The Carbon Footprint

Brookline is trying to reduce its carbon footprint, and in January adopted the Specialized Stretch Energy Code.  But demolition and replacement of the Pierce School would greatly undermine that effort.  The design team’s own energy analysis shows that the carbon cost of demolition would never be made up by the improved energy efficiency of a new school.  Instead, the existing school could be ‘retrofitted to meet high-performance standards’ as Carl Elefante, former president of the American Institute of Architects, recommends as an alternative to demolition.  

Prominent local preservationists looked carefully at the Pierce question and concluded that re-use is the greenest approach. This could include an energy-efficient modern addition, as seen in many other communities that value climate resiliency.

But remember, “fossil fuel free” doesn’t mean energy-free. In fact, the Town / School budget is being challenged right now by unexpectedly high (and unplanned-for) energy consumption in our new school buildings. Two-story walls of glass and vast atriums might look nice on the cover of Architectural Digest, but they’re killing Brookline at the bank. (And do Kindergarteners through eight graders really need them?) The same high increased energy costs are expected at the new Driscoll, and would presumably hit the massive new Pierce as currently proposed.

For all of Brookline’s talk about addressing climate change, it’s perplexing to see Town, School and other officials charging ahead with the most climate-unfriendly approach to reviving Pierce. The greenest building is the one you already have.