Green Debate: Bring it On!

Our mission here at BIF is to enable collaborative innovation. When done right, several healthy rounds of debate ensue. For the past two years, Michael Singer shared his story on the stages of BIF-1 and BIF-2. I was fortunate enough to spend some time with Michael and write his profile. He's a legendary eco-architect hailing from a time when the 2 concepts did not go hand in hand.

A few years ago, Michael redesigned a gas and power plant along the East River in Brooklyn and used the roof and vertical space outside the plant for urban agriculture. Far from an easy project, he was able to effectively collaborate between public and private sector interests. For instance, Michael had learned that local environmental organizations were eager for indigenous plant material to regenerate ecosystems that had been destroyed. He determined that by allowing the non-profit organizations to care for the vegetation, the power plant’s owners were able to claim significant tax breaks.

Soon he had taken a project that neighbors feared would be a blight and designed an energy-efficient plant that doubled as a greenhouse, provided a resting spot for migrating birds in a heavily urban area – and still had an acre of land left over for public use.

Back then, Michael told me “It was a complete reversal from something you wanted to be out of sight and out of mind. The power plant is using all of its resources, and there’s no waste. It has affected the way people think about these places and what they can do.”

I love Michael's story and I've retold it many times. Now, BIF-3 is upon us. And another eco-architect, Chris Benedict, will be gracing our stage. Benedict doesn't just do 'green' architecture. She recently completed a 38-unit new construction project that uses 85% less energy than standard designs...and she did it without subsidy or special grants. Her views on what it takes to be green are a bit different than what you might expect. I asked her this week about her experience with urban agriculture and green roofs and she provided this response:

“My position on green roofs is that they are very nice, and it may be possible to grow food with them to sustain a few people, but they do not save energy in any appreciable way and have a minimal impact on lessening storm water going to sewers. I'm the person who gets quoted as the counter-argument for green roofs. On the energy side, money is better spent on insulation and giving the roof a reflective coating. This can be done for no additional cost in new construction or renovation if the project is designed well. “

Aesthetically of course, we all intuitively gravitate to the concept of green roofs. What a marvelous idea. Yet as a matter economics and their ability to contribute to a solid energy efficiency plan, the green roof may not be the answer.

What do you think? Ready to debate the idea with Chris Benedict? She’ll be at BIF-3 on October 10th and 11th. Learn how you can participate.