In my January 2023 letter to the Spy, the subject of ‘embodied carbon footprint’ was introduced. I wrote,
‘Adaptive reuse is a responsible choice combining preservation with a low embodied carbon footprint, a win-win proposition across the matrix of historical and environmental indices’.
Knowing that carbon footprint, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change are terms gaining huge attention and significance globally, I thought it relevant to illuminate my statement. It is germane to the decision making process and community-wide dialogue to save or demolish the historic building.
So what is embodied carbon? Simply put, it is the emissions from carbon dioxide (CO2) or greenhouse gas (GHG) associated with the manufacture and use of a product or service. For construction products, this targets the emissions from raw material extraction as well as its manufacturing, transportation, installation, maintenance and disposal.
And how does it relate to the Armory? Perhaps the American Institute of Architects, (AIA) can best provide the answer, further supporting my opening statement. From the AIA’s website,
‘Renovation and reuse projects typically save between 50 and 75 percent of the embodied carbon emissions compared to constructing a new building. This is especially true if the foundations and structure are preserved, since most embodied carbon resides there. With many projects, the first question should be “Is there an existing building we can use instead?” This is an admittedly a hard sell for architects – after all, many of us got into the business for the excitement and challenge of designing something new from the ground up. But channeling that energy and creativity toward making poor-performing buildings into something beautiful, sustainable and energy efficient has its own rewards, and yields substantial positive results.’
Let’s tie it all together. The need for sustainability in the design, construction and operation of buildings is a stark reality, gaining more scrutiny with each passing year. According to the Energy Information Administration, about 40 percent of the energy consumed in the US in 2015 went directly or indirectly to operating buildings. This finding effectively launched the ‘green building’ movement here in the US.
When embodied carbon is added to the energy consumed, the total is almost 50 percent. While awareness to reduce operating impacts is widespread, less understood and considered, is the carbon impacts during construction of a building.
Each building product has its own embodied carbon footprint with some more egregious than others. Studies have concluded that almost 23% of all global emissions in the construction of a building come from three common materials: concrete, steel, and aluminum.
Construction of new, non-residential buildings, requires a substantial amount of concrete for the footings and foundations. Floor construction also uses concrete (poured in place and on metal deck or the use of precast planks). Tons of steel are used for concrete reinforcing bars and the superstructure of the building which rest on the concrete foundations. Steel is further used for the metal studs to build walls and partitions and for door frames. Aluminum is typically used to fabricate windows, doors, exterior wall cladding and roofing. In total – an embodied carbon hot mess.
Shockingly, by running the numbers for efficiently designed and operated buildings, it was revealed that the construction process emitted tons of carbon – equivalent to many years of operating emissions. Building new, even a ‘net-zero’ building, must consider the carbon footprint from the building process to understand the bottom line environmental impacts. Be wary of labels for net-zero, clean energy and green products. You must look under the hood in the final analysis.
Finally, the matter of demolition must be considered. Through the stages of a building’s lifecycle, demolition activities generate most waste and carbon emissions. Around 10% of the embodied CO2 emissions is released during demolition and transportation, processing and disposal of construction waste. Then there are the implications associated with landfills and dealing with hazmats.
One last thing, explain the Armory’s role? It should now be evident that by reusing the Armory, the lowest embodied carbon footprint will result, benefitting not only our region but the planet. The savings in carbon emissions is staggering as you already learned by reading the AIA excerpt. And you should also understand the consequence of building new, even if the building is touted as being a ‘net-zero’ or ‘green’ design.
Washington College has a substantial embodied carbon footprint in town and within the region. Embracing reutilization of the Armory will improve the College’s carbon footprint. This option is particularly attractive with an Environmental Science and Studies Department. An exceptional opportunity exists to involve the environmental students and staff with the real life lessons and challenges associated with an adaptive reuse project.
From the Department’s own web page,
‘Washington College students use the Chesapeake Bay Region—its farms and waterways, its history and culture, its people and their environmental concerns—as a learning laboratory’.
‘…majors are grounded in an interdisciplinary course of study which prepares students to critically analyze and investigate solutions to regional and global environmental issues, whether it is the revival of a depleted fishery, the fate of toxins, land use management in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, world population concerns, loss of biodiversity, or climate change’.
Integrating the Armory as a learning laboratory is a win-win proposition offering many lessons that can be applied beyond the boundaries of Chestertown. Its potential as an exciting interactive teaching and learning vehicle is invaluable.
Let us not lose sight of the fact that the Armory is an historic structure listed on the National Register and an important community ‘landmark’ and ‘edge’ feature in the context of the town from a planning perspective, as presented in Kevin Lynch’s seminal book, The Image of the City (Harvard-MIT Joint Center for Urban Studies). The prominent architect who designed the building furthers its significance.
In the final analysis, climate change awareness also does not support the construction of a new building on the Armory site and Washington College should agree. The responsible and morally correct solution is a building proposal that includes adaptive reuse of the Newnam Armory.
Thom Kocubinski, RA is an architect and planner now living in Chestertown
Patrícia Kleysteuber says
Thank you Thom for your article. I support the preservation of the Armory for both environmental and historical reasons, understanding that it would be a challenging undertaking as any renovation is.
Thom Kocubinski, RA says
Thank you Patricia for your support. It is cetainly a viable project until otherwuse factually determined to the contrary.
Reid C Raudenbush says
Mark Twain wrote “The Mississippi River will always have its own way. No engineering skill can persuade it to do otherwise.” The same is true of the Chester River. The Armory is doomed by its location. The entire site is located within a tidal floodplain. The majority of the site is within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by 1.0% annual chance (100 year) flood. The existing building is located entirely within the 6.0′ Base Flood Elevation.
The Town of Chestertown’s Floodplain Ordinance states that all new construction must provide a finished floor elevation that is at or above the Flood Protection Elevation, which is two feet above the Base Flood Elevation. This requirement is also true for any building that undergoes a “substantial improvement.”
The first floor of the Armory has an elevation of 3.73-ft. or 2.27-ft. below the Base Flood Elevation, which is more than four feet below that required by Town Ordinance.
So, the first question should actually be “Can the existing building be saved?” Sadly, for the Armory, I believe the answer is no.
Thom Kocubinski, RA says
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) gives special consideration to the unique value of historic structures, landmarks and sites, in two ways. First, the floodplain management regulations provide significant relief – the structure does not have to meet the floodplain management requirements if they maintain their historic status. Second, the designated structure can obtain subsidized flood insurance as authorized by Congress. Refer to document FEMA P-467-2. Further, the NFIP can issue variances allowing improvements that are not necessarily historic in nature to protect the building. Two options follow.
Now to your points; the first floor you reference is actually the ground floor, which is below the BFE as noted. The floor above is the first floor and is well above the BFE, thereby shifting focus to the ground floor level. There are two FEMA accepted practices for protecting this portion of the building – ‘dry proofing’ and ‘wet proofing’. Dry-proofing means making the building perimeter watertight, substantially impermeable to floodwaters by the use of approved flood barriers at openings including doors and windows. Wet-proofing on the other hand allows for flooding of the interior to equalize hydrostatic pressure on exterior walls and supports the structure during a flood event. This method is commonly used in V zones where wave action is a concern – not applicable to the armory being located in an AE zone. I have used both options in my work along the New Jersey shore in the aftermath of Sandy and both were found acceptable by municipalities and the State of NJ. Respectfully, I don’t agree Chestertown would not allow the building to be reused based on its BFE.
Finally, I request substantiation that the building cannot be saved. It has been 9 months since my January Op-Ed and nothing has been provided to me to support such a statement. If you have something, do share.
Gerry levin says
Washington College definitely does not care.
Thom Kocubinski says
Sad commentary, indeed.