Sustainable Preservation E-Book

Jean Carroon

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Fachliteratur
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 621

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2011

Beschreibung

Sustainable Preservation takes a nuanced look at the hundreds of choices that adaptive reuse requires architects to make--from ingenious ways to redeploy existing structural elements to time-honored techniques for natural ventilation to creation of wetlands that restore a site's natural biological functions. In addition, Sustainable Preservation presents 50 case studies of projects--schools, houses, offices, stores, museums, and government buildings--that set new standards for holistic approaches to adaptive reuse and sustainability. The author covers design issues, from building location to lighting systems, renewable power options, stormwater handling, and building envelope protection and integrity. The book also reviews operational issues, including materials choices for low lifetime maintenance, green housekeeping, and indoor air quality.

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

Title Page

Copyright Page

Dedication

Foreword

Acknowledgments

PART I - OVERVIEW

chapter 1 - BUILDINGS AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP—UNDERSTANDING THE ISSUES

1.1 CLIMATE CHANGE AND BUILDINGS—THE IMPERATIVE

1.2 HISTORICALLY GREEN—WHAT MAKES EXISTING BUILDINGS GREEN

1.3 TERMINOLOGY OF EVOLVING GREEN DESIGN

1.4 RETHINKING ASSUMPTIONS—HOLISTIC DESIGN

1.5 THERE IS NO FINISH—CREATING A CULTURE OF REUSE, REPAIR, AND RENEWAL

ENDNOTES

chapter 2 - BUILDINGS AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT—UNDERSTANDING THE GOALS

2.1 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT VERSUS SUSTAINABLE DESIGN

2.2 THE TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE—PEOPLE, PLANET, AND PROFIT

2.3 THE TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION

2.4 REGIONAL/COMMUNITY CONNECTIVITY

2.5 INTERWOVEN HISTORY OF SUSTAINABILITY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION

ENDNOTES

chapter 3 - TOOLS, GUIDELINES, AND PROCESS—BALANCING THE GOALS

3.1 BALANCING OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE GOALS—INTEGRATED DESIGN

3.2 GREEN TOOLS AND METRICS—URBAN AND CAMPUS

3.3 GREEN TOOLS AND METRICS—BUILDING AND SITE

3.4 HISTORIC PROPERTY DESIGNATION AND TREATMENT GUIDELINES

3.5 BALANCING SYSTEMS AND GUIDELINES—WHOLE BUILDING DESIGN

ENDNOTES

PART II - TARGETED RESOURCE CONSERVATION

chapter 4 - WATER AND SITE

4.1 WATER—THE MOST PRECIOUS COMMODITY

4.2 WATERSHEDS, STORMWATER, AND SITE DESIGN

4.3 WATER AND ENERGY SYSTEMS

4.4 WATER AND MECHANICAL SYSTEMS

4.5 WATER AND SEWAGE SYSTEMS

4.6 CLOSING THE CIRCLE—REUSE, MANAGEMENT, EDUCATION, DELIGHT

ENDNOTES

chapter 5 - ENERGY—NOT THE ONLY ISSUE, BUT ...

5.1 ENERGY OVERVIEW

5.2 LESS IS MORE—AVOIDED IMPACTS

5.3 REDUCING AND SHIFTING ELECTRICAL LOADS

5.4 THE BUILDING ENCLOSURE

5.5 AVOIDING SILOS

ENDNOTES

chapter 6 - INDOOR ENVIRONMENT—LIGHT, AIR, AND HEALTH

6.1 INDOOR AIR POLLUTION

6.2 AIR QUALITY AND VENTILATION

6.3 LIGHT AND CONNECTIONS TO NATURE

6.4 HEALTHY SPACES AND PRODUCTIVITY

6.5 RENEWAL AND DELIGHT

ENDNOTES

chapter 7 - MATERIALS AND RESOURCES—REDUCE, REPAIR, REUSE, RECYCLE

7.1 CONSUMPTION AND WASTE—A THROWAWAY CULTURE

7.2 DIVERTING WASTE—REUSE, RECYCLE, DOWNCYCLE

7.3 IDENTIFYING BETTER PRODUCTS

7.4 RESOURCE OPTIMIZATION—EXTENDING SERVICE LIFE

7.5 CHANGING PRIORITIES AHEAD—RESPECTING BOTH PAST AND FUTURE

ENDNOTES

PART III - OF SPECIAL NOTE

chapter 8 - BEST PRACTICES—OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND CHANGE

8.1 OPPORTUNITIES—ESSENTIAL AND IMMEDIATE

8.2 IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS

8.3 HOUSEKEEPING—CONTINUAL IMPROVEMENT

8.4 O&M—THE USER IMPACT

8.5 BEST PRACTICE—FACILITATING CHANGE

ENDNOTES

chapter 9 - HOUSES

9.1 HOUSES—THE IMPACT OF OUR CHOICES

9.2 ENERGY CONSERVATION, ENVELOPE, AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

9.3 HOLISTIC WATER CONSERVATION

9.4 MATERIALS—REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE, REPAIR, AND RENEW

9.5 CHANGING BEHAVIOR AND OPTIONS—LIVING SUSTAINABLY

ENDNOTES

chapter 10 - THE RECENT PAST

10.1 THE RECENT PAST—MODERN ARCHITECTURE, BOOMER BUILDINGS

10.2 PRESERVATION CHALLENGES

10.3 ENVIRONMENTAL DILEMMAS

10.4 STRATEGIES FOR RENEWAL

10.5 LESSONS LEARNED

ENDNOTES

INDEX

End User License Agreement

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Copyright © 2010 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved

Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey

Published simultaneously in Canada

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, [phone], fax [phone], or on the Web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, [phone], fax [phone], or online at www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and the author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

For general information about our other products and services, please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at [phone], outside the United States at [phone] or fax [phone].

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. For more information about Wiley products, visit our Web site at www.wiley.com.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data available upon request.

ISBN 978-0-470-16911-7 (cloth); 978-0-470-88213-9 (ebk); 978-0-470-88214-6 (ebk); 978-0-470-88215-3 (ebk); 978-0-470-95018-0 (ebk):

I dedicate this book to my late father, Lamar EvanCarroon, a hydraulic engineer who began his career withthe U.S. Geological Survey, Surface Water Branch, WaterResources Division in Santa Fe, New Mexico in 1946 andretired in 1980 as District Chief of the MississippiWater Resources Division. My friend and sister,Barbara Carroon, will understand why.

FOREWORD

IN JUST A FEW SHORT YEARS, the topic of sustainable development has moved from the sidelines to center stage in discussions about climate change, social equity, and economic prosperity—issues that will shape the very future of our planet. This focus on sustainability has enormous implications for historic preservation. It challenges us to think in new ways about the process by which we decide what to protect and how to protect it, about the real economic benefits of our work, and—most important—about the vital role our historic resources can play in reducing our impact on the environment.

By the same token, the practice of historic preservation has profound implications for sustainable development. As champions of wise stewardship of our legacy from the past, preservationists are particularly adept at thinking about the long-term survivability of buildings and how they can be carefully maintained, innovatively reused, and thoughtfully preserved for future generations to enjoy—tasks that represent the very essence of sustainability.

It’s easy to forget that every manmade thing in our lives—the computers we rely on, the plastic bottles and aluminum cans we drink from, the buildings in which we live and work—all of them take significant resources to manufacture. Despite the high environmental price we pay for them, we too often think of these things as expendable: Last year’s computer gets replaced by a newer model, the plastic bottle gets tossed into the waste basket, the building gets razed to make way for something newer and “better”—all of it done with little regard for the impact of these actions on the world around us. For too long, our attitude toward our natural resources has been, “There’s plenty more where that came from.” Now, with our environment in crisis, we have to face the fact that there may not be “plenty more” of anything—except trouble.

Consider the ubiquitous plastic water bottle, which has become a symbol of our foolish, callous, and selfdestructive treatment of the environment. Despite the fact that good water comes gushing out of faucets everywhere, use of plastic water bottles increased an amazing 1,000 percent between 1997 and 2006. We could recycle these containers, recovering at least some of the energy and materials that went into their manufacture—but the reality is that eight out of ten plastic bottles wind up in landfills. A new understanding is beginning to take hold: Reuse is environmentally superior to recycling. In terms of environmental impact, it’s far better to buy a reusable water bottle than to buy an endless stream of plastic containers that may or (more likely) may not get recycled.

The same holds true for construction materials and demolition debris. Recent years have seen an exponential increase in the recycling of these materials—but still, a small portion of building materials gets recycled every year. The rest still winds up in landfills that are rapidly filling up. The conclusion is obvious: Instead of demolishing and replacing a building, it’s better to reuse it and avoid creating all that construction/demolition debris in the first place.

Sadly, reuse isn’t always easy. Just like disposable plastic containers, much of our postwar building stock was not designed to last. The Brookings Institution projects that by 2035, we will demolish and rebuild approximately 30 percent of our building stock—a staggering 82 billion square feet. This orgy of demolition and reconstruction will be enormously costly, both economically and environmentally, but the fact is that many of those existing buildings will need to be demolished because they’re so poorly constructed. “They don’t make them like they used to” is more than an empty phrase: It’s an indictment of our thoughtlessness—and a mistake we simply can’t afford to keep making.

This points up an important fact: In addition to underscoring the wisdom of reusing existing resources, historic preservation offers some valuable lessons on how we should design our new buildings and communities.

Generally speaking, older buildings employ designs and techniques that grew out of the lessons learned from centuries of tried-and-true building practice. In addition, most of them were constructed so that their individual components—such as windows, for example—can be easily repaired or replaced when necessary. Most important, unlike their more recent counterparts that celebrate the concept of planned obsolescence, older buildings were generally built to last. Because of their durability and “repairability,” they have almost unlimited renewability.

There’s also much to be learned from traditional communities that were constructed before the automobile took over our lives. Because they demonstrate a respect for traditional practices that allow manmade structures to exist in harmony with the natural environment, these places offer a vision for how our cities and towns should function in a post-auto-dependent world. No wonder smart-growth advocates and new urbanists embrace the principles these communities embody.

We’ve always insisted that preservation makes sense, and today that statement is truer than ever. This is not to say that preservationists can rest on their laurels. We still have plenty of work to do. Here’s one very important example: While many historic buildings are remarkably energy-efficient, many others—especially older homes—are poor energy performers. We must continue to work on practical strategies for improving the performance of these buildings without compromising or destroying the distinctive character that makes them so appealing.

Happily, an increasing number of green historic rehabilitation projects show we can do just that. Jean Carroon’s book Sustainable Preservation: Greening Existing Buildings offers case studies that show how a wide range of buildings—from historic icons such as H.H. Richardson’s monumental Trinity Church in Boston to modest structures of more recent vintage in communities all over America—can “go green.” As one of the country’s most experienced and highly regarded preservation architects, with a particular commitment to, and passion for, sensitive stewardship of both the natural and built environments, she is uniquely qualified to explain and illuminate the sometimes-complex relationship between preservation and sustainability.

For some time, preservationists have insisted that in many cases, the greenest building is one that already exists. Now that message is beginning to be heard—and, more important, heeded. Historic preservation has always sustained America by working to protect and celebrate the evidence of its past. Now, by addressing the challenges of climate change, dwindling resources and environmental degradation, preservation can—and must—play a leadership role in the sustainable stewardship of America’s future.

RICHARD MOE President Emeritus National Trust for Historic Preservation

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

“If you look at the science about what is happening on earth and aren’t pessimistic, you don’t understand the data. But if you meet the people who are working to restore this earth and the lives of the poor, and you aren’t optimistic, you haven’t got a pulse.”

—Paul Hawken, commencement address to the class of 2009, University of Portland

MY THANKS TO ALL OF THE PEOPLE across the globe who recognize that heritage and stewardship are essential for a sustainable world and are working hard to make this happen, whether by celebrating the stories of one building or crafting policy that shifts our economic structure to one of repair rather than replace. You empower me with optimism through your actions.

To the many teams that created the case studies in this book and to all of the others I could not use but learned from, thank you. To all of the practitioners I have been privileged to work with, including many great clients and great teams, I extend heartfelt thanks for my education and growth as a practitioner. Lisa Howe was and is an invaluable sounding board, friend and ally in achieving the highest levels of excellence in Goody Clancy’s preservation practice and sustainability goals. To my fellow principals and the staff of Goody Clancy who felt “the book” was a never-ending story, thank you for your patience and support. In particular, I could not have started without Kathryn Bossack’s initial work on case studies and images, and I could not have finished without Steve Wolf’s endless patience with the illustrations and text and Jennifer Gaugler’s willingness to help pursue missing pieces. Thanks to the team at Wiley for making this happen, and particularly to John Czarnecki for his persistent belief in the topic and to Amy Odum for her grace and humor.

In the public sector, the publications and leadership of the U. S. General Services Administration were and are invaluable. In the private sector, I relied on the very thorough Building Design + Construction white papers edited by Robert Cassidy and am heartened by Rob’s clear understanding that how we address and maintain our existing buildings is crucial in the race to mitigate climate change. Time and again I turned to the dependable and thoughtful information provided by BuildingGreen through their original publications and more recent partnership with McGraw-Hill Construction in the form of GreenSource magazine. The BuildingGreen website continues to be the go-to place for case studies and product information and LEEDuser.com provides essential guidance for the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED rating systems. The beautifully written Women in Green: Voices of Sustainable Design, by Kira Gould and Lance Hosey, was where I garnered inspiration and comfort. Anything Kira or Lance writes is worth finding; a joint effort is a bonus.

Patrice Frey, of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, provided me with valuable data and thoughtful conversation, but she also challenges and energizes me to find the most effective ways to be a change agent. She is one of my primary reasons for optimism, and I am grateful that the National Trust provides a forum for her voice and others through its blogs. Michael Jackson FAIA, Chief Architect of the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, is an inexhaustible fount of information and a passionate advocate for sustainable development. His constant stream of links, news bites, case studies and analytical tools is one of the great gifts springing from my involvement with APT, the Association of Preservation Technology. To the many others I know through APT—Natalie Bull, Barbara Campagna, Ralph DiNola, Carl Elefante, Jill Gotthelf, Jennifer Iredale, Andrew Powter, Susan Ross, Walter Sedovic, Ron Staley, Stephen Tilly, Wayne Trusty, and Robert Young to name only a few—who are working to advance “sustainable preservation,” thank you.

Last, but never least, anything I accomplish is the result of the love, support, security, and laughter provided by my husband, Michael Payne; my children, Lydia and Carter; and my stepdaughter, Jessica.

PART I

OVERVIEW

chapter 1

BUILDINGS AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP—UNDERSTANDING THE ISSUES

1.1 CLIMATE CHANGE AND BUILDINGS—THE IMPERATIVE

“BE WORRIED. BE VERY WORRIED.”

—Time, April 3, 2006

THE NEED FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION to address climate change and the related environmental degradation is increasingly urgent, and the major role that the building industry must take in abating the crisis is unequivocal. Yet, a 2008 survey of design professionals from across the United States found that some still question the actuality of climate change,1 even though environmental scientists have concluded with unusual unanimity that dramatic change is well under way. Two years before the survey, Time magazine trumpeted, “The debate over whether Earth is warming up is over. Now we’re learning that climate disruptions feed off one another in accelerating spirals of destruction. Scientists fear we may be approaching the point of no return.”2

“Human activity is putting such a strain on the natural functions of the Earth that the ability of the planet’s ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted.”

—(2000) United Nations Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Figure 1-1 Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. Figure 2-5in Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the World Meteorological Organization

The year 2007 was noteworthy because of the new certainty and alarm expressed by international scientific groups about climate change and its rippling effects on ecosystems, biodiversity, geopolitical stability, and economic security. The United Nations Environment Programme Year Book 2008 announced that climate change “is now recognized as a universal public issue that will dominate global attention for at least a generation.”3

Figure 1.2 Global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions due to human activities have grown since preindustrial times, with an increase of 70 percent between 1970 and 2004. Figure 2-3in Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the World Meteorological Organization.

The reasons for climate change are complex, but the fundamental factor contributing to global warming is attributed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] to a dramatic increase in anthropogenic (i.e., caused by people) greenhouse gas concentrations. Atmospheric concentrations of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) have increased markedly since 1750 and far exceed preindustrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years, but the greatest concern stems from the dramatic increase in annual carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), which grew by about 70 percent between 1970 and 2004, due primarily to the use of fossil fuels. 4 The single biggest sector responsible for creating carbon dioxide directly and indirectly in the United States is the building industry, followed by transportation, which is closely aligned with how we acquire products and move between buildings.

Building Impacts

The impact of buildings on greenhouse gas emissions and the depletion of natural resources is staggering. In terms of land use and material extraction, the building and construction industry has the greatest impact of any sector. 5 Buildings are primary contributors to environmental degradation during all phases of service—construction, operation, and deconstruction or demolition. In the United States, buildings account for the following:

• 37 percent of primary energy use6

• 68 percent of all electricity use7

• 60 percent of nonfood/fuel raw materials use8

• 40 percent of nonindustrial solid waste or 136 million tons of construction and demolition debris per year9

• 31 percent of mercury in municipal solid waste10

• 12 percent of potable water use11

• 36 billion gallons of water use per day12

• 20 percent loss of potable water in many urban systems due to leakage13

Comparison of Transportation and Operating Energy Use for an Office Building

Source: BuildingGreen Suite, www.buildinggreen.com

Average U.S. commute distance (one way)12.2 milesU.S. average vehicle fuel economy 200621.0 miles per gallonWork days235 days per yearAnnual fuel consumption273 gallons per yearAnnual fuel consumption per automobile commuter33,900 kBtu per yearTransportation energy use per employee27,700 kBtu per yearAverage office building occupancy230 feet2/personTransportation energy use for average office building121 kBtu per square footOperating energy use for code-compliant office building92.9 kBtu/ft2/yearPercent transportation energy use exceeds operation energy use30.2%for an average office buildingPercent transportation energy use exceeds operation energy use137%for an office building built to ASHRAE 90.1-2004 code

• 38 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions14

• 49 percent of all sulfur dioxide emissions15

• 25 percent of all nitrous oxide emissions16

• 10 percent of particulate matter emissions17

Every year, another 1 million acres of farmland in the United States are given over to buildings, and the number of cars per household continues to climb.

Transportation is a constant reminder that buildings are not isolated events that can be individually improved, thereby solving our climate crisis and creating an environmentally sustainable world. Alex Wilson, president and founder of BuildingGreen, Inc., the Brattleboro, Vermont, publisher of Environmental Building News (EBN), has suggested that the energy used by building occupants to travel to the building be incorporated into a holistic analysis of a single building’s environmental impact. Typically, the aggregate energy used to get to and from a building is very high, as much as 2.4 times the building’s energy use, according to Wilson.18 No similar calculations have been done to estimate the environmental impact of the infrastructure required to transport energy, water, and waste to and from a building, but the concept of transportation energy intensity points out that the continuing effect of a building is not limited to its operation alone. If we are to green our buildings and our world, we must frame both problems and solutions as holistically as possible.

“Green” has become the umbrella word covering the complex issues of reducing or even eliminating adverse environmental impacts. Within the conversation of green as it relates to buildings, an evolving terminology provides a framework for analysis and judgment of issues, some of which are particularly applicable to historic buildings.

1.2 HISTORICALLY GREEN—WHAT MAKES EXISTING BUILDINGS GREEN

“The greenest building is ... one that is already built.”

—Carl Elefante, FAIA, Quinn Evans|Architects

Embodied Energy

Embodied energy is the description of energy used directly and indirectly in raw material acquisition, production of materials, and the assemblage of those materials into a building. Every building starts with an environmental debt that includes resource depletion, energy, and manufacturing from the impact of construction. Embodied energy is an attempt to quantify one significant part of this debt.

According to a formula produced for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation during the energy crisis of the 1970s, a typical 50,000 ft2 commercial building embodies about 80 billion Btu’s of energy, the equivalent of about 640,000 gallons of gasoline. Tearing a building down not only wastes this energy but also requires more energy and more raw materials to construct a new building.

The urgent and immediate need to reduce carbon emissions makes the reuse of buildings an imperative because the embodied energy expenditure has already occurred. Even the most energy-efficient new building cannot offset its embodied energy for many years. The United Nations Energy Programme estimates that the embodied energy of a building is 20 percent if a building is operational for 100 years, which is two to four times longer than most buildings in the United States are in service. The shorter the service life, the greater the ratio of embodied energy to operating energy is. As buildings are made more energy-efficient, the ratio of embodied energy to lifetime consumption also increases, placing even greater significance on the energy used in construction, recycling, and final disposal.

Figure 1.3 A comprehensive exterior restoration of the Massachusetts State House at the beginning of the twenty-first century extends the life of a building originally constructed at the end of the eighteenth century and demonstrates a key concept of sustainability—stewardship. Peter Vanderwarker photo, courtesy Goody Clancy

Embodied Carbon

Attempts to quantify embodied carbon stem from the acknowledgment of carbon dioxide emissions as a contributor to climate change. The intent in embodiedcarbon calculations is to estimate the amount of carbon emitted through building construction, including the entire cycle of material extraction, fabrication, transportation, and final assemblage. In 2006, researchers from the University of Bath in the United Kingdom completed a comprehensive assessment of carbon associated with building materials. Craig Jones and Geoff Hammond’s draft of Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE) drew data from secondary resources, including books, conference papers, and the Web. The ICE draft selected what the researchers believed to be the best of these data to create the ICE database.

Figure 1.4 Durable and beautiful materials, such as those shown in the lobby of 175 Berkeley Street in Boston, designed by Cram and Ferguson in 1947, have low recurring embodied energy and often reduce the need for toxic and frequent cleaning (Refer to Chapters 6, 7, and 8 for additional information about the impact of material choices, healthy interiors, and maintenance.) Photo by Nick Wheeler © Frances Loeb Library

Using ICE data, New Tricks with Old Bricks, a 2008 study from the British Empty Home Agency compares carbon dioxide emissions in new construction with the refurbishment of existing homes. The study concludes that when embodied CO2 is taken into account, new, energy-efficient homes recover the carbon expended in construction only after 35 to 50 years of energy-efficient operations.19

“Existing buildings in the United States outnumber new buildings by more than 100 to 1. If the United States is going to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, the greening of existing buildings must be included, too.”

—Charles Lockwood and Deloitte20

Durability

Durable, long-lived materials and composite durability of a construction system such as a masonry wall are common in many historic buildings and a logical part of sustainable design. Notes Peter Yost, a building science expert with 3D Building Solutions, LLC, ‘“If you double the life of a building, you halve the environmental impacts [of its construction].”21 Durable materials, especially those with low maintenance requirements such as exterior masonry, slate roofs, terrazzo floors, wood framing (properly protected from moisture), and even three-coat plaster on wood lath, can last hundreds of years, spreading the original environmental impacts over time. These materials often have a lower recurring embodied energy as well, which is the energy required to maintain, repair, and restore materials. Although less-durable materials may not involve as much energy in their manufacture, the need for frequent replacement, combined with the need to dispose of the product following removal, results in a higher total embodied energy over the life of the material.22

Indigenous Materials

The older a building, the more likely it is to have utilized indigenous materials, whether adobe in arid climates, redwood in the Pacific Northwest, or stone in areas of quarries throughout the country. Indigenous materials offer advantages on a number of levels, frequently including inherent durability for the climate in which they originate (such as earth construction), lower transportation requirements, and support of local economies. The appropriate use of indigenous materials is one of the many lessons that historic buildings can teach the design community.

Repairability

Repairability is at the heart of many existing buildings and building components—from wooden windows to slate roofs. When a portion of a wooden window fails, new wood can be spliced in, broken glass can be replaced, weights and pulleys can be repaired. The same can be said for slate roofs, which can be repaired with incremental replacement and consequently last 50 to 100 years. Repair rather than replacement creates an economy that values and employs local craftspeople, extends the life of products, keeps construction waste (or materials requiring recycling) to a minimum and reduces the need for new products that by definition have a negative environmental impact—regardless of how they were manufactured or the amount of recycled material they contain.

Moving from a culture of replacement to one of repair and renewal is essential for reducing our environmental impact and becoming a regenerative society, rather than one that is merely doing less harm.

Figure 1.5 The San Miguel Chapel in Santa Fe, New Mexico, is considered the oldest church structure in the United States. Its adobe walls were constructed around 1610. Vernacular architecture that responds to place is often a compelling example of sustainable design. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=176797

Passive Survivability

Passive survivability acknowledges design features in a building that allow it to function even when modern systems and energy sources fail. Vernacular and older historic buildings demonstrate passive survivability by necessity, having been constructed before dependency on off-site energy sources and mechanical systems. Rediscovery and understanding of these design strategies is an important part of building reuse, as well as a lesson for new design.

Daylighting

Many older buildings have large windows, light wells, narrow footprints, and glass transoms and doors to bring light (and air) deep into buildings. Old storefronts often still have prism glass for refracting light into the back spaces, and although it’s less common, it is still possible to find examples of glass-permeated sidewalks designed to allow light into below-grade storage and work areas.

Ventilation

Natural air movement was a requirement prior to mechanical systems. Windows and doors were placed for facilitating cross-ventilation. Planning a chimney draft that brought cooler basement air up to clerestory windows or roof vents operated by wire pulls was common in church design in the nineteenth century, and the same strategy was used to allow heat to updraft through floor vents. Designs in hot climates recognized the cooling sensation of air movement by placing fans powered by people or weighted pulleys in both interior and exterior spaces.

Water

The use of cisterns is as old as recorded history, and water-storage tanks are still visible on the roofs of many nineteenth-century urban buildings. History offers significant examples of societies that understood and managed water as a communitywide resource, including the Nabateans, who created Petra and other desert cities with diverse water runoff and catchment systems.

Figure 1.6 The Clipper Mill development in Baltimore, Maryland, demonstrates long life/loose fit with creative new uses in a 150-year-old foundry complex. Patrick Ross photo, courtesy Struever Bros. Eccles & Rouse

Energy

Because they incorporate design for passive survivability, many older buildings use less energy than more recent buildings. Data from the Department of Energy indicate that commercial buildings constructed before 1920 use less energy per square foot than buildings from any other decade up until 2000 (see Table 1.1). A 1999 study by the General Services Administration found that utility costs in the GSA’s inventory of historic buildings are about 27 percent less than in nonhistoric structures.23

Table 1.1Average annual energy consumption Btu/ft2of Commercial Buildings (nonmalls)

Before 192080,1271920-194590,2341946-195980,1981960-196990,9761970-197994,9681980-1989100,0771990-199988,8342000-200379,703

Figure 1.7 Ranked 97 out of 100 by Walk Score™, (www.walkscore.com) the Back Bay of Boston demonstrates the appeal, detail, and scale that historic urban cores provide. Walkable communities not only reduce automobile use but also increase both physical and mental health. Studies document lower resident weight and increased community activity. Phil Goff photo, courtesy Goody Clancy

Source: U.S. Energy Information Agency, Consumption of Gross Energy Intensity for Sum of Major Fuels for Non Mall Buildings (2003). Available at: www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs2003/detailed_tables2003/2003set9/2003pdf/c3.pdf.

Long Life/Loose Fit

Long life/loose fit is a term coined by Stewart Brand in How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They’re Built (1994). The concept is that a building can and should last a long time but allow for changing uses over time. Many historic buildings demonstrate long life/loose fit with creative designs that successfully provide for dramatic new uses—a mill building becomes housing, an armory becomes a theater, or a barn become a visitor’s center.

Transit-Oriented Design (TOD) and Walkability

Transit-oriented design recognizes the importance of providing transportation options to allow people to live and work without using personal automobiles. Families living in areas with quality public transportation are found to own approximately 50 percent fewer cars than families without public transportation options. Historic buildings frequently exist close to public transportation because they were built before automobiles had become a widespread transportation option. Communities with historic buildings often have characteristics that support walkability—safe sidewalks that provide easy access between buildings, physical separation from cars, generous crosswalks, and trafficslowing street details.

1.3 TERMINOLOGY OF EVOLVING GREEN DESIGN

“When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.”

—John Muir

Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Life-cycle assessment (LCA) attempts to assess and quantify the environmental and cost impacts of materials and assembled systems. LCA is based on the fact that all stages in the life of a product—whether a widget or a building—generate environmental impacts on water, land, and air, that, in turn, have impacts on human health. True greenness of a product must include a holistic evaluation. The stages for a widget include raw material extraction and acquisition, manufacture, transportation, installation, use, and waste management. Economic performance is factored into the evaluation by including the initial investment and the cost of replacement, operation, maintenance and repair, and disposal. A building is more complex because it includes a composite of materials, but the same imperative to consider the holistic impacts applies. In the always-evolving approach to living more lightly on the earth, understanding the LCA of our decisions is essential because of the complexity of the issues. (For a further discussion of LCA refer to Chapter 3 and Chapter 7.)

Carbon Neutrality

Carbon neutrality is the goal of living in a way that does not create carbon dioxide—the primary gas contributing to global warming. Any effort to address this holistically—upstream, midstream, and downstream carbon impacts—considers everything from the mining of materials for fabrication, to material transportation, use, and disposal.

Most frequently, when mentioned in relationship to buildings, carbon neutrality refers only to building operation or to the CO2 produced by the use of energy in building operations. The 2030 Challenge—issued by Santa Fe, New Mexico-based Architecture 2030 and adopted by the American Institute of Architects—presses for designs and renovations to create buildings that operate without using fossil fuel or any greenhouse-gas-emitting energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent.

This is clearly important because of our overwhelming dependence on coal to create electricity. Currently, 70 percent of the greenhouse gases created by building operations result from electricity consumption, and 50 percent of the electricity used in the United States is made with coal, which pollutes in multiple ways. The 2030 Challenge claims (www.Architecture2030.org) that extreme but uncoordinated efforts to reduce greenhouse gas are quickly reversed by the construction of new coal-fired power plants. For instance, if every college campus building in the United States reduced CO2 emissions to zero, the “CO2 emissions from just four medium-sized coal-fired power plants each year would negate this entire effort.” The proposed far-reaching solution is to make all buildings, including those already built, reduce operational greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent. Unlike LCA, the 2030 Challenge does not account for greenhouse gas created during construction and renovation.

New and renovated buildings begin operation with a negative balance in greenhouse gas emissions, but the greenhouse gas created by renovation is estimated to be 30 to 50 percent less than new construction for each dollar spent. All buildings also create greenhouse gas at the end of life. Even if all materials are salvaged and reused, that work still requires energy. Attempting to understand and quantify these impacts is part of the evolving focus of metric tools and guidelines used in green design (see Chapter 3) and one part of the evaluation undertaken as part of full life cycle assessment discussed on page X.

Zero Net Energy (ZNE)

Zero net energy construction attempts to design and construct buildings that operate with only energy generated on site. This approach addresses only operating energy not embodied energy or the environmental impacts of construction systems. The design requirements for a zero net energy building are very dependent on regional location and site opportunities.

Recycling and Down-cycling

Recycling and down-cycling are often confused. Recycling is essentially taking a product and using it to make the same product—such as paper included in the production of new paper or used ceiling tiles contributing to new ceiling tiles. Down-cycling is reusing the waste of one product in the making of another, such as adding crushed window glass to bituminous paving or new countertops. Both recycling and down-cycling postpone the transition of a manufactured material to waste, with the assumption that material recycling will keep a material in the production cycle longer than down-cycling.

Cradle to Cradle

The term and subsequent certification program, Cradle to Cradle, or C2C, is a concept presented by William McDonough and Michael Braungart in their book of the same name in 2002, with the subtitle Remaking the Way We Make Things. The basic concept of C2C is the elimination of waste and the reduction of raw material use by creating products and, by extension, buildings that at the end of service life can be remade into the same product. Of course, even the remaking of a product requires resources—energy, equipment, and water.

Figure 1.8 Fenway Park in Boston, Massachusetts, uses salvaged materials as part of a holistic strategy for greening the facilities. New bar tops were made from the salvaged materials of a bowling alley removed from one of the buildings in the complex, which is a National Historic Landmark. The Right Field Roof, State Street Pavilion, Left Field Deck all have lane bar tops. Reusing existing materials has the dual benefit of reducing landfill and avoiding the environmental impact of new products. (Refer to Chapter 7 for impacts of new materials.) © Jordan Wirfs-Brock

Figure 1.9 The goal of regenerative design is to produce a net positive environmental impact—to leave the world better off with respect to energy, water, and materials. Regenerative design moves beyond sustainable design, which attempts to reserve adequate resources for future generations. (Definition from Mechanical and Electrical Equipment for Buildings, Stein, Reynolds, Grondzik, and Kwok, John Wiley & Sons, 2006.) Concept by Bill Reed of Regenesis, Inc., Santa Fe NM; chart by Goody Clancy

Rapidly Renewable Resources

Many products claiming to be green use “rapidly renewable resources” or materials that have a shorter harvest rotation than wood, which usually means less than 10 years. (Refer to Chapter 7 for additional information about green products.)

Biomimicry Design

Biomimicry design celebrates the extraordinary systems and materials found in the natural world and attempts to apply these lessons and opportunities to human-created products and living. Biomimicry also uses design to recall and reinforce our connection to nature.

Regenerative Design

Regenerative design is sometimes characterized as being “beyond green” because of the assumption that many of the green guidelines merely create a society that is less harmful to the environment. The goal of regenerative design is to create buildings, places, and systems that actually restore or even establish environments that are truly sustainable.

Smart Growth

Smart Growth is a movement that encourages compact development that combines multiple land uses in a way that preserves open space and provides communities with options in housing and transportation that make efficient use of shared infrastructure. Regional planning and economic health are guiding principles, as well as restoration of the natural environment.

Land Use Changes, Carbon Impacts, and Neighborhood Reinvestment

By Patrice Frey, deputy director of the Sustainability Program, National Trust for Historic Preservation, with research assistance from Paul Anderson, Monica Andrews, and Carl Wolf

In recent years, land has been developed in the United States at a rate of approximately three times that of population growth [see Figure 1.10]. In fact, the average American uses five times more land than just 40 years ago. For example, while the city of Baltimore, Maryland, lost about 250,000 residents in the last quarter century, its suburbs expanded by 67 percent.1 In yet another older Northeast city, Philadelphia, metropolitan population growth has grown by 66 percent in the past 50 years, but land development has grown by 401 percent.2

Land use has a tremendous impact on carbon emissions. Research has demonstrated that in the United States, people who live in more sprawling locations drive 20-40 percent more than those who live in more compact urban areas.3 Yet as the authors of the recent Growing Cooler report note, “For 60 years, we have built homes ever farther from workplaces, created schools that are inaccessible except by motor vehicle, and isolated other destinations—such as shopping—from work and home.”4 The planning and transportation theory of “smart growth” has emerged as an alternative to such sprawling development, and promotes high concentration of growth, transit-oriented development, and walkable, mixed-use communities.

Figure 1.10 Every year, 1 million acres of farmland is given over to development in the United States. Housing size in the last 30 years has doubled as family size has shrunk and car ownership has increased. Sustainable design is about more than buildings. Resource consumption for construction, new infrastructure, and transportation requirements make sprawling development unsustainable even if every new house used no energy in operation. Photo by Lynn Betts, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

The research surveyed in Growing Cooler “shows that much of the [projected] rise in vehicle emissions can be curbed simply by growing in a way that will make it easier of Americans to drive less.”5 Smart growth tactics could “reduce total transportation-related emissions from current trends by 7 to 10 percent as of 2050,”6 according to some projections. The Brookings Institution notes that carbon savings from smart growth extend well beyond those associated with decreased driving. Compact development often means reduced heating and cooling costs because homes are smaller or are in multifamily buildings. District energy systems can be used for power generation, which also creates substantial carbon savings. Municipal infrastructure requirements for roads, sewers, communication, power, and water are reduced by high-density developments. Brookings points out that the reuse of existing structures provides carbon savings, as well.7

Sprawl is a relatively recent phenomenon, because pre-World War II communities were built more compactly out of necessity. These neighborhoods tend to be dense, walkable, feature mixed uses, and are very often accessible to public transit. It makes sense that a significant component of a smart growth strategy would be to reinvest and redevelop in older urbanized areas to take advantage of their inherently sustainable features. Nevertheless, there are numerous obstacles to reinvestment in these older areas.

DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFTS AND THE ABANDONMENT OF SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES

Major demographic shifts in the last half-century have resulted in the movement of millions of Americans from older and historic communities in the Northeast and Midwestern United States to points south and southwest.8 This southward flight has been fueled by the significant restructuring of the American economy, including the loss of manufacturing jobs that were previously concentrated in the Northeast and Midwest.

While older industrial cities (now known as rustbelt cities) hollow out, tremendous population growth has occurred in areas such as Atlanta, Phoenix, and Las Vegas, where sprawl is the dominant form of development, and where water resources in particular are scarce. The result is the movement of millions of people from more sustainably designed places to far less sustainably developed areas that face uncertain futures given rapidly escalating gas prices and water scarcity.

There is some good news, however. Reinvestment in many traditionally planned communities in some regions of the U.S.—largely on the coasts—is occurring. With gas prices increasing, Americans now have more incentive than ever to live and work in transit-accessible areas. Recent analysis suggests that while housing prices have dropped between significantly nationwide, homes in center cities or in transit accessible areas have retained, or even increased in value.9

Nonetheless, rustbelt cities lie fallow and remain significantly underused and potentially undervalued assets. This poses several important questions: Is it environmentally responsible to encourage growth in areas of the country that are environmentally unfit to handle it—while masses of infrastructure and buildings in sustainable designed cities rot? What are the real environmental consequences of such decisions? Or is disinvestment in the rustbelt just a simple—if troubling—economic and political reality with no solution?

The answers are not so clear. But with millions of square feet of abandoned building stock, the questions seem to warrant at least some consideration. This is an area in which additional research and thought is of enormous importance.

From www.preservationnation.org/issues/sustainability/additionalresources/buillding_reuse.pdf

1 Chesapeake Bay Foundation, “Growth Sprawl and the Chesapeake Bay: Facts about Growth and Land Use,” www.cbf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resources_facts_sprawl (accessed Sept. 1, 2008).

2 Brookings Institution Center on Metropolitan Policy, “Back to Prosperity: A Competitive Agenda for Renewing Pennsylvania” (Washington DC: The Brookings Institution, 2003), http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/pa/chapter1.pdf.

3 Reid Ewing, Keith Bartholomew, Steve Winkelman, Jerry Waters, and Don Chen, Growing Cooler: Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change, Executive Summary (Washington, DC: The Urban Land Institute, 2008), www.1kfriends.org/documents/Growing_Cooler_Executive_Summary.pdf (accessed Sept. 1, 2008), p. 4.

4 Ibid., p. 2.

5 Ibid., p.4.

6 Ibid., p. 9.

7 Marilyn A. Brown, Frank Southworth and Andrea Sarzynski, Shrinking the Carbon Footprint of Metropolitan America (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2008), pg. 11-12 http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2008/05_carbon_footprint_sarzynski/carbonfootprint_report.pdf.

8 Bruce Katz and Robert Lang, Redefining Urban and Suburban America: Evidence from Census 2000 (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2005).

9 Eric M. Weiss, “Gas Prices Apply Brakes to Suburban Migration,” Washington Post, August 5, 2008, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/08/04/ST2008080402649.html.

1.4 RETHINKING ASSUMPTIONS—HOLISTIC DESIGN

“What we need is a new ethic in which every person changes lifestyle, attitude and behavior.”

—Achim Steiner24

Rethinking the Linear Design Process—Integrated Design Process

The process of building design and renovations has been characterized as a linear process in which a lead designer develops concepts, then passes the design sequentially to specialized consultants who address specialty range of issues without regard to the work of others. Recognition of the interconnection and complexity of the natural systems and the need for holistic design has led to formalized presentations about integrated design, a process that gathers the entire project team together to create designs that benefit from the synergies of different areas of expertise.

Rethinking Building Costs—Can We Afford Not to Be Green?

The first costs of green building are often suggested as an impediment to environmentally responsive design. Within the construction industry, there are always comparisons between initial costs and lifetime value, but identifying the differential cost of green design has become increasingly difficult, as requirements for energy efficiency become embedded into building codes and options for green materials and building systems increase. Two reports from Davis Langdon, a consulting firm offering cost-planning and sustainable-design-management services, confirm this trend. Examining the Cost of Green (2004) and Cost of Green Revisited (2007) both concluded that there are so many cost factors in construction today that it is nearly impossible to detect any statistically significant difference between the cost of conventional and green buildings. Documentation of direct financial benefits because of environmentally sensitive design is also increasing. Benefits include energy and water savings, reduced waste, improved indoor environmental quality, greater employee comfort /productivity, reduced employee health costs, and lower operations and maintenance costs.25

Rethinking Space Utilization—Less Is More

Recognizing that physical space is an extremely valuable resource, universities, governments, and businesses are reexamining how they use space and how new technologies and changing social patterns have altered scheduling and shared uses. Better utilization of existing resources frees funding for other needs and significantly reduces carbon emissions by slowing the need for new facilities and making the best use of operating costs (and the resulting emissions).

The University of Michigan began the ambitious Space Utilization Initiative in 2007 to evaluate and improve the use of 29 million gross square feet of space. The initiative was developed as a key tool for reducing the university’s operating costs by developing greater efficiencies and maximizing the use of facilities.

The United States General Services Administration (GSA), one of the largest landlords in the country, began an extensive review in 2002 of how workplaces are used by their tenant organizations, which ultimately led to more efficient use of office areas and a reduction in overall space needs. Here are some of the important findings of the GSA’s WorkPlace 20-20 program:

• Organizations often underutilize their workspace.

• Organizations often configure the available workspace in ways that do not support the new work styles.

• The work force itself has an inaccurate idea of how it spends its time.

• Self-reporting is a poor source for reliable programming data.

Partners in the Workplace 20-20 study—including HOK, Spaulding & Slye Colliers, DEGW, Gensler, Studios Architecture, Business Place Strategies, Interior Architects, as well as Carnegie Mellon, MIT, University of California Berkeley, Georgia Tech, and the University of Michigan—confirm that underutilization of workstations is typical of both government and private sectors.26 Hewlett-Packard, for example, has been able to reduce its total portfolio use of space by over 30 percent through the realignment of space to reflect the working habits of a mobile workforce.” 27

1.5 THERE IS NO FINISH—CREATING A CULTURE OF REUSE, REPAIR, AND RENEWAL

“A building is not something you finish. A building is something you start.”

—Stewart Brand28

Much has been written about our current culture of consumption. We have created a world where it is usually easier and less expensive to replace something—whether cell phone or building—than to repair it. We are, as Carl Elefante writes in the Forum Journal, “drunk on the new,”29 but new buildings cannot solve the environmental dilemma we have created. We must reshape our culture to become one of reuse, repair, and renewal that is respectful of existing resources, including buildings. It is not the makers of glitzy new green buildings who will significantly reduce carbon emissions from buildings but the facilities managers and owners responsible for the buildings that already exist.

John C. Kluczynski Federal Building

Chicago, Illinois

LESS IS MORE

In June 2006, GSA leveraged WorkPlace 20-20 tools and guidelines to renovate two floors of Chicago’s timeless Mies van der Rohe-designed John C. Kluczynski Federal Building for the Great Lakes Region, Public Buildings Service. Workplace consultants conducted in-depth analyses of the organization and its work patterns through interview, focus groups, surveys, and cultural analysis. As a result, the GSA optimized the interior environment to fit the way the agency works while also maximizing environmental goals.

The analysis identified a widely held desire to increase interpersonal communications while breaking down organizational stovepipes. The resulting design created egalitarian and nimble work settings by combining:

• Stunning corner views, reserved for group spaces

• Low partitions and increased individual work surfaces

• Rapidly reconfigurable standard-sized offices and meeting rooms

• Glazed-walled private offices throughout, located away from windows

• Open, well-appointed reception and break room areas as gathering destinations

Post-occupancy surveys confirm that the new plan “strikes the right balance.” Flexible configurations contributed significantly to the reduction in total space consumed and lowered churn costs to a bare minimum.

GSA also reclaimed over 16,000 square feet of inefficient file-storage space by investing in a managed 1,260-square-foot high-density system that centralized all regional document and supply management services. Not only do the occupants use space more efficiently and better control their files and supplies, but resulting savings (14,000 square feet at $32 per square foot), equate to $450,000 per year, or enough to finance the system support, file management, copy and mail operations, and plotting needs of the growing agency.”

Excerpt from U.S. GSA, Sustainability Matters (Washington, DC: Public Buildings Service, Office of Applied Science, 2008), p. 39

The earth is not given to us by our parents, it is lent to us by our children.

—Kenyan proverb

Commissioning—Making Sure Buildings Work as They Should

Existing buildings represent 98 percent of the available square footage in any one year and operational inefficiencies are normal. The sixth white paper produced by Building Design + Construction points out that the majority of buildings, both new and existing, do not function as intended and strongly promotes commissioning and recommissioning buildings. A concept promoted by the green building movement, commissioning originated with the practice of taking newly launched ships on shakedown cruises to make sure everything was working properly. Commissioning and recommissioning recognizes that buildings and building systems require stewardship in order to function optimally. “Building systems, particularly HVAC systems, are forever falling ‘out of tune.’...” 30 Commissioning as applied to a building is a third-party review and inspection of building systems both before and after installation. It is probably one of the most valuable concepts to emerge from green design.

Maintenance and Repair—Caring for What We Have

Caring for what we have is at the heart of what in the United States is called historic preservation, but elsewhere in the world is referred to as heritage conservation. The technical publications and Preservation Briefs of the National Park Service include information on maintenance and repair of dozens of materials, including adobe, slate roofing, masonry, woodwork, cast stone, and terra cotta. Published in 1978, Brief #3, Conserving Energy in Historic Buildings, is still germane, as is the more recent Brief #47, published in 2007, Maintaining the Exterior of Small and Medium Size Historic Buildings. Maintenance is an inherently sustainable strategy.

Healthy Skepticism—Protecting What We Have

“Art must experiment to do its job. Most experiments fail.”

—Stewart Brand31

At the 2005 Symposium for Sustainability organized by the Association of Preservation Technology, architect and building forensic expert John Lesak argued for the application of the precautionary principle. Professionals involved in the stewardship of historic and existing buildings, he explained, constantly address the miracle solutions of previous generations, whether lead paint or asbestos or even inadvertently created mold. The business of building forensics, which diagnoses failures of structure, material, and detailing—often focuses on recent buildings, not just historic structures. New materials and systems have not consistently stood the test of time nor have they always proved the miracle solutions advertised. Stewardship of existing buildings, especially those of great historic significance, demands that the first tenant do no harm to the existing cultural resource. Even as we move decisively to address climate change, new systems and new products must be used with caution in buildings that have already survived for decades and even centuries.

Regional Solutions—Thinking Globally

Many of the issues raised in this chapter—lifecycle analysis, building and infrastructure reuse, and transportation energy intensity—demonstrate that an individual building’s impact on the environment cannot be assessed independently of the immediate region and the entire planet. The urgency of responding to climate change extends to regional planning and in urban design decisions that evaluate land use, resource depletion, transportation, and energy considerations to create true sustainable development (see Chapter 2).

People’s Food Co-op

Portland, OR

Current Owner: People’s Food Co-op Building Type: Retail Original Building Construction: 1918 Historic Designation: None Restoration/Renovation Completion: 2003 Square Footage: 5,400 ft2Percentage Renovated: 45% + 55% new construction Occupancy: 20 people (60 hrs/week) 2-20 visitors (1-2 hrs/day) Recognitions: Businesses for an Environmentally Sustainable Tomorrow, Category/title: Energy Efficiency, 2003 Southeast Portland Uplift Community Award, 2003

“People’s Food Cooperative cultivates a thriving local economy by integrating ecological responsibility, local food systems, and cooperative ownership with equitable business practices in a lively community marketplace.”

—Mission Statement

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The People’s Food Co-op demonstrates the benefits of thinking holistically, not just in an integrated building design but in how a building and organization affects a community and neighborhood. The co-op symbolizes the ongoing process of environmental commitment by accepting the management of systems within the building to ensure human comfort and encouraging social change with inducements that invite walking, biking, and public transit use. The expansion and renovation project employed an integrated design process and biomimcry as a guide in creating a setting for gathering and learning about the environment. The small brick building was constructed in 1918 as a feed store and purchased by the PFC in 1970. The decision to renovate and double the size of the building sought to articulate a symbiotic relationship between the building and nature, with the added aspiration of employing labor-intensive construction that utilized volunteer labor and indigenous and salvaged materials.

Site Utilization and Material Synergies

• The layout of the addition takes advantage of the site to capture daylighting potential and benefit from solar heat gain. A south-facing thermal-storage bottle wall permits sunlight and heat gain in the winter, while the mass of the cob wall (straw, sand, and mud) actively cools the space in summer.

• South-facing community sunspace achieves maximum solar exposure during the winter and during the summer is protected by a roof overhang and deciduous trees.

Community Connectivity

• The L-shape of the building was intentionally chosen to create a courtyard for community gathering.

• The co-op provides incentives for biking, walking, or using public transit by displaying maps and schedules, providing discounts, offering an unusually large volume of bike parking, and providing bicycle delivery of goods.

Water

• Water is considered an asset on the site and is either harvested or infiltrated using two sections of green roof, permeable paving, bioswales, and a 1,500-gallon underground cistern beneath the courtyard.

• All plantings are drought-tolerant and watered with an efficient drip system. Paving systems are porous to promote groundwater recharge.

• The intent was to use the stored water for toilets, but this requires a permitting process that has not yet been completed.

Energy and Integrated Design

• An integrated design approach—daylighting, low-emissivity windows, insulation with an R-22 value in the walls and R-44 in the ceiling, efficient systems and monitoring—reduces energy consumption 16 percent below the Oregon Energy Code and saves roughly $1,700 per year.

• Heating and cooling use a combination of passive ventilation, direct solar gain, night flushing, ground-source heat pumps, and efficient natural gas combustion. Radiant tubing in-slab on the first floor and a conventional duct system on the second provide heat drawn from the ground-source heat pumps. The cooling sequence begins with passive ventilation drawn through a vertical shaft that extends from the first floor through the roof to facilitate night cooling. A fan can add the airflow if needed, and if night cooling proves inadequate during the day, cool water can be circulated through the in-slab radiant tubing to assist in heat removal—but this is carefully monitored to avoid condensation on the slab.

Figure 1.11 The front wall of the People’s Food Co-op in Portland, Oregon, shows the sculptural potential of the cob (a mixture of straw, dirt, and sand) used in the thermal wall. The building demonstrates the mission of promoting ecological, social, and economic sustainability. Cheyenne Glasgow photo, courtesy People’s Food Co-op

Figure 1.12 The south-facing courtyard of the People’s Food Co-op hosts community events, with permeable paving materials, rain gardens, and xeriscape planting to reduce stormwater runoff, a major source of pollution (refer to Chapter 4 for more information). Cheyenne Glasgow photo, courtesy People’s Food Co-op

GREEN DESIGN ELEMENTS

People’s Food Co-op

Sustainable Sites:

• Bicycle accommodation

• Green roof

• Permeable paving materials

• Xeriscaping

• Bioswales

Water Efficiency:

• Graywater system (planned)

Energy and Atmosphere:

• Ground-sourced geothermal heat pumps

• Solar chimney (ventilation)

• Natural ventilation

Materials and Resources:

• Over 90 percent construction waste recycled

• Recycled content materials

• Colorful recycled-glass-bottle thermal storage (placed in wall)

• Cob infill

• Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)-certified wood

Indoor Environment Quality:

• Operable windows

• Low-VOC materials and finishes

Additional Features:

• Occupant recycling program

• Vermicomposting

• Organic products

• Smart design and construction included avoiding details that allow thermal bridging from interior to exterior. For instance, the concrete slab at the entry is jointed at the door threshold to create a thermal break.

Building Envelope and Materials

• The design strategy sought the lowest possible environmental impact by first keeping all material use to a minimum, followed consecutively by seeking salvaged materials and post-consumer materials (like unused paint), biodegradable materials, and finally, new materials from local sources and near-by managed forests.

• Cob (a mixture of straw, dirt, and sand) was used as infill material in a portion of the wall. Because it is malleable, it was also used to form benches, and decorative sculpture was included in the wall. Used glass bottles were inset in the cob wall as a design feature.

• Siding on the new constructionis made from remilled cedar telephone poles from a local supplier.

Operations and Maintenance

• The designer wrote a custom and detailed operations-andmaintenance manual to promote longevity and to maintain the memory of how the building is designed to operate.

PROJECT TEAM

People’s Food Co-op Cynthia Bankey, AIA Dave Wadley City of Portland Office of Sustainable Development Hemmingson Construction, Inc. Portland General Electric SOLARC Architecture and Engineering, Inc.

Harris Center for Conservation Education

Hancock, NH

Current Owner: The Harris Center for Conservation Education Building Type: Assembly/Interpretive Center Original Building Construction: 1913 Historic Designation: None Restoration/Renovation Completion: 2003 Square Footage: 8,580 ft2Percentage Renovated: 73% + 27% new construction Occupancy: 50 people (60 hrs/week)

“Building green is more than just a building process; it is the whole process. Site planning, design, construction and materials must all be considered. Recycling, energy efficiency, indoor air quality and resource conservation were blended into the renewed Harris Center because we care about our heritage, we care about our people and we care about our planet.”

—Dave Birchenough, Trustee and Building Chair

PROJECT DESCRIPTION