Opinion: New York City’s buildings are designed to leak energy. Retrofitting them may be the only option

New York City is known for its buildings, whether they be the tall and shiny Goliaths of Midtown Manhattan or the stout, elaborate co-ops of the Upper East Side. Aside from their beauty and history, they have another thing in common: they aren’t energy efficient. 

New York City is the third worst city in the world for CO2 emissions, and over two-thirds of those emissions come from buildings. 

The construction of coveted prewar buildings is partially at fault — although beautiful, they’re outdated, often containing features like asbestos-wrapped water heaters and poor insulation. Built to accommodate an influx of residential occupants before World War II and draw wealthy residents into the city, they’re often ornate, with high ceilings and decorative detailing both inside and out. 

Prewar buildings often feature heaters directly under windows, an unfortunate consequence of the Fresh Air Movement following the Spanish Flu pandemic in 1918. In an attempt to reduce flu exposure, people often left their windows open to increase ventilation. The theory was that incoming air would be heated by the radiator, which would require a lot of heat to keep the apartment warm — since the windows would be open even on the coldest days of the year. 

Modern buildings are at fault, too. Architects have criticized tall glass buildings for being particularly difficult to cool during hot summer months. Then-Mayor Bill de Blasio halfheartedly attempted to ban them in 2019, but he ended up with not a ban on glass but tougher efficiency rules for new construction. Despite some architects in NYC trying to work around glass, some remain enamored with it, even if the sealed-in environment traps heat all summer long, like in a greenhouse. The high heats of glass buildings, which are often office buildings, require copious amounts of energy to be kept cold — really cold. 

Glass buildings can be better for the planet in the winter since they’re easier to heat, but due to global warming, AC rates could double by 2050. 

Glass itself causes the release of greenhouse gases when it’s manufactured, meaning that while the buildings alone aren’t the only problem for the environment—so is their construction. 

Certainly, we need to do everything we reasonably can to improve the efficiency of buildings, especially residences, considering that the building sector accounts for over one-third of global energy emissions and consumption.

New York City’s Department of Buildings introduced a Band-Aid solution back in 2020: building efficiency ratings. They are posted grades on the outside of buildings over 25,000 square feet. The grades are meant to incentivize building owners and landlords to lower emissions, but until this year, these grades were essentially meaningless. 

An energy efficiency rating with labels, which is posted on over 20,000 buildings across New York City and is intended to jumpstart efficiency changes [Image Credit: NYC Buildings]

Although the city’s Department of Buildings claims they will start “enforcing” fines for bad grades in 2024, that hasn’t happened yet and it’s unclear when — or if — it ever will. Local Law 97 states that fines of up to $268 per ton of emissions will be enacted, with “stricter limits” starting in 2030. But even then there’s a loophole: commercial landlords and building managers could avoid being fined by demonstrating “good faith efforts” to improve energy efficiency, such as undertaking green retrofitting measures. 

The median score is a 60% — a failing grade, in most cases — and applies to about 60% of New York City’s building area. They were implemented as a part of the state’s goals of reducing carbon emissions by 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050. 

So if fines don’t work, what will? In Denver, instead of threatening building owners with fines, the city is incentivizing green upgrades. The Denver Green Code was voluntary for several years and in 2023 became mandatory, but flexible. It is a framework for building operations that allows owners to choose from a list of provisions to implement while providing benefits like expedited permitting to those who opt to do more. Although it’s too early to tell, Denver is predicted to reach zero emissions for new buildings by 2030. Conversely, New York City plans to reach this milestone by 2050. 

But extensive energy retrofits — from installing double-pane windows to replacing inefficient heating and cooling systems — can be quite expensive. A 2022 study estimated green retrofitting could cost around $118 per square foot — nearly 3 million for a 25,000-square-foot building. Why invest hundreds of thousands of dollars for upgrades when you can just pay a few thousand in fines? 

Meanwhile, New York City is still planning to rely on fines. But a study commissioned by the Real Estate Board of New York found that thousands of properties would be out of compliance with the building emissions law, resulting in more than $900 million in annual fines by 2030.

In the end, who pays for lowering greenhouse gas emissions in New York City? Landlords and building managers, certainly — but ultimately residents in the form of higher rents. But can’t we at least undertake the vital work of cutting carbon emissions from buildings in a smarter way? Requiring public ‘grades’ that don’t really mean anything, or threatening fines that are either too low or may never even be enforced, isn’t going to work. And all the while, apartment dwellers like me and millions of other New Yorkers will have to keep sweating money.