Issue 9
ISSUE
STORY TYPE
AUTHOR
12
THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
October 7, 2024
What It Means—and What It’s Worth—to Be “Light”
by Julie Lasky
12
PERSPECTIVE
September 23, 2024
Redefining “Iconic” Architecture and Ideals
by Sophie Lovell
12
PERSPECTIVE
September 9, 2024
Surrendering to What Is
by Marianne Krogh
11
THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
August 26, 2024
Sometimes, Democratic Design Doesn’t “Look” Like Anything
by Zach Mortice
11
THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
August 19, 2024
What Does Your Home Say About You?
by Shane Reiner-Roth
11
BOOK REVIEW
August 12, 2024
Is Building Better Cities a Dream Within Reach?
by Michael Webb
11
PEOPLE
August 5, 2024
The Value of Unbuilt Buildings
by George Kafka
11
THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
July 29, 2024
Future-Proofing a Home Where Water Is a Focus and a Thread
by Alexandra Lange
11
BOOK REVIEW
July 22, 2024
Modernist Town, U.S.A.
by Ian Volner
11
PEOPLE
July 15, 2024
Buildings That Grow from a Place
by Anthony Paletta
10
URBANISM
June 24, 2024
What We Lose When a Historic Building Is Demolished
by Owen Hatherley
10
PERSPECTIVE
June 17, 2024
We Need More Than Fewer, Better Things
by Deb Chachra
10
THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
June 3, 2024
An Ode to Garages
by Charlie Weak
10
PERSPECTIVE
May 28, 2024
In Search of Domestic Kintsugi
by Edwin Heathcote
10
THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
May 13, 2024
The Perils of the Landscapes We Make
by Karrie Jacobs
10
PERSPECTIVE
May 6, 2024
Using Simple Tools as a Radical Act of Independence
by Jarrett Fuller
9
PERSPECTIVE
April 29, 2024
Why Can’t I Just Go Home?
by Eva Hagberg
9
PEOPLE
April 22, 2024
Why Did Our Homes Stop Evolving?
by George Kafka
9
ROUNDTABLE
April 8, 2024
Spaces Where the Body Is a Vital Force
by Tiffany Jow
9
BOOK REVIEW
April 1, 2024
Tracing the Agency of Women as Users and Experts of Architecture
by Mimi Zeiger
9
PERSPECTIVE
March 25, 2024
Are You Sitting in a Non-Place?
by Mzwakhe Ndlovu
9
ROUNDTABLE
March 11, 2024
At Home, Connecting in Place
by Marianela D’Aprile
9
PEOPLE
March 4, 2024
VALIE EXPORT’s Tactical Urbanism
by Alissa Walker
8
PERSPECTIVE
February 26, 2024
What the “Whole Earth Catalog” Taught Me About Building Utopias
by Anjulie Rao
8
THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
February 19, 2024
How a Run-Down District in London Became a Model for Neighborhood Revitalization
by Ellen Peirson
8
THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
February 12, 2024
In Brooklyn, Housing That Defies the Status Quo
by Gideon Fink Shapiro
8
PERSPECTIVE
February 5, 2024
That “Net-Zero” Home Is Probably Living a Lie
by Fred A. Bernstein
8
PERSPECTIVE
January 22, 2024
The Virtue of Corporate Architecture Firms
by Kate Wagner
8
PERSPECTIVE
January 16, 2024
How Infrastructure Shapes Us
by Deb Chachra
8
THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
January 8, 2024
The Defiance of Desire Lines
by Jim Stephenson
7
PEOPLE
December 18, 2023
This House Is Related to You and to Your Nonhuman Relatives
by Sebastián López Cardozo
7
THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
December 11, 2023
What’s the Point of the Plus Pool?
by Ian Volner
7
BOOK REVIEW
December 4, 2023
The Extraordinary Link Between Aerobics and Architecture
by Jarrett Fuller
7
THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
November 27, 2023
Architecture That Promotes Healing and Fortifies Us for Action
by Kathryn O’Rourke
7
PEOPLE
November 6, 2023
How to Design for Experience
by Diana Budds
7
PEOPLE
October 30, 2023
The Meaty Objects at Marta
by Jonathan Griffin
6
OBJECTS
October 23, 2023
How Oliver Grabes Led Braun Back to Its Roots
by Marianela D’Aprile
6
URBANISM
October 16, 2023
Can Adaptive Reuse Fuel Equitable Revitalization?
by Clayton Page Aldern
6
PERSPECTIVE
October 9, 2023
What’s the Point of a Tiny Home?
by Mimi Zeiger
6
OBJECTS
October 2, 2023
A Book Where Torn-Paper Blobs Convey Big Ideas
by Julie Lasky
6
THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
September 24, 2023
The Architecture of Doing Nothing
by Edwin Heathcote
6
BOOK REVIEW
September 18, 2023
What the “Liebes Look” Says About Dorothy Liebes
by Debika Ray
6
PEOPLE
September 11, 2023
Roy McMakin’s Overpowering Simplicity
by Eva Hagberg
6
OBJECTS
September 5, 2023
Minimalism’s Specific Objecthood, Interpreted by Designers of Today
by Glenn Adamson
5
ROUNDTABLE
August 28, 2023
How Joan Jonas and Eiko Otake Navigate Transition
by Siobhan Burke
5
OBJECTS
August 21, 2023
The Future-Proofing Work of Design-Brand Archivists
by Adrian Madlener
5
URBANISM
August 14, 2023
Can a Church Solve Canada’s Housing Crisis?
by Alex Bozikovic
5
PEOPLE
August 7, 2023
In Search of Healing, Helen Cammock Confronts the Past
by Jesse Dorris
5
URBANISM
July 31, 2023
What Dead Malls, Office Parks, and Big-Box Stores Can Do for Housing
by Ian Volner
5
PERSPECTIVE
July 24, 2023
A Righteous Way to Solve “Wicked” Problems
by Susan Yelavich
5
OBJECTS
July 17, 2023
Making a Mess, with a Higher Purpose
by Andrew Russeth
5
ROUNDTABLE
July 10, 2023
How to Emerge from a Starchitect’s Shadow
by Cynthia Rosenfeld
4
PEOPLE
June 26, 2023
There Is No One-Size-Fits-All in Architecture
by Marianela D’Aprile
4
PEOPLE
June 19, 2023
How Time Shapes Amin Taha’s Unconventionally Handsome Buildings
by George Kafka
4
PEOPLE
June 12, 2023
Seeing and Being Seen in JEB’s Radical Archive of Lesbian Photography
by Svetlana Kitto
4
PERSPECTIVE
June 5, 2023
In Built Environments, Planting Where It Matters Most
by Karrie Jacobs
3
PERSPECTIVE
May 30, 2023
On the Home Front, a Latine Aesthetic’s Ordinary Exuberance
by Anjulie Rao
3
PERSPECTIVE
May 21, 2023
For a Selfie (and Enlightenment), Make a Pilgrimage to Bridge No. 3
by Alexandra Lange
3
THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
May 8, 2023
The Building Materials of the Future Might Be Growing in Your Backyard
by Marianna Janowicz
3
BOOK REVIEW
May 1, 2023
Moving Beyond the “Fetishisation of the Forest”
by Edwin Heathcote
2
ROUNDTABLE
April 24, 2023
Is Craft Still Synonymous with the Hand?
by Tiffany Jow
2
PEOPLE
April 17, 2023
A Historian Debunks Myths About Lacemaking, On LaceTok and IRL
by Julie Lasky
2
THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
April 10, 2023
How AI Helps Architects Design, and Refine, Their Buildings
by Ian Volner
2
PEOPLE
April 3, 2023
Merging Computer and Loom, a Septuagenarian Artist Weaves Her View of the World
by Francesca Perry
1
THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
March 27, 2023
Words That Impede Architecture, According to Reinier de Graaf
by Osman Can Yerebakan
1
PEOPLE
March 20, 2023
Painting With Plaster, Monica Curiel Finds a Release
by Andrew Russeth
1
PERSPECTIVE
March 13, 2023
Rules and Roles in Life, Love, and Architecture
by Eva Hagberg
1
Roundtable
March 6, 2023
A Design Movement That Pushes Beyond Architecture’s Limitations
by Tiffany Jow
0
THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
February 7, 2023
To Improve the Future of Public Housing, This Architecture Firm Looks to the Past
by Ian Volner
0
OBJECTS
February 7, 2023
The Radical Potential of “Prime Objects”
by Glenn Adamson
0
PEOPLE
February 20, 2023
Xiyadie’s Queer Cosmos
by Xin Wang
0
PEOPLE
February 13, 2023
How Michael J. Love’s Subversive Tap Dancing Steps Forward
by Jesse Dorris
0
SHOW AND TELL
February 7, 2023
Finding Healing and Transformation Through Good Black Art
by Folasade Ologundudu
0
BOOK REVIEW
February 13, 2023
How Stephen Burks “Future-Proofs” Craft
by Francesca Perry
0
ROUNDTABLE
February 27, 2023
Making Use of End Users’ Indispensable Wisdom
by Tiffany Jow
0
PEOPLE
February 7, 2023
The New Lessons Architect Steven Harris Learns from Driving Old Porsches
by Jonathan Schultz
0
PERSPECTIVE
February 7, 2023
The Day Architecture Stopped
by Kate Wagner
0
OBJECTS
February 7, 2023
The Overlooked Potential of Everyday Objects
by Adrian Madlener
0
ROUNDTABLE
February 7, 2023
A Conversation About Generalists, Velocity, and the Source of Innovation
by Tiffany Jow
0
OBJECTS
February 7, 2023
Using a Fungi-Infused Paste, Blast Studio Turns Trash Into Treasure
by Natalia Rachlin
Untapped is published by the design company Henrybuilt.
PERSPECTIVE
02.05.2024
That “Net-Zero” Home Is Probably Living a Lie

Is the term an environmental strategy, or an accounting trick?

colored pencil illustration of Earth with two arms dropping two houses
Illustration: Howard Shindler


In the world of residential architecture, the phrase “net-zero” has become ubiquitous. This sprawling glass-and-steel house deserves the label, according to The New York Times; so does this luxury-filled craftsman-style dwelling, The Washington Post reports. The trouble is, it’s hard to imagine any house more complicated than an igloo actually making the cut. These two houses don’t even come close.

And it matters. Because when the Times dubs a 7,000-square-foot house with a reflecting pond “net-zero,” it suggests that we can fight global warming without making major changes in what we build and how we build it. And that’s a dangerous message to send.

The “net-zero” claims tend to originate with architects or developers. It’s understandable that they would want to depict their buildings as environmentally benign—their self-esteem and, increasingly, their bottom lines depend on it. The phrase has even been used to describe buildings still under construction. Architects, developers, and journalists, using the present tense, tout the environmental bona fides of buildings that haven’t even opened. The finished buildings rarely live up to the hype, but you’ll never see a press release admitting it, or a retraction in a publication that bore the falsely reassuring headline. Misstatements made by interested parties are unfortunate, but it’s worse when newspapers and magazines—which are supposed to stick to facts—transmit the claims uncritically.

Let’s start with a definition: A net-zero building is one that generates as much energy as it uses. Simple, right? One side of the equation is energy consumption. Every building, except maybe the igloo, needs energy for running lights, appliances, heating, and other systems. On the other side is production. Happily, some buildings do generate clean energy, usually via rooftop solar panels. Sadly, few buildings can produce as much energy as they use 24-7-52; solar panels aren’t efficient enough and batteries have limited capacity. Additional energy has to come from somewhere.

Often that “somewhere” is an off-site wind or solar farm, a “net-zero” deus ex machina. For years Apple has been describing its Cupertino headquarters—that vast, donut-shaped building—as “powered by 100 percent renewable energy.” But Apple is counting energy produced almost 200 miles from Cupertino, at its giant solar farm called California Flats, and stored in rows of Tesla batteries, as part of the energy output of its building. It’s good that Apple is investing in photovoltaics, but calling a building “net-zero [if you include off-site energy production]” tells you nothing about how green the building is. You could, after all, power the world’s most wasteful building with solar panels if you had a big enough array of them. That’s an accounting trick, not an environmental strategy.

Even worse, some buildings are called net-zero because their owners plan to purchase carbon offsets. (Notice the future tense. There’s a lot of early chicken-counting.) In most cases, the offsets involve planting trees hundreds or thousands of miles away. The theory is that because trees store, or sequester, carbon, planting them can balance out emissions. But relying on sequestration to negate a building’s carbon emissions makes it possible to “greenwash” any building, no matter how energy-inefficient.

What would it take to make these tree-planting initiatives legitimate? You’d have to know how much carbon a tree will actually sequester in its lifetime, keeping in mind that climate change itself is affecting the trees’ capacity to absorb carbon. You’d have to know if a tree is being planted on land that’s barren or an area where trees would naturally regenerate. You have to be sure it wouldn’t have been planted there anyway, and you have to be sure that it lives a long, healthy life. (If a tree burns, or decomposes, as billions of trees do every year, the carbon it stored gets released back into the atmosphere—exactly where you don’t want it to be.) In other words, you’d have to monitor the trees for as long as the building stands, which could be a century or more.

But no one is promising to watch trees for a hundred years. And that’s the problem: The carbon a building emits during construction is in the atmosphere, exacerbating global warming right this minute, while the corresponding sequestration will happen over decades, if at all. Calling a building “net-zero” because of carbon offsets that may never exist is replacing fact with fantasy. If you think that’s harsh, read The Guardian’s devastating takedown of rainforest-based carbon offsets, concluding that “90 percent [of them] are worthless.” In other words, carbon offsets aren’t working. But even if they were, they would tell you nothing about the energy efficiency of the building in question.

There’s another reason most buildings can never be net-zero. That reason, the elephant in the room, is that it takes a lot of energy to make a building. The energy needed to, say, extract raw materials from the ground, turn those materials into building parts, and ship those parts to the construction site and hoist them into place, is called “embodied energy.” Embodied energy is harder to measure than operational energy, though several excellent digital tools are making the job easier. In any case, ignoring embodied energy because it’s difficult to quantify is like saying it’s okay to eat an entire chocolate cake while on a diet because you don’t know its exact calorie count.

Yet almost no one counts embodied energy when pronouncing a building “net-zero.” I know, because I’ve asked architects, engineers, developers, and building owners, who limit the consumption side of the equation to operational energy. They either don’t know about embodied energy, or know about it but proceed as if they don’t.

This is more than a small oversight: A building’s embodied energy can be many times greater than its annual operational energy use. A couple of years ago, architects at Harvard’s Graduate School of Design retrofitted an old house in Cambridge to demonstrate the nth degree of energy efficiency. But they chose features that would reduce the building’s operational energy needs in part by increasing its embodied energy. For example, they opted to use slabs of concrete as “thermal masses.” (The slabs absorb heat by day and shed it by night, reducing the need for heating and air conditioning.)

But concrete requires cement, which is commonly made from limestone in a process that releases massive quantities of greenhouse gasses. In part because of the concrete, it could take a hundred years or more for the renovation’s operational energy savings to zero out its embodied energy cost. That means the much-publicized retrofit won’t begin to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere until well into the 22nd century. Which seems a very poor strategy for addressing a current climate crisis, with tipping points mere years away.

What the Harvard architects did is what many building owners are doing now, in places like New York, that have set deadlines for cutting carbon emissions: They are, knowingly or not, front-loading their carbon “expenditures,” in order to avoid emitting lots of carbon once the limits take effect.

Imagine you’re a college student spending $4,000 a month on food and entertainment. Your parents tell you that you’ll have to cut your spending in half starting February 1. So you prepay your next 10 years’ worth of expenses, and then announce to your parents that you’ve cut your monthly outlay to the bone. That’s what property owners are doing, often inadvertently, with energy retrofits: emitting lots of carbon now to avoid emitting carbon later. (Which is why laws demanding cuts in operational energy without limiting embodied energy may be counterproductive.)

I’ve been doing my part to expose the misuses not just of “net-zero,” but also of “carbon neutral” (a close cousin), and variants like “climate positive” and “carbon positive.” “near-zero” and “climate neutral” are also trending.

The next time you encounter one of those terms, you might want to ask:

How much energy is needed to operate the building?
How much energy did it take to build the building?
How much clean energy does the building produce?

If the clean energy production isn’t enough to cover the building’s operational energy and offset its embodied energy in, say, a decade or less, the building isn’t helping the environment. And it isn’t net-zero in any way that matters.

Some 40 percent of the world’s carbon emissions come from buildings. To reduce buildings’ contribution to climate change will require us to build smaller and lighter and with natural materials. Applying the “net-zero” label to buildings that depend on off-site solar farms and illusory offsets, and without counting embodied energy, makes a mockery of real efforts to mitigate climate change.