in addition to balconies on top floor (the den/office) and third (living suite). The roof of the top floor will be home to an array of solar PV panels to provide electric generation to help us reach our zero-energy objective!

We are making great progress. I will continue to share with you the details on the floor-plans, some thoughts on material, HVAC and energy generation. The design team is busy preparing the schematic drawings for submission to the building department. I will keep you posted. YAJWN5BGP54G

It's Time for Design

noreply@blogger.com (Jay Amato) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:27:00 +0000

Finally, it's time for fun. After months of bouncing around ideas of what my building might look like, the day had come to review various designs that leveraged the space and light of the lot I purchased and the functionality I have defined.

The design team and I agreed on some basics early on. First, that the ground floor would be a large masonry rectangle a little over nine feet tall, to serve as the basis of the garage/shop facility on the north end, garden walls in the middle and as the platform for the modular construction on the south end of the facility. It provides a strong, secure and low cost base for the entire project, with a virtual Lego set of possibilities on top. Pictured below you can see just a few of the ideas presented to me.

Design ONE is a three floor version where the living/office space is spread across both ends of the compound, requiring a breezeway of sorts to connect. It also creates a very cool 1950's "motor lodge"look, with terraces on both sides looking down into the court yard. On the positive side, it created private living on both ends, but it might 'seclude' my seven year old son, and seems to close in the outdoor space/courtyard.

Design TWO is a four floor version that moves all of the living/office space to the south side, it is exactly the same layout and square feet but shifts two of the 'modules' to allow for a taller structure. The top floor, which will be used as an office/den should have a good view of the harbor and if I am really lucky the Statue of Liberty. In addition it provides expansion space over the garage/shop for a future apartment or additional office space. The thought behind this design is that with roll-up doors on both sides of the courtyard, it would create a great 100 feet long living space comprised of indoor and outdoor space. Very open and flowing.

Design THREE is a five floor version that split the workshop/studio from the garages and shifted the galley, dinning/meeting, living area up to the second floor. This layout while clearly raising the the office/den to a higher altitude and creating slightly more outdoor space, it did disrupt the concept of that floor through living experience, that I have really gotten to like.

So which one of these do you prefer? Any one in particular? Or some combination of all? Love to hear what you have to say. Next time I will tell you about what I decided and show you a 3D rendering. Stay tuned for more details and drawings.

It's a Deal!

noreply@blogger.com (Jay Amato) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:59:00 +0000

Pop the corks! A major milestone has been reached. We have completed the deal to acquire a great piece of land on the corner of Conover and Dikeman Streets. It measures 25ft wide and 100ft long, it is currently zoned an M2-1 with an F.A.R. of 2.0, that will allow us to build a maximum of 5,000 square feet, perfect for the garages, shop/studio, offices and living space that I am planning for.

The lot faces south/south west providing us with great sunlight for living and powering those solar panels to provide the electricity and heat needed to power this facility. We are looking at a combination of PV (Photovoltaic Cells) and the more traditional type for heating. Only about 10 to 12 square meters of solar panels are needed in order to provide both the heating and the hot water required in a family home.

The lot is currently being leased out for heavy equipment storage and will be delivered vacant when we close early next year. The last structure on this land was a two family home with a garage on the ground floor, completed in February of 1939. It was demolished over 20 years ago and the lot has remained empty ever since.

To the right of the lot there are a few single and multi-family residential homes. Directly behind me is a brand new build that serves as headquarters for a local HVAC company.

As part of this project we will be replacing all 125 linear feet of sidewalks with at least five trees planned along the way. Under recent NYC law, any sidewalk replacement calls for the installation of tree pits with one of a few approved trees.

In addition to securing the property, we have complete Site Survey, Borings and Phase One Environmental Study in hand.

Looking forward to sharing some of the preliminary drawings in future posts.

Thanks for your interest. I have added the ability to subscribe via email, it's easy and convenient and does not require an RSS reader, just click here.

Looking in the Rear View Mirror at 90MPH

noreply@blogger.com (Jay Amato) — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 22:08:00 +0000

Let’s look backwards from today on this post. I have been asked many times, how long I have been working on this Redhook Green Project, so I thought it might be helpful to review the process to date. With not quite four months from the idea's inception, I feel as if I am making great progress in building a team. I will be posting more detail on many of these milestones, in the next week or so.

July 20 – I have been noodling the idea of how to live a more "green-ish" lifestyle for a while, this project 'hatched' while visiting my cousin Armand’s country home in Roxbury, NY. The concept was to construct a factory-built country home in a place like Reinbeck, NY.
July 24 – Met with friend/restaurateur/real estate developer Andrew Glassberg to discuss Brooklyn real estate and development projects. After thinking through the country home idea, I thought it a better idea to build a 'country home' in Brooklyn.
July 24 – Ran into a friend, Marc Koch the resident manager of my former loft building. We chatted about my new passion and he offered to introduce me to Redhook “land baron” Greg O’Connell to assist in my search for land.
August 5 – Letter to Modular ‘friendly’ Architects in NY area requesting a meeting to discuss my ideas and to understand their experience.
August 10 – First meeting with ‘modular focused’ architect in SoHo
August 10-27 Phone calls with various Tri-State ‘modular focused’ architects
August 27 – Greg O’Connell meeting yields little tangible results, but conversation does confirm find the right site at the right price will not be easy.
September 9 – First meeting with Jim Garrison Principal; Garrsion Architects. Felt confident we would work together on this project.
September 10 – First meeting with Hank Widmaier; Helmsley Spear Real Estate to assist in the search and represent me in a transaction
September 13 – First discussion with Brooklyn landowner/builder to discuss his lots near the Fairway in Redhook.
September 16 – During one of many scooter recon missions, I found a corner lot on the corner of Conover and Dikeman in Redhook. Meets basic requirements, but Van Brundt lots wider.
September 18 – Meeting with seller to discuss two Van Brundt lots, deal not possible based high cost of acquisition by seller.
October 13 – Executed agreement for home design with Garrison Architects
October 13 – Made Offer on Conover Street lot & Offer accepted pending contract
October 22 – Long time friend and blogger Ellis Posner recommends I chronicle this project on a blog.
October 26 – My first blog www.redhookgreen.com launched
October 20 – First Schematic Designs reviewed for – 3 different options presented with Jim Garrison and Mathanki Kalapathy.
October 27 – Basic Design Agreed upon with additional square footage; a hybrid of earlier versions
November 6 – Site Survey, Test Boring, Environmental Testing and title reports all in hand with satisfactory results.
November 09 – Conover Street lot purchase contract completed and executed.
November 13 – Modular homebuilder selected.

Thanks for your interest, look forward to your thoughts, questions and comments.

How To Become a Land Owner

noreply@blogger.com (Jay Amato) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:13:00 +0000

A long time ago Shakespeare said, "I would give a thousand furlongs of sea for an acre of barren ground." Luckily he never had to buy land in the City of New York in the 21st century. Vacant lots are a rare commodity, especially following the recent building boom. So my search began. If I was desinted to be a landowner, I would have to fight hard to find the right place. Would it would be like the land race in the 1992 movie "Far and Away"? I love an adventure!

I have always loved Redhook and it was to be on the top my list, but I wanted to open up my search to include a few of my favorite neighborhoods in Brooklyn; Vinegar Hill, Dumbo and the Columbia Water Front.

This interactive map outlines the four key search areas.

View Redhook Green Land Search in a larger map

Searching for development sites is nothing like looking for an apartment or house, many lots are not actually listed for sale, and in fact are not actually on the market at all. It requires a bit of detective work to get a better sense of true availability. In emerging areas like Redhook, it seems like most of the available land is owned by a few significant developers or families who have owned the land for years and are fighting over what to do with it. Either way, it's not easy.

So at this point you might ask, exactly what was I looking for. Good Question! I was looking for an empty lot, no less than 20' wide by 90' long, preferably a corner on a quiet street. In NYC as is the case with many municipalities there are zoning guidelines that govern what you can build, how big and how high. There are three general groups of zoning here in NYC C=Commercial M=Manufacturing and R=Residential . I am planning on devoting some large amount of space to garages, workshop and office and could justify the M status. BTW, M tends to be cheaper than R too ;-)

I started with a street by street search of each of these areas, visually looking for lots wedged in out of the way places, some with for sale signs, others just empty, gathering addresses and other data to begin to ascertain ownership, value and whether they were for sale. I must applaud the City of NY for having amazing web tools to help with this research. ACRIS (Automated City Register Information System) is an award-winning property document online search and registration system with decades of digitized data including deeds, liens, mortgages, assignments, etc. In addition I utilized a subscription based real estate website loopnet.com which helped track down opportunities not easily found on other sites.

Round and round I went, along the way I picked up a real estate agent, a few interesting meetings a good working knowledge of zoning and a few sites that might fit the bill.