The U.N. -vs- The World
Posted in Delicious Ideas, Luddite, Pontificating on November 22nd, 2008It had to happen sometime and it finally has… The U.N. is going green. Sort of. According to the New York Times, the glass curtain of the famous East River Headquarters will be redone with new super-insulated glass and windows that are designed not to open, which, combined with other improvements in the heating and cooling systems of the building will make it 44% more energy efficient. Quite an improvement! Of course, the price tag, which is approaching the 2 billion mark for the whole kit and kaboodle, may be seen by detractors (or members of the coal and oil lobbies) as yet another financial argument against the current rash of green buildings going up all over the world. Especially with the current global meltdown in full swing, the question must be asked (again, probably by the coal and oil lobbies), is this green renovation really worth all the cost?
The short answer is ‘Yes,’ for the simple reason that even though the economic factors are very real to many people, they’re still just made up. Yes, the whole world works with currency, but when you really think about it, isn’t currency just a value that has been assigned to something that is completely worthless. (Can we breathe or eat gold?) A building that uses less energy (no matter the cost of production) saves resources with actual long-term value–namely the ability of our atmosphere to provide us with a climate we can live in and air we can breathe (notice I didn’t say oil or coal, which are just as valuable as gold or gravel when you think about it).
And while I’m on the subject of using less energy, let me give you my long answer. Yes, we’re spending huge amounts of money to mak
e a single building more energy efficient, but what if I told you that there was a completely free way to have made the building much more efficient when it was first built–but that was ultimately not adopted.
It’s true. The 38 story U.N. Secretariat Building, with it’s striking presence along the East River is a sliver of a structure with its two broad glass sides facing East-West. This means that every morning, the AC has to kick into overdrive to keep the East Side cool in the face of the rising sun, and then every afternoon, the same has to happen on the West side as the sun sets. This condition is compouned by the fact that the Secretariat Building is at least seven times as wide as it is deep (if the width is North/South and the depth is East/West). With a simple 90 degree change in orientation, the two expansive sides could have been shielded from the sun, thus saving untold amounts of money in cooling costs.
Of course, the building was built to be an architectural statement in the heady years just after World War II, where we’d won an entire war mostly on the strength of our technology (not knocking American servicemen, but if you took a combat pilot out of his P-51 and put him in a biplane he wouldn’t be nearly as effective). Also, at that time fuel and power seemed endless, the concept of pollution was not what it is now, and thus, energy consumption was not high on anyone’s list.
But it sure is now… Taking advantage of passive design techniques (like building orientation or the lay of the land) represents the cheapest (but least flashy) way we can save energy, and thus our way of life as we know it. The Secretariat Building is a permanent reminder of our pesky tendacy to try to dominate nature, not to embrace it.












