Cursed By Knowing The Numbers

Louis Sullivan's principle  "Form follows function" has been the battle cry for many of my architect friends and a way of understanding what needs to be done to our built environment.  Over dinner the other week, we were getting comfortable with a new paradigm--one that is becoming more and more apparent every day--Form follows Energy.

California is the 12th largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world--the second largest user of transportation fuels--and the largest user if you look at it on a per capita basis.  If you are looking at the problem through a greenhouse gas lens, our problems are sprawl development, and a very high percentage of car use.

My focus here is whether building form is influenced, or follows, energy demand--I'm going to leave the car problem to the smarter folks.

My basic thesis is that we will not conserve our way out of the problem--we need to develop for a world where energy is expensive.  This will get the numbers working in the right direction, and then focus on delivering clean, cheap power as part of the solution.  Why isn't conservation the answer?  This is what happens when energy is cheap:

Every new home we add, every new apartment we build, every new office building developed--increases the demand for energy.  If we are generating electricity from carbon based fuels, it increases the carbon loading of the atmosphere.

The average Californian requires about 7,500 kWh per year:

This is a little more than half of the national average, but we add 400,000 people per year in population.  Part of the reason why our usage is so low is that we are blessed with a wonderful Mediterranean climate in our coastal regions.  The problem is that the majority of these new arrivals will live in the interior of the state, where the summer heat is intense, and AC loads drive a "peaky" electrical demand curve.  And no one wants a new power plant next to them.

Every new office building requires about 13 kWh per square foot per year to operate when fully occupied.

New data centers are being designed at 400 watts per square foot or 1600 kWh/SF/yr, more than 100 times your typical commercial office building.  And data center demands are increasing, not decreasing as Google, Netflix, and Amazon becoming a more familiar part of our lives.

The value of the asset we create is diminished by the energy costs necessary to operate it, and augmented by its value to its occupants.

Our demand for power is becoming increasingly "peak-y" due to building more in the Central Valley--peak demand is very sensitive to temperature variations:

The rising cost of petroleum and natural gas as a feedstock increases awareness of how much, and what type, of energy is used, in our daily activities.  Understanding energy flows can, and should, inform the design of our built environment. 

How do I practice Form follows Energy development?

The most basic form of energy is the sun--so Form flows with the Sun--

Start by understanding the energy flows of the site.   reflected in what is needed to be captured, deflected, or redirected.  Think daylighting, cross ventilation, night flushing, pre-chilling, and thermal cycling.

Intervening--reflecting, redirecting, and catching the energy flows.  Think shades, reflective roofs, and occupancy patterns.

Harvesting--solar electric--photovoltaics, and solar thermal--solar hot water and adsorptive chillers for air conditioning.  Harvesting on an inefficient building is a dumb idea--like trying to row a leaky boat.  Do you row faster, or fix the leak?

Methinks the answer is:

• more compact development patterns--ULI is already looking at this,
• net zero energy buildings--CPUC wants all new residential at net zero by 2020 and commercial by 2030,
• a revolution in how we fuel transportation,
• distributed electricity generation--think smart grid, solar, and wind, and
• a fuel tax/carbon tax/credit process to motivate us to do the right thing.

Creating incentives, building awareness, putting a cost to using energy unnecessarily.  This is a "wetware" problem--the people, economics, and politics--putting the skills to work.  We have won the hearts and minds, now we need to execute. 

Form following energy, indeed.

Posted by Ted at 3:54 PM | Permalink

is the claim Al Masdar makes.  This is a new US$22B development I visited last week when I was in the United Arab Emirates on a project for my solar power business.

Along with Dongtan City in China, this new zero-carbon community designed by Sir Norman Foster is setting the bar for triple bottom line development.

This new city is seeded by a US$15B investment from the Abu Dhabi Emirate, and is located 10km from the center of the city.

Scheduled to be complete by 2016, this new 640 hectare [ 1,700 acre] home for alternative energy industries and research will be home to 50,000 people, create 70,000 jobs, and 1500 companies.  Passive solar design and energy efficient design will result in a community that

• uses 80% less energy,
• 50% less water--a big deal when all your water is produced by desalinization, and
• 1% of the waste going to landfill

than current community needs.

Green design principles will enable this community to save over $2B in oil consumption over the next 25 years, and add an estimated 2% to the GDP of Abu Dhabi.  A streamlined regulatory environment and a unique enabling environment, and a location in the trendsetting UAE completes the feasibility picture.

A Chicago architecture firm recently won the commission for the headquarters--using a positive energy, mixed use program.

A great example of developing like you give a Damn.

Posted by Ted at 11:59 AM | Permalink

Tucked inside the 301 page CPUC Energy Policy Report [4MB]--their first policy guideline post-AB32--is this zinger:

The California Public Utilities Commission, through its “Big Bold Energy Efficiency Strategies,” has adopted three programs designed to move all new residential and commercial construction to a zero net energy standard. The goal of this program is to reach zero net energy in residential construction by 2020 and in commercial construction by 2030.

Another interesting point was the mandatory solar--so that it could be included in the T24 calc.

Mandatory solar isn't the way to go.  Shading, tilt and azimuth is a major issue in greater than 50% of residential sites, so we would end up with systems that don't pay for themselves quickly enough.  The report did admit that feed-in tariffs--the way they do it in Germany and Spain--are the way to go.  And this would promote higher performance design.

Price grid power high enough vs self generation--we think the curves have already crossed in PG&E territory and on the Big Island of Hawaii--add a feed in tariff, and the market will take care of the rest.  Or do what Marin did, and cap residential energy use at the equivalent of a 3,500SF home, and the owner or builder needs to compensate for any additional usage through greater efficiency, or the use of pv to self generate the difference.

Posted by Ted at 8:47 AM | Permalink

..of global climate change is human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal.  So says the IPCC's summary, published last Saturday.

Well, we can't exactly build our way out of it, but how we build, and where we build will have a lot to do with the changes afoot.  The built environment can be a significant part of the solution--one of the largest opportunities embedded within the climate change crisis.

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is out.  Rising temperatures, rising sea levels [the area in light blue is what is likely to be under water in the Bay Area], and long term changes already well underway are described within the report.

We need a new way of valuing what we develop, and where.  The good news is that, after transportation, changes in our built environment have the greatest mitigation potential on climate change.

Where do you start?  Ask yourself if you are building the right thing in the right place.  Ask yourself if you are building it to thrive in a high cost energy world.  And start being the change...

Posted by Ted at 10:22 AM | Permalink

Global warming is becoming such a core issue that for a project to be attractive economically it needs to make sense environmentally. 

Economically sustainable is environmentally sustainable.

I don't see any other option--getting the numbers to work environmentally makes for a more attractive project, and is the right thing to do.

Buildings contribute over 60% of total carbon dioxide emissions during their lifecycle.  Learning how to build and operate for a minimal environmental footprint is essential. As a builder and developer, I see no other way to build.  You are creating a more attractive asset--for neighbors, investors, tenants, and owners. 

Posted by Ted at 7:14 AM | Permalink

Green building is demand led--consumers want it, and are getting smart about spending their construction budgets in a green way.  The range of materials--countertops, paints, flooring, carpets--mean that a lot of options are available that say "green"--giving the people what they want.

Materiality was the major advance in this show--that and the understanding that green building is an easy choice.  Suppliers are scrambling to fill the gap.  It used to cost more to build green, prices now seem at par with custom home prices.

Standards are in flux--degrees of greenness abound--LEED for Homes and Build It Green are the two big ones. 

Momentum is impressive, and understanding of what it means to be green--without materially compromising what is important--is occurring.

Press coverage has been ample--increasing both understanding and demand.

Next steps?  Getting banks on board with green mortgages, and jurisdictions requiring energy upgrades at time of sale.

My action item?  Getting much better at practicing  sustainable real estate development.

Posted by Ted at 7:53 AM | Permalink

Great article in the Economist [subscription reqd] about how biologically inspired design can help reduce the environmental impact of development.

This concept resonates with me.  Growing up on a farm in southeastern Pennsylvania, I came to greatly respect two things:

1. Nature designs for performance.  There is very little about natural design that does not serve a purpose or essential function.
2. Nature always gets last bat.  As little as 20 years after man has left an area, nature reclaims the site and continues to do what it has always done--grow, reproduce, transform, and return to the soil--a closed loop.

Biomimetic principles can be taken to a point where they add measurable value to a building through increased tenant demand for the building's brand identity, reduced operating costs,  and increased investor demand.  At a minimum, a building should be able to generate it's own energy.

"Nature has had the benefit of a pretty long R&D period."

It is going to take a while to get this right--so start with simpler techniques, like incorporating smog eating concrete into the facade, employing photo-voltaics to harvest the available solar resource, understanding a site's environmental attributes, and maximizing daylighting/solar orientation.

"Part of the challenge, I believe, is to reconnect people with resources."

Precisely.

Posted by Ted at 8:17 AM | Permalink

I need to demystify pv.  Now a part of my plan on all my upcoming projects, I find that I need to convince my bankers and investors that it is more than window dressing--it is an essential part of branding my real estate.  The conventional wisdom is that it costs too much.

Moving from convention to the unconventional takes two things--

1. the system needs to be designed and sized right, and
2. it needs to be extremely buildable--unique designs are often priced to reflect unknowns.

It seems pv is now considered an exotic material by architects--more along the lines of tail fins rather than a true performance enhancement.  The answer lies somewhere in the middle--but I have not seen that answer produced yet. Aesthetics are the primary consideration, but aesthetics that do not respect the performance nature of pv will be remodeled out in ten years.

Look at it this way--stone or spandrel glass is about $75 to $100 PSF--about the same cost as PV.  And PV pays for itself in roughly 8 years, whereas the building skin material has no payback.  Starting to make sense?

Integrating solar power harvesting with the skin of a building is starting to become more widely understood.  The blue-toned cells of a polycrystalline module are now a part of the palette of materials available when I am struggling with what a site, and its structure, wants to be.  It enriches the story the asset tells.

The biggest hurdle is how I handle the costs.  BIPV, from a financial perspective, is simply front-loading energy costs into the building budget.  If I design the system right, my operating costs will be lower, demand for the space will be higher, and I can have certainty of supply when combined with a UPS system.  But it can easily double my electrical line item budget, causing a construction lender to grow faint.

BIPV is the visual evidence of green design.

For my financial partners--it requires a leap of faith as it is too new for many of them.  I split out the math--and look at bipv as a capitalized operating expense, and take the deduct on the construction cost side if there is one.  For my designers, it is easier to convince them that integration of the energy and environmental design features in a holistic way can be done--on time and on budget.

One of my main objectives over the next five years is to get the costs of this line item down.  And continually refine design.

If you are interested in joining the parade, download this BIPV design guide [.pdf 9MB].

Posted by Ted at 7:17 AM | Permalink

An Italian firm has patented a concrete mix that photocatalyzes nitric oxide pollutants in the air, breaking these smog creating compounds into less harmful carbon dioxide, nitrates and water.

Best performance is achieved in architecture with large surface areas and direct sunlight in locations with high traffic flows--urban.  An additional benefit is the long term preservation of bright, clean concrete surfaces.  The cement is white and the installation can be precast, plastered, or cast in place.

Results show a 45 to 60% reduction in nitric oxides via photocatalysis.  Cost of the concrete is 30 to 40% greater, but I would look at a plastered surface with this admix.  Test results in Milan showed covering 15% of visible urban surfaces with this material enables a reduction in pollution of approximately 50%.

Projects using photocatalytic cements [.pdf].

Q&A [.pdf]

Download the Scientific Results [.pdf].

Posted by Ted at 2:45 PM | Permalink

...is the definition I found in today's NYT coined by David Bergman to describe design that is ecologically sound but doesn't show off the fact--

think of it as green without the granola.

Bamboo is a great material--easy to work with, non-toxic, [though it does smell like grass when you cut or rout it], and with a variety of looks.  One of the sources I check first is Plyboo.  And the look is changing, so that designs can avoid that dated look.

Green friendly--but not too crunchy.  Dimensionally stable, 30 to 50% harder than oak, and a material that regenerates in three to five years.  The material is engineered--it is a grass after all--so "plank" type or visually thickened applications demand a little creativity.

Other green friendly trends?

Daylighting.

Landscaping.

Biophilic Design.

Lighting.

Posted by Ted at 7:57 PM | Permalink

Phillips displayed a number of concepts at its Simplicity event in London this week. Click here to learn more about the concepts, many oriented around healthy living and the use of color and light therapies to enhance our quotidian routines.  Light, air, and control over our environment.  Some things never [should] change.

Look for more LED lighting, rf based controls  and media centers that give you intuitive access to all media in your home--getting us one step closer to that digital lifestyle.  Your entire home and media library controlled by your iPod?  Methinks we are about three years away...

Posted by Ted at 3:45 PM | Permalink

Had an hour to do a low gear flyby of this building conference held in the City last week.

Here's what I liked:

Jefferson Lumber, the recycled lumber folks out of Shasta City, have some really beautiful recycled teak flooring at standard lengths and widths under their Terra Mai brand.  Cost is $14 to $16 psf.  Orders under 4ksf are in stock.

Photovoltaic powered attic fans power up with the sun, so ventilation starts earlier than with a thermostatically controlled fan.  They are just ok to look at, but if you have a south or west-facing roof, these fans pay for themselves in keeping down heat buildup under roofs in the summer.

Photovoltaic systems vendors were in abundance--I counted nine of them.  Everyone said there was no wait for panels anymore, the supply crunch that cursed this industry earlier this year looks like it has eased.  Economics are getting better.  I like these systems for a number of reasons-not the least that a properly sized system can help get your project LEED certified.

Liberty Valley Doors was our door fabricator for a Robert A. M. Stern designed home I produced in Pacific Heights a while ago.  They now offer a "rediscovered wood" product.  Our doors were 9/4" thick, and they really contributed to the quality of this home.

Posted by Ted at 12:54 PM | Permalink

This article in the Economist's Technology Quarterly  made me remember back about the path we took in understanding where LED lighting is now and how we could use it to meet our needs.

We found it was a good solution for both meeting Title 24 lighting requirements and cove lighting requirements on a recent project.  2005 Title 24 changed how we look at illuminating the homes we produce.

Look for LED's to start to encroach on the lighting turf in homes currently mandated to be compact fluorescent.  They range from 40 to 100 lumens/watt in the color spectrum most widely desired with a 50,000 hour projected life (25x longer than incandescent).

LED's are a fast moving technology, and as the technology moves down the price curve, I look to use this technology in more of my projects.  I don't know a single designer who is enthralled by the current code required lighting options (basically compact fluorescent (CFLs)).  LED's may be a welcome alternative, and they will change how fixtures look--can't wait to see how these are adapted.

California's Title 24 energy code basically mandates that 75% of the light fixtures in a kitchen be high efficacy, and the balance of lighting in the home either be high efficacy (above the solid line in the chart above) or controlled by an occupant sensor or dimmer switch. 

The big change I notice are occupant sensors in bathrooms, a higher number of compact fluorescent fixtures in kitchens and all lighting circuits with dimmer switches.

The trick I found about LED's is to get the light warm enough.  So you need the fixtures to produce greater than 60 lumens/watt in a 3000K color range (warm white) and a CRI (color rendering index) of >90.  Same goes for CFL's if you are evaluating those.

If you want to geek out on this, the relative cost can be explained by downloading and playing with this spreadsheet (hat tip to ProductDose.com) that compares incandescent, CFL's, and LEDs.

Posted by Ted at 1:35 PM | Permalink

"Green design's quirky, lesser-known cousin"

was the topic of this New York Times article.

Natural elements can reduce stress, morning sunshine can reduce hospital patient's need for pain medication.

An environmental psychologist said:

"Correctly framing views and integrating the designs of landscape and houses are key biophilic principles but 'are not well understood' by many builders".

Posted by Ted at 8:34 PM | Permalink

at 3KW per roof equals 3,000MW of clean power, provided at the same time of day as peaking electrical (AC) demand.  SB1 is predicted to provide rebates totalling US$3.3B toward US$24B of total installation.  Installed base to rise from 20,000 homes currently to one million.

After a tortured, three year stay in the California legislature, this law now provides for:

net metering of up to 2.5% of peak demand from 0.5%.  PG&E was forecast to run up against this ceiling in early 2007, as their service area is the most feasible for installation of photovoltaic panels.

Muni utilities--such as Palo Alto, Sacramento (SMUD) and LADWP--will have to develop their own solar rebate program.  This is 20% of the residential power market.

20% of new SFD construction to be equipped with solar panels after 2011.

Feasibility--

You need to have a southern rooftop or at grade exposure available for six hours per day, in all seasons (in Marin, winter sun is blocked by ridgetops in some locations).  Efficiency falls off when azimuth departs from due south.

You need approximately 250SF of area to lay out the panels for a 3KW system.

Aesthetics are not for everyone.  Check with your local jurisdiction about what will be required

The Math--
California has a rebate program that pays for roughly 30% of your system. Rebate drops 7% per year until it zeroes out in 2016.   The feds offer a $2K tax credit, regardless of the size of your system. 

Here is a checklist for applicants.  The cost of the system is exempt from property taxes.

I figure the effective cost per KWH is about $0.20--higher than our base rate of $0.12, but less than PG&E 130% of baseline (and higher) charges.

My guess is that we are two to three years away from the tipping point for widespread adoption of photovoltaic systems in the sunny Western states.

Posted by Ted at 5:10 PM | Permalink

In this article in today's NYT, I came across a new term coined to fight infilling our existing urbanized areas--vertical sprawl--a higher density land use that causes increased traffic, parking problems, and the cost of supporting new projects with schools, water and other municipal services.  Key unique issue is building height, and shadows cast on adjacent properties.

Parking can be solved through adequate below grade parking--a matter of public policy, economics and soil types.  Traffic is a more complicated issue.  It depends on safe, time efficient, and convenient alternatives to SOV's (single occupancy vehicles).  Economics need to factor in the door-to door elapsed time and yuck factors of urban mass transit.

The costs of building type I--highrise--(c. $550PSF) are two times the costs of building lowrise--type V (c. $275PSF).  The cost of land and infrastructure does not offset these higher construction costs, which is why people still flock to the exurbs and ignore the transportation costs (for a while).

Housing costs are starting to be viewed as the combination of costs of housing plus costs of transportation to work and services

Here is the Brookings Institution study.

"Significant empirical evidence is beginning to point towards a tantalizing association of economic productivity and compact, centered, and efficient regions."

The Sierra Club  produced a white paper on sprawl and an interesting study--particularly the contrast between Portland OR and Atlanta GA--cities with roughly equivalent growth with widely varying effects on costs of providing services, traffic, and air pollution.

Posted by Ted at 11:01 AM | Permalink

One of the most powerful elements your architect can frame is daylight.

I was fortunate enough to be the project manager on a Ricardo Legorreta designed home.  One of the most powerful elements Ricardo directed was daylight into the bathrooms.  The skylights provided an elevating, sanitizing, and even empowering sense to the space.  Paired with the right stone--we used roman travertine--the room glows and rejuvenates you.

Skylights in bathrooms are a must have for me now in any home I have a design say in.  It is a modern, clean solution to enlivening this space.  The light from above is more natural than light ported in horizontally.  Backlighting at mirrors is no longer an issue.

 

Skylights over the vanity and in the shower are on my checklist.  Look at adding them to yours.

I work with someone who told me, "Skylights leak.  That's their job.:  True enough.  You have to weigh this when you build and select the final location of the skylight.  There are locations on the roof that are more prone to leaking than others.  But to me the tradeoff is well worth it.

And my wife says daylight is so much better when applying makeup.  Case closed.

Posted by Ted at 11:15 AM | Permalink

Radiant heating is high on the list of wants in almost every one of the homes I have produced.  The comfort, the invisibility, and the economies of radiant heating make it an attractive alternative. 

There are ways of designing your system that optimize the installation. Use this post when discussing heating systems with your designer.

There are four five things to understand with any radiant system:

1. There is a one to four hour thermal lag because the system is heating up such a large mass--a stone floor, for example.
2. Because of the thermal lag, we don't interconnect this source of heat with the split system as radiant systems are not meant to cycle on and off.  We do include a second outdoor temp sensor that adjusts the water temperature automatically with changes in outdoor temperature.
3. In California or sunny western states where there is a large diurnal temperature range during parts of the year, the system is best suited for areas that are not influenced by these daily temperature swings--northern exposure and basements.
4. The system is most effective in spaces where there is not a lot of solar heat gain during the day, ie in northern/northeastern/basement spaces.  I am hesitant to install these units in spaces with a large amount of southern exposure, and believe they are actually counterproductive in spaces with a large amount of western exposure due to the thermal lag.
5. Spaces with a large amount of glass and high ceilings can develop cold drafty convection currents at the windows on cold days that can overwhelm the system.  Look carefully at tubing sizing and spacing to understand how to compensate for large expanses of glass. 

Radiant heating is best understood as a steady-state, set-it and forget it system.  Most of the jobs I do, we design the system to be set at 72 degrees.  We augment the radiant system with a split system that provides any necessary cooling in summer, and responds to calls for additional heat in the winter, and in spaces with potential for temperature swings.  We don't overthink the handoff (there is none) between the two systems--radiant provides the baseline, and the split system responds to your immediate requests.

You need the split system to provide the responsiveness, and the radiant system for quiet, clean comfort.

The heat in a radiant system can come from one of two sources--electrical heating mats or tubing with hot water from a boiler.  I use mats in small isolated areas--have one in my master bathroom floor, for example.  They are not efficient providers of heat on a $/BTU basis, but work in areas where you can't have leaks or if you just want comfort heating in small areas.

I prefer to put radiant heating under stone, tile or concrete rather than hardwood.  They are more tolerant of temperature shocks than wood.  Hardwood seems to like it best in the same comfort zone as us people--that is 65 to 80 degrees.  Warmer than that, and the hardwood dries out and shrinks.  Water temp in the tubing is typically 100 degrees F +/- 10 degrees.  If wood is the look you want, look at engineered flooring or floating floor systems that are more stable with these higher temperatures.  Carpet diminishes the efficiency of the system and traps heat in the floor, both no-nos.

Hydronic radiant systems designed around a PEX tubing system like Wirsbo should give you trouble free enjoyment for a number of years.  I caution that these systems will leak, it is a matter of when, not if.  In the interim, you will enjoy the comfort, even warmth and "invisibility" of this great heating alternative.

The numbers?  The systems I have put in have ranged from $12 to $22 PSF for hydronic systems.

Posted by Ted at 1:37 PM | Permalink