SC PAVILIONCONCORDIA UNIVERSITY

PRESENTATIONFEBRUARY 04th, 2015

FEASIBILITY STUDIESEXPANSION FOR A GREENHOUSE

SITE SURVEY01/10

SITE PLAN

1.

3.

5.

2.

4.

6.

6.5.

4.

1.3.2.

OSCAR PETERSONCONCERT HALL

SC PAVILION

PHYSICALSERVICES

VANIER LIBRARY

VANIER LIBRARYEXTENSION

LOYOLA CHAPEL

02/10AERIAL VIEW

The Concordia Student Union is studying the feasibility of

constructing a greenhouse in which fresh produce would be

cultivated for daily consumption on the two Concordia

campuses. The three proposed sites are related  to the SC

Building on the Loyola Campus, and illustrated in this study.

In each case, the fruit and vegetables would be grown in soil,

either directly in the ground or in elevated beds within the

greenhouses. Various principles such as rainwater recuperation,

anaerobic digestion, geothermal and passive solar heating have

been investigated in order to reduce the dependance of the

greenhouse on the existing campus and municipal

infrastructures.

PROJECT CONTEXT

A. SECTION A B. SECTION B

OPTION A | greenhouse located on roof of existing building

REFERENCES

IMPLANTATION

03/10

ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT

96001500

8100

590019

600

5300 8500 5300660035300

9000

1000

1000

B

A56

00

1 2 3

UT.30m²

200m²25m²

135m²

200

294

204210

203207 213

220

215-90

296

214202

201

215

212

206-1

210-2

208

210-1

299-00

B

A

30m²

116 113

115

194101

112

111

199-30

110

106

107

199-10

196

109

102

PT-299-20PT-299-30

109-1

102-90

108

PT-299-21

110-90

B

A

5932

5098

35m²01-10

03-8

094

02

01

03-103-3

03-2

03-90

03-5 03-7

03-4

09

010 011

08

050406

096

07

03

094-1

VE

PT1

01-15

011-90

096-1

098

01-2

01-3

01-4

01-5 01-7

01-9

01-8

01-6

01-1401-13

01-12 01-11

03-9 03-11

03-10B

A

mec.30m²

Avantages1- High levels of unobstructed natural light penetration of greenhouse.2- No additional land is occupied for the construction of the greenhouse3- Greenhouse could be a visually interesting addition to the building.4- Secondary functions could be shared with the existing building

(washrooms, storage facilities, office space, etc.) reducing building cost.

Disadvantages1- The existing rooftop mechanical units, the required access spaces

surrounding them and the 1m setback from the building's exterior wallscreate a complex and irregular footprint available for the greenhouseconstruction. The resulting irregular forms increase the building envelopeand energy loss from the greenhouse. The large rooftop airhandlingunits will shade parts of the greenhouse.

2- Potential structural reinforcement due to the additional weight of thegreenhouse, and the seismic reinforcement could incur significantadditional expenses

3- Roof slopes and drains would need to be reconfigured, and a new roofmembrane would be required due to the construction.

4- A cistern for rainwater recuperation would be difficult to integrate in thenew construction.

5- A request to modify existing zoning restrictions for the building site wouldbe required, as the building is presently at the maximum heightpermitted by zoning. This would require a number of months for publichearings, and additional expenses.

6- Potential problems of snow accumulation around the air-handling unitsaffecting their functioning as well as maintenance (difficult accessibility)when surrounding by the greenhouse.

7- New elevator and extension of two stairwells required to access thegreenhouse.

1. BASEMENT PLAN 2. FIRST FLOOR PLAN

3. SECOND FLOOR PLAN 4. ROOF PLAN - NEW LEVEL

OPTION A04/10

SURFACE AREA SUMMARY

CULTIVATION 360m²CIRCULATION 145m²UTILITIES 060m²TOTAL 565m²

OPTION A

PASSIVE SOLAR WALL

A. SECTION A B. SECTION A - VARIATION

OPTION B | vertical greenhouse located in front of the building

REFERENCES

IMPLANTATION

05/10

26416

4500

3000 rainwater harvesting

solar panels

200

294

204210

203207 213

220

215-90

296

214202

201

215

212

206-1

210-2

208

210-1

299-00

26400

4500

3000

120m²

15m²

C

B

116 113

115

194101

112

111

199-30

110

106

107

199-10

196

109

102

PT-299-20PT-299-30

109-1

102-90

108

PT-299-21

110-90

C26400

4500

3000 25m²

B

120m²

194-1

01-10

03-8

094

01

03-103-3

03-2

03-90

03-5 03-7

03-4

09

010 011

08

050406

096

07

03

094-1

VE

PT1

01-15

011-90

096-1

098

01-2

01-3

01-4

01-5 01-7

01-9

01-8

01-6

01-1401-13

01-12 01-11

03-9 03-11

03-10

B

26400

4500

3000 25m² 50m²

A

120m²

02

Avantages

1- Fewer interventions to the existing building during construction andhence, reduced disturbance of day-to-day operations.

2- Secondary functions could be shared with the existing building(washrooms, storage facilities, office space, etc.) reducing buildingcost.

3- A direct visual and physical link between the Hive, CSU functions andthe greenhouse spaces would stimulate interest in and optimize thegreenhouse's additional role as a prototypical example of verticalurban agriculture integrating self-sufficient energy sources.

4- Possibility to cultivate plants in natural soil conditions on the lowest level.5- The roof of the existing building would be available for solar panels

(solar panels to generate heating and/or electricity for lighting).6- Rational integration of rainwater retention for the greenhouse.7- Reduced building envelope of the greenhouse and its adjacency to

the existing building would minimize heat loss during the winter season.

Disavantages

1- Removal of two or three mature trees adjacent to the proposedbuilding site (new trees would be planted elsewhere to compensate fortheir removal).

2- Greenhouse accessed via existing occupied spaces.

1. BASEMENT PLAN 2. FIRST FLOOR PLAN

3. SECOND FLOOR PLAN 4. ROOF PLAN - NEW LEVEL

OPTION B06/10

SURFACE AREA SUMMARY

CULTIVATION 360m²CIRCULATION 090m²UTILITIES 055m²TOTAL 505m²

OPTION B

SECTION B

SOLAR PANELSDUMBWAITERDIRECT ACCESS

RAINWATER HARVESTING

OPTION B | vertical greenhouse located in front of the building07/10

SCHEMATIC SECTION - WINTER SCHEMATIC SECTION - SUMMER

OPTION B08/10

OPTION B

OPTION C | on-grade greenhouse located on a site to be determined

REFERENCESIMPLANTATION

09/10

B

25000

1680

0

360m²

A

60m²

2400

1440

0

25000

4500

16800

4500

s

w

16800

4500

s

w

Avantages

1- This option would require no modifications to the existing building. Anautonomous site would permit a rational and simple construction usingprefabricated elements.

2- In-ground agriculture would be possible depending upon the selectedsite.

3- Possibility to build the greenhouse with polycarbonate panels to reducebuilding costs and increase thermal resistance.

4- Potential for anaerobic digestion to generate biogas as a heat source.5- Evolutive greenhouse dimensions; the project can be phased and grow.

Disavantages

1- Potentially less accessible and less visible from the CSU functions in theexisting building, hence reducing its pedagogic role.

2- Availability of an appropriate site on campus to be determined.3- potential decontamination of greenhouse site.2- New infrastructure would be required for the greenhouse (hook-up to

aquaduct and sewer, gas, electricity, etc.).

PLAN

OPTION C10/10

SURFACE AREA SUMMARY

CULTIVATION 360m²UTILITIES 060m²TOTAL 420m²

SECTION B

SECTION A - VARIATION

OPTION C

PASSIVE SOLAR WALL

SECTION A

REFERENCES

BERM MADE OF BACKFILL