Sustainability Center design team studies options, seeks feedback

Kyle Andersen of GBD Architects wrote recently with an intriguing invitation.

His team at GBD, along with colleagues from SERA Architects, Gerding Edlen Development, Green Building Services and others, have been working on a design for the Sustainability Center for Excellence for the past several weeks after winning the commission from the City of Portland. Anderson is lead designer for the project along with SERA's Kurt Schultz. The building seeks to follow the strictures of the Living Building Challenge.

Normally architects and designers can be reticent about showing a design while it's still in progress, but Anderson and company are instead seeking public input.

"It has been a very dynamic process beyond any previous work we have done to date," he said via email. (And that's a bold statement given that GBD has been responsible for numerous LEED Platinum-rated buildings.) "So many variables play into solving the Living Building Challenge puzzle.  Collecting all of your water needs, and treating all of your waste on site seem rather rudimentary now given the struggle we have had trying to solve the net zero on site energy component.  This in the end has been one of the largest challenges to give 'form' to the concept thus far."

"We believe in the end that we will be able to demonstrate to others a path to get there.  The exciting news for all of us involved in this project, is that it is looking more and more like it is a feasible concept.  A large urban building that meets all the needs on site under the Living Building Challenge.  With a precedent such as this, it is exciting to think of all the possibilities this opens to how we build and live within the built environment we create."

The process got going in April with a charette at GBD's offices designed to generate ideas. From that came five key concepts, with the accompanying text taken from the Sustainability Center blog:

(1) Appropriately scale systems for optimal performance.

"As we consider systems that may be incorporated into the OSC, we need to determine the scale or size of the system that will provide the most cost- and resource-efficient delivery of services. Some systems make sense when applied at a building scale, while other systems may make more sense at a district scale, providing services to many buildings." 

(2) Make less do more

"One way to significantly reduce the environmental impact of the OSC will be to reduce the total amount of materials used in the project, thereby reducing the resource investment in the manufacture, transport, installation and maintenance of those materials.  For this to be successful, those materials that are incorporated into the building must provide as many functions as possible."

(3) Design for resource equity.

"As we evaluate resource budgets for the building, and in order to meet the Living Building Challenge, we must not only consider our own needs for resource use, but also ensure that we consider the needs of other species.  For instance, the Living Building Challenge requires that the building use only the water that falls on the site.  This can be used to provide the water budget for the building, to meet the needs of the occupants and equipment.  However, when we consider “water equity”, this begs the question: Is it fair to other species if we use all of the water that falls on the site, and what if every building did this?"

(4) Integrate natural systems to benefit all species.

"Inclusion of natural systems is essential to the success of the OSC. Ongoing work clearly shows the value of incorporating biophilic design approaches into the workplace environment.  Literal, facsimile or representative systems from nature provide psychological as well as performance enhancements for humans.  At the same time, natural treatment systems for stormwater, wastewater and air quality provide an ecosystem service without significant chemical inputs and energy use.  Through thoughtful design, these systems can also provide habitat for other species and further enhance the local ecosystem."

(5) Recognize that people are the life in a living building.

"The Living Building Challenge represents a dramatic paradigm shift in the way that buildings are designed, built and occupied.  A vacant building can exist without any resource inputs, but once occupied, a building requires resources to support the health and wellbeing of the occupants.  The existing building stock does not provide occupants with information on building performance so that they can make informed decisions about resource use.  A Living Building provides occupants with a feedback loop on individual resource use and overall building performance as well as providing appropriate choices to support occupant comfort and well-being.  This approach necessitates the active participation of the people in the building to ensure that resource budgets are met for energy and water use in order to meet the net-zero energy and water prerequisites.  With this new approach, occupants become part of the essential functions of the building."

Last week, the design teams presented their work to the OSC working group, including Alice Wiewel, director of capital planning for the Oregon University System; Christine Theodoropolous, head of the University of Oregon School of Architecture; and Sergio Palleroni, fellow and professor at Portland State University’s Center for Sustainable Practices and Processes. Much like a standard academic design review, the session was informal, emphasizing candid feedback and dialog.

According to the OSC blog, "The earliest models were a study in 'bracketing the extremes' of biophilic form, designing from the most pure (a raindrop) to the most abstract (the “torque”). With the exception of the Courtyard scheme (described below), all early designs were for a 250 foot tall building. This included three schemes shown here: the "raindrop", "nautilus" and "kidney bean" schemes, seen here.

The raindrop, Nautilus, and Kidney Bean schemes each included an atrium that punched light all the way through the building, tying, in the design team’s view, the entire building together. Later analysis revealed that a top-to-bottom opening would not effectively achieve the daylighting the team was after, and also posed structural (mechanical pressure/comfort) and safety concerns.

Then there is the Torque scheme. It pushed the building-as-metaphor idea one step further, mimicking in its upper levels the behavior of a sunflower as it unfurls and tracks the sun across the sky. For the building, such a twist, or torque, gradually changes the building orientation from the urban form of the block toward a solar-friendly orientation.

Then design team also looked at a courtyard configuration with a shorter, squattier building, but ultimately feedback led them to look at a hybrid of the kidney and nautilus concepts. "At play in these designs," the OSC blog says, "is the push and pull between the building’s program, which at last check called for 250,000 to 260,000 square feet, and the total surface area necessary on the site to house all of the photovoltaic panels required for the building’s energy production. The grid-like panels in these models represent those PV panels." 

Last week, the core project team agreed to pursue a design that achieved net zero energy, first, and fit the program, second. This decision, combined with revisions to the Nautilus-Torque hybrid, led to the latest 220,000 square foot design. The picture at the top of this posts represents their very latest model.

“Whatever design we end up with in the feasibility study is purely a vehicle to demonstrate the feasibility of the project, it is not necessarily the final design,” Kyle Andersen said. “It is one of many potential designs. But the bigger picture is that it demonstrates that a Living Building of this scale can be done. It could look like this, it could be square, it could be rectangle, it could be tall and skinny…But we’ve also found that there are parameters, how much PV do you have, so how long is the building facing south, and so on…it’s a balancing act. But [this is] definitely not the final design.”

Comments

[Bob R.]

Of particular interest to me (as a member of the Portland Streetcar CAC), is how the proposals weave the streetcar directly though the property, in what amounts to an extension (at least visually) of the diagonal route the streetcar follows through the PSU urban center.

Such a route would not only be aesthetically interesting, but would be practical, reducing the current single-track bottleneck and tight turns in that area.

The designers note in their blog post that the decision to route one or two tracks through the site remains on the table, with designers leaning toward two tracks. It was a formal recommendation of the Portland Streetcar CAC awhile back that a two track alignment be adopted, for a variety of reasons.

[gerrrg]

Can someone confirm that those models were produced with a 3D printer?

[Eric Cantona]

i read somewhere an interview with Norman Foster where he said that the "gherkin" tower (30 st. mary axe) required significantly less steel than a building of similar size because of the egg form. it struck me at the time because, for the most part, when we think of sustainable buildings we usually think of systems design, recycled/local materials and direct energy usage. the notion of reducing material within the structural framework seems a logical outgrowth of that thinking.

i haven't read through the OSC material to see if that's been a primary consideration, but it would certainly add another layer of sustainability.

[joe]

you misspelled "team".

[kyle]

Bob. thank you for your questions. The team is leaving two streetcar alignments on the table through the first phase. Each have their merits. The single track through the site, leaves a "little" more area for the plaza and other outdoor spaces, but still there is streetcar running through the site, so it is not like the outdoor spaces are unencumbered. Unlike the urban studies center this site has to also deal with an existing building on the sw corner - a three story historic building which squeezes the site in addition to the streetcar. The single track left where it is along SW Montgomery will take some "re-work" to eliminate the difficult crossings on SW 4th avenue, but could be unique in that it runs through a greenstreet. Images of a streetcar running through a bio-swale or meadow come to mind. Leaving the track on Montgomery also precludes it from being a "festival" street and shutting it down for events.

The two tracks through the site frees up SW Montgomery to develop over time as a pedestrian street, while it puts the burden of the streetcar in front of the building. Not a place for large plazas as it is, but certainly makes the plaza to the south of the project more a transit stop and the plazas more a series of pocket parks.

The team will evaluate each option, but in the meantime make certain the design works with either as the details are worked through.

[ka]

Hi Gerrrg. Those models were made with a laser cutter. Basically they show little skin treatment, but more of the floorplates - they are crude but quick. They obviously look better at oblique angles. With the torque of the form, it is difficult to skin, so for the time being we elected to genereate quick models using floorplates alone. more to come with the complexity of the model as we hone in on a design.

[kyle]

Eric,
A couple benefits we are finding with the structure given the form. One, it brings the columns to perimeter and not in the way for space planning. The form is in harmony, as the plates twist, so does the skin, and so does the structure. The engineers are developing the columns to work as both gravity and lateral, which will eliminate the need for additional shear elements at the interior or clumsy brace frames. We hope this will prove to be material cutting in that the perimeter structure will do double duty. As for the construction of the bones of the building, that is something the contractor is evaluating. The Gherkin is a great example of reduction of systems, by both integration and simplicity.

please check in with the project blog to get answers, and to stay up to date with the developments. The team wants to continue to present transparency to the design and development - there is a lot for us all to gain by tackling this study.

http://oregonsustainabilitycenter.wordpress.com/

[Bob R.]

Kyle -

Thank you for the reply. Your response is very informative, because I did not know that the existing building was going to be preserved. In fact, I was going to prod you about the disposition of the materials in that building, should it be demolished, in keeping with the theme of sustainability. I'm pleased to learn that it will in fact be preserved, which in most cases can be the ultimate in sustainable practices for a given structure.

[gerrrg]

@Kyle
Thanks. I appreciate the growing influence of rapid prototyping in the field. As prices drop, I hope we could all afford to buy these devices.

[Steve]

Seasonal differences in water and sun light availability would be a huge challenge calling for variability in how water is channeled or possibly how surfaces are positioned relative to the sun, in different seasons. Similar to how water is channeled and shaded in a managed wetland preserve like Fernhill.

With sunlight so low in Portland, having parts of the bioswale higher up on the building could allow for more evaporative affect in winter, when it is most needed, particularly as the surrounding city grows taller. Perhaps the use of deciduous shrubs could help naturally shade these upper swale terraces areas during the hot summer months.

[Steve]

These models remind me of South Waterfront Park, so I hope there will be an exterior treatment different then SWP.

I love how trees and other plantings can, relatively quickly, soften the visual impact of man made structures in the NW.

I hope the exterior vertical surfaces are more organic, literally. Like what’s illustrated in the “site section,” but on the exterior. I imagine more terraced living roofs or walls, incorporating parts of the bioswale needs cascading down the building. During heavy winter rains, small waterfalls might pore down through Oneonta Gorge like moss-covered channels in the building sides.

[Earl]

Since “net zero energy” “has been one of the largest challenges to give 'form' to the concept thus far.” And since they have declared, “a living building on an urban scale can, in fact, be possible. Phew.”

How was this largest of challenges met?

What percent of energy would the PVs provide?

[kyle]

hi steve. the large upper roof is the only place we are planning to capture rainwater, which will then be channeled down into a 150,000 gallon storage tank. The lower gardens will be part eco-roof and part terrace, so water will be absorbed, and either saturate and convey to the ground level bio-swale or evaporate. Trees and shrubs for shade would be a nice touch - we will be working with the landscape architects in the coming months to begin to define those spaces.

The building in the end will have excess water, and will likely recharge that into the aquifer through Montgomery Street. For electrical load the building will be net-metered which means it will over produce during the summer and feed the grid, but in the winter draw off the grid - the net target is zero at the end of the year.

[kyle]

hi Earl. Thanks for your question. As mentioned above the energy is net-metered, so excess is dumped onto the grid during the summer months, and the building draws off the grid during the winter months. 100% of the energy is produced by the PV array. 80% of that production is from the roof and canopy elements alone. There are integrated PV sunshades and amorphous thin film on the spandrel elements which make up the other 20%. That oversimplifies really what is going on though. In order to capture all the energy needs on the site, the demand for energy within the building has to be brought way down resulting in a building that consumes well over 70% energy savings from a code building. In addition to the PV for energy load, we are utilizing ground source heat pumps which although don't produce energy per se, they offset the building load by providing an alternate means for heating and cooling for the building. The strategy there is to use radiant systems and thermal storage in the mass of the building.

[kyle]

correction: ...the building...consumes over 70% "less" energy than compared to that of a code compliant building.

check out the blog for updates or another place to ask questions and get the answers.

http://oregonsustainabilitycenter.wordpress.com

[SolarForum24.de]

really good