Architect’s Newspaper Article on Sherwood Project in NY
December 1st, 2009 by sherwoodsfThe latest issue of The Architect’s Newspaper has an article on one of Sherwood’s projects, New York’s Olmstead Center. Click here to read the full article.
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
The latest issue of The Architect’s Newspaper has an article on one of Sherwood’s projects, New York’s Olmstead Center. Click here to read the full article.

Check out these awesome street ‘redesigns’ from the GOOD Livable Street Contest. There’s lots of ‘before’ and ‘after’ pictures of how people would redesign their streets to make them more walkable, breathable, and permeable. While some of them would likely face technical challenges, they represent a good slice of the ideas out there for making better streets.
The contest is closed now, but due to the overwhelming volume of responses, they’ve given the judge an extra week to pick a winner. Check back May 18th for an announcement……

Treehugger brings word of the new Z-Competition: Re-skin old buildings to make them zerofootprint. Or at least, come up with scalable designs for retrofitting older, energy-inefficient buildings to reduce their consumption and improve functionality.
The competition will be judged on the aesthetics, energy efficiency, smart technology, return on investment and potential as a solution for a large number of buildings.
Like the X-Prize, this isn’t just a design competition. Five finalists will be chosen, their designs implemented and monitored over three years. The Z-Prize ca$h will be given to the building that has most reduced the energy per square foot.
Retrofitting existing buildings is one of our most pressing global challenges. It’s the most bang for the buck, the most quickly implemented, and with billions and billions of square feet of building stock out there, could represent a serious dent in carbon emissions.
The competition welcomes teams from all over the world.The deadline for the submission of designs is September 1, 2009.

We’ve begun adding a .05% surcharge to our contracts to offset the emissions we produce in a client’s name (i.e. $5 for every $10,000 billed).
We all know that computers use electricity, plans are printed on paper, and air travel causes emissions. These are simply the costs of doing business - costs counted in greenhouse gases and resource depletion.
What’s the best way to handle these costs? Would you pay a ‘green’ surcharge?
WSJ’s readers had some interesting comments:
“Yes I would mind. I do not ask you to pay for my charity work,” says another reader.
As opposed to the first reader who views offsetting as a moral necessity we shouldn’t charge for, this reader views it as something extra - a form of environmental charity - that we shouldn’t ask clients to pay for. Opposite views - same result. What do you think?
One reader compared it to being charged “every time the toilet gets flushed,” another suggested we just add it to the cost of doing business without creating a separate surcharge.
Do you think it’s more transparent to let clients know we’re incorporating the cost of offsetting our emissions? Or should we simply add it in with the cost of the lights, plumbing, rent and other overhead (including toilets!) on our P&L sheets?
There are lots more interesting comments from readers:
“Only in SF. What arrogance, imposing a extra tax on customers.”
“CO2 is a CRUCIAL plant NUTRIENT!!!….So, why on earth should we REDUCE our emission of this highly beneficial CO2???”
“If businesses truly want to be green, they will put money where their collective mouths are. Do the right thing.”
“Carbon offsets are a sick sick joke.”
“I would be happy to pay such a fee if I can be assured the money is doing what they say it is doing.”
Read the article here, and let us know your thoughts!

A photo of the sorted demolition piles at Bird.
“No I would not pay something to someone to do something they should morally be doing anyway,” says Richard.
Yes, we should morally be doing it, and we may soon be required legally to do it. But there is still a cost. All companies pay for health and safety measures, and pass them on in some way to their customers.