Can a Times Square Disaster Be an Inspiration?

By Christopher Hallowell/New York

Land grabber, neighborhood despoiler, wheeler-dealer--those are the kinds of labels that stick to an urban real estate developer. Concerned environmentalist would not be on the list. But Douglas Durst is a developer with a green streak. And if he's not ready to be lionized by the Sierra Club, you could at least call him the greenest of New York City's megadevelopers.

Durst, 55, the third-generation president of the family-run Durst Organization, prefers to be called environmentally responsible. "I don't like the term green," he says. "Any building, after all, is environmentally disruptive." His latest disruption is a 48-story glass-and-concrete tower that looms over Times Square. It boasts such eco-conscious features as solar-energy panels, on-site electrical generation, internal waste chutes to ease recycling, huge low-glare windows that reduce artificial lighting needs, pumps to circulate fresh air, and nontoxic building materials.

Unfortunately, the laudable environmental goals were overshadowed from the start by sloppiness and tragedy. Two people died and at least a dozen were injured as a result of construction disasters, which included two fires and the collapse of a scaffolding that forced the streets of Times Square to be sealed off for several weeks. None of this had anything to do with creating a green building, but it gave Four Times Square (its official name) a bad rep and a cynic's nickname: "Times Square Titanic." Some newly ensconced employees of the Conde Nast magazine empire, the building's principal tenant, even contemplated extra life insurance. Then there were the break-in glitches, such as too-cold air conditioning, balky elevators and improperly installed locks.

While appalled by the misfortunes and embarrassed by the start-up snafus, Durst still sees his building as the leading edge in high-rise construction. "We felt we would be creating an example here. Others would have to follow." He notes, for instance, that his tenants breathe air that is 50% fresher than that in most offices. That, along with an abundance of natural light, could perk up employees, hiking their productivity 10% or more, according to some studies. Durst calls this "the biggest argument for green buildings. If you can make people more efficient, that's a huge saving."

He couldn't do all he wanted to. Financial considerations contributed to cutbacks in the number of solar panels and non-polluting fuel-cell power generators. Nonetheless, Durst has drawn a nod from environmental advocates. "This is a good first effort," says Joseph Romm, executive director of the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions in Washington. "The skyscraper is the symbol of American architecture, and Four Times Square has changed the way we think about them."

--By Christopher Hallowell/New York