663 South Cooper

[{"body":{"version":"0.3.0","atoms":[],"cards":[["images-card",{"images":[{"url":"http:\/\/res.cloudinary.com\/dpcbzfiye\/image\/upload\/v1650410098\/currthmjc1h1twfmblmn.jpg","id":"6497126"}],"caption":"Series of axonometric drawings showing the how the Framework for Design Excellence is incorporated into the plan and site of the building. Image: archimania"}]],"markups":[["u"],["s"]],"sections":[[1,"p",[]],[10,0],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"The notion of converting a\n1957 building and site into a net-zero energy, net-zero carbon project with\nprogressive design hallmarks of resilience, accessibility, and wellness appears\nmythical. Developers cite cost and maintenance as the largest obstacles.\nIntegrated design strategies help make aggressive goals more accessible, as\ntactics used within the design support one another in achieving a more\ncomprehensive approach. Sustainability goals were held alongside goals of sound\ndesign, affordability, and research\u2014forcing an integrated approach. "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"As an example, the\nconversion of a central parking lot to a common courtyard linked to interior\nbuilding spaces is an integration of urban, landscape, and interior strategies.\nThe courtyard provides more permeable ground area for the site, a place to\nplant trees for the benefit of the site and occupants, a location for the\ngeothermal field to support the buildings, an infiltration field to improve\nstormwater management, and an outdoor space for occupants to gather, work"],[0,[0],1,","],[0,[],0," and play. Having these assets located in the\nsame place increases the value of buildings and site. Material palette is\nintentionally simple to be inclusive. White, black, glass"],[0,[0],1,","],[0,[],0," and plywood interiors allow existing\nterrazzo floors to be uniquely highlighted and many affordable"],[0,[1],1,","],[0,[],0," off-the-shelf products to instantly align\nwith overall design. "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"Interior planning and\nsectional design give individual and collective work"],[0,[1],1,"\n"],[0,[],0,"spaces access to multiple sources of daylight, reimagining existing\nopenings while adding others for urban connectivity. A \u201ccore zone\u201d for systems\nand utilities allows both current and future partition configurations to be\naffordable and simple. Millwork design using plywood, ethically sourced wood\nproducts"],[0,[0],1,","],[0,[],0," and careful selection of\nmaterials creates specific working and collaborative spaces providing\nflexibility for storage, people, maintenance, and building systems. Palette and\nstructure of the systems are easily replicated to maintain warmth over time and\nwith wear while remaining natural, neutral"],[0,[0],1,","],[0,[],0,"\nand durable. "]]],[1,"p",[]]]},"title":"Integration"},{"body":{"version":"0.3.0","atoms":[],"cards":[],"markups":[["s"],["u"],["strong"]],"sections":[[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"The project upcycles an\nunoccupied mid-twentieth-century structure sitting along a commercial\ncorridor within a longstanding"],[0,[0],1,","],[0,[],0,"\nvibrant residential neighborhood. In addition to the building, the site included\nan existing bus stop and post office box. Despite the surrounding community\nhaving a highly active walk\/bike culture, and the need for public access to the\nproperty, the majority of the existing site was designed for cars, had\nnon-pervious surfaces, and made equitable access from parking and the sidewalk\nimpossible. Existing building entrances were segregated from community\nsidewalks and did not encourage connections between building occupants and\noutside. "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"Community meetings were held\nat the neighboring church during the design of the project with commercial and\nresidential neighbors to solicit input and support. A major site strategy was\nto improve the streetscape, and then connect it to a reclaimed internal\ncourtyard designed for activation by occupants and the district. Design of the\ncontinuous landscaped public bench\/stoop\/bus stop across the urban edge gives\nequitable access from the sidewalk and parking areas to a welcoming canopy,\nenlarged storefront windows"],[0,[1],1,","],[0,[],0," and\nflexibly landscaped courtyard. Territories of bus stop, courtyard, offices,\nresidences, post office"],[0,[1],1,","],[0,[],0," and public\nway are all shared, to facilitate better connections between occupants, the\npublic and nature. "]]],[1,"h2",[[0,[],0,"Design intent"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[2],1,"Who does the project serve? Identify the stakeholders who directly or indirectly benefit from the project. "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"In addition to the project users and guests, the parking lot is shared by the adjacent church and neighboring office. The post office box and bus stop on the streetscape are used by the general public. The ramps, site bench\/stoop, and sidewalk are used by neighborhood pedestrians, skateboarders, and pet walkers, providing both a community front porch and an alternative pedestrian path through the ramp as an alternative to the lower sidewalk upon the traffic\u2019s edge. Neighbors also benefit from the significantly increased pervious area and reduced stormwater impact from the project site, and increased shading counteracting hot-humid temperatures."]]],[1,"h3",[[0,[],0,"Describe the stakeholder engagement process, including workshops, meetings, surveys, or other forms of engagement. How was feedback documented and presented back to the community?"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"Public workshops were held as part of the city planning process in the church next door. Project plans were mailed to building owners within a 1,500-foot radius of the project inviting comment, and attendance at meetings. Feedback and revisions were incorporated into plans and presented at a city planning hearing for city approval. The project was also presented at public Design Review Board meetings where input and changes were re-presented for approval."]]],[1,"h3",[[0,[],0,"Identify the project goals that promoted equitable communities. How do they incorporate project-specific community needs?"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"The goal for community connectivity and access addresses the architects\u2019 observation of problems with the existing site and neighborhood infrastructure, which had impervious, uneven treeless streetscapes with no accessible transitions to building entrances, and no spaces other than sidewalks for bus stops. The accessibility and connectivity strategies of the project positively address all these observations."]]],[1,"h3",[[0,[],0,"Describe the project team\u0027s explorations or design strategies that respond to the above-stated goals?"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"The streetscape design connects public and private spaces, including the post office box, bus stop, new bench, and stoop as well as the courtyard and building entrances with accessible routes. In addition, low-impact landscaping, lighting, and trees are brought to the publicly \u201cowned\u201d areas of the site."]]],[1,"h3",[[0,[],0,"Describe stories or evidence that demonstrate success. If success cannot be evaluated in the near-term, describe what a successful outcome will look like and what they key performance indicators are."]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"In addition to what has been mentioned, we continue to see public use of the parking lot to park and to use the post box with an experience of being welcomed by the site. Bus stop users use the covered porch and stoop\/bench to wait for buses. We often find people sitting and eating in our parking lot at lunch outside, and dog walkers and stroller users often choose the ramps and covered area instead of the sidewalk at street level. The intent was to welcome in the community, which has proven to be successful in all seasons and weather. "]]],[1,"h3",[[0,[],0,"Describe the background research conducted to identify who is impacted by the project. Include any vulnerability assessments completed to understand the socioeconomic, health, and environmental risks to communities impacted by the project."]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"Site and market analysis, along with our design team\u2019s experience working near the site for over a decade, allowed insight into impacted community members. The majority of vulnerable community members use and depend upon streetscape elements for support. "]]],[1,"h3",[[0,[],0,"How were cultural values of the community(ies) identified?"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"Site and market analysis, along with our design team\u2019s experience working near the site for over a decade, allowed insight into impacted community members. Community meetings also provided insight to both majority and minority viewpoints on development and the impact of the project. "]]],[1,"h3",[[0,[],0,"How did the team\u0027s understanding of vulnerability and project impacts evolve because of the stakeholder engagement process?"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"Understanding that the surrounding community had only a passing, sympathetic interest in vulnerable community members helped the design team understand the need for a broader, open streetscape with cover, lighting, and seating opportunities to be inclusive. There was not opposition to allowing vulnerable populations access and support but not on their properties. Embracing the bus stop and the connection to the park to the south, providing safe and easy access to the post office box, and giving design clarity to the front \u201cbench\u201d as the community\u0027s front porch was welcoming to neighbors of all backgrounds and conditions."]]],[1,"h3",[[0,[],0,"How were the needs of underrepresented stakeholders addressed within the goals? How do the goals propose to overcome barriers that might prevent community members from fully experiencing the project (mobility, socioeconomic, demographic or other)?"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"The expansion and connectivity of the public realm addresses needs of bus stop users, homeless citizens, and transient populations, even though they neither attended a community meeting nor provided feedback on the design. The ability of the courtyard to be completely open to the sidewalk became a strategy to be flexible moving forward and allow different access to anyone on the sidewalk or front steps."]]],[1,"h3",[[0,[],0,"How was the design of access to and through the building influenced by mobility needs and requirements? "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"The design goals of connectivity and accessibility in terms of best practices for building design, hospitality, and urban activation spurred an interest in exceeding basic requirements for accessibility. In addition, the aspects of the design that facilitate equitable access and connectivity between the public way and interior amenities also helped encourage bicycle transit for building users. We have witnessed, regardless of need, that the ramp has become the preferred experience for those walking or pushing strollers, speaking to the importance of thoughtful and inclusive design."]]],[1,"h3",[[0,[],0,"Describe post-occupancy engagement processes and how they were used to optimize the project\u0027s support of equitable communities?"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"The design team has sought opportunities to speak and publicize the project outside of solely industry channels in order to expand the dialogue with other larger community members as a case study, and inspire a shift in thinking by community members, decision-makers, and clients. Opportunities have included radio, podcasts, print and digital media interviews, and a public TEDx talk about the benefits and accessibility of the project. The notion of the project being more accessible and attainable is about bringing better design to more people and communities around the country. "]]],[1,"h2",[[0,[],0,"Metrics"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[2],1,"Walk Score: "],[0,[],0,"88"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[2],1,"Transit Score: "],[0,[],0,"32"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[2],1,"Bike Score:"],[0,[],0," 64"]]]]},"title":"Equitable Communities"},{"body":{"version":"0.3.0","atoms":[],"cards":[],"markups":[["strong"]],"sections":[[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"Although the site is within an urban corridor, the adjacent neighborhoods are residential fabric, with well-loved stands of trees that contain species that have thrived in the region for centuries. One goal of the project was to bring more of the surrounding landscape into the site. Of the existing parking areas, 25% was reclaimed as landscaping and a community courtyard. Native plantings are installed throughout the site, requiring no irrigation beyond the establishment period. The site orientation was carefully analyzed to inform annual sun exposure on walls, glazing, and roofing relating to insulation, solar heat gain, and UV exposure. The Cooper Street and courtyard canopy serve many purposes, but specifically shading large windows to provide bird collision deterrent and solar insolation in winter for daylighting and passive heating. All exterior site lighting is controlled by a daylight sensor and is dark-sky compliant. "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"The site is a major deterrent to heat island effect by implement high solar reflective index (SRI) products in materials, including high albedo roofing, white concrete, and gray limestone gravel as concrete aggregate, and in the courtyard as landscaping paving and mulch. Landscaping in the courtyard and along edges of hardscape areas serve as stormwater infiltration zones."]]],[1,"h2",[[0,[],0,"Design intent:"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Provide one example of how this project regenerates the natural ecosystem on-site."]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"New trees planted in the courtyard, streetscape, and parking area have been nested by different bird species while also supporting larger efforts to establish a district arboretum, of which the firm is actively engaged."]]],[1,"h2",[[0,[],0,"Metrics"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Is this a previously developed site? "],[0,[],0,"Yes"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Percentage of site area supporting vegetation before project began:"],[0,[],0," 8.5%"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Percentage of the site area designed to support vegetation landscape or green roof:"],[0,[],0," 27.1%"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Percentage of landscaped areas covered by native or climate appropriate plants supporting native or migratory animals:"],[0,[],0," 11.6%"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Intentional design strategies were used to promote:"]]],[3,"ul",[[[0,[],0,"Biodiversity\t\t\t\t\t"]],[[0,[],0,"Dark skies"]],[[0,[],0,"Bird safety"]],[[0,[],0,"Soil conservation"]],[[0,[],0,"Carbon sequestration"]],[[0,[],0,"Habitat conservation"]],[[0,[],0,"Flora\/fauna"]]]]]},"title":"Ecosystems"},{"body":{"version":"0.3.0","atoms":[],"cards":[["images-card",{"images":[{"url":"http:\/\/res.cloudinary.com\/dpcbzfiye\/image\/upload\/v1650314770\/grlxnbw4lmzphynauyfu.jpg","id":"6496612"}],"caption":"Layered diagram describing water strategies. Image: archimania"}]],"markups":[["b"],["strong"],["a",["href","https:\/\/www.usgbc.org\/resources\/leed-v41-rainfall-events-calculator","target","_blank"]]],"sections":[[10,0],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"The\nMississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer is considered a primary source for\nfreshwater and one of the region\u2019s most precious natural resources. Within this\nrenovation project, impervious parking areas were reduced by 37% and 20 times\nmore pervious surfaces (landscaping and turf) from previous amounts. The 2,488\nsf central courtyard, converted from a parking lot, filters rain runoff from\nboth site and roof areas through a multi-layered infiltration system to reduce\nrunoff speed and remove pollutants from stormwater before it is introduced to\nthe municipal stormwater system. Native plantings are installed throughout the\nsite to prevent the need for a permanent irrigation system. Per current local\ncode, gray water harvesting systems are not permissible within our jurisdiction.\nHowever, indoor water efficiency measures are accomplished with low flow\nfixtures that provide a 76% reduction from baseline."]]],[1,"h2",[[0,[],0,"Design intent"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Describe the quality\nof the water that runs off the site."]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"The design\nprioritized water management on the site through strategic interventions and\ntransformative efforts at the ground plane. The 67% of the existing roof\ndrainage is routed into low-impact design bioswales along the hardscape\nsurfaces of the parking plaza and sidewalks. 37% of the existing impervious\nsurfaces were designed as pervious surfaces, including native landscaping,\nturf, and gravel courtyard. The linear bioswales are strategic interventions\nalong the parking plaza to filter run off and extract pollutants before water\nenters the stormwater system at the street. At the gravel courtyard, multiple\nlayers of different sized limestone aggregate and drainage filter reduce runoff\nspeed and filter pollutants of stormwater before reaching a perforated pipe and\nthe stormwater system. Thirty-one percent of the stormwater can now be managed\non-site as a result of site-specific efforts tailored to enrich the existing\nconditions."]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Describe the\nproject\u0027s water resilience strategies."]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"The courtyard\ninfiltration system accepts the majority of the building and site\u2019s stormwater\nrunoff, with excess capacity for flash flooding. The edges of the parking lots\nare also bound by flush planting and infiltration areas, allowing excess runoff\nto be mitigated there, rather than running directly to the street stormwater\nsystem."]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Provide one sentence\ndescribing the project\u0027s major potable water conservation strategy for each end\nuse:"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"Fixtures\u2014Low-flow\nfixtures in all locations reduce water consumption. "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"Irrigation\u2014The\nlandscape design strategy included plant and surface choices that would\npreclude the need for an irrigation system to reduce water usage. "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"Mechanical\nsystems\u2014Geothermal heat pump systems were specified and installed, relying less\non water for operations than other larger-scale systems. "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"Process\nsystems\u2014No process systems were used as part of the project."]]],[1,"h2",[[0,[],0,"Metrics"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Is on site potable water use\nregularly metered and monitored?"],[0,[],0," Yes"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Is water use sub metered?"],[0,[],0," No"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Was water consumption modeled?"],[0,[],0," Yes"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Is potable water used for\nnon-potable uses? "],[0,[],0,"Yes"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Is rainwater collected and\nstored for onsite use?"],[0,[],0," No"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"What non-potable water sources\nare collected for reuse? "],[0,[],0,"Condensate,\nSite surface water"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"\n \n"],[0,[0],1,"What\nare the end uses of this collection? "],[0,[],0," Non-irrigation\nsite water"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Percentage of rainwater managed\non-site (from maximum anticipated 24-hour, two-year storm event): "],[0,[],0,"30.7% "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[1],0,"Indicate\nstorm event used to calculate percentage of rainwater managed on-site using a\u202f"],[0,[2],1,"LEED rainwater calculator"],[0,[],1,"."],[0,[],0," 3.8"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Does\nthe site have a vegetated area that is irrigated turf grass?"],[0,[],0," No"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[1],1,"Percentage\nof site vegetated area that is irrigated turf grass:"],[0,[],0," 0%"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Is\npotable water quality routinely monitored, filtered, or treated?"],[0,[],0," No"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Measured\nannual water use (gallons per building): "],[0,[],0,"26,180 "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Predicted\nannual water use (gallons per building): "],[0,[],0,"26,298"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[1],1,"Percentage\nof potable water reduced through efficiency measures: "],[0,[],0,"0.5%"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[1],1,"Percentage\nof potable water offset by other water sources:"],[0,[],0," 0%"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[1],1,"Percentage\nof blackwater treated on-site:"],[0,[],0," \n0%"]]]]},"title":"Water"},{"body":{"version":"0.3.0","atoms":[],"cards":[],"markups":[["b"],["s"],["strong"]],"sections":[[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"This project\ntakes an ordinary mid-century building and makes it an extraordinary model for\nadaptive reuse. The original steel structure, exterior masonry, and terrazzo\nfloors are refinished and celebrated. A limited material and finish palette,\nand a focus on using natural light as a \u201cmaterial\u201d inside and out, reduce the\nnumber of supply streams needed and allow the perception of the materials to\nchange over each day and each season. Careful detailing and intentional\nexpression of conventional, durable, easy-to-maintain materials allow design to\nprovide more use and comfort for the same or less financial investment. "]]],[1,"blockquote",[[0,[],0,"\u0022A humble building but not a mundane one, highlighting all\nthe elements, while not being over the top. Showing great work on a modest\nbudget, this project has a mission beyond property line: a catalyst for a\ncarbon neutral corridor and a notable example for other cities and communities.\u0022 - Jury Comment"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"A detailed\ncost versus performance analysis was developed to determine the benefit of\nfinancial investment relative to providing performance-driven design decisions,\nsuch as wall insulation, roof insulation, glazing performance, geothermal HVAC\nsystems, light power density, lighting and plug load controls system, and\nrooftop photovoltaic array. "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"The\nenvironmental savings provide more than $9,600 in annual energy savings and\nproject a return on the project\u2019s sustainable investments in less than 10\nyears\u2014proving this model to be a viable shift in conventional developer logic."]]],[1,"h2",[[0,[],0,"Design intent"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Describe right sizing\nstrategies and considerations. "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"The amount of courtyard and entrance canopy was\nstudied in\nan effort to optimize the impact of the canopy\nadditions\/alterations to meet the goals with the smallest footprint. The\nextensive first-cost and operating efficiency research of sustainable options,\nfrom systems to finishes, provided key insights to finding\nthe appropriate"],[0,[1],1,","],[0,[],0," rightsized technology for the project,\ngiven the budget and the sustainability targets. "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],0,"How did design choices minimize\nmaterial usage allowing for lower cost and more efficiently designed systems\nstructure?"],[0,[],1," "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"Studies for\nproviding optimal work and collaboration spaces right sized individual office\nspaces by making them smaller than market norms, in order to create more\nchoices (and similarly optimized) in collaboration spaces for other types of\nexchange. The materials palette assigned simple materials and finishes\nthroughout according to programmatic use and maintenance. Reuse and exposure of\nexisting floor, structure, and roof deck finishes (at interior), and brick at\nexterior, preclude need for additional material."]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Provide one sentence on the\nstrategies used to reduce cost and\/or increase value for each of the following."]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"First\ncosts\u2014Recycle existing building. "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"Utilities\u2014Provide\nenhanced passive systems for envelope. \n"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"Maintenance\u2014Provide\nlong\u2013lasting, easy-to-maintain systems and finishes. "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"Cleaning\u2014Provide\neasy-to-clean finishes and green cleaning program for maintenance staff. "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"Occupant\nhealth and well-being\u2014Provide low VOC interior finishes, occupant controls,\naggressive daylighting, and view strategy, and outdoor work and gathering\nspace. "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"Flexibility,\nadaptability, and\/or resilience\u2014Use a planning and sectional strategy within\nexisting reused envelope, consolidating open areas, minimizing ceiling\nfinishes, and maximizing shared walls."]]],[1,"h2",[[0,[],0,"Metrics"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Cost: "],[0,[],0,"\n298"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Were life cycle costs\ncalculated"],[0,[2],1,"?"],[0,[],0,"\nYes"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"What system was life cycle\ncosts analysis performed for?"],[0,[],0," \nEnvelope and structure, Interiors, Mechanical\nsystems, Plumbing systems, Carbon sequestration, Electrical systems,\nPhotovoltaics, Other:"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Life cycle cost:"],[0,[],0," \n10 years or less for all systems selected."]]]]},"title":"Economy"},{"body":{"version":"0.3.0","atoms":[],"cards":[["images-card",{"images":[{"url":"http:\/\/res.cloudinary.com\/dpcbzfiye\/image\/upload\/v1650032544\/hamkl8lstn4aopx6m00n.jpg","id":"6495882"}],"caption":"Rendering diagram describing sun protection and collection, energy reduction, production, and monitoring. Image: archimania"}]],"markups":[["b"],["strong"]],"sections":[[1,"p",[]],[10,0],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"This project\noptimizes an existing site and structure in a hot-humid climate with active and\npassive enhancements to reach the net zero target. After 12- months of\noperation, the project logged a net EUI of -1.3 by producing 7% more power than\nit consumed. Fossil fuels were\neliminated from the existing building and new electrical systems were\nintegrated to eliminate operational carbon emissions. Combining an envelope\nsensitivity model and an interactive (performance versus cost) energy model, the\ndesign team detailed strategies that added R15 to the existing walls, and R30\nto the existing roof, while limiting the window-wall ratio to 18%. "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"At windows\nwith summer heat gain, overhangs were introduced to allow direct light to\npenetrate the envelope only during winter months. The geothermal HVAC system\nrequired shallow wells, as local code prohibits typical borings to protect the\nMississippi alluvial aquifer below. Programmable systems controls provide\ncustomizable scheduling for lighting and plug load controllers, as well as\ndaylight harvesting integration and occupancy sensors. The project includes\nenergy reporting software (eGauge) to monitor the performance of the building\nsystems. This project is the world\u2019s first existing building to be dual\ncertified Zero Carbon and Zero Energy by the International Living Future\nInstitute."]]],[1,"h2",[[0,[],0,"Design intent"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Explain any difference between measure\nand predicted EUI."]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"The net mEUI\nof -1.3 was achieved with renewables to improve upon the mEUI of 24 and pEUI of\n26."]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Describe your enclosure (wall,\nroof, and window) specification for optimizing climatic performance (U-value,\nSHGC, VT, shading, dynamic, etc.) "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"With a\nwindow-to-wall ratio of 18%, the design added R15 to the existing CMU\/brick\nwalls and replaced glazing with Solarban 90 (U-value of 0.29, SHGC of 0.23, VLT\nof 51%) in a thermally broken storefront system."]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Describe the primary strategy\nfor reducing operational carbon (scope 1: direct emissions; scope 2; indirect\nemissions). "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"Scope 1:\nProviding a geothermal heat pump HVAC system and solar water heating to\neliminate fossil fuels from building systems that limit consumption, which is\noffset by rooftop solar PV array. Scope 2: Providing enhanced passive envelope\nmeasures and energy efficient systems to reduce demand."]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"What tool was used to model energy?"],[0,[],0," \nOther"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"If you checked \u0027other\u0027 in the\nprevious question, please explain here: "],[0,[],0,"\nSefaira\nRevit Plugin"]]],[1,"h2",[[0,[],0,"Metrics"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Predicted gross Energy Usage\nIntensity (pEUI)\u202fin kBTU\/sf\/yr (including all site energy uses, exclusive\nof on-site generations and purchased credits or offsets):"],[0,[],0," \n26"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Was ASHRAE Standard 90.1 used to\ndetermine pEUI?"],[0,[],0," \nNo"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[1],1,"Measured gross Energy Use Intensity (mEUI) in kBTU\/sf\/yr (include all site energy uses) "],[0,[],0,"24"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"\n"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Is energy generated on-site? "],[0,[],0,"Yes"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"If yes, what was the net Energy\nUse Intensity (nEUI) achieved in kBTU\/sf\/yr (include all on-site energy\ngeneration but exclude purchased credits or offsets)?"],[0,[],0," \n -1.3"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Were renewable energy credits\nor offsets purchased for this project?"],[0,[],0," \nYes"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Operational carbon: "],[0,[],0,"-0.55\n\n"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Please explain if a mandatory\nmetrics is unavailable or a metric requires additional interpretive\ninformation."],[0,[],0," \nFrom our local utility provider regarding our\nlocal service provide agreement: As\nbackground, this building receives utility service from Memphis Light, Gas and\nWater (MLGW), a public power utility that\nserves Shelby County, Tenn. and distributes electricity generated by the Tennessee\nValley Authority (TVA), a federal power generator. MLGW is contractually\nobligated to purchase 100% of its electricity supply from TVA, so \u0022net\nmetering\u0022 was not available for 663 S. Cooper. Instead, this building\ninterconnected the solar arrays under a program called Green Power Providers,\nwhich buys 100% of the solar power output via a 20-year agreement in exchange\nfor generation credits on the MLGW bill. (Green Power Providers was a net\nmetering compromise option for customers and TVA distributors as it kept the\nlocal power companies whole, which is important in a public power\nenvironment. Green Power Providers and\nits earlier pilot, Generation Partners, offered subsidized incentives to help\ncreate a solar industry in the Tennessee Valley. Over the last 15 years, more\nthan 3,600 systems were installed throughout the Valley under these programs,\nproviding 110,000 kW or 110 MW of generation capacity DC. 663 S. Cooper is among approximately 110\nsolar projects installed in MLGW\u0027s service territory through 2019. Based on the year that 663 S. Cooper\nsubmitted their TVA requests, the projects earn near the local retail cost of electricity. TVA buys the bundled solar power, including\nRECs, which are resold through MLGW and other TVA distributors throughout the\nregion to customers who participate in the Green Switch program. TVA retires the RECs on behalf of customers\nat the end of each calendar year, after Green-e Energy certification from the\nCenter for Resource Solutions (CRS). We proposed 663 S. Cooper continue to sell solar output to TVA through\nGreen Power Providers while also participating in Green Switch at a level equal\nto the generation output of each solar array. \n663 S. Cooper has already enrolled for the lump sum purchase of 275\nblocks of Green Switch and will continue with monthly purchases going\nforward. This enables 663 S. Cooper to\ncontinue to reap the financial benefits of Green Power Providers while also\nsupporting renewable generation in the Tennessee Valley by purchasing Green Switch\nblocks. As mentioned, Green Switch is\na Green-e certified product. Its 2020 prospective content label anticipates\na generation mix of 70% solar, 20% wind\nand 10% biomass (methane gas from 8 landfill sites), with the release of a final product content label showing actual\ngeneration after each annual Green-e Energy audit by the Center for Resource Solutions."]]]]},"title":"Energy"},{"body":{"version":"0.3.0","atoms":[],"cards":[["images-card",{"images":[{"url":"http:\/\/res.cloudinary.com\/dpcbzfiye\/image\/upload\/v1650032771\/bxucxg5gz4zuhvjhiu9w.jpg","id":"6495885"}],"caption":"Individual working in open work space with natural light looking out on a courtyard. Image: Matt Seltzer, AIA"}]],"markups":[["b"],["strong"],["sub"]],"sections":[[1,"p",[]],[10,0],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"One hundred\npercent of work and collaboration spaces have access to daylight and views that\nconnect to exterior environments. The design of the open office space connects\nevery seat and circulation route with visual connections to the covered porch\nand common courtyard. The courtyard space is designed to be a supplemental\nworkspace for staff and guests. A series of primary and secondary circulation\npaths weave along workstations and the \u201ccommon table,\u201d providing a platform for\ninformal gatherings, material display and storage, and dialogue between\noccupants. A pink noise system and acoustic felt baffle system is installed\nthroughout the open office to provide improved acoustic comfort. Workstations\nhave individual task lamps, where requested by each user. A reverse osmosis\nwater filtration system is provided for staff and visitors as a source of clean\ndrinking water. Cycling commuters are encouraged via bicycle storage along each\ndesk spine and a shower facility in the restroom core. Even within a limited\nnew construction material palette, five materials with HPDs were selected.\nOccupant satisfaction surveys have indicated that 38% of users report extreme\nsatisfaction, 28% very satisfied, and 33% satisfied when considering air\nquality, cleanliness, daylight, privacy, artificial lighting, sound, thermal\ncomfort, and views to outdoors."]]],[1,"h2",[[0,[],0,"Design Intent"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Describe your major strategy\nfor improving indoor air quality."]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"Specification\nand assurance on low VOC interior finishes and materials, elimination of fossil\nfuels for all building systems, and enhanced filtration on HVAC systems."]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Describe your major strategy\nfor improving indoor acoustical. "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"Specification\nof acoustically absorptive materials in strategic locations and the use of a\nnoise canceling system throughout office areas to localize speech\nintelligibility and minimize distractions. A variety of open and closed rooms\nallow occupants to simultaneously and easily move to and choose spaces for\nlarger\/louder or more private conversations, eliminating the need for\nconversations and meetings to take place either in open office spaces or\noutside while larger rooms are occupied by ongoing client and team meetings. "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Describe your major strategy\nfor encouraging occupant movement."]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"The program\nprovides multiple circulation routes to various interior and exterior\namenities, including a variety of rooms that facilitate different kinds of\nwork. Providing daylight throughout building encourages users to choose spaces\nbased on their need and easily move to them to accomplish tasks."]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Describe your major strategy\nfor providing healthy foods. "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"Providing and\nencouraging composting to reduce solid waste has increased user use of more\nnatural unpackaged and compostable foods."]]],[1,"h2",[[0,[],0,"Metrics"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],0,"Do greater than 90% of occupied\nspaces have a direct view to the outdoors?"],[0,[],1,"\u202f"],[0,[],0," \nYes\n "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Was daylight modeled to inform design\ndecisions? "],[0,[],0,"Yes"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"If so summarize results. "],[0,[],0,"Lighting\nconsultants and modeling software were utilized internal to inform design\ndecisions."]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"How easily can occupants\ncontrol their own thermal comfort and lighting? (workplaces). "],[0,[],0,"In addition to\nzoned and preset lighting scenes agreed upon by consensus in open office areas,\nusers in open office areas have on-demand task lighting. Eight HVAC zones\nprovide a finely tunable space for regular occupants and visitors to work\nindependently throughout the day or for focused group meetings.\n "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"How many occupants per thermal zone or\nthermostat? "],[0,[],0,"4.5"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[1],1,"Percentage of occupants who can control\ntheir own light levels. "],[0,[],0,"100% "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[1],1,"Percentage of\noccupants who have access to operable windows. "],[0,[],0,"0%"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],0,"Was\na \u201cchemicals of concern\u201d list used to inform material selection?"],[0,[],1,"\u202f"],[0,[],0," \nYes"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"If yes, please explain one\nsentence. "],[0,[],0,"We looked at\nRedList and other available sources.\n "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],0,"HPD:\nWere Health Product Declarations (HPDs) collected?"],[0,[],0,"\u202f"],[0,[],0," "],[0,[],1,"\n"],[0,[],0,"Yes"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"If so, summarize results. "],[0,[],0,"Healthy\nProduct Declarations were prioritized in design and specifications to avoid\nLiving Building Challenge \u201cRed List\u201d materials and products that are known to\nproduce serious human harm. Within the simplified materiality of this project,\neight products are HPDs, Declare, Cradle2Cradle and\/or Red List Compliant."]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],0,"What level of air filters are\ninstalled?"],[0,[],1,"\u202f"],[0,[],0," \nMERV 9-11 "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Is air quality monitored on an ongoing basis?"],[0,[],0," \nYes"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"If so, check all IAQ metrics\nthat are being tracked: "],[0,[],0,"%RH, CO"],[0,[2],1,"2"],[0,[],0,",\nTVOCs, Other"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"If the project is in a humid\nclimate, is standalone dehumidification installed?"],[0,[],0," \nNo "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],0,"What is the design maximum CO"],[0,[2],1,"2"],[0,[],1,"\nin PPM?"],[0,[],0," \n1000"]]]]},"title":"Well-being"},{"body":{"version":"0.3.0","atoms":[],"cards":[],"markups":[["b"],["strong"]],"sections":[[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"This design\nreduces the embodied carbon by 67% via upcycling existing steel structure,\nconcrete and terrazzo floors, and exterior masonry. The remaining materials\nselected were chosen for their durability, ease of maintenance, sustainable\ncontent, sourcing location, and support of the material expression of the\nproject. The design team used LifeCycle Analysis Tools (Tally LCA) to make\nfinal material decisions to implement smart carbon materials and systems. "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"Exposing many\nof the existing systems and finishes reduced the quantity of new materials\nrequired to execute the design. The exterior materials that were added include\naluminum, glass, and metal siding with steel framing, all selected due to their\nalignment with resource criteria listed above. Additionally, more than 15\nproducts were certified with an EPD, HPD, Declare, Cradle-to-cradle, and\/or\nLiving Product Challenge Material or Product. The reinforcement of exterior\nwalls, and deliberate zoning of interior partitions, ceilings, and millwork,\nallows for easy disassembly or reconfiguration of the project interiors in\nanticipation of short- and long-term project life. Construction waste\nmanagement practices provided 61% diversion from landfill. More than 75% of\noperational waste is diverted from the landfill via compost, recycling, and\ntrash sorting."]]],[1,"h2",[[0,[0],1,"\n"]]],[1,"h2",[[0,[],0,"Design Intent"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],0,"Describe the project team\u2019s\nmaterial selection criteria."],[0,[],1," "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"Architects\nsought readily available materials and finishes that are affordable, durable,\nand easily maintained, with emphases on reuse, recycled content, manufacturing\nlocation, low VOC\/healthy materials, and reuse\/recyclability at end of service\nlife\/life cycle. The interior aesthetic is a rigorously organized palette of wood\nmillwork (locally sourced and offsite fabricated) and products with high\nrecycled content such as carpet, acoustic wall fabric and ceiling baffles, and\ngypsum board."]]],[1,"h2",[[0,[],0,"Metrics "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],0,"Was embodied carbon modeled?"],[0,[],0," "],[0,[],1,"\n"],[0,[],0,"Yes"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"If yes, identify the tool used:"],[0,[],0," \nTally"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Is biogenic carbon considered?"],[0,[],0," \nNo"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Are renewable energy sources being\nconsidered?"],[0,[],0," \nYes"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Identify the modeling time\nperiod."],[0,[],0," \n12-16 months after substantial completion to\ninclude net zero performance period (for operational carbon)"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"What was the LCA system\nboundary?"],[0,[],0," Product (A1-A3), Construction (A4-A5), Use (B1-B5),\nEnd of Life (C1-C4), Beyond (D)"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"What is the LCA scope? "],[0,[],0,"\nBuilding Envelope, Structure, Interiors \n\n"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"What is the total predicted\nembodied carbon in kg CO2E?"],[0,[],0," \n82 "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Which of the following\nenvironmental product declarations did you collect? "],[0,[],0,"\nIndustry-wide generic EPDs, Declare + Embodied\nCarbon Label, C2C \n\n"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[1],1,"Percentage of project floor area, if any,\nthat was adapted from existing buildings : "],[0,[],0,"100%"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Was construction waste\nconsidered and tracked on this project?"],[0,[],0," \nYes"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"If so, summarize results. "],[0,[],0,"A construction\nwaste management plan provided a 61% diversion from landfill by sorting masonry,\nmetals, cardboard, dirt, and wood to be recycled. Also, the overall construction waste was\nlimited by recycling the major structural components of the building\u2014 \u2013\nconcrete slab and terrazzo floor; steel columns, steel open web joists, and\nmetal decking; and exterior CMU walls with brick veneer. The total waste sent\nlandfill."]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],0,"Was material reuse considered\nand tracked on this project?"],[0,[],1," "],[0,[],0,"\nYes"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"If so, summarize results. "],[0,[],0,"Fundamentally,\nthe primary material reuse strategy is rooted in recycling the major building\ncomponents: concrete slab \/ terrazzo floors, structural steel columns \/ steel\nbar joists \/ metal decking, and CMU load bearing walls with brick veneer. The\nembodied carbon was reduced by 67% compared to a baseline new construction\nbuilding."]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],0,"Was recycled content considered\nand tracked on this project?"],[0,[],1," "],[0,[],0,"\nYes"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"If so, summarize results. "],[0,[],0,"Products with\nhigh recycled content were prioritized through design specifications and\nverified through the submittal review process with general contractor. Products with recycled content demonstrated\nan average of 52% recycled content (overall, post-consumer, pre-consumer,\netc.)."]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],0,"Did you track the percentage of\nproject materials extracted and manufactured regionally?"],[0,[],0," "],[0,[],1,"\n"],[0,[],0,"Yes"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"If so, summarize results. "],[0,[],0,"22% of project\nmaterials were extracted and manufactured regionally. Preferred regional\nmanufacturers were listed in the project specifications and confirmed during\nthe submittal review process."]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Is the majority of wood used in\nthis project certified by FSC? "],[0,[],0,"No"]]]]},"title":"Resources"},{"body":{"version":"0.3.0","atoms":[],"cards":[["images-card",{"images":[{"url":"http:\/\/res.cloudinary.com\/dpcbzfiye\/image\/upload\/v1649968333\/e4bzvqwuxlplmbyqhfhf.jpg","id":"6495743"}],"caption":"Before (above) and after exterior of 663 South Cooper. Image: Matt Seltzer, AIA"}]],"markups":[["b"],["strong"]],"sections":[[1,"p",[]],[10,0],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"This project epitomizes the essence\nof this value as a reinvention of an existing 70-year-old building. The\nrenovation of this site re-allocates 37% of the site from asphalt parking lot\nto a landscaped community courtyard. The courtyard reaches out to the street\nsidewalk with an overhead canopy and full-width stair, extending along the\nstreet with landscaping and a cast-in-place bench that provides an open\ninvitation to this shared amenity. As the site is located within the New Madrid\nseismic zone, the exterior load bearing masonry walls were supplemented with\nheavy gauge steel studs to mitigate damage from a future seismic event. The floor\nplan strategy provides an increased flexibility for long- term staffing growth\nas well as changes in collaborative work with an array of small, medium, and\nlarge collaborative spaces. No internal walls are structural and can be easily\nreconfigured in future building scenarios. The enhanced insulation used to\ndesign the net zero building makes the project more habitable in case of power\noutages, the PV system can be rerouted in the future to supply the project with\npower off-grid, and the solar water heater uses no power to heat water."]]],[1,"h2",[[0,[],0,"Metrics"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"How does the project respond to\nthe local hazards identified? "],[0,[],0,"Project\nprovides enhanced seismic design to an unreinforced masonry building in a\nseismic zone. Project provides photovoltaic array with ability to source power\noff-grid."]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Was research conducted on the\nmost likely local hazards?"],[0,[],0," \nYes"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[1],1,"Research was conducted on these potential local hazards:"]]],[3,"ul",[[[0,[],0,"Hail"]],[[0,[],0,"Earthquakes "]],[[0,[],0,"Drought"]],[[0,[],0,"Extreme\ntemperatures"]],[[0,[],0,"Flooding "]],[[0,[],0,"Social unrest "]],[[0,[],0,"Utility disruption \n\n"]]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Can the Project maintain\nfunction without utility power?"],[0,[],0," \nPassive survivability"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"What type of backup power did\nyou have?"],[0,[],0," \nGrid\/battery \n\n"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[1],1,"What percentage of project\npower needs are met by on-site power generation?"],[0,[],0," \n0%"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],0,"Can the building be used as a\nsafe harbor to support a community during a crisis?"],[0,[],0," "],[0,[],1,"\n"],[0,[],0,"Yes"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"If so, explain. "],[0,[],0,"Secured\nexterior public spaces and front porch can provide emergency response and\nsupport to the surrounding residences and business in the event of disruption."]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"How many hours can the building\nfunction through passive survivability?"],[0,[],0," \n24"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Explain your calculations. "],[0,[],0,"Improved\ninsulated value of the property and the use of lithium battery supported\nequipment and cross ventilation depending on extreme temperatures through\nvarious seasons."]]]]},"title":"Change"},{"body":{"version":"0.3.0","atoms":[],"cards":[],"markups":[["b"]],"sections":[[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"The design\ngoal was to upcycle a \u201ctypical\u201d building\/site to meet Net-Zero Carbon and\nEnergy criteria while enhancing connectivity between occupants, nature, and the\ncommunity. The experimental aspect of the project was given a control by\npurchasing the neighboring building. The buildings\u2019 development was driven by\ntwo pursuits: 1) Explore an integrated strategy of design and sustainability.\n2) Research a cost-versus-performance model between conventional baseline\nstandards (in the control building) and high-performance design practices (in\nthis project). We strive to share the\nresults of the exercise and its impact. \n"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"One method\nused to demonstrate the project\u2019s impact is extrapolation: We have applied a\nsimilar design strategy across 88 similar buildings, found along the Cooper\nStreet corridor. The savings of this \u201cCarbon Neutral Corridor\u201d could power more\nthan 4,000 homes annually. We have participated in interviews and presentations\nto discuss this project, including a radio show and a TEDx presentation. A\nsecond method of discovery provides continuous learning: The designers are also\nthe operators and occupants of the project, giving a unique perspective on\nlearning from the design, operations, and maintenance of the project. The\nongoing lessons provide an instant reference for subsequent projects designed\nby the occupants."]]],[1,"h2",[[0,[],0,"Metrics"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Were integrated design\nprocesses engaged early in the project for establishing project performance\ngoals and strategies?"],[0,[],0," \nYes"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"If yes, describe the process\nand outcomes. "],[0,[],0,"The design\ngoal was to upcycle a \u201ctypical\u201d building\/site to meet Net-Zero Carbon and\nEnergy criteria while enhancing connectivity between occupants, nature, and the\ncommunity. The experimental aspect of the project was given a control by\npurchasing the neighboring building. The buildings\u2019 development was driven by\ntwo pursuits: 1) Explore an integrated strategy of design and sustainability:\n2) Research a cost-versus-performance model between conventional baseline\nstandards (in the control building) and high-performance design practices (in\nthis project). We strive to share the results of the exercise and its\nimpact. "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"One method\nused to demonstrate the project\u2019s impact is extrapolation: We have applied a\nsimilar design strategy across 88 similar buildings, found along the Cooper\nStreet corridor. The savings of this \u201cCarbon Neutral Corridor\u201d could power more\nthan 4,000 homes annually. We have participated in interviews and presentations\nto discuss this project, including a radio show and a TEDx presentation. A\nsecond method of discovery provides continuous learning: The designers are also\nthe operators and occupants of the project, giving a unique perspective on\nlearning from the design, operations, and maintenance of the project. The ongoing\nlessons provide an instant reference for subsequent projects designed by the\noccupants."]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"What level of commissioning was\nundertaken on this project?"],[0,[],0," \nBasic commissioning (system designer), Enhanced\ncommissioning (third party, engaged early), Continuous commissioning\n "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],0,"Has a post-occupancy\nevaluation, including surveys of occupant comfort, been performed?"],[0,[],1," "],[0,[],0,"\nYes"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Which of the following\npost-occupancy steps were taken?"],[0,[],0," "]]],[3,"ul",[[[0,[],0,"contacted the owner\/occupant to see how things\nare going "]],[[0,[],0,"obtained utility bill to determine actual performance"]],[[0,[],0,"surveyed building\noccupants on satisfaction"]],[[0,[],0,"performed formal onsite daylight measurements"]],[[0,[],0,"shared collected\ndata with building occupants"]],[[0,[],0,"conducted formal post occupancy air quality testing"]],[[0,[],0,"logged data\n of indoor environmental measurements,"]],[[0,[],0,"performed post occupancy energy analysis"]],[[0,[],0,"developed and shared strategies to improve the building\u0027s performance"]],[[0,[],0,"taught occupants and operators how to improve building performance"]]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Which of the following building\nperformance transparency steps were taken?"],[0,[],0," "]]],[3,"ul",[[[0,[],0,"presented the design of the project to the office"]],[[0,[],0,"presented the design of the project to the profession "]],[[0,[],0,"presented the design of the\nproject to the public"]],[[0,[],0,"presented outcomes and lessons learned to the office"]],[[0,[],0,"presented outcomes and lessons learned to the profession"]],[[0,[],0,"presented outcomes and\nlessons learned to the public"]],[[0,[],0,"published post-occupancy data from the building"]],[[0,[],0,"published any lessons learned from design, construction, or occupancy"]]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Were lessons learned through\npost-occupancy used to improve subsequent projects?"],[0,[],0," \nYes"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Please list an example. "],[0,[],0,"Early goals\nfor the project were to investigate the intersection of high design and\nhigh-performance design while reinforcing urban connections and community values.\nBy upcycling the existing building and transforming the site, this project\ndemonstrates designing for connectivity and resiliency. We have learned to\nnavigate our market with significant sustainable tactics to integrate\nhigh-performance design at variety of scales, typologies, and budgets. An\niterative energy modeling process facilitates envelope sensitivity analysis,\nintegrates high-efficiency systems, and quantifies the impact of on-site\nrenewables. "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[],0,"Our lessons\nlearned have enriched a multitude of projects, including a 3,000 sf custom\nhome, a 30,000 sf urban community center, an 82,000 sf higher education music\nschool, and a 1.2 million sf transformation of a distribution warehouse. This\nproject is a model that takes an ordinary site and makes it extraordinary. It\nis an accessible model that demonstrates the integration of design and\nsustainability on a modest budget relevant to many aging commercial corridors\nacross Middle America."]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],0,"Did the project engage in a\nprofessional peer review of drawings or specifications during design?"],[0,[],1," "],[0,[],0,"\nNo\n "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"Did the project engage in\npost-occupancy performance testing (blower door test, thermal imaging, etc.)?"],[0,[],0," \nYes "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],1,"If yes, describe the process\nand outcomes. "],[0,[],0,"Thermal\nImaging was performed by a third-party consultant and commissioning agent to\nreview integrity of the envelope design between 12\u201316 months after substantial\ncompletion. The results of this report displayed evidence of thermal bridging\nat window openings. "]]]]},"title":"Discovery"}]