Increased Demand for Green Buildings

In light of work in the private sector having fallen off the map for architects, it seems like the increased demand for energy efficient and environmentally friendly buildings is helping to bring more business to architects during the current lull in the building industry. But has this been a necessarily good thing for the building industry or environment?

In the last year, more clients become more familiar with the LEED ratings system, and the potential advantages of sustainable buildings and as such have begun to request that their projects meet the criteria to be at least LEED certified. So ultimately, the more LEED accredited professionals within a firm, the better positioned they are to tap into this market.

Although this has been hailed by many of my peers as a good sign, I am not as optimistic. I think what has happened now, is that the word "green" has become a label developers seek to apply to every ugly little box they want to market to the public as unique. I recently worked on an apartment complex in Southern California that the developer wanted to have meet the LEED certified criteria and provided the necessary strategies needed for the project to achieve this. Now, the building is still a piece of junk aesthetically and has many issues to be ironed out but the developer could care less. He feels that since he is applying the LEED "label" like some kind of beauty lotion, the project will magically transform into something potential occupant will fall over themselves to rent.

Having said that, I must add that I am appreciative of the revenue these projects are bringing in which help keep many of us working but I have noticed that these days, having a LEED certified building does not necessarily mean that you have an environmentally friendly building by any means.

Image obtained from: fivecat.wordpress.com

The Reality of Building Integrated Wind

With the recent push to move away from our dependence on oil, and into an era of energy generated from clean and renewable sources and an added 30% tax credit for more incentive, many misconceptions have been generated about wind energy and turbines.

For starters though they are usually very beautiful when integrated well with the building design, they often do not produce as much power as advertised because they can't overcome the major problem of "turbulent airflow." For turbines to work optimally, they need strong "laminar winds," in which all the wind flows from one direction but on top of tall buildings, where they are often mounted, the winds come from many different directions. Bob Thresher, director of the National Wind Technology Center at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado, explains that as wind flow comes over the edge of a roof or around a corner, it separates into many different streams.

Ron Stimmel, wind technology expert at the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), added to this thought saying that, this turbulent flow confuses a wind turbine, affecting its performance. “Even if it feels really windy on top of a building, it’s probably more turbulent wind than steady wind,” he said.

Another issue is that of noise and vibration, contrary to common assumptions that turbines are generally quiet. The vertical-axis machines indeed are much more quiet than rotator blades but the vibration they cause on non-concrete buildings is generally detrimental to the general comfort of the occupants.

In one of the only extensive surveys of actual performance of building-integrated wind turbines the Warwick Wind Trials Project, the only turbines able to generate close to their projected electricity output were mounted on high-rise apartment buildings. And these wind turbines remained switched off throughout most of the test period because of complaints from the residents about noise. -www.buildinggreen.com, The-Folly of Building Integrated Wind

Another problem is that of the actual measured performance Vs the projected measured performance of the turbine. Manufacturers are constantly guilty of showing slightly elevated power curves for their products than what they can actually achieve which makes the process of figuring how much energy a set of turbines on our building is going to generate. The usually leaves designers and clients very disappointed in the end. For example, the vertical axis turbine (left) is nominally rated at 10kw but tests by Madison Gas and Electric showed that it has so far never produced more than 600 watts even though it is installed at a height that might be typical for a rooftop application.

So although they look nicer and sleeker as the years go by and they make a very bold and energy efficient statement for the building design, they do not help much practically for what they are meant to do. Of course if you are looking for a sculptural element to enhance a piece of your building, wind turbines do the job well and you might as well get something out of them but keep in mind that it will be minimal.




Images obtained from: www.buildinggreen.com
Article info obtained from: Alex Wilson's "The Folly of Building-Integrated Wind"

MVDRV Wins Concept Design Competition In Seoul

Last month, the Rotterdam based architects MVDRV with Arup as structural consultants won the concept design for the proposed city center of the new future town of Gwanggyo about 36 kilometers south from Seoul, Korea.

Though still in its conceptual phase, this acropolis of organic hill structures was designed to be a self-sufficient city of 77,000 inhabitants, 200,000 square meters for housing and retail respectively and 48,000 of office space. This concentration of different programs on the site was meant to reduce the dependency on cars and public transportation as everything residents might need are all located within this striking interactive community.

Each hill was designed as concentric circles growing vertically so as to ensure that every part of the program is provided with an outdoor terrace. Hollow central cores with the structures form atriums that serve as lobbies providing light, ventilation and create semi-public spaces for the retail portion of the program. Also, plantations around the terrace with a floor to floor circulation system store rainwater for irrigation.

The design is currently being reviewed for development feasibility at the Gyeonggi provincial authority's urban innovation corporation center. Development is set for 2011 with construction set to begin short after.

This design is very striking and forward thinking in its own way even though it reminds me of a "wookie" settlement from Star Wars, but still, I appreciate the thought process of trying not to create another mixed use tower and I think the incorporation of box hedges on the terraces will improve the overall climate and ventilation as well as reduce energy and water usage.

Images obtained from www.habitat.com

Schools Lull Children to Sleep

A study conducted by Dr. Dejan Mumovic, lecturer in environmental design and engineering at the Barlett University in England, schools constructed under the building schools for the future (BSF) initiative have been found to have very poor ventilation and increased "air tightness." This has caused a build up of CO2 in classrooms making students feel sleepy and hence affecting their learning performance.

In his study, Mumovic compared ten schools built 50 years ago to the same number of schools built under the BSF program in the last 5 years and found that in terms of the ventilation rates and IAQ, nothing has changed. This has stemmed from the government's rush to implement the BSF program, which seeks to have all new schools at zero-carbon by 2016, and has led to increased focus on heat loss and natural ventilation rather than carbon levels for which the program was originally intended.

Prof. Derek Clements-Croome of Reading University tested students from the 1o schools and found increased levels of CO2 in the blood stream and brain which can cause increased drowsiness and decrease learning performance.

I don't know if there are just more CO2 tests being done in the UK or that there have higher levels there than in the United States, but i seem to hear way more about high carbon levels in buildings in England. All in all, these are very important tests and can only help improve the IAQ and general user experience.

For more info, check www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23605389-details/Children+'falling+asleep+in+stuffy+eco-classrooms'/article.do
Image obtained from InMagine

Spotlight On England's Biggest C02 Offenders

In the United Kingdom, a test done to determine the level of C02 emissions from many of the prominent buildings in the country yielding astounding results with many of the so called green buildings receiving failing grades. This test, which came about as a direct result from the new national law to curb carbon emissions and improve energy efficiency in the country, sought to measure emissions from buildings to determine which needed to be redesigned and upgraded to be more efficient.

Approximately 18,000 buildings, including town halls, schools, museums and banks have now been tested by the National Department for the Environment to discover their level of energy efficiency and assign a grade, where an "A" is the highest obtainable and a "G" is a failing grade. From the bottom up, both the Palace of Westminster and the Bank of England scored a G consuming enough energy to pump out 21,356 tonnes of C02 a year.

Many newer buildings, initially marketed as green also fared badly calling into question many of the sustainable claims made by architects and developers. For example, London's city hall scored an abysmal E despite Foster & Partners initially describing it as "a virtually non-polluting public building." The building for the Treasury Headquarters in Whitehall and Libeskind's Imperial War Museum shared a similar grade even though the former had received a complete refurbishment six years ago and both projects were supposed to set "new environmental standards in their respective counties."

Many of the other evaluated buildings in the country received an average grade of a D with only 22 buildings scoring an A (less than 1%) also showing that almost a fifth of all carbon dioxide emissions in the U.K are caused by non-residential buildings. Matt Bell, director of public affairs at the commission for Architecture and the Built Environment stated, "We review about 350 significant new build projects a year at design phase and hear a lot of 'greenwash.' The knowledge that from now on, this performance will be objectively measured should put an end to all those baseless claims."

All these results have made the government pledge to make all new public buildings zero emission by the year 2018 but it looks like they'll have to start in their own backyard as the Department of Environment's main office received an E. So now we have to wonder if "Green" has just become a label slapped on to projects to make them more salable and again ask the question, "who really designs green?"

Image (Imperial War Museum, Manchester) obtained from www.guardian.co.uk

Which firms really design green?

In today's building designs, sustainability and green architecture has become a key aspect that can't be overlooked with the global population climbing towards 7 billion and with constant carbon emissions and degradation of ecosystems but what constitutes a green or sustainable project? Roof top solar panels but 80% glass on the building facade? And who really designs green?

I ask myself this sometimes when I look at a completed project that has been marketed as green but then find aspects of the building that go contrary to what a green project should be. Many firms do design green and sustainable but I have found that EHDD Architecture is one of the few that does this on a constant basis and consideres this challenge as an inspiration for their designs (I don't work there nor am I related to anyone that does).

The Oxford Dictionary of Architetcture defines green architecture as: Buildings designed according to energy saving criteria and the reduction of pollution and I think that EHDD's projects embody this definition with four LEED platinum projects, one of which is the Betty Irene Moore natural sciences building at Mills College in Oakland, numerous other LEED accreditations and two AIA top ten buildings.

Scott Shell, a senior project manager at EHDD, San Francisco has worked on many LEED certified projects and has also given presentations on Design for Deconstruction (DfD), a radical movement that calls for a shift to true closed loop material cycles. This is the design of buildings and systems that can easily be upgraded or reconfigured and eventually disassembled an reused becoming truly green.

With diminishing land resources, the environment needs more conscientious design firms like EHDD to ensure that architecture is not detrimental to our ecosystems and surroundings.

Image obtained from EHDD.com