CIB TG 16, Sustoinable Constructioll , Tampa, Florida, USA, November 6-9 , 1994 .

GUIDELINES FOR MASTERPLANNING SUSTAINABLE BUILDING COMMUNITIES

Vivian Loftness, Volker Hankopf, Ardeshir Mahdavi, Jayakrishna Shankavaram Center for Building Perfonnance and Diagnostics

Department of Archilecture, Camegie MeUon University Pillsburgh, PA-15213, USA

throughfunding from the Corps ofEngineers Research Laboratory (USACERLl), and the Advanced Buildings Systems Integration Consortium (ABS/C2)

Defining Sustainability in the Built Environment PROCESS - FABRIC - RESOURCES - SHELL & CORE - MATERIALS - L1FE CYCLE

Sustainable design is "a colleclive process whereby lhe built environmenl achieves new levels of ecological balance through new and retrofit conslruclion, towards the long tenn viability and humanization of architccture". Focusing on environmental context, sustainable design merges

lhe natural, minimum resource conditioning solutions of lhe past (daylight, solar heal and natural

venlilation) wilh lhe innovative lechnologies of lhe presenl, into an integraled "inleUigent" system lhal supports individual control with expert negotialion for resource consciousness. Suslainable design rediscovers the social, environmental and technical values ofpedeslrian, mixed use communitics, fully using exisling infrastructures, including "main streets" and small town planning principlcs, and recapturing indoor-ouldoor relationships. Suslainable design avoids lhe further

thinning out of land use, lhe dislocated placement of buildings and funclions. Suslainable design inlroduces benign, non-polluting malerials and assemblies wilh lower embodied and operating energy requirements, and higher durabilily and recyclability. Finally, suslainable design offers archilecture of long tenn value lhrough 'forgiving' and modifiable building systems, life-cycle instead of leasl cosl investments, and "cherishable" delight and craftsmanship.

In lhis paper, lhe development of principles for masterplanning sustainable communities have been categorized into six guidelines, which are buiit on lhe long term research, developmenl and educational efforts of the Advanced Building Systems Integration Consonium, an industry­universily-govemment consorLium dedicated to advancing lhe quality and performance of buildings. The guidelines are broadly divided into : Process, Fabric, Resources, Shell & Core, Materials, and Life Cycle (see figure I). These guidelines for maslerplanning sustainabilily are

inlended to evolve, to reflect advances in concepl and practice, creating broader multi-disciplinary understandings of"sustainabilily" in lhe buill environment.

I: The Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, USA, a federally supported research laboratory in lhe building sec tor, locatcd at Champaign-Urbana, IL.

2: The Advanced Building Systems Integration Consonium, an Indusu-y-University-Govemmenl consortium, dedicated to advancing the quality and performance of buildings.

817

Figure I DEFINING SUSTAINABLE ARCHITECTURE

The Advanced Building Systems Integration Consortium

green design, healthy design, environmental design, sustainable design

More Sustainable Less Sustainable

Process

CoUaborative, collective knowledge

Process

Independent, Linear

Human Ecology Design Team Uni-disciplinary

Iterative, Pro~ressive Idiosyncratic, Non-repeated

Fabric Fabric

Pedestrian, Mixed-Use Neighborhoods Single-Use Zoning, Car Dependent

Campus and Small Town Further thinning out of land use

Infrastructural Use to Capacity Abandonment of Buildings & Infrastructure

Revitalization and reuse of Buildings

Resources/Climate ResourceslClimate

Natural and Renewable Energy Sources Energy Intensive Buildings

Oimate Responsive, Regionalism Homogenous, Deties Climate

Waste and Pollution Management POlluting, Wasteful

Land & Water Management Land, Infrastructure Intensive

Shell & Core Shell & Core

Perimeter Based, Fresh Air Architecture Oversized Buildings, Tallest/Largest

SurfaceNOlume for Environmental Contact Massive Roor Plates and Highrise Load Balancing, Layered Facades No Environmental Contact/Response

Distributed HV AC, Networking Systems Central, Buried Servicing Systems

Merging the Low Tech & the High Tcch* Dehumanizing, Centralized, Uniform

Humanizing, Individual Controls

Materials & Furnishing Materials & Furnishing

Benign, non-polluting materials Non-renewable, out-gassing materials

Low Embodied & Operating Energy High Energy Use

Durable, Reusable, Recyclable Throw away products

Life Cycle Viability Life Cycle Viability

Loose-tit, Forgiving Tight-tit, Idiosyncratic Solutions

Moditiability through Modularity (HV AC, Structure, Electrical Systems)

Cherishable Delight and Craflsmanship Least Cost, Surface Qualities

No Craft, no Celebration, no LCC Value

• merging natural, low resource solutions of the past (daylight, natural ventilation, natural heat and air exchange, direct environmental contact) with high tech integrated system advanced and expert negotiated conLrols far humanizing the workplace.

818

1 Process: Human Ecological Approach Sustoinable design is built on an Integrative, Multi-Disciplinary Design Process in lieu 0/ the Conventional linear, Disciplinary Process.

There appears to be general agreement that lhe pace and magnitude of man's impact has surpassed lhe maximum adaptation rale oflhe eco-systems. This condition is not due w sabotage, but a consistent inability to recognize the consequences of uni-disciplinary actions on lhe complex system. Herein lies the significance of a human ecological approach to design, towards an integrative muiti-disciplinary design process, which emphasizes:

understanding lhe materiaVenergetic and informawry aspects of entities and processes; emphasizing lhe systemic nature of environmental relationships; and propagating an integrative approach and adaptive-iterative strategies.

A detailed description of lhe conccptual framework of Human Ecology goes beyond the scope of lhis study. The following quote (Mahdavi 1992) should provide abrief introduction to lhe definition of lhe integrative approach.

Inlegrative Approach: To solve concrete problems, applied human ecology aims at invo/ving the whole spectrum oj the related (natural and human) sciences. Since the code oj each scientific discipline has emerged via its specijic "ontogenesis", the study oj cross-disciplinary issues (particularly complex problems pertaining 10 eco-systems and socio-economical structures) may creale semantic communication problems. To counteract this, human ecology postulates an "integrative" approach. However , this integration cannot be realized in terms oj a "unijied science" ("Superwissenschajt"). Rather, what is meant here is the integration oj tM results oj different disciplines wh ich are relevantto a concrete problem . Furthermore, 10 account jor the complexity oj environmental relations, this integration effort has 10 be pursued in an "iterative­adaptive" mann er.

What is being replaced is the linear, disciplinary process for building design and masterplanning that is more convenLional in architeclUral practice. In lhe linear process, lhe early design concepts and a percentage of design development is often completed before other critical disciplinary expertise is brought in, including structural engineering, mechanical engineering, advanced technologies expertise, energy and environmental expertise, acoustics, as weil as the sodal sciences. Indeed, many oflhese disciplinary experts have allowed lheir "generative" design skills 10 atrophy, filling purely "reactive" design roles , in a linear process, where Iiability is clearly defined. The resull is a serious difficully in assembling an inlegraLive design approach in which multi-disciplinary design expertise is broughtlo bcar in lhe very conceplion of lhe projecl. wensure its long term sustainability and contribution 10 the buill environmenl The existing linear process has also resulled in a long se ries of idiosyncratic, "tight fil" designs, in which inadequate investmenl in the hidden aspccls of construction result in early building obsolescence. In the pursuit of more sustainable environments, a profile for an integrative, multi-disciplinary approach 10 architeclure muSl be pursued, thaI ranges from assembling and educaling the design team, 10

innovative facilities management proccdures (see figure 2).

819

Figure 2 Team Decisionmaking: Steps Toward Creating Sustainable, Highly Innovative Buildings & Masterplans

1. Mission Statement and Performance Budget 2. Performance Program 3. Collective CIient Problem Identification for Up-front Decisionmaking 4. Specification of a Project Manager (not Architect of Record)

Specification of a Facilities Manager

5. Performance Selection of Entire Design Team

6. Creation of Tcam Decisionmaking Process identification of critical interface decisions

7. Integrated Performance Studies of Existing Advanced Buildings & Building Delivery Processes (transdisciplinary knowledge building)

8. Team Concept Development for Innovation 9. Parametrie Alternative Developmcnts and Expert Evaluation (qualitative)

and Computer and Physical Modeling (quantitative)

10. Design Development Testing through Expert Analysis/ Peer Review I!. Design Development Testing through Computer & Model Simulation 12. Working Drawing Testing through Expert Analysis/ Peer Review 13. Full Scale Mock-up Testing of Repetitive, Innovative Configurations 14. Diagnostics against Standards through the Construction Process 15. One-year Commissioning, ind . Expertise & Accountabilily Carryover 16. Integratcd Building Management: Facilities, Technology & Personnel

2 Fabric (including Transportation & Jnfrastructure) Sustainable design is dedicated to rebuilding Mixed-use Pedestrian Neighborhoods, capturing existing natural and built amenities, in lieu offurther new land consumption with single use zoning.

The Uni ted States may bc the most dramatic example of abandoned infrastructure, buildings and communities, replaced by loosely connected, single use developments on new rural fanmland. Political and financial structures support the development of suburban and rural office "parics", warehouse parks. school parks, shopping parks, with no pedestrian or public transponation links. The profits of these developmcnts arc privatized, and the long tenm land costs, new infrastructure costs, transportation eosts, and urban abandonment costs are socialized. It is time to shift the

balance of political and financial weight away from the further thinning out of America in these single use, ear dependent developments, towards the increased use of existing infrastructure, the revitalization, intill and reuse of existing communities, and the resurrection of a more pedestrianized, mixed usc quality of life.

A number of examples of these new working alld living communities have been completed by Duany-Plater-Zyberk (1991), by Van DerRyn-Caithorpe (1986), and several main street projects in which telecommuting has enabled the repositioning of large work forces to revitalize e)(isting infrastructures (Freiman 1994). Aseparate ABSIC/CBPD project for the town of Wolfsburg,

820

Gennany (Hankopf et a1. 1992) projects avision for masterplanning infill and rehabilitation of the

canal waterfront area. This mixed-use pedestrian "densification" is proposed in lieu of a planned

six lane highway that would expand through-traffic and completely separate the pedestrian town from its -primary industry - the Volkswagon plant - and its major visual asset - the canal (see figure 3a & b).

Figure 3a & b: The sustainability and allraetion of towns like Wolfsburg, Germany is dependent on its eontinuous pedestrian fabrie and linkages lO sueh amenilies as a seenie eanal and its mile long historie VW plant. Major traffie arteries and multi­lane one way streets must be avoidcd to climinate fast moving through traffie .

3 Resources & Climate (including Regionality & Massing)

Sustainable design loeuses on massing bui/dings and aggregaling building labries 10

regiona//y maximize the natural energies 01 the c/imate and capture indoor-ouldoor movement 01 building oeeupants.

The shifts in building shape and siting towards free-standing mid-rises and high-rises as well as low-rise megaplexes surrounded by unbroken areas of parking have resulted in high energy, environmental, safcty, health and social costs. The looseness of the building fabric has made pedestrian movement difficult if not impossible, and aggravated wind and solar loads on buildings. Despite the Uni ted States bcing aland rich nation, at least 30% of American workers are deprived ofwindows and eontact with nature for their entire working day. The massive, sealed buildings are by necessity energy intensive for ventilation, thennal eonditioning, lighting, and elevators, with inereased cancern for fire safety, environmental quality, and health . Regional climate differences are lost as single least-cost solutions for offices, banks, sehools, and hotels are repeated on

independent sites around the country.

The alternatives to these new building projects foeus on strategies to gather workplace, residenLial and retail densities into pedestrian fabrics, to refonn eampuses, villages and small towns. The

campuses take advantage of views and indoor-outdot:>r access to landscaped areas. The eampuses

pennit more effective regional utilization of daylighting, natural ventilation, load balaneing (from high internal gains to faeades as heat exehangers), passive solar heating and eooling, and district

821

energy supply systems. Campuses support distributcd parking areas, with more effective shading and runoff management, and continuous pedeslrian linkages between buildings and outdoor work

and recreation spaces. Campus and town planning principles will also support wayfinding clarity, points of arrival, hierarchy of circulation, and improve the overall impression of the built environment. Present willingness LO drive in single passenger cars for 30 to 50 minutes through ragged land use and abandonment to arrive at contained locations of new quality will become less

and less necessary.

4 Shell & Core Sustainable buildings will merge natural, low resource solutions 0/ the past (daylight, natural ventilation, natural heat and air exchange, direct environmental contact) with high lech integrated system advances and expert negotiated controls /or humanizing the workp/ace.

The move away from oversized, massive buildings with large central work areas and few perimeter offices will greatly improve the potential use of daylight, load balancing, natural ventilation, and indoor-outdoor access. Corresponding innovations in enclosure design, with layered facades to manage environmental variations, will offer significant energy savings and regional interest. 1lle typical central, buried servicing systems will disappear along with the oversized massive floor plates, offering opportunitics for major innovations in distributed, user-controlled, environmental conditioning and nctworking systems (see figure 4a, 4b, 4c, Mahdavi et al. 1994).

J_'~_r-~-' f-o­

-0 Il~.I"

_.- .- .- I, ::~:'.~ r­ ---­" ~i1

1-0­

- 0 -­J­

'I

9 I

q H~1~jt~&~ f j

- - - - Zone bound ary o Unoccupied Zor,(!S

. Figure4a

Figure 4a & b: Considerable energy savings can be achieved with "micro-zoning" to provide individual control of thermal, ventilation and lighting conditions.

o Zones t.o be treated as unoccupied

Zone bo undnry

Figure 4b

Figure 4c: Contrary to popular belief, !hin buildings can be more energy efficient wi!h windows, views, daylight and outdoor access. Innovations in enclosure design enable thin buildings (perimeter load dominated) to reduce energy loads through the use of load balancing, daylighl, and natural ventilation,

30

Figure4c

822

Zoning ConJigunuion

g Square plan Cl Elongnted plan N-S

• El onE:0tcd plnn E-W

Natural ventilation is often viewed as a low-energy solution from the past. However, lhe interface of operable windows with mechanical systems for thermal conditioning and ventilation is a low­energy high-tech challenge for the future. Innovative, modular, integrated systems with user accessibility will suppon organizational, technological and environmental change (see figure 5, CERL masterplan). Increasing surface to volume ratios, layering enclosures, and integrating user controlled systems will improve building performance & support a move towards "fresh air architecwre" (Loftness et al. 93).

Figure 5: Built on the ABSIC concepts of nexible-grid, nexible-density integrated building systems, a proposed masterplan for the USACERL campus in Champaign, llIinois will support major shifts in organizational struclUre, mission, and technology while ensuring the highest environmental quality for the individual. (ABSIC/CERL 1993-4)

5 Materials Sustainable buildings are built and rejurbished with benign, non-polluting materials, assemblies and systems, with low embodied and low operating energy, as weil as high durability, reusability or recyclability.

Significant effon has been given to the creation of data bases for selecting environmentally effective materials, assemblies and systems. The· AIA Environmental Resource Guide (1992), the Architects for Social Responsibility (St. John 1992), and others have conlributed 10 the definitions and decisionmaking process for selecting more benign, non-polluting, materials and assemblies, with low embodied and operating energy, and high durability, reusability or recyclability. Each of these data bases need more development, bo!h in easy accessibility to decisionmakers, and in actual weighting or comparative evaluation of the products under discussion. Beyond materials and simple assemblies, however, !here is a strong need for an effective "Consumer Repons" evaluation

823

6

of the performance of larger building systems and assemblies. Individual experts in the facilities management and design!construction fields have developed long term understandings of the

success of various subsystems and assemblies to deli ver spatial. thermal. visual. acoustic. and air quality in buildings as weB as long term integrity versus degradation. Novices. and loose assemblies of design consultants. however. do not have this data base to draw on. More significantly. manufacturers are not called upon to demonstrate broad-based performance over time. resulting in inadequate investments in competitive. iterative design improvements of key building materials. assemblies and systems.

Lire Cycle Value SustailUlble buildings and communities are designedJor life cycle value, replacing least cost, light fit and idiosyncratic solutions, with 'generous' design, modiJiability through modularity and integration, and 'cherishable delight and craJtsmanship'.

Despite an odd period of historie building demolition in the 60·s. a majority of institutions now recognize the value of high investment. weB detailed and weB built architecture. Equally recognizable today are the buildings bound for obsolescence. often least-cost tight-fit designs. with poor investment in the "hidden infrastructure" of building subsystems. and devoid of craftsmanship and celebration. The pursuit of sustainability mandates a shift away from the least­eost. maximum quick-profit financing, construction, and management of buildings. Numerous studies of the Federal Government and the National Academy of Sciences have revealed the long term costs of our crumbling infrastructure (Iselin & Lemer 1993), inadequate facilities management (Committing to the Cost of Ownership 1990). and building obsolescence (see figure 6). National efforts to reevaluate the GNP as a GDP could be equally applicable to reassessing the value of proposed buildings and masterplans for public and private investment.

Figure 6: Causes of ßuilding Obsolescence I. new codes and standards 2. rises in expcctations 3. massive technological change

(inflexible SLructure, space for connectivity) 4. massive functional change (eg shirt from wet labs lO eleclrOnic labs) 5. massive organizational change 6. massive interior environment change

(inflexible mechanical, energy costs) 7. poor maintenance (or weak links in design, specification, maintenance) 8. building failures, eg o SLructure, 'embcdded' systems 9. building abuse 10. sick building syndrome (OS HA) 11. economic shifts/ land dcvclopment values 12. down-sizing of funclional types: ego retail. warehouses, offices 13. aesthetic shifts

14. made obsolete by newer buildings 15. inappropriate building in the first instance

16. inadequate level of expertise in subsystem design 17. inadequate level of investment in subsystem design.

cheap building and subsystems 18. excessively "tight-fit" building

824

Conclusion

The surging interest in sustainable design has led to a number of critical definitions of sustainability.

"Sustainability means satisfying the needs for the present generation without jeopardizing the needs of future generations. The Sustainable Design Approach utilizes technology, creativity, and strategic planning to restore diversity and conserve nonrenewable resources." AIA Environmental Action Project (1992) .

"Sustainable Development is a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutional change are aU in harmony and enhance both current and future potential to meet human needs and aspirations." Our Common Future, World Commission on Environment and Development (1987).

It is time to translate these broad agendas into concrete recommendations, tailored to address the needs of the architects, planners. engineers and conservationists of the planning and construction industry. Ensuring technical, cconomic and environmental sustainability in the built environment will be dependent on the concentrated rethinking of: the design process; community fabric and infrastructure; natural resources and c1imate responsiveness; merging high-tech and natural conditioning strategies for sheU and core; investing in benign, renewable materials; and strategically building a life cycle economy for buildings.

References

ABSIC/CERL Research project, 1993-94: "Process Methodology for Flexible Density Building Design" . Presently underway at the Center for Buildirig Performance & Diagnostics, Dept of Architecture, Carnegie Mellon University, PA_15213.

AIA Environmental Resource Guide Subscription, 1992: The American Institute of ArchiteclS, 1735 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20006.

AIA Environmental Action Project, 1992: Working for a Sustainable Future, The American Institute of Architects, Center for the Environment, 1735 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC20006.

Committing to the Cost of Ownership - Maintainance and Repair of Public Buildings, 1990: Building Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington De.

Duany, Andres and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, 1991 : Towns and Town-Making Principles, Rizzoli International Publications, Inc, 120 p.

Freiman, Ziva, 1994: Hype vs. Reality: The Changing Workplace, Progressive Architecture, March 1994, pg. 48.

825

HaItkopf, V., V. Loftness, G. Wiemken, A. Aziz, 1992: Stadtebauliches Gutachten -- Wolfsburg 2txXl.

Iselin, D. G. & Lerner, A. e., 1993: The Fourth Dimension in Building: Strategies for Minimizing Obsolescence - Committee on Facility Design to Minimize Premature Obsolescence, National Academy Press, Washington De.

Loftness, V., V. HaItkopf, A. Mahdavi, S. Let, 1. Shankavaram, 1993: Defining Fresh Air Architecture -- International Approaches to Healthier Buildings and the Intelligent Workplace Undersranding the Workplace 0/ Tomorrow Con/erence, Proceedings 0/ the IFMA '93 Conference, Denver, CO, Oct 10-13.

Mahdavi, A., 1992: Perception and Evaluation of the Acoustical Environment: A Human Ecological Approach. Proceedings 0/ the 1992 International Congress on Noise Control Engineering, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Volume 11: pp. 1095-1098.

Mahdavi, A. , P. Mathew, S. Kumar, V. Hartkopf, V. Loftness, 1994: Effects of Lighting, Zoning, and Contral Strategies on Energy Use in Commercial Buildings. Proceedings o/the l/IumiTW.ling Engineering Sociery 0/North America Annual Con/erence, August 1994, Miami, Florida.

Our Common Future / World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987: Oxford University Press, 400 p.

St. lohn, Andrew., Ed, 1992: The Sourcebook for Sustainable Design: A Guide to enviranment.alJy responsible building materials and processes, Architects for Social Responsibility/Boston Society of Architects.

Van der Ryn, Sim and Peter Calthorpe, 1986: Sustainable Communities - A New Design Synthesis /or CWes, Suburbs, and Towns. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, 235p.

826