“As the city races to retrofit its building stock and meet carbon reduction goals, Passive House offers a solution that’s not just idealistic—it’s practical and proven.”

The courtyard at 326 Rockaway Ave. in Brownsville, an all-electric Passive House development by Slate Property Group, RiseBoro Community Partnership, and Goldman Sachs. Photo by Barrett Doherty, courtesy of OSD (Office of Strategy + Design)

As New York City works to meet its ambitious climate goals, reduce carbon emissions, and create healthier, more affordable housing, one proven building standard continues to stand out: Passive House. Known for its ultra-energy-efficient performance, superior indoor air quality, and long-term cost savings, Passive House design is rapidly gaining traction—but it’s still not the norm. The question is: why not? 

RELATED READING: ‘Passive House’ Buildings Boast Climate & Health Perks. Why Aren’t There More of Them?

In a city where over 70 percent of carbon emissions come from buildings, Passive House construction presents one of the most practical, impactful tools available for transformation. It’s time for developers, policymakers, and building owners to take a closer look at what’s stopping widespread adoption—and why those perceived barriers no longer hold up to scrutiny. 

Passive House is a rigorous, performance-based building standard that dramatically reduces the energy required for heating and cooling. Passive House buildings consume up to 90 percent less heating and cooling energy than traditional buildings and 40 to 60 percent less total energy.

This is achieved through five key design principles: continuous insulation, airtight construction, high-performance windows and doors, balanced ventilation with heat recovery, and minimal thermal bridging. Whether new construction or deep energy retrofit, Passive House delivers resilient, comfortable, and cost-effective buildings. 

The benefits of Passive House design are extensive—and directly align with New York City’s goals for energy equity, public health, and sustainability: 

Dramatic energy reduction: Buildings built to the Passive House standard cut energy use by up to 60 percent overall, significantly lowering utility bills for owners and tenants alike. Case study data has proven that Passive House buildings use 32 to 58 percent less energy than their conventionally-built peer buildings. The savings are even more staggering when compared to older, existing building stock, with buildings spending as much as three times in energy costs in comparison. 

Exceptional indoor air quality: Passive House buildings continuously filter fresh air through high-performance ventilation systems, drastically reducing pollutants, allergens, and moisture—a clear win for tenant health, especially in low-income and frontline communities often burdened by poor indoor air. The significance of this additional armour against poor air quality has been realized even more with increasing wildfire smoke events that make already poor outdoor city air quality much more hazardous.  

Resilience to climate extremes: With superior insulation and airtightness, Passive House buildings maintain stable indoor temperatures even during power outages or extreme weather—an increasingly important feature as the city grapples with more frequent heatwaves and storms. Many recently built passive house buildings have become low-cost safe haven cooling and warming centers due to their resilience during extreme weather events. Passive House buildings help alleviate stress on our electrical grid, showing the benefits spread far beyond the building footprint.  

Increased building value: As tenants, buyers, and investors grow more sustainability-conscious, Passive House-certified properties are becoming more desirable and future-proof. They are not only easier to market, but they are also cheaper to operate which helps attract residents and developers alike.  

Compliance and incentives: From New York State’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act to Local Law 97 in New York City, regulatory pressure to decarbonize buildings is growing. Passive House offers a clear path to compliance, alongside potential tax credits, favorable financing, and incentive programs for green building certifications. 

So, if Passive House checks all the boxes—efficiency, health, affordability, resilience—why isn’t it everywhere in New York City? The most persistent myth is cost. It’s long been assumed that building to Passive House standards is prohibitively expensive. However, research is challenging that assumption. 

A report in “Multifamily Dive” found that Passive House multifamily buildings are now nearing cost parity with traditional construction. In fact, the cost premium has shrunk to 3.5 percent on average, and in some cases, Passive House projects have been built at the same or lower cost than comparable code-built buildings. 

The key to unlocking cost-effectiveness lies in integration—engaging Passive House consultants early in the design process, coordinating trades and contractors around performance goals, and applying lessons learned from the growing number of successful projects. As the local Passive House market matures, so does the availability of knowledgeable professionals, cost-effective materials, and proven workflows. 

Additionally, Passive House buildings can often leverage specialized financing, such as green bonds, PACE financing, and low-interest loans or incentive subsidies through New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and NYC Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) programs. These mechanisms help bridge any remaining first-cost gaps and accelerate return on investment. 

As reported in the Building Performance Association Journal, “the longer-term cost savings, improved health outcomes, and environmental benefits more than justify the slight increase in upfront investment.” Even on the extreme end, early adopters of Passive House faced only as high as an 8 percent cost increase, with payback periods under 10 years. 

For developers and owners considering Passive House, here are a few key considerations: 

Start early: Passive House success hinges on planning. Bringing in certified Passive House consultants during conceptual design helps avoid costly redesigns or change orders down the line. 

Know your typology: Passive House can be applied to nearly any building type—residential, commercial, institutional. It works especially well for multifamily buildings, where energy and health benefits scale across units and tenants. 

Think long-term: Passive House buildings enjoy lower operating costs, reduced maintenance needs, and higher occupant satisfaction. For owners with a 10-plus year hold strategy, Passive House isn’t just viable—it’s smart business. 

Leverage support: New York City is home to an active Passive House community, including groups like NY Passive House (NYPH), the Passive House Network (PHN), and the Building Energy Exchange (BE-Ex), which offer training, case studies, and technical assistance. Thanks to local policy and a hub of subject matter expertise from early adopters and pioneers, New York City is a well-supported market for Passive House design and construction. 

As the city races to retrofit its building stock and meet carbon reduction goals, Passive House offers a solution that’s not just idealistic—it’s practical and proven. It’s a path to cleaner air, lower bills, and climate justice. 

Imagine a city where affordable housing isn’t synonymous with drafty windows or asthma-inducing mold. A city where our most vulnerable residents live in buildings designed to protect them from both the cold of winter and the heat of summer. A city where every new building is an investment in the future—not just for profit, but for people and the planet. 

We already have the tools, the data, and the momentum. What we need now is the collective will to shift from pilot projects and one-off examples to scalable transformation. 

The Passive House movement is no longer a niche. It’s a necessity. And New York City, with its ambitious climate targets, its dense multifamily landscape, and its commitment to equity, is uniquely positioned to lead. 

For New York City to truly become a climate-resilient, equitable city, Passive House needs to move from “why?” to “why not?” The performance benefits are well documented. The cost barriers are diminishing. The health, safety, and comfort of our communities depend on the choices we make today.

Whether you’re a building owner, developer, architect, or policymaker, the path is clear: now is the time to build better. Now is the time to build Passive. 

Carmel Pratt is a senior technical advisor at Bright Power, where she provides expert guidance on building performance and sustainability for ground-up new construction and rehabilitation projects.

The post Opinion: Passive House Design is Key to Meeting NYC’s Climate Goals appeared first on City Limits.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department has issued subpoenas as part of an investigation into mortgage fraud allegations against Lisa Cook, who is fighting a Trump administration effort to remove her from her role as a Federal Reserve Governor.

A person familiar with the matter confirmed that subpoenas had been sent in connection with the probe, which was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. AP’s earlier story follows below.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Justice Department urged a federal judge on Thursday to allow the immediate removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook while she fights to keep her job, dismissing as “baseless” Cook’s claim that the president is attempting to fire her so that he can seize control of the independent central bank.

Related Articles

Social Security praises its new chatbot. Ex-officials say it was tested but shelved under Biden

Where states stand in the battle for partisan advantage in US House redistricting maps

As Republicans spar over IVF, some turn to obscure MAHA-backed alternative

Gregory Bovino, head of Los Angeles campaign, shows how immigration agents rack up arrests

The president blamed AI and embraced doing so. Is it becoming the new ‘fake news’?

Trump said he was firing Cook on Aug. 25 after one of his appointees alleged that she committed mortgage fraud related to two properties she purchased in 2021, before she joined the Fed. Cook is accused of falsely listing two properties as “primary residences.” Down payment requirements are often more lenient and mortgage rates lower for primary residences versus a second home or investment property.

In a filing in U.S. District for Washington D.C. this week, Cook’s lawyers argued that firing her was unlawful because presidents can only fire Fed governors “for cause,” which has typically meant inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance while in office. They also said she was entitled to a hearing and a chance to respond to the charges before being fired, but was not provided either. Attorneys said in the court filing that Cook never committed mortgage fraud.

Responding on Thursday, the Justice Department said the president has the discretion to fire Cook for cause and that his decisions cannot be reviewed by the courts.

The case could become a turning point for the 112-year old Federal Reserve, which was designed by Congress to be insulated from day-to-day political influence. Economists prefer independent central banks because they can do unpopular things like lifting interest rates to combat inflation more easily than elected officials.

Trump has repeatedly attacked Fed Chair Jerome Powell and the other members of the Fed’s interest-rate setting committee for not cutting the short-term interest rate they control more quickly.

Many economists worry that if the Fed falls under the control of the White House, it will keep its key interest rate lower than justified by economic fundamentals to satisfy Trump’s demands for cheaper borrowing.

By MATTHEW PERRONE

WASHINGTON (AP) — LSD reduced symptoms of anxiety in a midstage study published Thursday, paving the way for additional testing and possible medical approval of a psychedelic drug that has been banned in the U.S. for more than a half century.

Related Articles

Yes, weighted vests can help amp up your workout. Here’s what to know

Kennedy hearing turns rancorous as Democrats press him on COVID vaccine changes

Washington, Oregon and California governors form a health alliance in rebuke of Trump administration

Florida will work to eliminate all childhood vaccine mandates in the state, officials say

What is hydrogen sulfide? Toxic gas eyed in dairy deaths is infrequent but dangerous feature of agricultural work

The results from drugmaker Mindmed tested several doses of LSD in patients with moderate-to-severe generalized anxiety disorder, with the benefits lasting as long as three months. The company plans to conduct follow-up studies to confirm the results and then apply for Food and Drug Administration approval.

Beginning in the 1950s, researchers published a flurry of papers exploring LSD’s therapeutic uses, though most of them don’t meet modern standards.

“I see this paper as a clear step in the direction of reviving that old research, applying our modern standards and determining what are the real costs and benefits of these compounds,” said Frederick Barrett, who directs Johns Hopkins University’s psychedelic center and was not involved in the research.

Psychedelic research is rebounding

Psychedelics are in the midst of a popular and scientific comeback, with conferences, documentaries, books and medical journals exploring their potential for conditions like depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The FDA has designated psilocybin, MDMA and now LSD as potential “breakthrough” therapies based on early results.

Still, the drugs have not had a glide path to the market.

Last year, the FDA rejected MDMA — also known as ecstasy — as a treatment for PTSD, citing flawed study methods, potential research bias and other issues.

The new LSD study, published by the Journal of the American Medical Association, addresses some of those problems.

MDMA, like many other psychedelics, was tested in combination with hours of talk therapy by trained health professionals. That approach proved problematic for FDA reviewers, who said it was difficult to separate the benefits of the drug from those of therapy.

The LSD study took a simpler approach: Patients got a single dose of LSD — under professional supervision, but without therapy — and then were followed for about three months.

The paper does not detail how patients were prepared for the experience or what sort of follow-up they received, which is crucial to understanding the research, Barrett noted.

“In many cases people can have such powerful, subjective experiences that they may need to talk to a therapist to help them make sense of it,” he said.

Anxiety eased but questions remain

For the study, researchers measured anxiety symptoms in nearly 200 patients who randomly received one of four doses of LSD or a placebo. The main aim was to find the optimal dose of the drug, which can cause intense visual hallucinations and occasionally feelings of panic or paranoia.

At four weeks, patients receiving the two highest doses had significantly lower anxiety scores than those who received placebo or lower doses. After 12 weeks, 65% of patients taking the most effective LSD dose — 100 milligrams — continued to show benefits and nearly 50% were deemed to be in remission. The most common side effects included hallucinations, nausea and headaches.

Patients who got dummy pills also improved — a common phenomenon in psychedelic and psychiatric studies — but their changes were less than half the size those getting the real drug.

The research was not immune to problems seen in similar studies.

Most patients were able to correctly guess whether they’d received LSD or a dummy pill, undercutting the “blinded” approach that’s considered critical to objectively establishing the benefits of a new medicine. In addition, a significant portion of patients in both the placebo and treatment groups dropped out early, narrowing the final data set.

It also wasn’t clear how long patients might continue to benefit.

Mindmed is conducting two large, late-stage trials that will track patients over a longer period of time and, if successful, be submitted for FDA approval.

“It’s possible that some people may need retreatment,” said Dr. Maurizio Fava of Mass General Brigham Hospital, the study’s lead author and an adviser to Mindmed. “How many retreatments, we don’t know yet, but the long-lasting effect is quite significant.”

Interest from the Trump administration

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other administration officials have expressed interest in psychedelic therapy, suggesting it could receive fast-track review for veterans and others suffering psychological wounds.

Generalized anxiety disorder is among the most common mental disorders, affecting nearly 3% of U.S. adults, according to the National Institutes of Health. Current treatments include psychotherapy, antidepressants and anti-anxiety drugs like benzodiazepines.

The possibility of using LSD as a medical treatment isn’t new.

In the 1950s and 1960s more than 1,000 papers were published documenting LSD’s use treating alcohol addiction, depression and other conditions. But a federal backlash was in full swing by the late 1960s, when psychedelics became linked to counterculture figures like Timothy Leary, the ex-Harvard professor who famously promoted the drugs as a means to “turn on, tune in and dropout.”

A 1970 law classifying LSD and other psychedelics as Schedule 1 drugs — without any medical use and high potential for abuse — essentially halted U.S. research.

When a handful of nonprofits begin reassessing the drugs in the 1980s and 1990s, they focused on lesser-known hallucinogens like MDMA and psilocybin, the main ingredient in magic mushrooms, to avoid the historic controversies surrounding LSD.

“LSD was right there in front of everybody, but Mindmed is the first company that actually decided to evaluate it,” Fava said.

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

By LINLEY SANDERS and AMELIA THOMSON-DEVEAUX, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Most Americans say kids should be vaccinated to attend school. But as Florida plans to become the first state to eliminate childhood vaccine mandates, U.S. adults are also less likely to think these immunizations are important than they were several decades ago.

Routine childhood vaccine rates are falling, and fewer Americans – particularly Republicans – now say it’s extremely important for children to get vaccinated. Polling indicates that for the relatively small but influential group of Americans who oppose childhood vaccines, concerns about personal freedom and government influence are prominent.

Childhood vaccines prevent 4 million deaths worldwide each year, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And they don’t just protect individuals; they create “herd immunity” in a community. This is when enough people have immunity to stop the uncontrolled spread of a disease. It keeps everyone safe by preventing outbreaks that can sicken the vulnerable.

Here’s what recent surveys show about views on childhood vaccines, and how they’ve shifted.

Americans broadly support vaccine mandates

Florida’s move is a significant departure from decades of public policy and research that has shown vaccines to be safe and the most effective way to stop the spread of communicable diseases.

It also runs largely counter to mainstream public opinion about vaccine requirements, although some polling suggests that U.S. adults are less likely to embrace vaccine mandates than they were several decades ago.

About 8 in 10 U.S. adults in a Harvard/SSRS poll from March said parents should be required to have children vaccinated against preventable diseases like measles, mumps, and rubella to attend school, including majorities of Democrats and Republicans. And about 7 in 10 U.S. adults in a New York Times/Ipsos poll said healthy children should be required to be vaccinated because of the risk to others.

A 2024 Gallup poll found a narrower split, though, with about half of U.S. adults saying the government should require all parents to have their children vaccinated against contagious diseases such as measles, while just under half said the government should stay out.

That’s a dramatic shift from 1991, when another poll found that 81% of Americans said the government should require childhood vaccinations.

Republicans less likely to see vaccines as important

The drop in support for childhood vaccination requirements is driven mostly by Republicans. The 2024 Gallup poll found that most Republicans, 60%, oppose government vaccine mandates.

Related Articles

Yes, weighted vests can help amp up your workout. Here’s what to know

Kennedy hearing turns rancorous as Democrats press him on COVID vaccine changes

Washington, Oregon and California governors form a health alliance in rebuke of Trump administration

Florida will work to eliminate all childhood vaccine mandates in the state, officials say

What is hydrogen sulfide? Toxic gas eyed in dairy deaths is infrequent but dangerous feature of agricultural work

At the same time, Republicans are also less likely to see vaccines as important. In the Gallup survey, only about one-quarter of Republicans said it was “extremely important” for parents to get their children vaccinated, compared to about 6 in 10 Democrats.

The two parties began to diverge on the issue before the COVID-19 pandemic, but the gap widened substantially after 2019, when Republicans became much more likely to dismiss the importance of childhood vaccinations.

Slightly more than half of Americans were “extremely” or “very” concerned that more people choosing to not vaccinate their children against childhood diseases would lead to more outbreaks of infectious diseases, according to an AP-NORC poll from January, but Democrats were more concerned than Republicans or independents.

Many have heard false claims about the risks of vaccines

As prominent figures like Kennedy refuse to acknowledge the scientific consensus that childhood vaccines don’t cause autism, an April KFF poll shows that about 6 in 10 U.S. adults have heard or read the false claim that the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines, also known as the MMR vaccines, have been proven to cause autism in children.

About one-third have heard the false claim that getting the measles vaccine is more dangerous than becoming infected with measles, according to KFF.

Very few U.S. adults – around 5% – think each claim is “definitely true,” the poll found, but less than half say each is “definitely false,” with significant numbers expressing uncertainty.

Vaccine mandate opposition may be more about choice than safety

Another poll, though, suggests that concerns about parental rights may be playing a larger role than worries about safety.

The Harvard/SSRS poll from March found that among those who do not support routine childhood vaccine requirements, about 8 in 10 said a “major reason” for that opposition was that it should be the parents’ choice whether or not to vaccinate their child.

Many fewer vaccine opposers, 40%, said concerns about safety were a major reason.