Living Buildings Presentation to Austin AIA COTE · Living Buildings Presentation to Austin AIA...

Living Buildings Presentation to Austin AIA COTE on 10/19/09

HOLOS www.holoscollaborative.com



I. What is a Living Building? A. Origins

1. David and Lucile Packard Foundation: Los Altos Project Sustainability Report (2001 & 2002) B. "Living Building" is the designation given to buildings that have successfully completed the Living Building

Challenge certification process 1. This entails having a building that has been in operation for a minimum of 1 year, and in that time has demonstrated successful completion of all parts of the Living Building Challenge

C. The International Living Building Institute (ILBI) 1. "The ILBI is a non‐governmental organization (NGO) dedicated to the creation of a truly sustainable built environment in all countries around the world. Comprised of the leading green building experts, futurists and thought‐leaders, we believe that providing a compelling vision for the future is a fundamental requirement of reconciling humanity’s relationship with the natural world."

II. What is the Living Building Challenge A. Launched in 2006 B. Project Statement

1. "to define the highest measure of sustainability attainable in the built environment based on the best current thinking"

C. Governing Rules: 1. All elements of the Living Building Challenge are mandatory 2. Living Building designation is based on actual, rather than modeled or anticipated, performance. Therefore, buildings must be operational for at least twelve consecutive months prior to evaluation

D. Parameters 1. 6 "Petals" of the Challenge

a) Site • Availability of existing developed site to use, and habitat to maintain.

b) Energy • The major limitation currently is cost

c) Materials • There is a shortage of good data that sufficiently backs up manufacturer claims and provides consumers

with the ability to make conscious, informed choices

d) Water • Health code regulations in North America greatly limit what types of water purification and reuse are

allowed. Cost can also be an issue when capturing and storing water

e) Indoor Quality • It is difficult to insure optimal conditions due to the unpredictable nature of how people operate and

maintain a building

f) Beauty and Inspiration • Mandating beauty is, by definition, an impossible task. In this Petal, the prerequisites are based merely on

genuine efforts

2. Other barriers (See attachment(s): 09‐0729%20code%20paper%20Eisenberg.pdf)



a) the main navigational tool in the regulatory arena is the rear‐view mirror. b) the dependence on minimum standards keeps the focus on the least, often at the expense of the best. c) risks are treated as discrete problems and not addressed in context d) the tendency for regulatory entities is to resist recognizing and addressing new and emerging risks e) the current level of public interest representation in regulatory development processes is inadequate. f) there is little recognition of the difference between explicit versus implicit goals

• 2006 IBC‐ 101.3 Intent. The purpose of this code is to establish the minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment and to provide safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.

g) Gaps and Conflicts in Goals, Scope and Standards h) Multi‐Jurisdictional, Intra‐Jurisdictional, and Inter‐Agency Issues and Conflicts i) Process Barriers: Lags, Sequence, and Time of Approvals and Appeals j) Inconsistent Interpretation and Inadequate Enforcement k) Lack of Information, Education, Training and Advocacy l) Lack of Representation

E. Feasibility in Texas 1. Site

a) Break the "land is cheap" mentality, and move towards reusing greyfields and brownfields rather than continuing to develop sprawl

2. Energy a) Central Texas has significant renewable energy available b) Great energy efficiency can come from simple and cheap design decisions c) Commercial State Energy Code Status



3. Materials

a) Central Texas has significant material resources available b) Always will be difficult to collect complete data about material lifecycle and manufacturing

4. Water a) centralized utilities make this challenging in terms of cost b) also face regulatory hurdles c) Mueller hopes to be test bed for smart water system

5. Indoor Quality 6. Beauty and Inspiration 7. Financial Study Comparison (See attachment(s): LB_FinancialStudy_Comparison_Matrix.pdf)

F. Can it be done? 1. 2 projects in race to be first

a) The Living Learning Center, the newest facility at the Tyson Research Center of Washington University • The 2,900‐square foot, $1.5 million building opened May 29 and features a large classroom, computer lab,

a few offices and a large outdoor patio that will be double as a second classroom ($517/sf)



b) Center for Sustainable Living at the Omega Institute • product of five years of planning centered around eliminating waste water on the Omega Institute’s

Rhinebeck campus

• 6,200‐square foot, $3.7 million building opened on May 12, and like the Living Learning Center, it features a large classroom and even a laboratory ($596/sf)

III. Conclusions A. Client Type Matters

1. Who the building is developed for and their goals and priorities greatly affect the initial budget for the base building which in turn affects the fi rst cost premium for Living Buildings.

2. Living Buildings are more likely to be built in market sectors where building owners and developers also consider operational costs, as opposed to those that are more fi rst cost driven. Public buildings (University Classroom and Elementary School), which are typically designed and constructed as fi fty to one hundred year buildings, had the lowest cost premium, followed by buildings built by green developers for a market niche, followed by market driven developments, with speculative buildings costing the most.

B. Climate Matters 1. Climate exerts a signifi cant infl uence on the cost premium to create a Living Building. 2. Extremes in climate affect both the demand for energy and the availability of water in the form of

rainfall. The milder a climate, is the less energy is expended to achieve human comfort. Both the quantity of rainfall and its frequency throughout the year affect the cost premium to achieve Net Zero Water. Atlanta and Phoenix consistently had the lowest energy use intensity and had the highest production per unit of area for photovoltaics. Although Portland had a slightly higher overall EUI, it’s lack of extreme temperatures and relatively abundant rainfall translated into elimination of systems for some building types, reducing the overall cost premium. Alternately, Boston’s more extreme temperatures led to increased energy use for the base building, both for heating and cooling, while Phoenix’s low water availability led to higher water collection and treatment costs.

C. Scale Matters 1. The scale of the building, both in absolute size and the ratio of fl oor area to roof area, affects the cost

premium to build a Living Building



2. The absolute scale of the building affects the affordability of many of the systems necessary to achieve Living Building status. For very small buildings, such as the Single Family Residential building, the cost of adding the systems necessary to achieve Living Building status are great compared to fi rst cost, driving up the cost premium. For larger buildings, the cost premium for Living Building features relative to the total project cost is much less, minimizing the cost premium. The relationship of the building’s fl oor area to its roof area also affects the affordability of achieving Living Building status, since roof area is the determinant for both the size of the photovoltaic array which can be easily installed without building additional infrastructure, and for the amount of rain water that can easily be collected. To achieve net zero energy, buildings with a large fl oor area to roof area ratio needed to provide additional structure to support photovoltaics not integral to the building, which added cost. To achieve net zero water, the most economical buildings were those who could meet their water needs with rainfall alone, since they did not need to provide the additional treatment required to grey and black water to potable standards.

D. Building Use Matters 1. The primary and secondary uses of a building greatly affect its energy and water usage, which in turn

affects the cost premium to build a Living Building. 2. The building’s use determines the base energy and water consumption before conservation strategies

are applied. The base building’s Energy Use Intensity and water usage affects the project’s ability to achieve net zero energy and net zero water for a given fl oor to roof area ratio. When the same size and height buildings are considered, we see the differences resulting from building use . Residential buildings, like the Multi‐Family Residential Building, are constrained by the project’s ability to collect rainfall for use far in advance of exceeding the project’s ability to achieve Net Zero Energy. The opposite is true for offi ce buildings, where the energy produced by the project’s photovoltaics governs.

E. Incentives Matter 1. The availability of incentives for green building projects can dramatically decrease the fi rst cost of a

project. 2. Living Buildings are more likely to be built in market sectors where building owners and developers have

robust incentives in place for the incorporation of green building practices. Portland is the second most expensive city in the study to build based solely on construction cost, rising to third most expensive after the Living Building features have been added. After incentives have subtracted, the cost premium reduces to it being the least costly climate to build in for all building types.

F. Cost of Energy and Water Matters 1. The cost of energy and water affects the payback. 2. The cost of energy is lowest in Portland and highest in Boston. Phoenix has the lowest cost for water,

with Atlanta having the highest cost. Boston, the city with the highest energy cost and a very high water rate and the highest fi rst cost premium, had the lowest payback in eight of the nine buildings.

G. Shades of Green



1. Citation: The diagram above, courtesy of SERA Architects, highlights the continuum of building practices

across the spectrum of their ecological impacts, from code minimum to restorative buildings. Restorative or regenerative describes the ability for human and natural systems to cooperatively support each other indefinitely, by improving the ability of the whole system to continually co‐evolve toward greater health, vitality, and integrity.

IV. Living Building Challenge A. Governing Body

1. The International Living Building Institute (ILBI) a) The ILBI is a non‐governmental organization (NGO) by the Cascadia Region Green Building Council

www.cascadiagbc.org (a chapter of both the US Green Building Council and Canada Green Building Council)

B. Purpose 1. Independent certification for sustainable development 2. One designation for all buildings ‐ "Living Building." 3. Designation is given to a building after it has demonstrated 1 year of operation within the outlined requirements of the program

C. Criteria



1. The 6 Petals

2. Site

4 credits

a) INTENT: Clearly articulate where it is acceptable to build and how to protect and restore a place once it has been developed and degraded

b) OBJECTIVE: A moratorium on the seemingly never‐ending growth outward and a focus on compact, connected communities, which is an inherent conservation tool for the natural resource systems that support human health

3. Energy

8 credits

a) INTENT: signal a new age of design, whereby all buildings rely solely on renewable forms of energy and operate year in and year out in a pollution‐free manner

b) OBJECTIVE: safe, reliable decentralized power grid relying completely on renewable energy powering incredibly efficient buildings

4. Materials

7 credits

a) INTENT: remove, from a health and pollution standpoint, the worst known offending materials, and to reduce and offset the environmental impacts associated with the construction process

b) OBJECTIVE: all materials in the built environment are safe and replenishable and have no negative impact on human and ecosystem health

5. Water

4 credits



a) INTENT: realign how people use water in the built environment, so that water is respected as a precious resource

b) OBJECTIVE: a future whereby all buildings are designed to harvest sufficient water to meet the needs of occupants, while respecting the natural hydrology of the site, the water needs of neighbors and the ecosystem it inhabits

6. Indoor Quality

5 credits

a) INTENT: focus on best practices to create a healthy interior environment b) OBJECTIVE: an indoor environment that enhances physical and emotional well being

7. Beauty and Inspiration

3 credits

a) INTENT: recognizes the need for beauty as a precursor to caring enough to preserve, conserve and serve the greater good

b) OBJECTIVE: elevate the level of discussion and, ultimately, the results through attempting the difficult but critical task of creating designs that elevate our spirits

8. Design Process + Leadership

5 credits



D. Unique Characteristics 1. Very aggressive goals 2. All or nothing certification ‐ Living Building

a) Project can apply for Project Petals if unique achievements in a prerequisite are met but the project does not qualify for the LBC

3. Verification of prerequisites involves less paperwork a) Verified at Audit, documentation used as reference b) Partially‐Verified at Audit as well as documentation review c) Not Verified at Audit – verified solely through documentation

4. Scale Jumping a) allow groups of buildings or projects to operate in a symbiotic state – sharing green infrastructure as

appropriate and allowing for living building status to be achieved as elegantly and inexpensively as possible

5. Recognizes 12 unique bio‐regions a) Texas is split between 2 bio‐regions: "Arid South" and "The South"



6. No completed projects with this certification 7. Strong incorporation of site selection and habitat preservation

a) Shares elements found in the Sustainable Sites Initiative E. Educational Opportunities

1. Ambassador Program a) starting in 2010

2. Living Building Leader a) series of online sessions engages architects, engineers, interior designers, landscape architects, green

consultants and contractors in the six Petals of the Living Building Challenge and provides the tools and technical training necessary to pursue Living Building status

b) 3‐hour sessions, taught by experts in their respective fields, provide the conceptual underpinnings, direct practical knowledge and critical personal and organizational skills to create transformational building types.

c) can elect to take individual sessions or pursue all 36 sessions for the Living Building Leader designation • must also be a LEED AP & have 5 years applied green building experience

• must take exam at the end of each session with minimum passing score of 80%

• cost = $90/session for non‐Cascadia members or $75 for Cascadia members

• 13 available online sessions now with 6 more coming in 2010 F. Resources

1. materials questionnaire (See attachment(s): materials questionnaire_hycrete031500.pdf) 2. red list letter template (See attachment(s): ~$C_Red_List_Letter_Template.doc)

V. LEED A. Governing Body

1. The United States Green Building Council (USGBC) a) The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) is a Washington, D.C.‐based nonprofit organization (NGO)

committed to a prosperous and sustainable future through cost‐efficient and energy‐saving green buildings

B. Purpose 1. Independent certification for sustainable development 2. 4 possible designations based on a point system ‐ Certified, Silver, Gold, or Platinum 3. Designation is given prior to project completion based on design documents and performance modeling

C. Criteria 1. Sustainable Sites 2. Water Efficiency 3. Energy and Atmosphere 4. Materials and Resources 5. Indoor Environmental Quality 6. Innovation in Design 7. Regional Priority



D. Unique Characteristics 1. Most widely accepted and known 2. Sliding scale of certification ‐ Certified, Silver, Gold, Platinum 3. Many completed projects with this certification 4. Concentrates on building itself, with lesser importance placed on site selection and management 5. Now also incorporates energy and water consumption reporting

VI. Net Zero Energy A. Governing Body

1. No single governing entity 2. Several existing certification bodies incorporate ideas of net zero energy

a) The Living Building Challenge's energy requirement is for net zero energy b) The ANSI voluntary guidelines for a Climate Neutral Building Standard incorporates net zero energy as a climate solution

B. Purpose 1. Achieving net zero energy use means that a building only uses energy that comes from completely

renewable sources a) Energy may come from the grid that is being produced by renewable energy plants b) Energy may come from on site renewables such as solar, wind, or geothermal

2. The best incarnation of a net zero energy building is one that is actually net positive, and is putting more renewable energy back into the grid than it uses

Date post:	08-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

Living Buildings Presentation to Austin AIA COTE · Living Buildings Presentation to Austin AIA...

Documents