Blog

Abstraction and Ego

Two weeks ago Gehry Technologies announced an alliance to promote technologies role in design.  As with most postings on the web there were several “Anonymous” posts responding to where the original article posted at ENR.com. 

 

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/2011/10/Gehry-Alliance-of-Architects.asp

 

The posts range from several attacking the list of names associated with the alliance to one in support of the premise of technologies role in design. 

 

If we put aside the names for a moment and focus on aspirations of the alliance it is easy to see that this same discussion is likely taking place in varying sized firms around the world. 

 

What I am opening up for discussion is the uneasiness that technology presents for the profession.  I hope to re-frame the conversation around how we see both design and technology. 

 

At the heart of my position is the abstraction of work done by architects.  After all, the majorities of architects do not build buildings but instead make drawings of buildings.  Not since the Middle Ages has the profession as a whole integrated the work of architects with the actual making of architecture through art and science. 

 

What is my basis for making the claim that it has been nearly 700 years?  I must first disclaim that I am not saying all architects are lost in abstraction but instead most of the profession has been.

 

Here is my abridged case (from a Western point of view as a western point of view builds most of the foundation for contemporaryUSculture and provides the culture for the alliance):

 

Middle Ages way of seeing: 

In general, the experience of space was the primary driver for organizing and making structures.  The most prominent example that can be experienced today is gothic cathedrals throughoutEurope.  Mathematics, form, material, and light all intersect via design.  Inspiration, construction, and technology came from egotistical architects working with masons in template rooms where full scale templates and mock-ups challenged convention to produce structures that affected the body’s senses in spiritual ways.  Although we can not see the structures with the Middle Age eye, we do know a great deal about how they were devised and constructed.

 

Mathematical way of seeing: 

Regularity and rational thought were very much part of the design thinking that went into the relationship between design and technology in the Middle Ages.  During the Renaissance, intellectual pursuit of human experience began to abstract the design process by favoring the math of perspective in the context of decision making.  This move to abstraction would be the basis for design thought for the next 500 years.

 

Although experience was very much part of the design/technology relationship the opportunities that “thinking” about architecture presented allowed the architect to remove the tight bond between making and thinking to favor a more directorial role in design.  Although he may not be the first, many historians point to LeonBattista Alberti http://www.greatbuildings.com/architects/Leon_Battista_Alberti.html as an example of the move to the intellectualized position of designer, relying heavily on abstraction to execute design.  My proposition suggests a slow evolution to abstraction not necessarily a sharp break in the technology/design relationship.  It is obvious that although abstraction was favored, an immense understanding of material, structure, fabrication, art, and engineering was necessary to operate as an architect in the Renaissance.

 

Imbedding mathematics as a way to see: 

Perspective has been with us ever since the first western Renaissance.  Over the last 500 years the profession has moved more and more to abstraction to define design and technology.  Starting with Poche to represent the area in which masons worked outside of the architects shaping of space, conveniently omitting half the equation in the abstractions.  With the use of CAD, projection drawing for the “lay-out” of space provided sectional slices of space devoid of multi-dimensional underpinnings that even Poche nodded to. 

 

The mechanical revolution provided technology that could mass produce abstraction and allow the dissemination of “buildings” in 2D form while allowing perspective to be the main design description of 3D space.  At some point the profession found itself the coordinator of ideas about buildings through drawing. 

 

Technology promoted the abstraction.  The invention of film and camera followed the same mathematics of seeing to produce a world of flatness in the guise of 3D.  Art tried overcoming the indefinite nature of space by providing lens design with f-stop and depth of field adjustment, current “more advanced” lens’ leverage technology by building in image-stabilization.  Abstraction became so prevalent that only non-perspective based art was seen as abstract.  A good example is a comparison between Cubism and photography of the same era, both being abstract but one currently being seen as more abstract than the other.

 

Can mathematics free the profession from mathematics:

Until the late 1970’s multi-dimensional in the profession was pretty much defined by 3D.  Perspective gave the illusion that projection drawing had depth but could not overcome the definitive nature of perspective and paper.  The interesting aspect of perspective is not necessarily the perspective itself, but instead the act of constructing the perspective which gives the mind a much more thorough understanding of multidimensional space.  This “act” of one mind having the thorough understanding of multidimensional space forced design into the individual mind and strengthened its position as an abstraction.  To some degree it too forced an egotistical point of view for the design of buildings because it largely resides in the individual “knowing” the design through conceptual study.  This crisis of abstraction culminated in the development of CAD and Prisma Color like buildings of the 1980’s and 1990’s.  What we are seeing now is a development of mathematics that challenges the human mind to see the world through a quantum mechanic lens instead of an aperture based lens.  A good example of the deviation from perspective is the lytro light field camera. 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=xNJZHFZEkYQ

 

http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/19/lytro-introduces-worlds-first-lightfield-camera/ 

 

This shift in seeing is taking root in culture as well.  Anyone who has worked with students of design in the last 10 years will readily admit that the next generation of design leaders will fundamentally see the world differently.  This time around perception has to do with a shift in the mathematics of seeing via technology.

 

 

Back to the Gehry Technologies alliance:

For the most part the “Anonymous” postings reference an elitist point of view of the participants.  From my point of view the commentary is more ego-driven than the “star-architects” involved.  The hints of romantic ideas around hand drawing smack of ego-centric designers that wish to control design by making it singular, internal, and abstract.  This protection of the professional position of abstraction is the very thing they fear but fail to see that they are trapped in a labyrinth of abstraction. 

 

The focus on technology and the profession that the alliance seems to be addressing promotes a cross referencing of the tie between art and science.  Although I admit that current technology resides in the abstract I suggest that the alliance points to a key distinction in the potential for a more integrated design process and product for the profession.  Internal office collaboration through BIM forces a dialog amongst minds as to the broader qualities of design and technology; it also has the potential to free the design process from the laborious nature of perspective construction to allow focus on integrated space, systems, technology and experiences by allowing technology to do the math.  External office collaboration through BIM provides a platform for the profession to utilize expertise that could not be obtained individually while opening expertise to commentary from all sizes of practice and trades for the actual construction of buildings.

 

 

Matthew S. Kruntorad

Nov 08, 2011 | Categories: miscellaneous | Tags: , , , , | Leave A Comment »

I love this place!

I recently asked a friend who is a librarian why she loves being a librarian. This is her response:

When I was getting my Master’s Degree in Library Science, I heard an author speak at the American Library Association’s (ALA) annual conference who said that with every important event in her life, she found herself headed to the library for information. Dating, parent’s drinking, marriage, childbirth, illness, death of a parent, etc. That was when I realized how truly pivotal libraries are in people’s lives. When we are considering a major purchase: Consumer Reports. When we are in transition: Wedding Etiquette, Baby Names, Divorce, Wills and Estates, Citizenship, Job Information, etc. When encountering a new endeavor: Hobbies, Training Puppies, Cooking, Magic Tricks, Building Decks, etc. People also turn to libraries for the newest trends. Currently, questions about eReaders are all the rage.
 
We use libraries when we need to know a little more about something than we currently know. Sometimes it’s a stepping stone to somewhere else. Sometimes, it’s all we need to know. The point is that it’s a place to turn for recreation, information and/or referral. Questions range from the trivial to the profound and we try to answer or refer every question. Libraries really do make a difference in people’s lives and I’m so fortunate to see that impact firsthand. I love it when people tell us they feel good about their tax dollars supporting libraries. By the people, for the people.
 
A 4 year old boy came in to the library one day and stopped in his tracks. He looked at his mom and said, “This is where we’re going? I love this place!” and ran off towards the children’s room. I hope he speaks for all of us who use libraries.
 
Jan Gugino, Librarian at Penn Lake Library (a branch of the Hennepin County Library) in Bloomington, MN

 

Nov 07, 2011 | Categories: miscellaneous | Tags: , | Comments Off

GreenBuild – Day 4

One last session today. Sad to leave beautiful Toronto and all the great people I have met these past few days.

Overview of Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) and the Toolkit

Dirk Kestner (Walter P Moore Co), Wayne Trusty (Wayne B Trusty & Associates)

  • Definition: The methodology for assessing the potential environmental performance of a product over its full life cycle.
  • Look at the attributes of each system and each material.
  • LCA involves three major steps:
    • 1. Material Acquisition
    • 2. Construction (manufacturing)
    • 3. Demolition/Disposal.
    • Track energy use, water use, and material resources through the three steps above. Determine how they affect the land, air and water (our natural resources).
    • LCA goal is to assess impacts on human and ecosystem health.
    • Think about relative impacts, not absolute impacts in order to continually improve your performance: “Is this better or worse than what I did in the past?”
    • Energy calculations of LCA. Need to look at end use energy (building operations) + source energy (what it takes to make the product) + pre-combustion energy (what it takes to build the power plant that runs the equipment). A similar logic is in place for water use.
    • Consider Embodied Energy Impacts (accounts for 20% of total project energy – it stays consistent over time) + Operational Energy Impacts (accounts for 80% of total project energy – cumulatively adds up to 80% of total energy used over time).
    • Building structure (floors, columns and beams) makes up the majority of building materials by weight (and often by $). So these systems are very, very critical to understand fully in the LCA process.
    • There are a range of LCA tools:
      • SimaPro, GaBi, Umberto are all tools that LCA analysts use. Athena Institute uses SimaPro. They are not readily useable by the layman and not recommended as a first step for use by designers.
      • BEES (downloadable from NIST) is a decent resource for layman, but somewhat primitive.
      • The Athena EcoCalculator is another tool – more robust than BEES – that is the basis of the LEED and similar rating systems. It is a free, downloadable tool.
      • The Athena Impact Estimator is a whole building modeling tool. It is available as a free download. It has regional specific settings.
      • Athena EcoCalculator
        • Based on many standard assemblies and weighted for 7 zones across the US.
        • You only enter the sf of each assembly that best represents the assembly specific to your project. A limitation is that it does not allow use of custom assemblies to exactly model your project construction.
        • Results based on a per sf basis for the whole building.
        • Components and loads are typical for the US, assuming a 60-year lifespan of an owner occupied building.
        • Returns results in a summary table of pie charts that help you to decide what to consider changing in order to improve the LCA performance. So it is meant as an iterative tool during design.
        • Athena Impact Estimator:
          • Electricity use, transportation and product technologies and maintenance schedules are
            regionalized in this tool (one region is “Minneapolis”).
          • Input building materials and basic building assemblies. There is more specificity to closely model your exact building assemblies than the EcoCalculator tool.
          • The program creates a building model based on this information that meets local building codes.
          • It consults various meta-databases to evaluate life cycle impacts
          • Returns energy and other measures for you to evaluate performance. Like EcoCalculator, it is meant to be an iterative tool used during design.
          • LEED Credit Calculator
            • The LEED point calculator is a modified version of the Athena EcoCalculator, directed towards LEED point achievement. It runs similar to the EcoCalculator.
            • There are seven categories in the LEED calculator: Foundations, slabs, columns and beams, interior wall, exterior wall, roof, and windows
            • It is a bit more robust than the EcoCalculator but not as flexible as the Athena Impact Estimator.
            • It is hoped that this tool – and the LEED Credits that it can help achieve – will drive material selections during design.
            • The calculator helps to evaluate options and how one strategy may be better or worse than another.
            • The next step will be to link this software directly into the Revit model to directly evaluate design options such as material efficiency of use in design and material selections.

Oct 07, 2011 | Categories: miscellaneous | Comments Off

GreenBuild – Day 3

Today was a great day: lots of good information and lots of notes.

Economics of Green Building

Nils Kok (U of Cal – Berkeley, www.nilskok.com), Norm Miller (U of San Diego, nmiller@sandiego.edu)), Peter Morris (Davis Langdon)

  • Total building stock increases by about 2% of all buildings each year.2% is a huge number. But as a focus of efforts to green the world, retrofits should be at the forefront of our efforts in greening the environment.
  • In 2010, 0.3% (based on SF) of commercial buildings in the US were Energy Star certified and 0.11% were certified by LEED.
  • Focus has shifted from LEED-NC to LEED-EB, starting in 2008, with existing buildings now accounting for more than 50% of LEED projects. This is partially due to the recession but also influenced by a shift in priorities of building owners and lease holders.
  • Smart building managers are helping owners hit Energy Star and LEED Silver with negligible capital cost. These retrofits result in energy savings of up to 35% (a private “good”) and reduced carbon emissions (a public “good”) as well as an increase in public reputation and lower risk to future energy price fluctuations and reduced depreciation.
  • A study by the speakers looked at 1000 multi-tenant office buildings built prior to 1990 in 14 metropolitan areas. All were renovated to LEED-EB standards between 2005 to 2010 – 47.4% to LEED Gold. Data was gathered from building managers.
    • Lighting, water savings measures, HVAC upgrades/improvements and recycling occurred in 70%+ of these renovation projects. These are considered the low hanging fruit.
    • 59.1% of buildings saw a decrease in operating costs, 13.6% saw no change, 18.2% were not able to estimate the impact on operating costs and 9.1% saw an increase (for which there was no conclusive reason why).
    • 55.6% could not estimate the ROI – which reflects the fact that many building managers are not tracking these things statistically but rather intuitively.  45.5% said the payback on investment was less than 5 years, 31.8% said 5 to 10 years, 9.1% said it was 10+ years, and 13.6% said it was impossible to estimate.
    • So, why go green? Some reasons cited by building managers: to stay competitive with others in the marketplace, local governmental
      requirements (GSA, for example), and to improve the value of the asset.
    • Green benefits flow to the landlord who will typically only make the investment if they can achieve higher rents. 68% said they could not raise rents due to these improvements while 24% said they could not estimate this. Yet, on average, rents were reported 7% higher (or, about $2/sf higher)for LEED certified buildings versus non-LEED certified buildings in another study. The same study also cited numbers of 5.6% for Energy Star certified buildings over non-Energy Star certified.
    • Many building managers used the LEED retrofit process to bring older, non-competitive buildings up to a higher standard. They
      then realized statistically lower vacancy rates (approximately 4% lower) even though they may not have realized higher rents.
    • The capital costs are mostly about saving on energy use:
      • plug loads: 10-20kBTU/sf/yr baseline, 4-10kBTU/sf/yr savings best in class; a negligible capital cost if managed to tie in equipment life replacements; it is more dependent upon more about changing tenant/user habits (turning off equipment when not in use, etc…)
      • Lighting: 10-15kBTU/sf/yr baseline, 4-7kBTU/sf/yr savings best in class; accomplished using better lighting, motion/daylight sensors and timers, task lighting; $3/sf-$5/sf savings is realistically achievable
      • Ventilation: 6-10kBTU/sf.yr baseline, 3-6kBTU/sf/yr savings best in class; done by sealing ducts, optimizing air handlers and other equipment, replacing old equipment; $2/sf-5$/sf savings is realistically achievable
      • Cooling and heating: 15-40kBTU/sf/yr baseline, 10-20kBTU/sf/yr savings best in class; improved controls, better sealing of
        building envelope, improved glazing, optimized equipment, reinsulated thermal envelope.
      • Financial benefits: A typical $2/sf rent increase due to green upgrades yields a $30/sf value increase at a 6.5% capitalization rate, lower insurance rates (by some insurers) and reduced tenant turnover rates.
      • The takeaway: on average the lower hanging fruit yields quick paybacks while deeper retrofits typically make sense only when a major tenant moves or other opportunity presents itself.

Mastering Healthy Building Materials

Eden Brukman (VP, Living Futures Institute – Living Building Challenge), Kirsten Ritchie (Gensler, Dir of Asian/Pacific Design Group), and George Salah (Google)
Google operates under the Swarm Rules theory that relies upon Ecological Intelligence (created by Daniel Goleman): 1. Know your impacts. 2. Favor Improvements. 3. Share what you learn.

  • Google practices constant improvement in their work environments with the same rigor they do in their product development. George believes that the more of the owners/specifiers demand healthy products the faster they will come to market.
  • Product Content
    • The Living Building Challenge’s “Red List” (http://cascadiagbc.org/living-future/09/trade-show/red-list  is a document listing chemicals to avoid. It is much more extensive than current EPA stadards. Living Building Challenge database also has a rating system that is very simple to understand and identifies the bad chemicals in the listed products.
    • Pharos Project database (www.pharosproject.net) is a database of product composition based on substantiated data. This is a very highly acclaimed (by the panel presenting) source of information to help specifiers and designers select materials that meet the requirements of green standards that you select – not necessarily just green standards that comply with a specific rating system. Cost is $180/year for individuals.
    • www.buildinggreen.com is a subscription website that collates product data into a healthy product database. Cost is $200/year for individuals.
    • New efforts such as the Health Product Declaration open Standard Format are coming on line. It is an open source data base (free and self-regulated) meant to share information among professionals. www.hpdworkinggroup.org. It contains a combination of self-reported and verified information.
    • Eco Scorecard is a downloadable format database that provides spec writers and material researchers a tool to easily evaluate
      product material content against 7 national ratings standards (LEED, etc…). It can connect to Sketch-up. It helps you determine how a product contributes to your meeting the ratings standards of your project for recyclable content, banned chemicals, etc…. www.ecoscorecard.com
    • Product categories that Google checks against the Pharos database: Insulation, wall board, paint, insulation, resilient flooring, ceiling systems, coatings, carpet, MDF/particle board
    • Many banned chemicals also have aliases. So they can be very hard to find easily when searching for only the chemical name. Thus
      it is best to talk with manufacturers to have them help declare what is in their product.
    • Nomenclature also hinders the ability to get to zero red listed chemicals. For example, plumbing fixtures that have less than 8% lead are called “lead free” by legal standards.
    • Google uses plants within many of their spaces to cleanse the air.
    • Healthy materials cost Google a 1%-2% premium.
    • In California, materials do not need to have flame retardants applied to materials if the buildings are sprinklered. But most manufacturers apply flame retardants as a precaution and to allow their materials to be used anywhere.
    • Mastering Healthy Building Materials: 5 step information process.
      • 1. Define performance you want to achieve.
      • 2. Understand ingredients. We did not choose to go into design to become chemists.  So find ways to make it easy. Use simple templates to have manufacturers verify they do not have specific chemicals in their products.  Use databases to help you find the right materials.
      • 3. Steward the resources. Make sure the products meet other requirements such as durability, etc… Don’t
      •  4. Seek Transparency.  Share the wealth of information and allow everyone to help create a substantive database of information that is monitored and improved constantly.
      • 5. Make decisions. Create a simple matrix to evaluate competing products. The basic filter is whether or not the materials
        are good and durable for the application – but the factor that likely selects out many options is how healthy they are.

 

Analyzing Post Occupancy Performance

Mark Bettin (VP Engineering, Pepper Construction Co – one of the study participant building owners), Kathryn Eggers (Coordinator, Chicago
Center for Neighborhood Technology), Raymond Krasnesky (Merchandise Mart Properties – one of the study participant building managers)

These are the results of an ambitious post-occupancy study in Illinois on LEED projects (ranging from 971sf to 4,2m sf) across a broad scope of metrics. It is based on 25 projects from a 1st phase and another 25 projects from a 2nd phase of study. 51% were office buildings while the rest were scattered across a wide range of uses. Participation was voluntary and all data was collected anonymously (some organizations chose to identify themselves). The full report is available online at www.usgbc-illinois.org and at www.cntenergy.org .

Big ideas from the study are:

  • Focus on sustainability should not stop after design and construction.
  • You cannot improve what you don’t measure.
  • A building’s best benchmark is its own performance.  Every building is different.
  • Ongoing performance evaluations should provide relevant and actionable feedback to improve performance.
  • Terms used:
    • EUI (energy use intensity in kBTU/sf/yr) was measured. It compares energy use across project sizes, various weather micro-zones and over multiple years. The lower the number the better the performance.
    • CBECS (Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption – at www.eia.doe.gov) provided a information database of building size, locations, etc that one can use to compare EUI performance with like projects.
    • 64% of the projects (whole building energy use) were below CBECS Midwest energy benchmark of 99kBTU/sf/yr while 77% of tenant spaces were below the Midwest benchmark of 38kBTU/sf/yr.
    • 60% of projects performed better than the baseline model but only 36% performed better than their design model. Energy
      modeling was not a reliable predictor of actual energy use unless the building owners were rigorously trained to operate the equipment as modeled and the modeling was rigorous enough to predict real life energy consumption, including realistic plug loads and tenant/occupant behaviors.
    • Projects that prioritize energy use as part of their LEED submission tend to have a statistically lower EUI (based on an analysis of EA Credit 1).
    • Construction costs had a mean of $154/sf with a $5.00/sf reported premium paid to achieve LEED certification (over half scored as LEED Gold or Platinum) that was adjusted down to $3.81/sf due to government and utility incentives.
    • Most projects did not track any health or other benefits as a result of the project. Occupancy surveys conducted by 11 respondents reported increased occupant comfort in terms of thermal comfort but decreased acoustical comfort.
    • Pepper Construction Offices (6,500sf, single story building in a park like suburban setting)
      • Skylights and daylight harvesting
      • SEER 14 RTU’s: 110% ROI
      • T5 fixtures: 60% ROI
      • White roof: 6.8% ROI
      • Added occupancy sensors throughout the building. Folks also begin to self-regulate energy use by turning off lights when no one was in the space. Also a reduction in personnel of 20% contributed to the need for less lighting post-certification.
      • 1st year electrical savings: $0,63/sf.
      • EUI decreased from 44.4kBTU/sf/yr to 37.3kBTU/sf/yr over 3 years.
      • Convenience and comfort got in the way of energy savings: door removal lets in less a/c, dark spots during daylight harvesting lead to lighting overrides by employees, glare from skylights necessitated adding filters, and lack of personal HVAC controls had people brining in personal space heaters.
      • Problems with energy saving measures that still need to be addressed: photo cells have not worked consistently, need to
        eliminate personal refrigerators and space heaters, and need to install more doors to isolate ones that are active and cooler from spaces that are sedentary and need to be warmer.
      • Interesting fact: The 20 employees travelled on average approximately 44 miles/day/person (roundtrip) to commute. Only one person used non-car transportation. Looking to adopt a telecommuting policy to reduce transportation costs.
      • Chicago Merchandise Mart (built 1930’s, 4.2m sf, big enough to have its own zip code, LEED-EB Silver achieved in 2008)
        • Energy sources are 21% thermal, 30% gas and 66% electricity.
        • Reduced domestic water use from 53m gal/yr to 20m gal/yr by installing water efficient fixtures, fixing leaks, and other measures. Achieved a 78% savings in chilled water use and an additional 8% through extensive commissioning post-LEED certification. This was done using better equipment, adding automation, and fine tuning the equipment.
        • Increased lighting quality and reduced energy use by 44% for lighting at the high-bay service areas in the building.
        • Converting to LED lighting in the “Dream Homes” display areas, realizing a 35% decrease in energy use. Decreased lighting use from 540w to 50w in decorative fixtures in high impact areas.
        • Total energy reduction achieved has been 22% over 7 years of efforts, from 85kBTU/sf/yr to 67kBTU/sf/yr. Renovation projects keep happening and is a testament to the importance of these retrofits.

 

Oct 06, 2011 | Categories: design, making | Tags: , , , , , | Comments Off

GreenBuild – Day 2

Day 2 of GreenBuild was been filled with general sessions. I heard some interesting facts today that are worth sharing:

  • The average cost to meet Enterprise Green Communities Criteria – which is very similar to LEED for Homes – is about $4,500, or roughly 2% of the construction cost per dwelling unit for multi-family housing (using a standard affordable housing unit as the base condition). The savings in reduced energy bills and water savings hits break even around 14 years out with continued savings after that with energy costs being kept constant. With energy costs escalating annually, the break even happens even faster.
  • The 80-20 rule applies to most Zero Energy Buildings: 60% energy savings is achievable through good design with minimal cost burden to the client. Getting to 80% energy savings through energy efficient design is doable but it is difficult, requiring an approach to building design that is a true Integrated Design Process where all stakeholders commit to goals (energy budgets and financial targets) early in the process from which they formulate robust design strategies that are tested and modeled. The final 20% of energy savings must come from on-site energy generation (renewables). The most common and wide spread strategy for on-site generation is photovoltaic panels located on roofs and as part of the building skin because they are reliable, cost effective and offer the most consistent form of energy generation.
  • The NOW Houses in Windsor, Ontario are retrofits of smaller 1950’s neighborhood bungalows. Two of five achieved Zero Net Energy status and the other three are Near-Zero Energy status. They employed the following strategies for about $25,000 – $35,000 per house:
    • High efficiency hydronic furnaces
    • Heat recovery ventilators
    • Tankless water heaters: there was some discussion on how well these work in homes with several people; the conclusion being they work best in bathrooms with one or two persons and in Kitchens not used constantly
    • High efficiency air conditioning units
    • Extensive sealing of all paths of air infiltration
    • Additional attic insulation
    • Furred out exterior wall and basement walls to add insulation and a vapor barrier
    • New exterior doors and energy star rated windows
    • New siding
    • New energy saving light fixtures
    • New low flow plumbing fixtures
    • The General Colin Powell Apartments in The Bronx used a micro CHP (combined heat and power unit – a cogeneration unit) to cut
      energy costs significantly. The 5kW (micro) CHP units are linked in sequence to meet the building needs on a smaller scale than typical large units for commercial buildings. Building construction cost is about $194/sf – which includes the solar pv panels on the roof. The buildings also use modular bathrooms because the owner/developer determined that a lot of cost goes into building each bathroom and that a modular unit can save significantly on construction costs in a very high labor market like New York. The  building also employed the Active Design Guidelines to encourage people to live more healthfully by designing stairs to be attractive and encourage use daily, encouraging the use of healthy materials, encouraging residents to use safe cleaning products, and providing spaces for exercise as well as casual and purposeful interactions.
    • The CEO of the Living Building Institute, Amanda Sturgeon, talked about the Red List, a list of chemicals the Living Building Challenge has forbidden. It sounds like a good, comprehensive list for others to use on future projects. She also discussed that LBC has two alternate certification program paths called Partial Petal Recognition. One is for buildings that achieve Zero Net Energy status but may not comply with other LBC criteria. The other program is for buildings that can achieve at least 3 of the 7 petals – done to honor that achievement as a significant improvement over the normal state of affairs.
    • There are 57 Zero Energy Commercial Buildings certified in the United States. All the projects employ photovoltaic panels to compensate for the 20% of energy use that cannot be conventionally overcome by energy efficiency savings alone. All use existing technologies – nothing too risky or exotic. They all made energy efficiency a priority in the design of the building: using it to site the building, generate form, inform systems choices and materials selections, and dictate special organization. The cost burden for
      a Zero Energy Building averages about 10% more than a typical office building without the cost of the photovoltaics included (these tend to add an additional 15% of the construction cost).
    • An HOK/Weidt Group study shows that a Zero Net Energy building suitable for commercial office space sublet requires an average
      2% increase in lease rates over a 7-year period to pay back the initial investment burden by the developer. And because 50-70% of all electrical use in a tenant building is by the tenants, there needs to be participation by the tenants in the drive to keep energy use to a minimum without impacting their business operations.
    • Balancing natural light by minimizing the use of artificial lighting and not overheating interior spaces is essential to energy efficient design. Designing a high-performance building skin relies on achieving this balance. It is best done by employing glass where it is needed and not on the rest of the façade.
    • In-slab heating and cooling is an emerging and smart choice to reduce energy consumption and capital costs for new buildings.
    • High density closed cell spray foam insulation is an excellent way to insulate a building (4-1/2” = R-30) and seal off air pathways because it forms into a continuous air barrier in any wall cavity it is applied to. When applied in to wall framing at 24”oc it also  helps to reduce thermal bridging significantly over a conventional 2×6 wall at 16”oc.

Oct 06, 2011 | Categories: design, making | Tags: , , , , , , , | Comments Off

GreenBuild – Day 1

I spent the entire day in sessions devoted entirely to creating more sustainable and healthier affordable housing. There were the opening remarks, two seminar sessions and then a 3-hour charette. All were informative and engaging.

The opening remarks concentrated on two items: 1) making the business case for sustainable design, and 2) the national trend to concentrate on neighborhood scale sustainable interventions instead of single buildings.

Wendy Rowden of Jonathon Rose Companies and Larry Curtis of Winn Development both noted that we have the tools to make each building more sustainable (better designed, using less energy and healthier environments) and the cost to do so are almost neutral with normal construction due to more products, competition, and dispersed design knowledge. The business case is being made by them using data to prove out some strategies for owners of existing buildings. They, along with Derek Ballentine, a former housing bureaucrat in Ontario, have data that support the premise that building recommissioning provides the biggest bang for the buck to find potential energy savings with minimal risk for existing building owners. Enterprise Community Partners, a national organization that promotes and funds affordable housing excellence, reports that older buildings typically sustain water losses (due to leaking) of around 15% and owners who retrofit buildings can typically achieve savings up to 70% in utility bills. Common culprits are leaks around wall penetrations (window perimeters, pipes, and the like), poor or no insulation in walls, and single pane windows. All are items that can be fixed with an ROI of less than 5 years – less when government and utility incentives are factored in.

The second trend is to create and advocate for neighborhood and community scaled sustainable solutions. This is seen as a natural growth for the Green Movement as a whole and also reflects the fact that sustainable building design is becoming main stream for both the design and building owner/manager communities. Efforts in New Orleans show the effects of rebuilding smartly by creating livable, sustainable communities that people can afford to buy into and hold for the long term. These are not pie-in-the-sky strategies but a return to basic community specific scale and connectivity

Oct 06, 2011 | Categories: design, making | Tags: , , , | Leave A Comment »

« Older Entries