Energy and Architecture: How Green is Green?

Nov 2009

By Sebastian J — Filed under: Events , New York, USA

A panel discussion including American and Danish architects will analyze the benefits, compromises, and challenges in creating and designing sustainable buildings and communities in the U.S. and Denmark.

The panel, which includes architects Stephen Kieran of the well-known Philadelphia firm Kieran Timberlake and Bjarke Ingels, head of the architectural practice Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG), will explore the differences and similarities in the energy-saving measures used by architects in each country.

Since the U.S. and Denmark vary greatly in size, climatic conditions, and commonly-used building materials and energy-saving features, the discussion will examine how each country can learn from the other. The moderator of the discussion is Suzanne Stephens, deputy editor of Architectural Record.

The discussion will take place next Monday, November 16 at 6:30 pm at the Scandinavia House, 58 Park Avenue at 38th street, New York.

7 comments »

romeo says:

Two of the most self publicist architects either side of the Atlantic, with very little understanding or implementation of energy saving and ‘green’ materials to debate on energy saving measures? wow… BIB & Timberlake! More greenwash…

# November 14, 2009 at 12:43

dropout says:

BIG, not BIB. It’s all greenwash by the way.

# November 14, 2009 at 15:55

Brad says:

Could you elaborate on how KTA is greenwash? The Sidwell Friends School is a very successful project in my opinion.

# November 14, 2009 at 17:42

dA says:

Yes. Please do elaborate.

# November 15, 2009 at 12:03

bukmacherskie says:

help a lot,that what im looking for,thanks

# November 14, 2009 at 14:37

panza says:

I like BIG very much, and I know they did some Carbon neutral studies and are doing a carbon neutral island, but…This greenwash is really annoying. All this carbon neutrality etc. is about technology. this technology could be equipped to any building – so it really doesnt make an architecture better. it makes the building better, but not the best (the best enviromental solution is to NOT build at all).

It annoys me, all this “green wave” – OK, if we all believe taht it is good to have a passive house (which is), or neutral house (not necessarily) , then we should make it a technical norm. And not a PR – nice renders with a lot of greenery and nobody hesitates, because it is not Cool to blame a Passive house. It is like a new doctrine.

Passive building should be a standard, like toilettes and design for disabled – not a feature!

and btw – all that greenery needs so much water that it is not effective at all. just looks better in renders and makes it look “green”. Big makes so huge buildings that I really doubt about their efficiency. they are very effective in social and architectonic field, but energetic efficiency? – most effective shape is a box.

# November 15, 2009 at 13:16

raymond says: