Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, November 10, 2009
Architecture The Winner of the 2009 AIA Awards
Posted by Charles Mudede on Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:28 AM
Last night, the Seattle chapter of American Institute of Architects presented four awards for 2009. The most impressive work on that list was, of course, LMN's expansion of the Vancouver Centre:
...The jurors were impressed with how the project relates to the city and the water, as well as the inclusion of sustainable elements such as the green roof which “feels more like a rooftop park.”I was simply impressed with the scale and raw ambition of the project—pure muscle. When it comes to the question of scale, I will always side with Haussmann and Moses; when it comes to the question of politics, I will never side with those earthmovers. LMN also designed the Benaroya Hall and downtown's wonderful entrance. The other notable project on the list was Olson Sundberg Kundig Allen's Wing Luke Asian Museum.
The image is by LMN.
1
Of course, that roof leaks. And keeps leaking, after they've fixed it. But at least it's a great design!
7
The sky bridge at the WSCC is an eyesore that blocks both the view as one descends Capitol Hill and the sun and sky to those underneath its hideous, overbearing presence.
8
The Seattle chapter of the AMERICAN Institute of Architecture gave an award to a Canadian project? Call me a homer, but that seems wrong.
9
@8 yeah i hate it when we have to pretend that the USA isn't the center of the universe...don't you?
10
@4, how much stormwater do you need to retain on a building built over water? Not to mention the fact that roof water can be collected in other ways for use (though this is technically illegal in Washington State, though unenforced; dunno about BC).
@6, no I can't. Read it somewhere, possibly the New Yorker, within the last three months.
Of course, the green roof here is going to die over the summer unless they water it. And, as has already been pointed out, it leaks. Looks cool, though.
@6, no I can't. Read it somewhere, possibly the New Yorker, within the last three months.
Of course, the green roof here is going to die over the summer unless they water it. And, as has already been pointed out, it leaks. Looks cool, though.
11
@10: you can harvest the rain to water the plants over the summer. they're sedums & grasses, typically. a roof like this provides habitat for birds. you are correct about light-colored roofs being energy efficient (and fugly), but green roofs have their benefits also.
13
@8 A Canadian project designed by a Seattle firm. It's perfectly appropriate. I don't see why Seattle architecture firms who take projects in other areas should be disadvanataged. Not like the Seattle market is very fertile these days anyway.
14
The thing about the project. . . where I have seen various iterations since 2000. . . is the building looks like you should be able to ascend out to the roof top and use it as an extension of Stanley Park - but you can't due to exiting issues. . . which is a shame, imo.
"Feels more like a rooftop park" ?? no. Just looks like one if you're looking out of a window from one of the towers. There will be no parklike experience, IIRC.
"Feels more like a rooftop park" ?? no. Just looks like one if you're looking out of a window from one of the towers. There will be no parklike experience, IIRC.
15
Charles, where are the tits on this post? I'm not sure how Moses relates, this was the expansion of existing project - not emptying out projects so they could build the BQE.
16
First, that's the ugliest fucking building I've seen since the EMT.
Second, Fnarf -- the function of green (living) roofs that is not duplicated by white roofs is the water retention, cooling, and time-release capacity of the roof. Placing catchments under a conventional roof may duplicate part of this function, but the catchments must be dynamic -- they must provide for either a time-release of the water into the storm drainage system, or a slow introduction of the cached water into surrounding permeable surfaces (aka "dirt").
The benefits of retention, cooling, and time-release of water are many, but the two primary benefits are:
1) Retention and time-release prevents the flooding of drainage systems and, consequently, the erosion of streams and rivers, and the transition of soil nutrients into lakes and shorelines.
2) The re-oxygenation of the water, both by keeping the water relatively cool and by aerating it as it moves through the fibrous layers of plants and roots in a green roof.
Of course, none of that makes any difference to you -- once a stolid "common sense" type declares that something (particularly something favored by people who wear sandals) is "a scam", nothing short of a posthumous declaration of approval from Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, hand-delivered from the great beyond by Jesus himself, will convince them to adjust their thinking.
Second, Fnarf -- the function of green (living) roofs that is not duplicated by white roofs is the water retention, cooling, and time-release capacity of the roof. Placing catchments under a conventional roof may duplicate part of this function, but the catchments must be dynamic -- they must provide for either a time-release of the water into the storm drainage system, or a slow introduction of the cached water into surrounding permeable surfaces (aka "dirt").
The benefits of retention, cooling, and time-release of water are many, but the two primary benefits are:
1) Retention and time-release prevents the flooding of drainage systems and, consequently, the erosion of streams and rivers, and the transition of soil nutrients into lakes and shorelines.
2) The re-oxygenation of the water, both by keeping the water relatively cool and by aerating it as it moves through the fibrous layers of plants and roots in a green roof.
Of course, none of that makes any difference to you -- once a stolid "common sense" type declares that something (particularly something favored by people who wear sandals) is "a scam", nothing short of a posthumous declaration of approval from Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, hand-delivered from the great beyond by Jesus himself, will convince them to adjust their thinking.
17
Oh, Judah. Explain to me how this roof here prevents the erosion of streams and rivers. Explain to me how it prevents the "transition" of soil nutrients anywhere at all. What soil nutrients, what permeable surfaces, what dirt, are you finding on Vancouver's waterfront? I certainly can't.
And explain to me what your magic point #2 has to do with anything at all -- reoxygenated water! It's a miracle! Especially as it drips down on the heads of convention-goers.
Green roofs are a favored solution of the kind of people who think they're saving the environment by building off-the-grid custom houses on 100-acre parcels in the mountains. And by architects bored with building functional buildings in functional urban settings, who want instead to goof around, and get LEED certification for doing it.
By the way, the US Energy Secretary, a Nobel laureate, says that white roofs could save the US more than a billion metric tons of CO2 emissions a year, at minimal cost. Wow, you're right -- that DOES sound just like Reagan-Goldwater thinking!
And explain to me what your magic point #2 has to do with anything at all -- reoxygenated water! It's a miracle! Especially as it drips down on the heads of convention-goers.
Green roofs are a favored solution of the kind of people who think they're saving the environment by building off-the-grid custom houses on 100-acre parcels in the mountains. And by architects bored with building functional buildings in functional urban settings, who want instead to goof around, and get LEED certification for doing it.
By the way, the US Energy Secretary, a Nobel laureate, says that white roofs could save the US more than a billion metric tons of CO2 emissions a year, at minimal cost. Wow, you're right -- that DOES sound just like Reagan-Goldwater thinking!
18
Fnarf:
So, you what you meant to say was that living roofs on the waterfront are a con job? If you actually want to narrow your argument to that one point, I might give you that one. Otherwise, you're just trying to reframe in order to cover the fact that you were, you know -- wrong.
Leaving aside your post-script fixation on waterfronts -- in general, oxygenated water is more environmentally beneficial because it promotes the growth of animal life in streams and suppresses algae blooms (some of which are highly toxic) and aquatic flora that causes silt to build up in waterways -- strangling salmon runs and providing a habitat for disease-spreading mosquitoes. There are other benefits of cooler and more oxygenated water, but you can find most of them with a simple Google search. Oxygenated runoff is one of those threshold environmental issues that addresses lots of problems at once.
Even if that were true -- which I don't concede -- it has nothing to do with your initial assertion that living roofs are a scam. I asserted two purposes that green roofs serve, to counter your "scam" assertion. You haven't refuted either of those points.
I did not say, or imply, that white roofs do not generate a benefit, that they aren't preferable to conventional dark roofs, or that Americans should not paint their roofs white. I simply rebutted your statement that green roofs are a "scam" and your implication that white roofs are a better choice in all circumstances. Frankly, I think white roofs probably are a better choice in many circumstances, because their cost/benefit profile is much better for most purposes. But the fact remains that green roofs have significant benefits over white roofs, and that their lower cost/benefit index may be mitigated by additional environmental considerations (the urban heat island effect, the location of urban ports at the mouths of rivers, and so on) in some situations.
More...
"Living roofs" are a con job.
So, you what you meant to say was that living roofs on the waterfront are a con job? If you actually want to narrow your argument to that one point, I might give you that one. Otherwise, you're just trying to reframe in order to cover the fact that you were, you know -- wrong.
And explain to me what your magic point #2 has to do with anything at all
Leaving aside your post-script fixation on waterfronts -- in general, oxygenated water is more environmentally beneficial because it promotes the growth of animal life in streams and suppresses algae blooms (some of which are highly toxic) and aquatic flora that causes silt to build up in waterways -- strangling salmon runs and providing a habitat for disease-spreading mosquitoes. There are other benefits of cooler and more oxygenated water, but you can find most of them with a simple Google search. Oxygenated runoff is one of those threshold environmental issues that addresses lots of problems at once.
Green roofs are a favored solution of the kind of people who... blah blah blah
Even if that were true -- which I don't concede -- it has nothing to do with your initial assertion that living roofs are a scam. I asserted two purposes that green roofs serve, to counter your "scam" assertion. You haven't refuted either of those points.
By the way, the US Energy Secretary, . . . [snip] . . . like Reagan-Goldwater thinking!
I did not say, or imply, that white roofs do not generate a benefit, that they aren't preferable to conventional dark roofs, or that Americans should not paint their roofs white. I simply rebutted your statement that green roofs are a "scam" and your implication that white roofs are a better choice in all circumstances. Frankly, I think white roofs probably are a better choice in many circumstances, because their cost/benefit profile is much better for most purposes. But the fact remains that green roofs have significant benefits over white roofs, and that their lower cost/benefit index may be mitigated by additional environmental considerations (the urban heat island effect, the location of urban ports at the mouths of rivers, and so on) in some situations.
19
PS: even if I'm wrong about living roofs (in principle, though not in most implementations), I can with some authority (having been there) say that that Burrard Inlet location is about as far from being well-integrated with the city as it's possible to be. That whole stretch -- not just the appalling waterfront but the whole northern edge there, from Georgia to the water's edge (at its worst beyond Pender), is the least appealing part of that city. Seriously, I'd rather hang out on East Hastings with the junkies. It's kind of a case-study of Will in Seattle's wet dream, a bunch of isolated towers set in green surroundings, inaccessible except by car. The waterfront itself is a series of mega-projects like this one that don't relate to the city at all. It's kind of nice up at the park end, with the marinas and the walk along the quays, but
If you've only ever walked down Robson Street here, you've missed the bulk of the story. Vancouver's a great city, but this area is as soulless as anyplace I've ever been -- it feels like Houston.
It is, of course, one of the models for how certain people want to reconstruct our waterfront after tearing down the viaduct.
It is however a very exciting place to come in by seaplane. I heartily recommend it -- but not on a windy day.
If you've only ever walked down Robson Street here, you've missed the bulk of the story. Vancouver's a great city, but this area is as soulless as anyplace I've ever been -- it feels like Houston.
It is, of course, one of the models for how certain people want to reconstruct our waterfront after tearing down the viaduct.
It is however a very exciting place to come in by seaplane. I heartily recommend it -- but not on a windy day.
20
Judah, I stand by my assertion, as fleshed out by your description, that green roofs are indeed a con job, if you're arguing that this magic re-oxygenated water is going to save the salmon. How about, instead, not building to the edge of salmon streams in the first place? In the sorts of places where the damage you describe has taken place, a few living roofs aren't going to make fuck-all difference.
I'm talking about places like Lynnwood, and other suburban places where massive over-pavement has turned so-called salmon streams, many of them miles and miles away downhill, into raging culverts that scour the banks away until they are forced to line them with concrete. Oxygen in the water isn't going to make a difference there.
Likewise, in Hood Canal, which is entirely dead, it's not a lack of oxygen; it's hundreds of failing 1930s-era septic systems, and fertilizer- and pesticide-laden lawn runoff. How does a green roof help there?
How is a green roof better than permeable land, in general? A green roof surrounded by a million acres of parking lot is accomplishing fuck-all, outside of a clutch of LEED certificates (ooh, Platinum! Just like their Amex cards!) in the hands of the architects.
I'm talking about places like Lynnwood, and other suburban places where massive over-pavement has turned so-called salmon streams, many of them miles and miles away downhill, into raging culverts that scour the banks away until they are forced to line them with concrete. Oxygen in the water isn't going to make a difference there.
Likewise, in Hood Canal, which is entirely dead, it's not a lack of oxygen; it's hundreds of failing 1930s-era septic systems, and fertilizer- and pesticide-laden lawn runoff. How does a green roof help there?
How is a green roof better than permeable land, in general? A green roof surrounded by a million acres of parking lot is accomplishing fuck-all, outside of a clutch of LEED certificates (ooh, Platinum! Just like their Amex cards!) in the hands of the architects.
21
Yes, you've done an excellent job of boiling my argument down to its fundamental components. The magic re-oxygenated water will indeed save the salmon. Except that's not remotely what I said. If you just keep arguing with stuff you make up, you'll always win. And, sometimes, I let people do that. But sometimes I try to clarify my point in spite of the behavior of the person I'm talking to.
So let me simplify this as much as possible for you:
Green roofs act as permeable surfaces for purposes of storm water treatment. Permeable surfaces (generally) are better for regional water quality than impermeable surfaces (generally) because, among other things, they cool and oxygenate the water. Both dark- and light-colored conventional roofs operate as impermeable surfaces for purposes of storm water treatment. Therefore, green roofs are better for regional water quality than conventional surfaces.
That's it. That's all I was saying.
Now, as far as your screed about Lynnwood and over-pavement and all that, I didn't raise any of those issues. You did. So none of that stuff counters anything I've said up to this point.
That in mind, I will address some of the issues you raise:
1) Over pavement is a serious problem everywhere, but it is particularly prevalent in the suburbs. One way to mitigate the damage caused by settlement patterns in the suburbs, without altering the broad outlines of their infrastructure, would be to make the surfaces they have in place permeable -- green the roofs and replace the asphalt parking lots with permeable parking surfaces. This would by no means eliminate the drainage problems common to the suburbs. But it would mitigate them.
2) However, since there is basically NO CHANCE that the suburbanites would ever take on such an expensive improvement to their existing structures, none of that really matters.
More...
Judah, I stand by my assertion, as fleshed out by your description, that green roofs are indeed a con job, if you're arguing that this magic re-oxygenated water is going to save the salmon.
Yes, you've done an excellent job of boiling my argument down to its fundamental components. The magic re-oxygenated water will indeed save the salmon. Except that's not remotely what I said. If you just keep arguing with stuff you make up, you'll always win. And, sometimes, I let people do that. But sometimes I try to clarify my point in spite of the behavior of the person I'm talking to.
So let me simplify this as much as possible for you:
Green roofs act as permeable surfaces for purposes of storm water treatment. Permeable surfaces (generally) are better for regional water quality than impermeable surfaces (generally) because, among other things, they cool and oxygenate the water. Both dark- and light-colored conventional roofs operate as impermeable surfaces for purposes of storm water treatment. Therefore, green roofs are better for regional water quality than conventional surfaces.
That's it. That's all I was saying.
Now, as far as your screed about Lynnwood and over-pavement and all that, I didn't raise any of those issues. You did. So none of that stuff counters anything I've said up to this point.
That in mind, I will address some of the issues you raise:
1) Over pavement is a serious problem everywhere, but it is particularly prevalent in the suburbs. One way to mitigate the damage caused by settlement patterns in the suburbs, without altering the broad outlines of their infrastructure, would be to make the surfaces they have in place permeable -- green the roofs and replace the asphalt parking lots with permeable parking surfaces. This would by no means eliminate the drainage problems common to the suburbs. But it would mitigate them.
2) However, since there is basically NO CHANCE that the suburbanites would ever take on such an expensive improvement to their existing structures, none of that really matters.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Liveblogging the Washington State House Debate and Vote
onIN FAVOR OF GAY MARRIAGE by Eli Sanders -
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Required Listening: Howard Stern on Ellen, JC Penney, Bullied Gay Kids, Rosie, Santorum, Bachmann, et al by Dan Savage
-
Jeff Bezos' Racist, Pro-Life, Anti-Evolution, Rape-Apologist Search Engine by Goldy
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
State Legislator Testifies That His Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Came to Him from a Commercial for Jack in the Box by Christopher Frizzelle
-
"Let me be the first one to say: My business will refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony," by Republican Representative Matt Shea of the Spokane Valley by Eli Sanders
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
"I don't know if I want to be here [if gay marriage passes]," by Republican State Senator Jay Rodne of North Bend by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (21) RSS