Thirteen Principles of Sustainable Architecture

by Kelly Hart
As "consumers" we are frequently confronted with life style decisions that can impact our environment.
There are a few choices in this life that can make a big difference in what the quality of life will be for those
who follow us. Going with the flow of our culture is hard to avoid, and unfortunately the flow is not in the
right direction for evolving a sustainable future.
One of the most momentous choices that any of us will make is the kind of house we live in. I have come up
with a list of thirteen principles of sustainable architecture that can guide you in your housing choices.

Small is beautiful.
The trend lately has been toward huge mansion-style houses. While these might fit the egos of those who
purchase them, they don't fit with a sustainable life style. Large houses generally use a tremendous amount
of energy to heat and cool. This energy usually comes from the combustion of fossil fuels, depleting these
resources and emitting greenhouse gases and pollutants into the air. Also, the larger the house, the more
materials go into its construction; materials which may have their own environmental consequences. A home
should be just the right size for its occupants and their activities. My wife and I (and our two dogs) have
happily lived in a forty foot bus for the last four years. The key to this is efficient use of space, good
organization, and keeping possessions to a manageable level. We do look forward to spreading out some in
the passive solar, earthbag home we are building.

Heat with the sun.

Nothing can be more comfortable for body and mind than living in a good solar-heated house. I say "good",
because proper design is crucial to the comfort of such a house. You may have gone into a solar house and
felt stifled by the glaring heat, or perhaps you shivered from the lack of it. Good passive solar design will
provide just enough sunlight into the rooms to be absorbed by the surrounding thermal mass (usually
masonry materials), so that the heat will be given back into the room when the sun goes down. The thermal
mass is a kind of "heat battery" that stores the warmth, absorbing it to keep the room from getting too hot
during the day. Equally important to thermal mass is insulation (such as straw bales or crushed volcanic
rock) that will keep that heat inside. Thermal mass materials need to be insulated from the outside, or else
they will just bleed that warmth right back out. A rock house might have tons of mass, but be uncomfortably
cold because of this energy bleed. So a good solar design will utilize materials of the right type in the right
places, blending thermal dynamics with utilitarian design. There is much more to be said about solar design,
and there are many good books on the topic.

Keep your cool.

As I suggested above, a well designed solar house is both warm when you want it, and cool when you want
it; that is to say, the temperature tends to stay fairly even. A good way to keep your cool is to dig into the
earth. If you dig about six feet into the earth, you will find that the temperature there varies by only a few
degrees year round. While this temperature (about 50-55 degrees F.) might be too cool for general living
comfort, you can use the stability of the earth's temperature to moderate the thermal fluctuations of the
house. If you dig into a south-facing hillside to build, or berm the north part of the house with soil, you can
take advantage of this. The part of the house that is under ground needs to be well insulated, or the earth will
continually suck warmth out of the house.

Let nature cool your food.

In the old days people relied on pantries and root cellars to help keep produce and other provisions fresh. Ice
boxes made way for refrigerators, which are obviously much more convenient, but somehow the use of cool

pantries and root cellars also fell by the wayside. This is too bad because these spaces have functions that a
refrigerator simply can't replace. Root cellars can store large quantities of produce from the time of harvest
until the next summer. Cool pantries can store some produce, but also all manner of other foodstuffs and
kitchen supplies can be kept there. Cool, dry storage is the best way to preserve most food. The cool of the
earth can keep a totally bermed pantry or root cellar cool; the night air can also be used to cool a storage
room. The convenience and security of having ample provisions at your finger tips can not be beat.

Be energy efficient.
There are many ways to conserve the use of fossil fuel. Using the sun, wind, or water to produce electricity
is one. If you choose to do this, you will be forced to be careful in the way you use your electricity because
it is limited. Whether you get your electricity from alternative sources or from the grid, it pays to choose
energy efficient appliances. Front-loading clothes washers, for instance, use much less electricity, water and
soap than the top-loaders. Compact florescent lights use about a third of the electricity of standard bulbs.
Many appliances use electricity by just being plugged in (known as phantom load); be sure to avoid this.

Conserve water.
The average person in the U. S. uses between 100 and 250 gallons of water a day. I know it is possible to get
by just fine on one tenth that amount. The use of low water capacity toilets, flow restrictors at shower heads
and faucet aerators are fairly common now. More radical conservation approaches include diverting gray
water from bathing, clothes washing and bathroom sinks to watering plants; catching rain water from roofs
and paved areas for domestic use and switching to composting toilets. These can be very effective and safe
means of water conservation if done carefully to avoid bacterial infestation. Landscaping with drought
tolerant, indigenous plants can save an enormous amount of water.

Use local materials.

There are several benefits to using local, indigenous materials. For one, they naturally fit into the "feeling"
of the place. For another, they don't burn as much fossil fuel to transport them, and they are likely to be less
processed by industry. An example of building materials found in our corner of Colorado would be rocks,
sand, adobe and scoria (crushed volcanic rock).
Use natural materials. Again, naturally occurring materials often "feel" better to live with. When you step
onto an adobe floor, for instance, you feel the resilient mother earth beneath your feet. A major reason for
choosing natural materials over industrial ones is that the pollution often associated with their manufacture
is minimized. For every ton of portland cement that is manufactured, an equal amount of carbon dioxide is
released into the air. And then there is the matter of your health; natural materials are much less likely to
adversely affect your health.

Save the forests.

Having lived for many years in the Pacific Northwest, I can attest to the appalling degradation of national
and private forests. While wood is ostensibly a renewable resource, we have gone way beyond sustainable
harvesting and have ruined enormous ecosystems. Use wood as decoration. Cull dead trees for structural
supports. Use masonry, straw bales, papercrete, cob, adobe, rocks, bags of volcanic rock, etc., instead of
wood. Unfortunately it is difficult to get away from lumber in making a roof, so consider making a dome
from materials that can be stacked. Domes are also more energy efficient and use less materials for the same
space as a box. A conventional straw bale house only diminishes the amount of wood used by about 15%!

Recycle materials.
If the materials already exist, you might as well use them, because by doing so you are not promoting the
creation of more of them. You might also be keeping them out of the landfill, or keeping them from being
transported for further processing. Wood that is kept dry does not degrade much, nor does glass. All kinds of

things can be used in a house. We're using old metal wagon wheels to support the window openings in our
earthbag home.

Build to last.
There is an attitude in this throw-away society that an old house might as well be replaced by a new one.
Unfortunately this is often true, because of shoddy construction or poor choice of materials, or lack of
maintenance. A well made house can last for centuries, and it should. Moisture getting into a building can
lead to ruin, and it is hard to avoid this, whether from the outside environment or from condensation from
within. For this reason I am partial to the use of materials that are not degraded by moisture.

Grow your food.

Why not ask your house to help nourish you? With all of that south-facing glass, you might as well devote
some of it to a greenhouse. Herbs and salad greens can be grown year round. What a pleasure!

Share Facilities.
A basic tenet of sustainability is to share what you have with others. Doing this can diminish the need for
unnecessary duplication of facilities. In this way a group of people can not only have fewer tools or
appliances or functional areas, but at the same time they can have available a greater variety of these
facilities. This benefits both the environment (through less industrial activity) and the individual (by
providing more options for living.)

Student design for an energy-sipping home wins big

By Dave LeBlanc
When it comes to scoring zeros, Ryerson University students have it down to a science.
To clarify, were talking good zeros: the kind you want to see on your residential energy bill.
Recently, three Ryerson projects were announced as winners in the U.S. Department of Energys 2015 Race
to Zero competition. One entry in particular, 0-Zone Residence by fourth-year students Christopher Zhu,
Mark De Souza, John Sirdevan, Christopher Kayahara, Nikolai Tikhovskiy, Mark Eyk, Joshua Minkyu Jung
and Dennis Han, was so good at zeros, it won twice.

In a nutshell, 0-Zone takes a tight infill site at 974 Eastern Ave. in Leslieville (currently a patch of dirt across
from the eastern edge of the big postal sorting station) and expertly shoehorns in an attractive, affordable
rental building that takes advantage of limited natural light to create happy, bright apartments powered by
solar energy while reducing heat loss and water consumption.
It does all of this, says Sustainable.TOs Craig Race, who, with principal Paul Dowsett, served as client
representatives and advisers to the Ryerson students, by eschewing high-tech green technologies, such as
geothermal systems, radiant floors and wind turbines. That stuff is really expensive and actually requires a
lot of maintenance, he explains.
Giving higher priority to the first R in the Reduce, Reuse, Recycle model results in a much bigger payback,
Mr. Race says. If you just lower the amount of energy you need in the first place with good insulation, that
reduces your need for more active, expensive systems.
So thats step one.

The collaboration began when Ryerson Department of Architectural Science prof Vera Straka approached
Mr. Dowsett in late 2014 to see if we had a real-life project that we had already designed that [her students]
would be able to tweak and then enter into the competition. And we said: We can go better than that:
Why dont we give you something that has yet to be built, and the class can input building science into the
very beginning of the process.
And, if that science was sound, the cherry on the cake was that the project would actually get built, since
Sustainable had the full trust of the property owner.
Students began their design work in January. A visit to the snowy site revealed a stuccoed, three-storey
apartment block to the west, and three typical Toronto Bay-n-Gable attached homes to the east (ending at
Woodfield Road); actually, the lot in question, No. 974, had formerly contained the fourth Bay-n-Gable.
Because the street wall was already rather tall, a five-unit building with one unit per floor was possible
for the site. And, since the architects had only produced drawings of a basic box, the students could, and
would, be responsible for everything from walls and stairwells to floor plans and fancy finishes.
The only consideration, Mr. Race says, was that students were to understand the end-user. We wanted the
building to appeal to someone fashionable, someone interested in sustainability who is willing to live in
an up-and-coming area.

As well as offering affordable rental rates, the building had to be affordable for the owner during its lifespan.
Most times, when you hear that theres affordable housing, it means it was built very cheaply, Mr. Dowsett
says. Were looking at beginning-to-end affordability.
That means spending money wisely at the beginning, student Mark De Souza says. Half of the construction
budget has been dedicated to the buildings envelope, just to reduce that amount of cold air getting into the
building and hot air escaping. So, just super-insulating the walls and making sure theyre durable [and]
considering life-cycle, considering thermal bridges, and making them very air-tight, he says.
Products used will contain recycled materials, sourced locally. One part of the presentation to the U.S.
judges was a colour-coded diagram of the crucial point where the balcony floor meets the interior wall: there
is no transfer the heat stays inside. Achieving that was quite a success for us, beams Mr. De Souza.
As a result, smaller, energy-sipping heating and cooling systems can be used. In fact, the team decided
against radiant floors; they may feel wonderful on bare feet, but theyre overkill in such a tightly sealed
building and too slow to react to a dramatic thermostat adjustment. If you came from a regular house,
student Christopher Zhu says, you wouldnt have to get used to much in this [building].

Other features include: grey water systems; an array of roof-mounted solar panels; balcony lengths
calculated to shade units from overbearing summer sun while welcoming in warming winter sun; a naturally
lit common stair to create a sense of communal living; a half-up, half-down Yorkville stair into the
bottom unit to bring light deeper inside; the units social rooms kitchen, living and dining placed at the
south end for maximum light; and the opportunity to turn a two-bedroom unit (each is 874 square feet.) into
a three-bedroom by removing the master walk-in closet and ensuite bathroom.
While the team didnt reach zero consumption because of the light-challenged site, computer models prove
this building will cost half as much to operate ($20,627 a year) compared with a building-code-compliant
base case ($41,104) for a construction cost of $125 per square foot. (Total construction cost, excluding
land is pegged at $640,730.) And all of this in a package thats handsome and somewhat tropical-looking
Gotta give it a little flavour, says Mr. De Souza in his Trinidadian accent that will, no doubt, have
prospective tenants lining up in late 2016.
We will show developers that this is doable, it is affordable with todays technologies at todays budgets,
and that there is a market for it, Mr. Dowsett says.
And, better yet, eight students will have one heck of a school project to put on their rsum.
Source: The Globe and Mail, May 28, 2015

In the age of smart homes, sometimes dumb is best

By JOHN BENTLEY MAYS
Once upon a time, the only things usually called smart were people, fashions, investments and dogs.
Lots of other items, however, have become smart in the past few years. We now have smartphones, smart
cars, smart thermostats, smart television sets. The adjective commonly means that the product, thanks to
cybernetic engineering, can do more tricks than your smart dog ever could. Such smartness, of course, is
widely considered desirable. It is said to make our lives interesting, easier to manage and, to a degree, it
probably does so.

Hunter House, a 2,500-square-foot home near Peterborough, Ont. designed by Paul Dowsett, principal in the Toronto firm of Sustainable.TO Architecture + Building. Photo by Michael
Wallace.

Paul Dowsett, principal in the Toronto firm of Sustainable.TO Architecture + Building, does not sharply
dissent from this opinion. Although critical of the vogue for smartness, he is no Luddite. He believes
advanced technology has a useful role to play in the contemporary world, and in his own art, that of putting
up liveable structures. What makes him edgy, however, is the stylish claim by high-tech enthusiasts that
electronic wizardry is invariably better than dumb, often old-fashioned ways of making environments
comfortable.
In fact, Mr. Dowsett has come up with a slogan Dumb is the new Smart to summarize his convictions
on this matter. Its the topic of a public talk he will give next Thursday evening at the University of
Torontos architecture school (230 College St.).

Naomi Finlay

During a recent conversation with the architect about his ideas and his residential projects, I asked him to
unpack his motto.
Smart means a lot of technology, usually expensive to buy in the first place and expensive to maintain and
operate, he said. So our thinking is that the dumber we can make things, the easier they are to maintain
and operate, the less expensive they are to buy. Thats the gist of it.
The 2,500-square-foot Hunter House, which Mr. Dowsett designed a dozen years ago for a 100-acre rural
site near Peterborough, Ont., was an early experiment in making residential architecture thats more dumb
than smart.
The clients brief to us, he said, was for an off-grid, passive-solar, straw-bale house that had a midcentury modern image. I missed the day in school when they told us that all straw-bale houses were
supposed to look like hobbit houses. The wall system has a very high insulation value, and its all natural
straw, and clay-based plaster inside and out, When the house has finished its life, mother nature will take
all these materials back. There are no plastics, polymers, petroleum-based products in here.

Hunter House under construction. Glen Hunter.

Glen Hunter

Remarkably, for something built at this northern latitude, the modernistic one-level dwelling has no furnace.
A small propane burner supplies energy to the heating equipment embedded in the concrete floor on the
coldest days. Most of the time, Mr. Dowsett said, the sunshine coming through the 50-foot expanse of glass
on the south side provides enough winter-time warmth. All the winter sun gets right in and heats up the
whole floor, right to the back of the house, he remarked. The straw-bale walls keep the house very warm
in the winter, when the house is flooded by sunlight. In summer, a deep overhang shades the interior, so
you feel like youre in a dark cave.
Tightly insulated and very low-tech, the Hunter House can be seen as a Canadian instance of the ultraefficient Passivhaus concept that, over the past 20 years or so, has been gradually garnering interest from
architects and the public internationally, but especially in the German-speaking world and in Scandinavia.
Mr. Dowsett acknowledges his kinship with the German theorists of the Passive House, though his recent
interpretations of the idea are very much his own.

Michael Wallace

Take, for example, the award-winning 2011 single-family housing prototype he has crafted for a developer
in New Orleans. Intended for a run-down neighbourhood in the central city, the structure, he said, is a
design to Passive House standards, relying on mother nature for most of its energy needs. In an interesting,
humane New World twist on his intellectually austere European source, Mr. Dowsett allowed his creative
thought about the very affordable product to be disciplined by two questions: What does Mama need? What
can Mama afford? If Mama didnt need or could not afford a fixture or fitting or piece of technology, or if
she would find it hard to operate or maintain or replace, it didnt go in.
Needless to say, Mama wont get (because she wont need) a smart thermostat.
A smart thermostat uses technology and energy to adjust a changing interior environment, Mr. Dowsett
told me. If you installed one in a properly built passive house, it would be bored stupid, because nothing
ever changes in a passive house. Its that inert. It doesnt have wild temperature swings. Those smart
thermostats are great for making a poorly built building more energy-efficient. But in my mind, we should
put the smarts into the design of the building in the first place. Then we wouldnt need smart technology to
cover up all our mistakes.
Source: The Globe and Mail, Jan.22, 2014

Material Focus: Straw Bales

By Diana Budds
When it comes to ecologically minded building materials, straw bales are among the kindest (they involve
repurposing waste material from the grain growing industry). And lest you fear the outcome of the Three
Little Pigs fairy tale, rest assured that when done correctly straw bale homes are structurally sound.
Beginning with the "Gotta Bale" story from our October 2012 issue, and ending with an off the grid Bluff,
Utah, project, we've rounded up five modern homes constructed from straw.

With about two dozen straw-bale buildings on their rsum, David Arkin and Anni Tilt found a balance
between passive design strategies and the latest in green technologies for this Santa Cruz, California, home.
Straw is basically a waste material, says Tilt. Farmers used to burn rice straw, but now theyre baling it
up to sell, which takes tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere. Its also a stellar source of insulation, both
thermal and acoustic.

Green features abound inside the house as well. The residents, two professors from UC Santa Cruz,
repurposed dorm furniturebeds, armoires, and desksfor their kids' rooms.
Photo by: Gabriela Hasbun

Though visible elements of green design are found throughout this Napa Valley residencefrom the
recycled-glass and concrete countertops to the energy-efficient appliancesthe straw bales that are cleverly
packed to make two-foot-thick walls are the architects' favorite solution.
Photo by: JD Peterson

Ever aware of context, architect Henry Siegel says of his house, A lot of architects buildings look better on
a pedestal than in context. Our design would look out of place on a pedestalwe placed it so it really fits its
specific site.
Photo by: JD Peterson

When Anders Stokholm asked his old friend Felix Jerusalem to design his familys new home in Eschenz, a
northern Swiss village on the Rhine River and Untersee Lake, the client and architect agreed that they didnt
want to disturb the ancient Roman artifacts buried in the propertys wet soil. But they did want something
both modern and green. Except for its concrete core, the entire house is made from slabs of prefabricated,
formaldehyde-free compressed straw.

Upstairs, gallery windows frame the Rhine River. A concrete core (visible on the left) houses the kitchen, the
bathroom, and a mini wine cellar below.

Behind the this Colorado house's corrugated-metal and wide-plank facade, uncommon materials share a
common story with the neighborhood: Of design decisions driven by a desire to keep the next generation
and the planethealthy and safe. Out back, the paved patio serves as the family's main dining room. Though
occasionally snow and cold keep them inside, family dinners can often be enjoyed outdoors.

Photo by: Dave Lauridsen

In the kitchen, a window over the stovetop lets daylight in, framing the front yard while keeping the
neighboring house out of the picture.
Photo by: Dave Lauridsen

The straw bale Rosie Joe house was the first project built in the Navajo Nation by DesignBuildBLUFF, a
nonprofit organization affiliated with the University of Utahs College of Architecture + Planning, that

architect Hank Louis directs with a group of first-year graduate students. Each year eight to ten students
design a house for a Navajo family then spend a semester on the reservation constructing the house by hand.
The houses must operate off the grid. The goal is for budgets not to exceed $30,000.
Photo by: Daniel Hennessy

The house includes a rammed-earth Trombe wall for temperature regulation, a south-facing wall all of found
and gang-mulled windows whether wood, wood-clad, vinyl or aluminum, the ceiling and roof structure
made entirely of recycled pallets, exterior walls of straw sandwiched by clear acrylic, interior walls clad
with discarded road signs.Click here to read our previous Material Focus story on plywood.
Photo by: Daniel Hennessy
Source: Dwell, Oct.10, 2014

One Planet Communities: The Earth's Greenest Neighborhoods

By Brian Barth
by Brian Barth, 08/28/14

Green living is the hottest thing on the real estate market these days, and BioRegional, an entrepreneurial
charity based in London, is making sure it stays that way. The organization stewards the One Planet
Communities; a growing worldwide network of deep green neighborhoods that are the cutting edge of
sustainable development. So far only seven communities worldwide have met the rigorous standards of an
OPC, though eight others have integrated the 10 guiding principles to a lesser degree, but still enough to
receive honorable mention from the organization. These range from the 20-unit Westwyck EcoVillage in
Melbourne to the 2.3-square mile Masdar City, a sustainable oasis under construction on the outskirts of Abu
Dhabi.

10 principles guide One Planet Communities (OPCs) in the quest for improved stewardship of the Earths
resources. At the top of the list are Zero Carbon and Zero Wasteits the goal of these communities to
produce the energy they consume, and to ensure that all material resources are part of a closed loop cradleto-cradle system. OPCs are exemplary in the way they conserve and recycle water, create pedestrian- and
bike-friendly transportation networks and use locally-sourced and non-toxic materials in construction. They
also attempt to grow a substantial portion of their own food. In other words, they dont stop at just one prong
of sustainable design and lifestyles: every facet of green living must be embodied to receive the One Planet
designation.

BioRegional developed the OPC concept while building BedZed, Britains largest carbon neutral community
that has become the prototype of all other OPCs that have been built since. Completed in 2002, BedZed is a
live/work community of 220 residents, featuring rooftop gardens, passive solar design, onsite sewage
treatment, rainwater recycling and its own biomass-powered heat and electricity generating plant.

Grow Community
Located on Bainbridge Island in Puget Sound, Grow is a net-zero, pedestrian-oriented community, just a 5minute walk from the village of Winslow and a 35-minute ferry ride from Seattle. Residents can grow their
own organic gardens, drive one of the shared solar-powered cars and live in one of 131 homes powered
entirely by the sun. Grow is the first OPC to be built in the United States.

The Isles
This will be the first OPC in Canada and it also happen to be on an island. Actually, the 37-acre eco-village
planned for Canadas capital city will span several islands dotting the Ottawa River within sight of the
Parliament buildings. A homes, shops, offices and community spaces planned by the Windmill Development
Group will sit on the form industrial site at the base of Chaudiere Falls; one of Canadas greatest ecological
wonders.

Sonoma Mountain Village

The developers of SMV also claim to be the first OPC in America, yet they are a long way from being fully
built out. The scale of this eco-village is more city-like, covering 200 acres in the rolling northern California
wine country. Theyve concentrated on building jobs first, with the residential neighborhoods planned for
the next few years. There is a giant LEED Platinum Comcast facility and numerous other eco-employment
centers at the site, all powered by solar energy.

Masdar City
A well-funded, eco-futurist suburb of Abu Dhabi, the capital of Middle Eastern oil wealth, Masdar is by far
the most ambitious development using OPC guidelines. Time will tell if the plans live up to their potential,
but it is already producing a lot more energy than it consumes (via photovoltaic panels) and boasts a 54
percent reduction in water consumption over conventionally-designed developments of a similar type (via
greywater recycling and ultra-efficient plumbing fixtures).

Villages Nature
OPC doesnt discriminate against the lifestyles of the rich and famous or against the Disneyland crowd. In
fact, it sees the big profits to be made on both and tries to channel those dollars into eco-playplaces. Just
down the street from Disneyland Paris, the EuroDisney corporation is building a massive eco-water theme
park/resort. The water will be heated geothermally and the surrounding 400 acres will include an interactive
organic farm, nature trails and conservation areas nestled among the condos, hotels and vacation homes.

Mata de Sesimbra
The other eco-resort on the OPC list is in Portugal, south of Lisbon. This one is still early in the planning
stages, but, if all goes as planned, will include 13,000 acres of forest preserve and domiciles for 30,000
vacationers. There will be fancy golf clubs, hotels and numerous themed resorts, all powered by alternative
energy, self-sufficient in water and built with sustainable materials.
One Planet Communities
Source: Inhabitat, Aug.28, 2014

New San Diego Building May Be Largest U.S. Carbon-Neutral

Commercial Office Building
By Caroline Massie

San Diego is now to home to what is believed to be the largest net-zero energy commercial office building in
the country, according to the building's tenant, LPL Financial, and developer, Hines. Tower II at La Jolla
Commons, the new headquarters of the large independent financial broker-dealer group, is a 13-story,
415,000-square-foot office tower that utilizes three fuel cells to convert biogas into an estimated 4.3 million
kilowatt-hours of electricity. The building, however, requires less than 2.9 million to operate. As a result,
unused power will feed into the areas power grid, with enough electricity to power 750 homes.
To monitor and manage the towers reduced energy consumption, energy meters are located throughout the
building and all surplus power is pushed back to the grid through San Diego Gas & Electric. The building,
which houses 1,600 employees, includes heating and air control disks in an under-floor air distribution
system, allowing for the customization of individual workspaces and reducing the overall energy demand.
Tower II at La Jolla Commons, which cost about $60 million to construct,is outfitted with 5,790 LED lights
that feature automatic dimming capabilities based on the degree of available natural light, along with sensors
that turn lights off by detecting unoccupied spaces.
The building isn't just energy efficient. Approximately 88 percent of the towers water consumptionabout
2.5 million gallons annuallyis recycled and used for irrigation and other needs. The landscape design is
expected to require less water than more lush green spaces.
The structure is the second building to join La Jolla Commons. The first tower, designed by L.A.-based
AECOM and completed in 2008, earned LEED Gold certification and is an Energy Star-labeled property.
AECOM also served as the design architect for the Tower II, along with San Francisco-based Gensler, which
designed the interior, and Houston-based Hines as the developer.
Source: Caroline Massie, ECOBUILDING Pulse. April 7, 2014.

OAA HQ Targeting Zero Carbon Emissions!

By Ontario Association of Architects

As the OAA building passes 20 years old, the building requires extensive maintenance, and its
energy use is significantly above average for a low rise office building. OAA Council saw this
as an opportunity to review all aspects of the building, including selling the building to
increasing its functionality and energy efficiency. This report is a follow up to previous reports
and discussions with members.
After five years of work and review, we came to the conclusion that the financial costs of
moving would outweigh any advantages and that by installing systems better suited to the
geometry of the building, we can achieve zero operating carbon use at a financially prudent
cost.
By evaluating our finances, we concluded that the renovation can be funded without raising
membership fees through a combination of existing reserves such as: existing budget lines for
the building, increasing membership and/or entering into energy agreements.
Council approved the carbon neutral operating approach on March 6, directing our consultant
team, lead by architect David Fujiwara, to proceed with design development and contract
documents, based on achieving zero carbon performance with a maximum budget of $3.8
million.
More Detailed Information Below
Why
OAA HQ is a public and physical embodiment of an architects' skill and aspirations to the
community, as well as serving our needs for office space, and the needs of our major tenant,
Pro-Demnity Insurance Company.
Given society's current focus on energy efficiency and the movement towards public
declaration of energy use that is sweeping across the USA, we asked ourselves how our
building would perform. The answer: not very well.

One solution would be to scrap the building and start again, but aside from being financially
imprudent, most building stock is intended to serve for much longer than 20 years, and
buildings need to adapt and improve with time. Our building is no different.
The OAA has committed to the 2030 Challenge as a general policy. This challenge aims to
take the building sector to zero carbon emissions by 2030. Its strategy is to set performance
targets for all new buildings and major renovations. The target energy use for all buildings
completed in a given year is slowly being reduced from the average levels achieved in 2003.
Next year, that target will be 70% of the baseline; by 2030 the target will be 100% reduction.
We could meet the 70% reduction rate, but we asked ourselves can we take a leadership
position and meet the 100% reduction target? This would generate confidence in our industry
and would provide a strong example that the profession, and future professionals through the
use of our building in teaching curriculums, could use in their own work. Council also felt that
the carbon neutral renovation had education value for the public, our members and students.
The Plan
The OAA building does have its challenges. The first floor is open and the building has thermal
bridging. Instead of viewing these as impossible challenges, our consultant team David
Fujiwara Architect with Sustainable EDGE, Gottesman Associates and Transsolar decided to
work with the strengths and opportunities inherent in the building form including, ironically,
the open space on the first floor.
The first advantage is that the building has fantastic daylighting that is currently duplicated
with artificial lighting. Deborah Gottesman has designed a system which will replace existing
lighting with high efficiency lighting, using a daylight strategy to turn off lighting when
sufficient daylight exists, while using new fixtures that complement the building's style.
Our second advantage is the atrium which allows us to optimize displacement ventilation,
using a similar strategy to that used at the Manitoba Hydro Place. This system has significant
energy savings because of the low fan energy required.
A third advantage is that the building was originally designed to support shading devices on
the roof fins. These were never installed due to cost, (having a payback of 20 years!).
Our daylighting study has concluded that there is so much daylight in the building that glare
control is required. The project proposes to use photovoltaic/hydro thermal panels to perform
this glare control, in addition to adding external shades to the building.
The first step will be envelope upgrades to reduce the heating and cooling loads. According to
a blower door test, the OAA building envelope scores very well for air tightness, which is a
major source of energy loss. However, there are some improvements to be made, and
insulation can be added to further reduce the loads.
Our mechanical system came next. Our current mechanical system, whose goal was to
maximize user comfort, uses forced air heating augmented with reheat coils in each VAV box,
and electric base board heaters. In cooling mode, the system cools air to 13 degrees, and
then reheats the air for each individual office. While this strategy was considered a good one
when the building was built, it consumes a lot of energy. After 20 years of service, many of its
components are coming to the end of their life expectancy.
We are proposing to entirely re-work the mechanical system, changing it to a displacement
system which takes advantage of the atrium as a supply plenum, and adding an energy
recovery ventilator. The only part of the system to be retained are the supply ducts, which will
be reused as return ducts.
The system will be driven by photovoltaics with an integral hydro thermal system, made more
efficient through the use of underground storage tanks to both store heat and absorb heat
from the ground.

Finally, the buildings interiors are somewhat worn, and our major tenant has indicated that
they are interested in leasing additional space. Included in this renovation is repurposing
some of the atrium space for office use (increasing rental income), and the creation of a more
functional atrium space with updated finishes throughout.
The Financing
In 2008, Council commissioned a study by Cushman and Wakefield to determine, from a
financial view only, if it made sense to sell the building. They determined that it was not.
View study here.
Having decided to keep the building, the next issue to be addressed was the maintenance of
our existing system including replacement of components as they reach end of life. This had
an estimated cost of $1.3 million over the next 10 years, including the leasable office
expansion.
The system described above is estimated to cost $3.8 million, also including the leasable
office expansion.
However, we currently pay $90,000 per year in energy bills and $27,000 in maintenance
costs. When this is taken into account though a Net Present Value analysis, the results
suggest that the zero operating carbon renovation is the most financially attractive over the
25 year term. A summary of this analysis is below. The complete report is available here.
The NPV analysis is based on a conservative estimate of future energy costs, and on the OAA
current rate of return on investments (2%). This yields a payback of 17 years. If more drastic
energy scenarios are used, the payback is reduced to as low as 7.5 years.
The association currently has sufficient resources to pay for the renovation over a 4 year
period, without increasing member fees. This is in part due to the fact that we have paid off
the mortgage. However, we may choose to enter into an agreement with an organisation like
the Toronto Atmospheric Fund, which pays qualifying capital costs in exchange for receiving
most of the energy savings over a defined period.
The Process
Council approved the Carbon Neutral retrofit on March 6, 2014, for a maximum cost of $3.8
million and directed the team to proceed through design development and working drawings.
At that point performance and costs must be confirmed.
The project will be presented at the OAA Annual Conference during the Friday lunch hour. A
schematic design drawing package will be available in advance. Council welcomes feedback
from the membership. Watch for the OAA launch of our new BLOOAG; In the meantime,
please send your comments to president@oaa.on.ca.

Revamping the Parking Lot

By David Sokol, Green Source Magazine
Four Architecture Firms Rethink the Parking Lot Giving New Life to Downtown Suburbia

As good-looking garages like Elliott + Associates steel meshshaded Chesapeake Car Park and the
photovoltaic-integrated Santa Monica Civic Center facility spread across the country, the parking
structure is not quite the ugly duckling it once was. Yet aesthetic appeal and eco features only fulfill some
of the building types potential, according to the Rauch Foundation. In January, the Long Islandbased
organization introduced the results of its ParkingPLUS Design Challenge to demonstrate how these
former eyesores can be reimagined to provide new services and to enliven Long Islands downtowns.
The plus in ParkingPLUS refers to programmatic elements that address community needs, and which
offset the cost of development, explains Jocelyn Wenk, associate director of the Rauch Foundations
Long Island Index, an annual study that publishes data on economic growth and regional development in
Long Island. Wenk adds that precedents like Chesapeake Car Park inspired the challenge.
Initiated in September 2013, ParkingPLUS paired four architecture studios with Long Island
municipalities to conceive innovative parking structures for their downtowns. The exercise focused on
freeing surface parking area for new uses, and thereby allowing the physical structures to contribute to
local economic and cultural life. While all the test sites were New York rail-oriented suburbs, the
development solutions are meant to be widely replicable in other commuter communities across the
country.
The projects also reveal the environmental benefits of densifying suburbs through vertical parking. A
prototype structure created by Boston-based Utile for the Village of Rockville Centre represented the
sweet spot between a utilitarian parking garage and a valuable addition to the civic realm, explains
Utiles founding principal Tim Love. In addition to encouraging transit usage by increasing parking
adjacent to the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR), the prototype is punctuated by leafy courtyards and a
ground floor entirely comprised of 20-foot-tall archways so that that space transforms into a lively
pedestrian network during off-peak hours. Its combination of tilt-up and precast-concrete construction
permits conversion to housing and other uses should long-term vehicle countsand corresponding
sprawldecline.

Noting that the Village of Patchogue already enjoys a dynamic central business district, dub studios
cofounder Michael Piper says his bicoastal firm aimed to make better use of its existing parking. A
parking management system would identify available parking spots, slashing demand for newly

constructed parking by 30 percent. The electronic infrastructure also would save drivers from circling for
a parking spot to the tune of 20,000 gallons of gas.
For the Village of Westbury, New Yorks LTL Architects wrapped intermodal functions as well as
apartments, shops, a tech incubator, and other building uses around LIRR parking. According to LTL
namesake David Lewis, this configuration also reduces drive time. The commute to the parking lot
involves a trip to a grocery store, dropping off the kids, Lewis says, referring to a phenomenon known
as trip chaining. How can densification of parking provide amenities that really amplify activity in the
village itself? Those amenities would also employ several sustainability strategies, such as crosslaminated timber construction and shading by a 96,700-square-foot photovoltaic array.
Los Angelesbased Roger Sherman Architecture and Urban Design pursued a similar approach for the
commuter station in Ronkonkoma, the easternmost hamlet of the challenge. Here, by consolidating
recreation, housing, and retail, as well as hotel rooms for a neighboring regional airport, the proposal
creates a sense of place outside of the Big Apples easy reach.
To discover the ParkingPLUS projects in greater depth, go to the Long Island Indexsponsored
website Build a Better Burb.
Source: David Sokol, Green Source Magazine. January 31, 2014.

New building certification could seriously challenge LEED

By Building Magazine

New upgrades to a building certification program may very well lure developers and building owners who
are thinking of obtaining a green certification for their projects away from LEED.
ECD Energy and Environment Canada announced the release of significant upgrades to the Green Globes
for New Construction Canada program since its introduction in 2004. The new version is based on a
Canadian adaptation of ANSI standard: ANSI/GBI 01-2010: Green Building Assessment Protocol for
Commercial Buildings, as well as other recognized standards.
In addition to being a certification, Green Globes also offers guidance for design teams to carry out the
integrated design process from goal setting to construction documents. According to the web-based program,
it is a user-friendly and affordable alternative certification to LEED because it can be done largely inhouse by the design team, and uses a streamlined verification process based on a review of actual working
documents such as drawings, specifications, plans and calculations. Certification occurs at two stages: at the
Design stage and Post Construction.
Energy requirements are for 30 to 50 per cent savings over the ANSI/ASHRAE/ISNEA standard 90.1 and
the Model National Energy Code for Buildings. Bonus points have been introduced for buildings that obtain
the highest levels of energy performance, such as zero net energy or 51 per cent reduction in CO2e
emissions. If you want to put a building on a carbon diet, Green Globes is the way to do it says David
Charles Stewart, an energy consultant in Nova Scotia, who serves on the Green Globes Technical
Committee, and who helped to adapt the ANSI criteria to Canadian climate zones, based on energy modeling
and carbon calculations.
The Materials & Resources section addresses the selection of products and offers a choice of paths that
includes full life cycle assessment, multi-attribute certifications, and third-party certified Environmental
Product Declarations (EPDs), placing Green Globes at the vanguard of green rating programs with respect to
the specification of materials and products.
Professionals will be impressed by the ease of use of the online Green Globes evaluation system, and by
the overall program flexibility and adaptability said Craig Riley, Regional Business Line Leader,
Sustainability at URS Corporation. The Green Globes certification process is robust and efficient and helps
to develop greening strategies during the integrated design and construction process.
The new Green Globes reflects major advances in building science and an enhanced user interface
experience. says Jiri Skopek, who coordinated the Green Globes Canadian Technical Committee. What
has not changed is that it still provides a transparent, web-based survey, and a streamlined verification
process, which make it the most user-friendly and affordable certification system on the market.
Source building magazine. December 5, 2013.

Why Are Some States Trying to Ban LEED Green Building Standards?
By Emily Badger

The amendments and executive orders never actually mention LEED by name. They ban new construction
built with public money from seeking (or requiring) any green building certification that's not recognized by
something called the American National Standards Institute, or that doesn't treat all certifications for wood
products equally. But that's really just a mouthful meant to ensure no more LEED-certified courthouses or
state offices or libraries.
Behind the bans are a group of industries primarily conventional timber, plastics and chemicals unhappy
that much of their product goes unrecognized by the LEED standard created by the U.S. Green Building
Council. LEED now certifies a million and a half square feet of real estate a day, affixing a "green" label
onto public buildings, commercial offices and private homes that rack up points on a 100-point scale and
rewards things like locally sourced materials and energy-efficient design.
Using lumber clear-cut from the side of a sensitive stream half a continent away does not, in short, get you
anything.
"Certain things havent made the cut," says Lane Burt, USGBC's policy director. "As a result weve seen
some political agitation, basically a much more threatening posture saying if you dont change this about
LEED, or give us more points, well use our constitutional rights to petition government to take LEED
away."
Mississippi was the most recent state to do this, with an amendment just tacked on to a transportation and
housing appropriations bill. Alabama and Georgia have done the same through executive order. An industry
coalition is also trying to push similar language through Congress that would cover new construction from
the largest property manager in the country, the federal government. (Treehugger has a good long-running
history of all of this).
The industry objections have grown in direct proportion to LEED's prominence. Thirty-four states, the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have policies either requiring LEED construction or establishing
strong incentives for it in public buildings. The federal government does, too. The industries that now
oppose LEED even as they remain members of the USGBC voting on changes to the certification aren't
out to ban green building, per se. Rather, they've come up with their own standards for what counts as
"green."
Instead of LEED, they've got something called Green Globes. Instead of the "Forest Stewardship Council"
certification (which LEED recognizes for wood products), they've created the Sustainable Forestry Initiative
program. Suffice it to say, these certifications have laxer standards.
To environmental groups, the sleight-of-hand tactic is actually more insidious than if industry were trying to
politicize green building all together.
"What theyre trying to do," Sierra Club activist Jason Grant says of the timber industry, "is protect their
core business model, which largely relies on large-scale clear cutting and replanting." The Forest
Stewardship Council demands costlier and more sustainable practices. "The conservation community is
united in opposition to the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, not because it doesnt have any merit, but because
it is trying to pass off fundamentally status quo, barely legal forestry practices as green and sustainable.
Look at the name the Sustainable Forestry Initiative. That is what is at the heart of the conflict."

The industry-led American High-Performance Buildings Coalition (URL: betterbuildingstandards.com) puts

it a little differently. LEED, they argue, lacks transparency, "shuts out stakeholders," isn't built on
"consensus."
LEED's own defenders (including Grant) acknowledge that the system isn't infallible. The entire exercise of
rating green buildings is inevitably fraught; environmentalists themselves don't agree on many items in the
certification. The latest version of LEED passed this summer with 86 percent of the vote of the USGBC's
13,000 members. That would count as a sweeping victory in a democracy. But if "consensus" means
everybody, it obviously isn't that.
The entire dispute over the forestry practices behind the lumber that goes into these buildings actually
revolves around a single point in the 100-point LEED system. And a building receives that point if just half
of its permanently installed wood is FSC certified. A LEED building can contain any kind of wood under the
sun. It just may not get that point. (For comparison's sake, if you use locally sourced but less sustainable
wood, that counts toward two points.)
All of this means that one industry with a vested interest in the smallest sliver of an entire green-building
rating system has so far been successful in undermining the whole model in a few states. And the standards
set by government construction have the potential to cascade into the private market, too.
For LEED, this battle is a perverse sign of its expanding influence. But it's unclear if the many proponents of
green building including all the businesses that have grown up around it are ready yet to mount the kind
of defense that could keep LEED from becoming another wedge between red states and blue ones.
"I think we are at an inflection point," Burt says. "The green building industry has grown to 45 percent of the
marketplace in new construction. Thats significant growth. Its become a real industry. And if these political
attacks from certain sub-components, certain special interests are going to continue, the green building
industry needs to get a lot more politically savvy."
He doesn't mean that the non-profit USGBC needs to become a political heavyweight. "Theres no
nonprofit," he says, "thats going to match the lobbying clout of the timber industry."
The USGBC, he says, is content to compete with other certifications. But that's not the scenario these state
laws would create. Instead, they would effectively ban LEED. "Thats a huge escalation," Burt says.
Source: The Atlantic Cities, Emily Badge. August 28,2013

Things You Need to Know About Green Design

By: Terri Meyer Baoke

Originally published in OAA Profiles, 2009.

THE ADOPTION AND MARKETING OF ratings systems, such as LEED and Green Globes,
seems to be pushing green building to adopt a checklist approach to design. Although the
green certification of a project might indeed ask that a checklist be submitted, to approach
the problem in this way will shortchange the overall success of the environmental nature of
the design. Tacking on photovoltaic (PV) solar panels and sun shades, or simply substituting
waterless urinals to achieve a few points will not contribute to the overall eco-effectiveness of
the solution. Nor will it improve the Life Cycle implications of the project. When 7% of the
projects design costs have been spent, 85% of the Life Cycle costs have been committed.
The first decisions are the most important ones.
Sustainable design needs to be considered in a highly holistic way, starting with the
selection of the SITE. The selection of the site, the orientation of the building, and deciding on
the shape, massing and material nature of the building are critical to initiating a successful
environmentally-focused project. Design must always begin with considerations of the local
climate, and progress to include site specific issues related to the specifi c microclimate. This
site specific climate, within the same eco-region or city, can vary as a function of the
relationship to green spaces, trees, water, pavement and other buildings. Urban environments
are of particular issue as overshadowing can easily result, which may make some
environmental design practices less effective. Proximity to other buildings can not only reduce
the effective use of the sun for either solar heating or daylighting, but can alter wind patterns,
making natural ventilation less possible. Urban environments are potentially noisy and
polluted, again affecting the design of the building envelope and impacting decisions to use
natural ventilation strategies.
Relating the site to issues of ORIENTATION and MASSING will begin to impact the way that
programmatic requirements may be accommodated in the building. Certain uses may be able
to take better advantage of passive heating and cooling if they are located according to site
and exterior landscaping characteristics. daylighting can greatly assist in reduc ing energy

costs as well as provide a higher sense of well being to the occupants. The consideration of
local site conditions may help to determine the placement of daylit versus non-daylit or
service spaces. The CROSS SECTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS and BUILDING HEIGHT may also
need to be modified to feed into lower energy, natural solutions. Synergies may be possible
when looking at spaces that have larger mechanical or cooling requirements, where waste
heat may be able to be used to provide heat transfer to atria or circulations spaces that can
make do with a lower level of constant comfort.
Issues such as these are easy to make at the beginning of the process, but become
increasingly difficult and disruptive as the process unfolds. This is even more true when
attempting to get more out of sustainable and energy efficient initiatives and systems, as
they are intrinsically linked to issues of siting, massing and orientation.
In the IDP method of design, the client takes a more active role in initial design investigations
as some of the proposed ecological improvements may impact the overall goals for the
project itself. Many ideas may be tied to capital budget restrictions, but may result in lower
long-term operating costs. Quick and iterative rough costs are also useful at the early stages
of design in order to properly assess the potential of various design suggestions. Rough
energy analysis can help in deciding the benefit of changes in building form or materials. If
user groups are also involved, it is more likely that the building can succeed once
constructed, as the occupants will have a better understanding of building operations that
may be key to energy efficiency or sustainable practices. The architects role changes from
form-giver to team leader as the many ideas that can contribute to the sustainable
nature of the project are incorporated into the overall conceptual design. The IDP promotes
the creation of a sustainable base concept and building design that w ill be better able to
respond to a range of additional criteria as might be required if designing to LEED, Green
Globes or another rating system.
Once the concept and form of the base building has been reached, the decision about which
additional green elements or systems can play into the overall Integrated Design Process can
be made. The initial design decisions regarding siting, site treatment/landscaping,
orinientation and massing should have netted both lower energy costs as well as provided
opportunities to include the additional features that can be effectively and holistically
incorporated into the base building. A holistic design with an ecoeffectively designed base
building that carefully integrates elements such as photovoltaics, sun shading devices,
overhangs, light shelves, natural ventilation and special glazing to enhance daylighting, and
that has had IDP related client involvement throughout the decision-making and costing
process, will be less likely to suffer the value engineering removal of its sustainable systems
particularly those that might make a features list.
Terri Meyer Boake, BES, B.Arch, M.Arch, LEED AP is a member of the OAA Sustainable
Built Environments Committee and is an Associate Director at the School of Architecture,
University of Waterloo.

Energy Matters
DR. JOHN STRAUBE

Photo:Timothy Tolle

Originally published in Perspectives, Spring 2009

THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS, and hence green building design, revolves around a wide range of
issues: habitat destruction, storm water runoff, air pollution, erratic climate change, and excessive resource
use. However, the on-going consumption of energy to operate, condition, and light a building, as well as the
energy embodied in maintenance, is the largest single source of environmental damage and
resource consumption attributable to buildings. Concerns regarding energy security and carbon emissions
have sharpened the focus on energy in green buildings, as the growth rate of energy consumption continues
to increase, particularly in countries such as China, Russia, India and Brazil. Reducing operational energy
use and increasing durability should be the prime concerns of architects who wish to design and build
green buildings. I have reached this conclusion after spending years looking at actual building energy
consumption, reviewing countless computer simulations and being involved in numerous green building
charrettes. It has even been suggested (Lstiburek, 2008) that 80 per cent of a green architects
concern should be directed towards reducing energy consumption during operation. Scientific life-cycle
energy analyses have repeatedly found that the energy used in the operation and maintenance of buildings
dwarfs the so-called embodied energy of the materials. For example, studies have found that a buildings
operating energy was between 83 and 94 per cent of its total energy use, over a 50-year life-cycle (Cole and
Kernan, 1996 and Reepe and Blanchard, 1998).
Despite the massive amount of evidence pointing to the importance of energy consumption in green design,
designers and rating programs still seem fixated on material choices, not energy reduction. Architects efforts
tend to concentrate on the arrangement of spaces, massing, cultural influences, and the selection of
finishes. Designing buildings that consume little operational energy is not a normally exercised skill: it
requires much greater technical understanding of heat transfer And radiation physics, weather and sun, and
mechanical equipment operational details than architects usually possess. Nevertheless, it is the architect
who is responsible for making most of the significant choices that affect energy consumption. The trend in
recent decades has not been encouraging. According to Natural Resources Canada data from actual bills for
the year 2000, the energy consumption of buildings built between 1980 and 1999 is barely less than
buildings built before 1920. The real savings from improved window technology, more efficient equipment,
and better design tools have disguised the fact that we are wasting more energy because of over-ventilated,
over-glazed, and under-insulated buildings.

If a buildings orientation, massing, window area/shading, insulation arrangement, and air-tightness are not
properly optimized, no amount of mechanical engineering, heat pumps, chilled slabs, natural ventilation or
green materials can make the building a low-energy building. And if it is not a low energy building, it is
not a green building. Complex under-floor air systems, double facades, green roofs, and heat pumps are all
examples of technology with potential, but will not save energy if the architects design (let alone the
mechanical engineers) is not appropriate. In many cases these technologies are added to a poorly conceived
building, and the result is average energy consumption despite the use of good, or even exceptional,
mechanical design and equipment. Efficient and high-tech equipment and controls can moderate, but not
make up for, energy-inefficient building design.

A house with no bills

In an effort to develop affordable, off-the-grid masterplanned communities in the future, leading national
developer Mirvac will commence development of its first House with No Bills in Melbourne this year.
The House with No Bills is an innovative initiative forming part of Mirvacs ambitious sustainability
strategy This Changes Everything, which aims to drive a more sustainable future for Australians.
This strategy focuses on not only reducing environmental impact but also considers social impact.
Affordability and climate change are key issues facing Australia, and through the House with No Bills
Mirvac aims to address these challenges with market based solutions.
A cornerstone of This Changes Everything is Mirvacs commitment to be Net Positive by 2030, aiming to
generate more energy than consumed.
Whilst the initial business focus has been on its operational footprint, the application of the same logic
through initiatives such as the House with No Bills, is part of its long-term goal to improve the financial
position and lifestyle of its customers.
Mirvac will build a House with No Bills at its $130 million Jack Rd development in Cheltenham to
demonstrate the first phase of the project, which is to deliver a home without energy or gas bills.
This three-bedroom house has been designed to look, feel and operate the same as a typical home, with
sustainable features planned to have minimal impact to its residents everyday living.
It will reduce its reliance on electricity with methods including increased roof insulation, the installation of
solar PV panels and batteries, passive solar design, use of LED lighting, and energy efficient appliances.

To achieve a zero cost bill, smart meters and monitoring systems will assist homeowners in keeping track of
where and how their energy is being used.
Mirvacs Head of Residential, John Carfi, commented that importantly, the initiative will include an
industry-first 12-month study to track energy usage and uncover how average families consume energy and
how the house design and associated sustainable technology performs.
Valuable information will be fed back to Mirvac that will inform the development of future affordable
energy efficient homes. Technology will be reviewed throughout the testing period and changed if a new,
better performing solution can be found.
Mr Carfi said the study was essential in order to develop more affordable energy efficient homes, as current
technologies were believed to be out of the reach of many families.
By demonstrating whats possible we hope to close the gap between interested customers and willingness
to pay. Mirvac are aiming to move from an opt in model to and opt out model whereby customers will
need to ask to remove the free solar energy from their homes.
Phase one of this initiative is to monitor and gather data on our trial familys everyday energy consumption,
which will shed light on how to best roll-out this home model on a wider scale, Mr Carfi said.
Following this, phase two will look at opportunities for zero cost water and sewerage in greenfield
communities. We will also use the learnings from phase one to identify the potential of going fully offgrid.
Our ultimate goal is to uncover exactly how people use energy so that we can design affordable energy
efficient homes. We want to reduce the everyday cost of living for home owners and protect them against
rising energy and utility prices, also providing a security of supply which will help them to live selfsufficiently and sustainably in their homes.
The House with No Bills is also likely to have a positive carbon outcome, allowing home owners to feed
more clean, renewable energy back to the grid than they will consume, to achieve a cost neutral outcome.
As a leader in the property development sector, Mirvac can make this project a reality, so it makes sense to
start the process and become the first large-scale builder to bring such a project to life, Mr Carfi said.
Mirvac is looking for a first home buyer, key worker family of four to live rent free in the Cheltenham
home and trial the system in a year-long study. This family would have at least one worker in a carebased
industry, such as education or nursing, and two children.
The Green Building Council of Australia CEO, Romilly Madew, said the study was an important step
towards creating affordable, energy efficient communities across Australia, and had the potential to drive the
adoption of sustainable building design and technologies that have been features of commercial buildings for
some time.
A project of this scale has yet to be attempted by a major developer with the potential to make it
commercially viable and scalable, she said. Mirvac achieved Australias first Green Star ratings for
education and retail buildings, and it is exciting to see Mirvac taking ownership of this space and lead by
example.
Phase 1 of The House with No Bills energy efficient home will commence construction early next year and
will be completed by mid to late 2017. It will be modelled off a standard family home and will include three
bedrooms, two and a half bathrooms and a single garage.
Mirvac is also investigating providing the use of an electric car and bikes for the duration of the study to
reduce the home owners cost of transport and associated greenhouse gas emissions.

Sustainable Architecture and User Experience:

Intent Versus Results
By: Steven Orfield, Orfield Laboratories | Nov 17, 2014
The architectural and FM communities have a clear interest in the U.S. Green Building Councils Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system, yet LEED is not strictly performance based.
Most members of the Orfield Laboratories-administered Architectural Research Consortium (ARC), a
research-based design collaboration of architects, would like LEED to succeed in bring about a more
sustainable design process and result. However, many in this group also have a clear discomfort with the
lack of science and research in the LEED program, which does not focus significantly on building
performance or user experience.
The main focuses in awarding LEED points are energy savings and use of sustainable materials. LEED is
closely tied to vendors, awarding points for the purchase of materials that are thought to be sustainable,
without having to prove that they either offer the most efficient solution or that they actually work. Most
LEED projects have no occupancy research or building performance measurement process or standards
(such as for acoustics, lighting, daylighting, thermal comfort, indoor air quality, etc.), no performance
commissioning and no verification. And most do not have formal energy measures (pre- or post-) or any
ongoing formal monitoring. So the main thing we know about LEED projects is that they are intended to:

Be energy efficient
Use sustainable practices

Use sustainable materials

Be healthy environments

A major study was issued from the Institute for Research in Construction at the National Research Council Canada, the most
influential building performance lab in North America. Their 2009 report, Do LEED-certified buildings save energy? Yes, but...
drew the following conclusions: On average, LEED buildings used 18-39 percent less energy per floor area than their
conventional counterparts. However, 28-35 percent of LEED buildings used more energy than their conventional counterparts.
Further, the measured energy performance of LEED buildings had little correlation with certification level of the building, or the
number of energy credits achieved by the building at design time. Therefore, at a societal level, green buildings can contribute
substantial energy savings, but further work needs to be done to define green building rating schemes to ensure more consistent
success at the individual building level.
Additionally, LEED has a questionable healthy building reputation, as noted in a 2010 report by Environment and Human Health,
Inc., a non-profit organization composed of doctors, public health professionals and policy experts who specialize in research that
examines environmental threats to human health. The report, entitled LEED Certification: Where Energy Efficiency Collides
with Human Health concludes that [LEED] Platinum, Gold and Silver status conveys the false impression of a healthy and safe
building environment, even when well-recognized hazardous chemicals exist in building products, and LEED standards are
insufficient to protect human health.
The report goes on to note: Even the council's most prestigious Platinum award does little to ensure that hazardous chemicals are
kept out of the certified buildings. The LEED credit system is heavily weighted to encourage energy-efficient building
performance. Nearly four times as many credits are awarded for energy conservation technologies and designs (35 possible
credits) as for protection of indoor environmental quality from hazardous chemicals (eight possible credits). Directors of the
LEED program are predominantly engineers, architects, developers, real estate executives, chemical industry officials and
building product manufacturers. One medical doctor representing Physicians for Social Responsibility was recently appointed to
sit on the board, which has 25 directors.
Regarding ventilation, Environment and Human Health stated, Energy conservation efforts have made buildings tighter, often
reducing air exchange between the indoors and outdoors. Since outdoor air is often cleaner than indoor air, the reduction of

outdoor-indoor exchange tends to concentrate particles, gases and other chemicals that can lead to more intense human exposures
than would be experienced in better-ventilated environments.
Orfield Laboratories own consulting over recent decades has been focused on human sustainability, the idea that if buildings are
not good for their occupants, little else matters. Measurements have shown that LEED buildings do not do well on meeting highquality building performance standards for perceptual comfort, another aspect of health and wellbeing:

Projects may have lots of daylighting, but it may be low in quality and control
Projects may have energy-efficient lighting, but often the glare is very significant, and
generally the lighting is uniform and reflectances are not considered

Projects may meet heating and cooling standards, but seldom target thermal comfort

Projects may have indoor air quality standards, but these are not site verified

Projects may have some acoustic control, but there are seldom standards and practices
to achieve privacy, low HVAC noise and control of environmental and activity noise

2016: sustainable buildings go from being green to

being good for you
Next year, builders and businesses will realize that buildings that are good for worker are also good for the
bottom line

41 Cooper Square in Manhattan, New York City. The nine-story academic center was completed in
September 2009 and has achieved a Leed Platinum rating. Photograph: Alamy
Rick Fedrizzi
Over the past 20 years, green construction has gone from a niche enterprise to a major driver of new
business. But in 2016, erecting sustainable, profitable green buildings will no longer be enough to stand out.
Buildings will also be expected to directly contribute to the health and wellbeing of the people who live,
work and learn inside them. For buildings, healthy will become the new green.
The performance of a green building be it energy usage, water efficiency or just lower utility bills is
important to companies looking for rental space. As this healthy revolution emerges, more of these
commercial renters will start concerning themselves with a buildings impact on the performance of the
humans who use it every day.
Theres already some evidence to suggest healthy buildings have positive effects on the businesses and
workers who occupy them. In a recently released peer reviewed study, researchers from Harvards Center for
Health and the Global Environment found that a buildings air quality can affect the quality of its residents
thinking. The study demonstrated that exposure to common indoor pollutants, such as carbon dioxide and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that are found in everything from paint to carpets, can affect cognitive
functions. The researchers wrote: For seven of the nine cognitive functions tested, average scores decreased
as CO2 levels increased to levels commonly observed in many indoor environments.
At the same time, researchers found that, on average, environments with better ventilation doubled their
participants performance, especially in critical areas such as crisis response, strategy and information usage.
As the connection between where you work and how well you work becomes better established and
understood, companies that hope to differentiate themselves as employers of choice will focus on healthier
buildings for their employees.

Sustainable Architecture
By Steinfeld,
Sustainable architecture refers to the practice of designing buildings which create living environments that
work to minimize the human use of resources. This is reflected both in a building's construction materials
and methods and in its use of resources, such as in heating, cooling, power, water, and wastewater
treatment.
The operating concept is that structures so designed "sustain" their users by providing healthy environments,
improving the quality of life, and avoiding the production of waste, to preserve the long-term survivability
of the human species .
Hunter and Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute say the purpose of sustainable architecture is
to "meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs."
The term, however, is a broad one, and is used to describe a wide variety of aspects of building design and
use. For some, it applies to designing buildings that produce as much energy as they consume. Another
interpretation calls for a consciousness of the spiritual significance of a building's design, construction, and
siting. Also, some maintain that the buildings must foster the spiritual and physical wellbeing of their users.
One school of thought maintains that, in its highest form, sustainable architecture replicates a stable
ecosystem . According to noted ecological engineer David Del Porto, a building designed for sustainability
is a balanced system where there are no wastes, because the outputs of one process become the inputs of
another. Energy, matter, and information are cascaded through connected processes in cyclical pathways,
which by virtue of their efficiency and interdependence yield the matrix elements of environmental and
economic security, high quality of life, and no waste. The constant input of the sun replenishes any energy
lost in the process.
Sustainability, as it relates to resources, became a widely used term with Lester Brown's book, Building a
Sustainable Society, and with the publishing of the International Union on the Conservation of Nature's
"World Conservation Strategy" in 1980.
Sustainability then came to describe a state whereby natural renewable resources are used in a manner that
does not eliminate or degrade them or otherwise diminish their renewable usefulness for future generations,
while maintaining effectively constant or non-declining stocks of natural resources such as soil ,
groundwater , and biomass (World Resources Institute ).
Before "sustainable architecture," the term "solar architecture" was used to express the architectural
approach to reducing the consumption of natural resources and fuels by capturing solar energy . This
evolved into the current and broader concept of sustainable architecture, which expands the scope of issues
involved to include water use, climate control, food production, air purification, solid waste reclamation ,
wastewater treatment, and overall energy efficiency . It also encompasses building materials, emphasizing
the use of local materials, renewable resources and recycled materials, and the mental and physical comfort
of the building's inhabitants. In addition, sustainable architecture calls for the siting and design of a building
to harmonize with its surroundings.
The United Nations lists the following five principles of sustainable architecture:

Healthful interior environment. All possible measures are to be taken to ensure that materials and
building systems do not emit toxic substances and gasses into the interior atmosphere . Additional
measures are to be taken to clean and revitalize interior air with filtration and plantings.
Resource efficiency. All possible measures are to be taken to ensure that the building's use of energy
and other resources is minimal. Cooling, heating, and lighting systems are to use methods and
products that conserve or eliminate energy use. Water use and the production of wastewater are
minimized.

Ecologically benign materials. All possible measures are to be taken to use building materials and
products that minimize destruction of the global environment . Wood is to be selected based on nondestructive forestry practices. Other materials and products are to be considered based on the toxic
waste output of production. Many practitioners cite an additional criterion: that the long-term
environmental and societal costs to produce the building's materials must be considered and prove in
keeping with sustainability goals.

Environmental form. All possible measures are to be taken to relate the form and plan of the design
to the site, the region, and the climate. Measures are to be taken to "heal" and augment the ecology of
the site. Accommodations are to be made for recycling and energy efficiency. Measures are to be
taken to relate the form of building to a harmonious relationship between the inhabitants and
nature .

Good design. All possible measures are to be taken to achieve an efficient, long-lasting, and elegant
relationship of area use, circulation, building form, mechanical systems, and construction technology.
Symbolic relationships with appropriate history, the Earth, and spiritual principles are to be searched
for and expressed. Finished buildings shall be well built, easy to use, and beautiful.

The NMB Bank headquarters in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, is an example of sustainable architecture.
Constructed in 1978, this approximately 150,000-ft2 (45,500-m2) complex is a meandering S-curve of 10
buildings, each offering different orientations and views of gardens. Constructed of natural and lowpolluting materials, the buildings feature organic design lines, indoor and outdoor gardens, passive solar
elements, heat recovery, water features, and natural lighting and ventilation. Built for an estimated 5% more
than a conventional office building, the NMB building's operating costs are only 30% of those of a
conventional building. Another example is the Solar Living Center in Hopland, California, which employs
both passive and photovoltaic solar elements, as well as ecological wastewater systems. The rice straw bale
and cement building is constructed around a solar calendar.