Bank of America Tower At One Bryant Park, Manhattan, New York, USAConstructed at 2004 and Completed at 2009Architect : Cook + Fox ArchitectDevelopers : The Durst Organization and Bank of AmericaBudget : $ 1.3 billionSize : 288m tall, 204,387sqm, 151,427 sqm for the Bank of America, 52,960 sqm for tenants above bank of America space. 56000 tons

Bank of America Tower at Manhattan is the first building in the United States that earned the highest possible rating (Platinum) from the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). There is not much argument about its sustainabil-ity in term of eco-technologies, since Cook + Fox Architect generously applied sophisticated green-features in the building. However, this case study will not ana-lyze their ‘LEED’ feature. Instead, it will focus on its two bigger aspects of sustain-ability: the relationship between the Bank of America Tower and its social context, and the correlation of sustainability with the economy.

1. Big can be Green

Some people perhaps will question: What is so green about a 150.000 m2 sky-scraper? The use of the newest and advanced green features could be one of the common answers. However, that is not the most significant aspect of its sustain-ability. The best answer is that it’s big and it’s in Manhattan. The occupancy of the Bank of America Tower will approximately be equivalent to sixty suburban office parks.1 Placing the Tower in the heart of Manhattan, a densely populated envi-ronment, is a thousand times better than building a large office in the suburb. It reduces the urban sprawl, the car-traveler, and its pollution.

2. The Inclusion of Public Transportation into the Overall Scheme

The position of the Bank of America Tower in the middle of Manhattan is indirectly pushing their employees to use the public transportation. A subway in New York area, at peak hours, gets the equivalent of 540 miles per gallon, which is 22 times more efficient than a typical automobile.2 This statistic illustrates the significant numbers that could be reduced. New York’s public transportation is one of the best mass transit systems in the world. Rick Cook and Robert Fox understood that situation by incorporating the public transportation into their scheme. The Bank of America Tower has conveni-ent access to the New York subway. The building is located between two major subway stations: the Times Square and the Bryant Park Station. Cook and Fox created a new glass enclosed subway entrance in each of these stations. In addi-tion, the underground portions of the building also include a pedestrian passage-way that connects the two stations.3 The architects made those improvements in order to increase the accessibility for the users or the employees that decide to use the subway. Furthermore, most people imagine a massive space for car parking in gigantic office buildings, whereas there is none in the Bank of America Tower.

3. Better Pedestrian Access

An enjoyable walking environment is one incentive for people to stop driving their own cars. The Bank of America Tower tries to facilitate an environment to sustain that condition. Cook and Fox designed public amenities, including widened side-walks, public street furniture and an ‘urban garden.’4 However, it is not free of criti-cism: the design of those public amenities is considered like an addition rather than integration to the whole design.5 In the end, it may not fully work, but the Bank of America Tower understood the importance of a walking environment.

Sustainability in term of Social Context

Introduction

Fig. 1Height comparison (including the spire) of Build-ing in New York City. 1. Chrysler Building 319 meters2. Bank of America Tower 366 meters3. Empire State Building 381 meters

1 2 3Fig. 2 View of the urban garden

Fig. 4 Exterior view of the Bank of America Tower at day time.Fig. 5 View of the new glass enclosed subway entrance in front of the tower.

Hizkia Irwanto Gouw378785Project Review702-883 Environmental DesignTutor : Jeffrey BradleyClass : Tuesday, 4.15-6.15 pmDue date: May 16, 2011

Bank of America Tower

Time’s Square (Subway)

Bryant Park Station(Subway)

Bus Stop

Fig. 3 Public Transportation’s diagram around the Bank of America Tower.

2. The Cost of Eco-technologies

The Bank of America Tower is reported to spend less than $ 56 million for its eco-features.10 It is less than one percent of the entire cost of the building. However, the construction cost for the 54 story skyscraper is $ 5,400 per square meter, which surpasses the typical new development costs for the highrise in Manhattan ($ 4,800 per square meter).11 It exceeds more than 16%. By subtracting the percent-age manually, it results in a margin of around 15%. Where did the money go to? The Bank of America has not clarified. However, it could be assumed that it was spent for the sophisticated building materials and interior outfits, which have no relevance with sustainability. Once again, the building failed in their cost manage-ment.

4. More Jobs in the City

Before the Bank of America moves the One Bryant Park, the bank had 2995 em-ployees in their New York’s offices. After the opening in 2009, they added 1300 employees, and in long run, their expectation is to add another 1600 employees af-ter 20 years.13 From these statistics, the Bank of America Tower demonstrates how a single architectural piece could play a part in the economics’ growth of the city.

3. Sustainability in Relation to the Productivity

All the green features in the Bank of America Tower will possibly save money, however the greatest cost saving of green building is the increased efficiency of people that work in the building. Studies have shown that a green building could result in a company’s annual saving of 5- 10 percent because of the improvement in health, mood and reduced sick leave.12 On the other hand, sustainable buildings that improve the productivity of the tenants will turn out to be a powerful economic stimulus for owners and occupants equally.

The Bank of the America Tower is a good example of a sustainable building that not only focuses on its green-features but also embraces its social context. Cook and Fox understood that the building is not a standalone object; it should work thoroughly within its context. They value what Manhattan has (such as the dense population and the subway), and try to incorporate them in their green scheme of the building. In addition, although the building falls short in term of fund and cost management, the Bank of America Tower still offer benefits by creating more jobs, which relates to Manhattan’s economic growth. It is fit to declare that green architecture has a huge stake in what communities and cit-ies will become.

4. The Preservation of the History and the Culture

In the Bank of America Tower, people might see the architect’s commitment to preserve Manhattan’s historic buildings. First, the glass, steel, and aluminum sky-scraper is inspired by the America’s first great glass structure, erected in Bryant Park in 1853.6 Cook and Fox also restored and reconstructed the historic Henry Miller Theatre. Its original 1918 facade was preserved in order to honor the history of the theatre.7

We could say that the preservation of histories and cultures of the site had nothing to do with the sustainability. However, if we want to look at the definition of sustain-able (which means capable of being sustained or maintained), there is a strong correlation among them. History and culture are the treasures of a place; and we want to keep it for the next generations. So, that sense works identically with the notion of air, water, or earth, which are given not only for our time.

1. Money sources of $ 1.3 billion Project.

The overall cost to build the Bank of America Tower was approximately $ 1.3 bil-lion. It is a huge amount of money. If we want to look at sources for the money, we might say that the building is not representing the image of a sustainable building at all. Half of the fund, around $ 650 million, came from the ‘tax free Liberty Bonds,’ a special low-interest loan, which was planned to be used in the rebuilding of lower Manhattan post-9/11.9 In some way, it means that the Bank of America Tower used others’ money, while someone else may possibly have a more urgent need for it. Is it sustainable? In this matter the answer is no.

Sustainability in term of Economy

Capital Structure

The Bank of America Tower financing is a fusion of CMBS and tax exempt debt governed by CMBS Servicer technology.

The transaction consisted of $1.3 billion of investment-grade bonds, providing the property with just under 60% leverage.

The all-in blended coupon for the entire $1.3 billion capitalization is just under 5.18%, which was approximately swaps + 2.18%.

The $650 million of tax exempt Liberty Bonds may remain outstanding upon refinancing the CMBS debt.

A comparison of CMBS issuance pricing adjusted for duration shows continued spread tightening as investors return to the market.

Spread to Swaps * Securitization OBP Inland DDR Flagler RBS JPMClosing Date 7/8/2010 12/23/2009 11/25/2009 12/15/2009 4/22/2010 6/24/2010

AAA 150 150 140 225 80 140AAA 205 90 160AAA 165AA 163 360 332 400 190 250A 193 420 382 450 290A- 345BBB 440BBB- 268 540 627 425

WA Life (years) 23.1 9.4 4.7 6.8 4.8 5.9WA Spread 176 254 181 294 141 164Coupon 5.18% 5.87% 4.22% 5.85% 3.82% 4.33%LTV 59% 59% 52% 52% 54% 62%Total Proceeds (000s) $1,300 $500 $400 $460 $310 $716* Interpolated swaps with duration matching weighted average l i fe

Summary of Terms CMBS BondsSubordinate Tax

Exempt Liberty Bonds

Coupon 4.65% 5.71%

Term10-year ARD / 30-year final maturity

39 years

Interest Only 10 years 30 years

Prepayment / Lockout Period

Defeasance / 113 months

Defeasance / 113 months

Tranche RatingInterest

Only Maturity Balance Coupon

CMBS AAA 10 years 2020 650,000,000 4.65%Liberty Bond Class 1 AA -1 30 years 2044 206,200,000 5.13%Liberty Bond Class 1 AA -2 33 years 2046 145,400,000 5.63%Liberty Bond Class 2 A 35 years 2047 87,100,000 5.63%Liberty Bond Class 3 BBB- 37 years 2049 211,300,000 6.38%Total / WA 1,300,000,000 5.18%

Capital Split

One Bryant Park Transaction Summary | p 3

5. Criticism about the View

280 m tall is an enormous number. There is significant shadow produced by the building. The tower will certainly block the view and limit the amount of sunlight in nearby buildings. Few peo-ple already complained because their views are blocked by the Bank of Amer-ica Tower.8 Is it sustainable to build a green building while sacrificing other buildings? It may not sustainable in that term. However, if we balance it with the thousands of jobs created by the build-ing, the city will gain more.

Conclusion

Fig. 6 View of a newly constructed Henry Miller Theatre, with its 1918 original facade.

\Workers in the offices of The New Yorker in the Condé Nast Building have enjoyed their east view, but it is not available anymore; a 54-story tower is rising next door.

Fig. 7

Fig. 8

The table shows where the money to build the tower came from. Half of the fund came from the CMBS bonds and the other half was from ‘Tax Free Liberty Bonds.’

Fig. 10 View of the Bank of America Tower during the night

Fig. 9 The employees of the Bank of America

Hizkia Irwanto Gouw378785Project Review702-883 Environmental DesignTutor : Jeffrey BradleyClass : Tuesday, 4.15-6.15 pmDue date: May 16, 2011