A Tale of Two Site Visits

Visiting architectural firms is always an interesting proposition. Will the offices be cutting-edge, incorporating the latest building technologies and current design fashion in order to impress potential clients? Or will they be less-than-interesting, drab and utilitarian spaces which cost little to create and even less to maintain? Having worked in offices of both types, I’m always interested to learn which path a particular firm takes.

Cook + Fox

The offices of Cook + Fox, while not particularly showy, are a near-perfect example of a firm which chooses to showcase its strengths in its work environment. Cook + Fox have been at the vanguard of sustainable architectural and interior design for many years, and their LEED Platinum-certified offices – housed in a landmark NYC building which used to be a department store – contain many beautifully-restored elements.

A view of the green roof outside the Cook+Fox offices.

Many of the materials utilized in the offices are sustainable, including the workstations, the surfacing, the carpeting and the paint. There are sustainable technologies built into the HVAC system, and Cook + Fox built a green roof even though they did not receive LEED credit for it. Instead, they simply believed it to be an important addition to the space which all their employees could enjoy equally through a virtual wall of windows.

41 Cooper Square

This newly-built, Morphosis-designed building on the campus of Cooper Union is a glaring example of sustainable design gone horribly awry. While not an architectural office per se, it does house the school’s engineering department. It also contains a myriad of sustainable design elements such as an operable building skin made of perforated and moveable stainless steel panels, radiant heating and cooling ceiling panels, a full-height atrium to improve air flow and provide increased interior daylighting, a green roof, a cogeneration plant and state-of-the-art laboratories. 

A view of the main circulation spire at 41 Cooper Square.

While all of these features may lead to increased energy efficiency and cost savings over the life of the building, they are employed in such a way as to make the interior environment seem cold and uncaring. Although the building was “conceived as a vehicle to foster collaboration and cross-disciplinary dialogue,” the stark monotonous white of its interior and its severe angularity – as well as its seeming lack of these very spaces – serve at cross-purposes. This building may have cost a fortune to construct, but its sustainability is too well-hidden and technological to have a positive impact.