OSC Living Building Eco-Charrette Report

Living Building Eco-Charrette ReportApril 6–10, 2009

building partnerships : advancing best practices : creating green jobs

prepared by

OREGON SUSTAINABILITY CENTER

building partnerships : advancing best practices : creating green jobs2

design team

building partnerships : advancing best practices : creating green jobs 3

table of contentsexecutive summary ............................................ 5

monday ................................................................. 8welcome, introductory presentations, collaboration commitment, design slam

tuesday ................................................................. 14programming: the osc experience, multi-scale issues and opportunities, osc work environment

wednesday ........................................................... 24design strategies: building envelope, energy, water, materials

thursday ................................................................ 27iconic & beauty, design visions, district considerations, overarching principles, initial design concepts

friday ................................... ................................. 35stakeholder group meeting, open house

conclusion .......................... ................................. 36

appendicesA: charrette agenda ...................................... 38B: LBC prerequisites ..................................... 40C: preliminary LEED assessment .................. 42D: draft research agenda .............................. 44E: charrette artifacts .................................... 47F: presentation slides ................................... 85


Overview

The week of April 6-10, over eighty stakeholders and project team members (participants) gathered to participate in an Eco-charrette for the new Oregon Sustainability Center (OSC). The OSC is a 240,000-sf office building to be located downtown Portland, Oregon that will house a collective of private, non-profit, academic and public organizations collaborating to accelerate growth and innovation in Oregon’s green economy. The Eco-charrette kicked off a Phase I Feasibility Study funded by the Portland Development Commission (PDC) to determine the financial and technical feasibility of achieving the ambitious Living Building Challenge (LBC) Standard for the project. The Eco-charrette resulted in the development of key design principles, concepts and direction for the project team to generate a schematic design and cost-estimates for the project over the 90-day period of the Phase I. The outcome of Phase I will determine the desirability and feasibility of the OSC, including the potential to achieve the LBC.

OregOn SuStainability Center PrOjeCt

The (PDC); City of Portland (City) as represented by the Portland + Oregon Sustainability Institute (P+OSI); the State of Oregon (State), acting by and through the State Board of Higher Education and its Oregon University System (OUS); and the Oregon Living Building Initiative (OLBI), a consortium of leading sustainability-focused organizations; partnered for the ambitious purpose of developing and

operating a world-class multi-story office building called the “Oregon Sustainability Center” (OSC). The OSC will become the state’s green economy portal to accelerate business opportunities for Oregon’s sustainable industries, scale and expand best practices, and provide a home for cross-sector strategic collaboration. It will function as a hub of research on sustainable practices, public policy, private business and economic development, networking, outreach and training with the intent of catalyzing growth in Oregon’s green economy. In addition to these programmatic functions, the building will be a physical manifestation of Oregon’s commitment to sustainability and pursues the Living Building Challenge Standard.

The OSC will be developed on PDC-owned property at SW Montgomery Street and SW 5th Avenue and adjacent to the Portland State University campus in downtown Portland, Oregon and will be implemented in two phases:

Phase I: Feasibility Study and Development (Current through Spring 2009)

Phase II: Design and Construction (~2009-2012, depending on outcome of Phase I)

The PDC selected a team to execute the Phase I Feasibility Study through a competitive RFP process (RFP: http://pdc.us/pdf/rfps/2009/RFP-08-23-Sustainability-Ctr.pdf), which is now underway and includes the following scope items:

• Predevelopment/Due Diligence

• Development Program and Schematic Design

• Preliminary Development Budget

• Project Schedule

executive summ

ary


The outcome of Phase I will determine the desirability and feasibility of the OSC, including the potential to achieve the Living Building Challenge.

living building Challenge

The LBC is widely-regarded as the most rigorous sustainability standard for buildings and sites and pursuit of the LBC requires strong expertise, collaboration, analysis and diligence. The LBC differs from LEED in that it seeks absolute, rather than incremental, building and site performance (i.e. net zero energy instead of 20% better than code) and is comprised of sixteen prerequisites, rather than a host of optional credits and certification thresholds as in LEED. In addition it requires documentation of actual performance through at least one

year of operations, rather than modeled or predicted performance. Achievement of the LBC standard is extremely challenging in any project and the level of difficulty generally increases with project size. Some projects have achieved one or more of the prerequisites within the LBC, but no one project has achieved all of the LBC requirements. Available: http://www.cascadiagbc.org/lbc/lbc-v1.3.pdf.

eCO-Charrette

A group of stakeholders and design team members participated in an Eco-charrette the week of April 6-10 to kickoff Phase I of the project. The intent of the Eco-charrette was to set collaborative working relationships across the design team, elicit stakeholder ideas and input and to develop and evolve the design direction for the project.

The Eco-charrette was purposefully designed to address the uniqueness of the project:

High profile- The OSC intends to be an iconic structure, catalyst for Oregon’s green economy and nexus for multi-sector collaboration. A successful project will result in international recognition for the project’s ability to be a direct, physical manifestation of the building’s programmatic intent.

Scale- Approximately one hundred people representing a broad range of interests, engagement and stake in the OSC participated in the five-day Eco-charrette.

Performance- The OSC seeks to, at a minimum, have the least possible impact during construction and zero impact during operations and aspires to have a restorative effect on Oregon’s social, economic and environmental health.

Team- The project team is comprised of Portland, Oregon-based firms that each has vast, demonstrated experience in applying green building and sustainability. The notion is that, collectively, this team has the potential to generate an extraordinary project that meets or exceeds the project objectives.

People- The OSC is distinguished by the intent to be a place that, through design and governance, facilitates collaboration across tenants and partners. This intentional


co-location and collaboration aims to be an engine that advances Oregon’s green economy.

The week’s agenda provided the structure for a process of enabling the team and stakeholders to think, communicate and collaborate with the unencumbered creativity warranted by the high aspirations of the project. Specifically, participants were asked to participate in an array of unconventional ways including a Living Building Slam in which participants were asked to provide a hypothetical restorative project in one hour; singing Louis Armstrong’s “What a Wonderful World”; developing a Living Building product; silently envisioning and then articulating the “ideal workspace”; identifying programming issues at multiple scales through “problem seeking” in the pursuit of a Living Building; developing a prospective research agenda for and by the project; and devising design concepts that begin to integrate all of this work. Ultimately, a clear set of design principals emerged from the process that will help the project team vet their design approach moving forward. Throughout the session the agenda and charrette space created a “sweet spot” to work in that sufficiently escaped convention yet generated meaningful and actionable direction for the project team.

OutCOme

From the many hours of creative thinking, problem seeking and solving, learning, listening, application and reflection emerged five Core OSC Principles to guide the Phase I design of the project (see page 31 for more detailed narratives on these principles):

appropriately scale systems for optimal performance

make less do more

design for resource equity

integrate natural systems to benefit all species

recognize that people are the life in living buildings

The Core OSC Principles are the primary criteria by which the design team will make and evaluate decisions to marry the performance goals of the Living Building Challenge and the objectives of the OSC. Each Principle is supported by the collaborative groundwork that took place each day of Eco-charrette and the information and relationships it generated. With this information and guidance, the design team embarks on Phase I to identify where in the spectrum of intent and feasibility lays the potential for the OSC.

1

2

3

4

5


The first day of the Eco-charrette was used to create a common understanding of the intent and scope of the OSC project and the Eco-charrette across all stakeholders. Further, the intent was to establish a platform of collaboration, creativity and “out of the box” thinking in which to pursue the week.

welCOming

Rob Bennett, Executive Director of P+OSI, welcomed all of the participants and recognized the stakeholders that brought the OSC project to Phase I and this Eco-charrette. Rob provided an overview of the intent of the OSC, the role of P+OSI and the rich collaborative of sustainability-minded organizations that will play a significant role in further shaping and fulfilling the project mission.

PreSentatiOnS: Setting the Stage

A series of presentations followed Rob’s welcoming address to provide context for the week’s work.

Clark Brockman of SERA Architects (design team) presented the genesis of the •LBC. The LBC was developed by the Cascadia Chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council to challenge the development industry to move beyond incremental performance improvement to zero and restorative impact development.

Dennis Wilde of Gerding Edlen Development Company presented on Eco-districts •as a scaled approach to creating a sustainable built environment. Eco-districts are distinguished by the ability to achieve incrementally higher performance levels across a broader spectrum of focus areas through systems-based design, operation and programming. The City of Portland’s EcoDISTRICTS Initiative (led by P+OSI) seeks to invest in major redevelopment areas to test and accelerate scalable green development strategies to be applied throughout the city.

Judith Heerwagen, Ph.D and environmental and evolutionary psychologist, •presented on the imperative for the built environment to not only meet significantly higher levels of performance, but to be shaped according to fundamental human needs. Dr. Heerwagen overviewed the biophilia hypothesis, which says that human’s have an deeply-rooted need to regularly affiliate with the natural environment to sustain good health, well being and productivity. Understanding that people spend 90% of their time indoors, Dr. Heerwagen called for the designers to be purposeful about creating literal, facsimile and evocative nature-based sensory experiences for the occupants. Dr. Heerwagen’s presentation was very appropriate segue to the week’s work and the principles that evolved from the week.

eCO-Charrette COllabOratiOn COmmitment

A Collaboration Commitment was created and posted in the front of the room throughout the week. This Commitment provided a visible list of conditions that create the collaborative and creative work environment necessary to address the goals of the project and work for the week. All participants were asked to sign the Collaboration Commitment as a show of their pledge to collaborate with the group.

mon

day


engage with an open mind

Check your ego at the door

leave your preconceptions behind

listen, then respond

acknowledge the contributions of others

deSign Slam

The day’s core activity was a design “SLAM.” The purpose of such an exercise is to: take people out of their current context of role, space and time; provide challenging, seemingly unattainable requirements; allow little time for deliberation so that teams cut to the chase; and to encourage team building. Participants were put into eight design teams and were asked to design a project in response to a hypothetical owner team of clients (the “SLAM Instigators”) in the year 2050 and in one hour. The instigators presented vey lofty goals focused on social equity, financial performance, ecosystem services, children, salmon populations and the restoration of ecosystems as well as the following project requirements:

initiation

Following the owner team introductions, the owners directed the project teams to do the following:

1. “Name your group and tell us what each of you does

2. Tell us how YOU are going to work with US

3. Develop ONE EYE-POPPING Page for final presentation

4. Now… open envelopes and unleash imagination and SLAM – create the future!!”

The envelopes contained the Phase I RFP, the lyrics to Louis Armstrong’s “What a Wonderful World”, the project requirements, an aerial of the site and the Living Building Challenge Criteria.

The teams then worked diligently for 30 minutes before being directed by the client team to stop, retrieve the lyrics sheet and collectively sing Louis Armstrong’s “What a Wonderful World”. Following this unanticipated reprieve, the teams dove back into their work for another thirty minutes to complete the one hour designated for development and design.

PrOPOSed PrOjeCt deSign COnCePtS

Each team was given five minutes to present their 1-page RFP response to the owner team. The following is a summary of the team’s proposals:

1

2

3

4

5

250,000 sf office building with retail

Exceed the Living Building Challenge

NO mechanical HVAC systems

NO plumbing

NO electric lighting

ONLY natural materials

Style counts

Be specific

Time counts

Judge’s decisions are final

pRO

jECT

REq

UIRE

mEN

TS

RULE

S O

F EN

GAGE

mEN

T

all ideas have value

enjoy this moment

think outside of...everything you know

no filters, let it flow

begin with the end in mind

6

7

8

9

10


team 1: “Sym City”

The SYM CITY Project grows over time to adapt to its bioclimate, programmatic needs and technological innovation. The building’s ‘leaves’ point upward when it rains to collect rainwater and fold down and orient to

the sun when the sky clears. The building integrates nature in the building for people and microorganisms to clean water and fix nitrogen in the site soils. A zipline is proposed spanning the project and OHSU for a fun and effective alternative mode of transportation. The project also proposes to deliver its greywater to PSU, who might then treat it and sell it throughout the immediate district or city.

team 2: “ugwug / Columbia Chum”

“When you’re up the creek, we help you get down the river”

In section, the UGWUG project appears like a layered birthday cake and the “candles” atop the building are vertical access wind turbines. A bird’s eye view of the

project reveals only vegetation (native grasses) that clean the rainwater as it cascades down the building’s terrace-like structure. All materials will be manufactured onsite and the building will be occupied only during daylight hours to reduce the need for electrical lighting. The layering approach facilitates natural ventilation and the building rotates to optimize solar access. The project also includes a ground-level adult playground.

the Slam “instigators” (Owner team)

“Simon Schuster” (developer) Simon grew up in Madagascar and is the son of a biologist father and zoologist mother. He holds a Masters in Development Philosophy and Ethics and has 40 years of commercial and affordable housing development experience. The NY

Times called him “…a ruthless collaborator, not letting anyone out of the process.” goal: Develop a legacy project that embodies living philosophy of buildings: buildings will be the key to restoring the balance of humanity and all other species

“Sally Salmon” (representative of the fish) Sally was born in an upper tributary of the Columbia River and attended school in a class of approximately one million. She has sea smarts, functions instinctively and her reel education came from living in the ocean. Sally is the founder of the Federated Institute for Salmon and Halibut

(FISH) and her most widely-recognized projects are the Columbia River Dam removals. goal: Catalyze cohesive restoration of the Cascadia bioregion as a thriving Salmon Nation.

“dr. edward moss” (ecological Capitalist) Dr. Moss was raised in a northwest temperate rain forest by a nurse log named Betty and has two twin brothers. Dr. Moss’ education came from the nitrogen-fixation process, which served as the inspiration for his

organization the Physical Ecosystem Earnings Works or “PhEEW!”. PhEEW! founded the first widely-accepted ecosystem services valuation methodology that translates natures function into financial capital. goal: apply the PhEEW! valuation methodology to a building project and see how building design might result in the creation of ecosystem services, thus increasing the triple bottom line return on investment.

“wee 1” (representative of the children) Wee 1 was born five months ago in Portland, Oregon and has spent the first part of her life in the winter season, which means a lot of snow, rain, cold, dark and time indoors. Her informal education stems from watching her 2-year old brother Henry romp around the house

and her dog Ruby wander looking for food scraps. Her favorite book is the Biophilia Hypothesis, which suggests that humans need to regularly affiliate with nature to be healthy, productive and happy. goal: Develop a project that will satisfy biophilic tendencies, despite the startling reality that people spend most of their time indoors.

“you’re not getting this land from the PdC; you’re borrowing it from me.” –wee 1

“Cesar Chotchky” (Public interest attorney) Cesar was born in migrant camps in the California Central Valley and is the son of bi-cultural immigrant parents. After a temporary period of living in a housing project in Chicago’s Southside, he located to Oregon where he earned a bachelor’s degree in anthropology at Portland

State University and then a law degree from the University of Oregon. Cesar has dedicated his life to elucidating the inextricable link between environmental health and social equity and firmly believes that sustainability does not live in an ivory tower, rather on the street and spread throughout the land. goal: The project reaches all people in a language they understand and with a message that motivates them.


team 3: “entrée”

Entrée put forth a living structure composed of bamboo and carbon nodules (a la bucky balls) for strength, bioluminescent organisms for light, the latter of which will also be the subject of building research. Algea growth will be

purposefully integrated into the structure to create energy to be stored in batteries for use when solar electric energy is not available. Moss will be used to transport and treat water via filtering capillary action. A water slide is available and tree forts are located for refuge throughout the structure.

team 4: “FutureS”

Team FUTURES proposed a structure that supports “free-range” workers who are enabled to remain productive while moving throughout the building according to their environmental preferences. The building proposes to

capture heat and generate energy from the neighboring PSU recreation center. In addition, human-powered computers will be available to synergize occupant’s need for exercise and a computer. Rainwater will be creatively conveyed using teacups that incrementally cascade the water down the building exterior. To avoid space conditioning, an underground human habitat will be created to provide naturally cool working conditions in the hot summer months. The block will be planted with a necklace of Douglas Fir and Western Hemlocks to set the stage for creation of an urban old growth condition. The structure is primarily made of wood, which is also used to convey water.

team 5: “magnificent 7”

The Mag 7 team proposed a diamond-shaped building whose structure functions similar to a Nautilus machine, promoting adaptability. The primary structural element is a hallow member located in the building core that

circulates water from and to a bioluminescent fish pool located under the building. The water is the building’s space conditioning mechanism as well as the delivery vehicle for the bioluminescent fish, which are the primary lighting source for the building’s interior spaces. Solar tubes also run the length of the building to bring daylight into deeper areas of the building. The project was dubbed “the Fish Tree”. The project will also pilot a tax credit program based on measure occupant productivity attributed to design and programming strategy.

team 6: “urban Forestry Collective”

The Urban Forestry Collective presented a project design that resembles a tree in form and function. The building skin uses osmosis to purposefully pull water through the structure to be used for various building functions. Human waste generated on-

site is composted and the nutrients are worked back into the site soils after appropriate treatment. An on-site fuel cell uses the methane generated from decomposition to create useable energy. The building wiring functions similar to the human endocrine system by “thinking” and allocating resources based on the building program and orientation. The building’s program includes small crop growth and a rural/urban collaborative education mechanism to transfer intellectual capital developed on-site to Oregon’s rural areas. The


building also allows for microclimates based on seasonal, diurnal and orientation-driven variability in space conditions that occur naturally and intentionally based on project design.

team 7: “earthbound”

Earthbound generated a simple, yet effective climate-responsive design that leverages natures function to serve the needs of a neighborhood. The building is skinned with a double-panel glass that is designed to grow algae in the interstitial space for shade and energy generation. The algae produce hydrogen gas that naturally rises to the top of the building where it feeds an on-site fuel cell that generates more than enough energy for building operation. The building includes a “root system” that draws in waste from neighboring buildings, which pay a rate for treatment. A kinetic system protrudes vegetated “leaves” from the building to water the leaves’ gardens, which tenants have the option to work for a reduced lease rate. The leaves return to the building interior based on interior/exterior conditions thus drawing in nature at different times of the day. The building also allows for different climate zones to equitably address and adapt to the building’s different program elements.

team 8: “dark Sacred nights”

The Dark Sacred Nights team squatted the site for 30 days to learn the context in which they would design. The fundamental element of their design was daylighting an oxbow stream that was covered up for development

purposes in the past. This, and other, ecological restoration activities associated with the project are intended to catalyze the realization of an “eco-grid” that incrementally overtakes the current city grid. The eco-grid uses nature as a guide for where and how development takes place and requires that it occurs in a way that restores healthy ecological function. The project proposes to farm phosphorous from natural sources to light the building. The building will include protruding, wind-driven leaf-like structures that generate energy every time they move via a piezo-power energy system that will be the primary energy source. The building program includes a circadian work cycle where workers are encouraged to occupy the building only during daylight hours. Upon the end of the building’s useful life, the building is designed to become a valuable component of the greater ecosystem.

Common threads

Although the teams worked in isolation, some consistent themes emerged and created threads of thought that carried into the remainder of the week’s Eco-charrette:

• Many buildings took similar, organic forms such as a tree

• Every project had a strong emphasis on the building and neighborhood’s full hydrologic cycle

• Coupling climate-responsive design that strategically allows integration of natural function with building intelligence that knows and responds to occupant needs was prevalent (passive/active)

win

ner!


• Pro-environmental and affirmative occupant behavior is driven by design and creative programming, thus the two must be developed in relationship to each other

Slam – deSign a PrOduCt!

After Earthbound was declared the victor, the teams were surprised with the challenge of developing a new building product that could go into production for their proposed design. The teams were asked to identify:

• What is the product?

• What does it do?

• What R&D is required?

• Provide a one-page proposal

the teams developed….

A “Piezo Power Pump” that moves water using natural capillary function and generates energy from the water movement

…A “Zil-A-Flume” that serves as a structural system while distributing light, water and waste….

…“Piezoelectric petals” which generates enegy through the deformation of material wind…

…A “Natural Motor” that adapts to capture any form of available natural energy…

…the “Aware Chair” that ‘reads’ ad adapts to the occupant by generating information and conditions specific to that user…

…a “People Power Energy Conversion System” that captures and converts human energy to useable energy…

…a “Whole Earth Living/Learning User Guide for People” to support Living Buildings…

…and “Design Algea Chiclets” to grow algae for hydrogen harvesting

monday: key pointsCollectively, this design team and these stakeholders can generate unconventional and highly innovative design concepts in response to constraints and highly aggressive performance goals.

a living building must integrate nature (and include people as part of that nature) in design, programming and operation.

The SLAM Owner Team: Simon Schuster, Sally Salmon, Dr. Edward Moss, Wee 1 and Cesar Chotchky


On Tuesday, the eco-charrette focused on Programming in the morning and the Research Agenda in the afternoon. The project team dedicated their efforts to uncovering programming questions at many scales: from Cascadia to the Cube, or from the bioregion down to the workplace environment. The afternoon focused on how the building and OSC’s research agenda could support the intent of the OSC. The research agenda resulted in a three dimensional grid that explored: short and long term research; inwardly focused research to support the building design and construction and outwardly focused research concept generation; and both hardware (technology and products) and software (behavior and workplace). The goal was to generate concepts and strategies to which the design team could respond in the project design. In other words, how can the building’s design support OSC’s program and research activities and how might these activities support the OSC’s operation as a Living Building?

PrOgramming: what iS the OSC exPerienCe?

The participants warmed up on Tuesday by brainstorming the OSC experience at different scales. The following is a sample list of related questions and responses:

How do the residents of the Cascadia Bioregion and Salmon Nation experience the OSC?

The OSC may be a bioregional incubator symbolizing people learning to live within their ecosystems. Other bioregions should have similar incubators. It calls for a very different paradigm of how people live and work in buildings. It’s a behavioral change going from workplace A to workplace B. This should be a much bigger leap.

There’s something about the people and spirit of Cascadia. There is a function of the building and the user research function. Users are coming from political territories. Does the concept of Cascadia work better as a design challenge rather than a user standpoint?

Comparisons of the different communities – how is Vancouver, PDX, Seattle doing with sprawl?

When people come to the building for a visit, people want to know what it’s like to be in this building. Come and experience and stay, a dorm? People travelling from around the bioregion could come by train, spend the night, and return home. Many people will be experiencing this virtually.

How does this building transform people visiting the building?

This building has to provide a better experience than other places. If people behave the same way in this building than anywhere else, we’ve failed. Think “Reinventing the office building” and “Creative disruption”.

The OSC may be a magnet, a symbol that attracts. What is the human aspect of it? – it is important to learn how to live in a living building. Experience/thinking behind the building as a teaching tool/mecca. Pilgrimage to visit this site and learn from it.

What are the existing Networks?

Salmon Nation (capturing the spirit of the region – needs a next generation), Sightlines Institute (feedback & performance tracking), Cascadia Green Building Council (professional network for green building sector), Oregon Natural Step Network (business network – needs a next generation). How do we make this international? Other countries very clearly identify PDX as a place to come to learn.

What role does this building play in inducing collaboration among universities and other institutions in Cascadia?

tues

day


Universities can attract researchers and resources internationally. David Yaden – Sightlines Institute struggles with engaging all of Cascadia. This building has to be as much about the networking functions in the building as the building itself so that we can meet the challenges of 100 or 500 year organizations.

What institutions will be in Cascadia 100 years from now?

Build in flexibility to accommodate shifts and new relationships. How does the building facilitate this place being a:

• Catalyst

• Hub

• Portal

• Nexus

• Incubator

…to accelerate growth of Oregon’s green economy?

PrOgramming: multi-SCale iSSueS and OPPOrtunitieS

Following the warm-up, the participants worked in small groups to focus on scale-specific issues, questions and opportunities for the OSC to meet its programmatic and performance intent. From this emerged some themes and concepts that are relevant to all scales.

SCale: metro & Portland region

Network: Portland is known as the city that meets. As a result, there are many cross-linkages among organizations – not particularly efficient, but evocative. There exist many fluid, informal networks. How does this facility facilitate and increase that interaction?

Intelligent and versatile: The OSC must be a virtual space – public space at large and varying spaces within the building, allowing groups to disperse and get to

work. The OSC is a virtual mind map – where people can link in throughout the building.

Transportation receptiveness: The OSC might initiate a Velocity-type bike program, substantially improved bike paths that would provide safe and enjoyable access to this facility.

Public innovation: A catalyst and place for collaboration among municipalities in the metro region. There exists the need for a place for healthy dialogue. Businesses collaborate fairly well already, there needs to be a place that physically manifests the regional goals and serves as the generator of intellectual capital, policy and ideas that accelerate those goals.

Economic development: What if there was a micro lending facility right on site for the people of Portland to support small business development?


SCale: downtown

Live up to name: Need to clarify a state of Oregon project instead of a state of Portland project. Portland has not done a good job of reaching out to the state, but we have done a great job reaching out to the world. Reaching out to other sustainability brain trusts in other cities – to be sure we’re not just being provincial. Attract people of all income levels.

Eco-mapping: How will this building map itself to existing or pre-existing natural systems – hydrology? What are the existing natural & built boundaries? I-405, Willamette River, the South Park Blocks, future green streets – recognized as a pedestrian path from west hills to the river.

Multi-modal access: How will the building plan for arrivals? People coming by bus, train, people needing wheelchair access? Signage, tours, virtual tours.

OSC Awareness: How do you know that OSC exists? Light rail, street cars, this is a place for education. PDX lounge, retail shopping to attract people. This will be a place where TravelPortland sends people as a portal. Collaborative research agenda, cutting edge new technologies on display. A learning laboratory.

Supporting neighboring business: Business association can help sponsor events with tenants in the buildings. Annual summit where businesses in the downtown area can talk about research needs. Green building industry – we have new HVAC systems – how can we gain empirical data? Other businesses can trial run technology. Gather data.

SCale: international

Generative nexus: Build “habitat” for international collaboration. How to get there and back – it’s the most transit-rich part of our state. Telecommuting. Flows of goods and services.

The programming brainstorming generated some initial ideas for how the OSC might participate at different scales to support fulfillment of its mission. All of the ideas should be evaluated for their ability to be supported through integrated design and programming strategies.

PrOgramming: OSC wOrking envirOnment

The focus shifted from how the OSC program could create fruitful relationships at beyond-the-building scales to the experience within the site itself. Participants were asked to focus on the ideal work conditions


for individuals as well as a collective of structurally separated organizations that intend to regularly collaborate.

While collaboration suggests openness, open office settings are not inherently successful and call for a purposeful design approach that’s responsive to both individual and group needs. The participants explored opportunities and challenges of open office settings, envisioned the “ideal workspace” and brainstormed potential mechanisms to facilitate fruitful inter-organizational mixing to generate guidance for the plan and design of the project.

what if…the OSC had no walls or offices?

The participants initiated discussion about the OSC work environment by identifying prospective challenges and opportunities to a completely open building that contains no walls or offices.

Challenges:

• Privacy for managers, sensitive conversations

• Feeling of nesting/personal office space associated with workspace

• Culture to respect people’s work time needs to be established

• Groundrules for the workspace

• Put up a flag or sign to remove interruptions

• Learning to use appropriate volumes

• Learning to use earphones

• Some professions – such as accountants, are not collaborative in nature and may actually want cube walls

• Need to tether people to a space so you can find them – or create a wireless way to locate them

Opportunities:

• Synergies arise when teams are located together

• Private offices do not allow eavesdropping

• Low walls=more light

• Could always move to a private place if you need to have a private conversation

visualize the “ideal work environment”

The brief ‘no walls, no offices’ brainstorm exercise segued into a visioning exercise in which participants were asked to close their eyes and picture the ideal working environment. Individuals then reported back to the group to collectively create a list of desirable conditions. The responses are listed below and can be generally characterized by:

• Mobility

• Information Access

• Choice

• Variability


Participant responses:

Move around on a regular basis, Be able to look over a room and see where everyone is - that way I can find whom I need to find. Breeze, vegetation, take shoes off & eat lunch. Lots of light and a good balance between personal space and interactive space. Control of heat & cooling. Library, café, deck that overlooks water. Quiet space. Outdoor work space. Place to eat together, have interactions, place to take a nap if I need one. Front porch-like experience with a view out to people going by; private space to retreat to for more focused work. Color. Flexibility. Private space where I can have long phone conversations without being interrupted. View, height, draft-free, quiet. Space without visual clutter. Pet. Gigantic whiteboards everywhere. Round and collaborative, no set hours. On-site childcare. Wood. Beauty. Inspiring. Options. Flexibility. Quiet meditative space. Share what people are working on. Top 5 things people are thinking about today. Social networking – Twitter-like pin-up space.

what are the top 5 ways to get Organizations to mix?

In addition to exceptional building performance, the OSC intends to be distinguished by the inter-organization collaboration that takes place among tenants. Participants recognized that co-location is not enough to make this happen and that other strategies – design, programming and governance- are necessary. Groups were formed and asked to identify the top five ways to get organizations to mix. Several creative ideas emerged from this exercise and are categorized and described below.

Activities & Scheduling

Open discussions can be scheduled – open space – and shared – anyone can join. Shared problem of the week brownbag. Yoga, cooperative shopping, speed dating Friday to promote tenant interaction. Happy hour. Social events at night.

Materials & Space

Share library, lunchroom, exercise facility, administrative functions. Assign groups to floors, then flexibility with space. Physically move people around occasionally. Common spaces designated for specific purposes. Reinventing the stairwell so more interaction can take place. Reduce organizational redundancy – co-shared systems, so people come together around system failure. Co-locating organizational leaders. We don’t have enough resources available in the state to work in silos. Display board on the outside of building.

Governance, Leasing & Integration

Green Team to engage people in process adjustment. Program Committee - Each organization lists the top 5 things they’re working on. Creating a mechanism to reward synergies created among organizations. Measure synergies as well as outcomes. Reward good behavior. Business model for the building – right for x number of people to inhabit the building. Not physical space – square footage. Multi-institutional, outcome-based, projects-based work, not totally tied to an organization. The evolution from organizations to teams. Committing to time within a building instead of square footage in a building. Adjust program to include lots of common spaces, so people can afford to have less space.To get to net zero water and net zero energy – if we were to charge based on individuals would need an energy/water budget. Wear i.d. badge, you could track your energy & water use – tie your performance to a target. Individual reporting, company level, building level performance measurement. Align incentives. Non-profits – how do we maximize efficiencies, share resources – that’s what brings us to the table. Don’t want donors to turn away because they’re in a fancy building. We must change the way we look at costs. It’s about the value we extract through time. Create common access to experts.

Programming

Some of us might work for 12 hours, what about the other 12 hours? Agencies open 24-hrs/day. PPS, PPC, PSU classes at night. Environmental groups are now collaborating during the legislative session –


transportation, climate. It would be great to have them co-located for 8 months.

Through small group exercises, silent reflection, reporting and large group discussion it became clear that the uniqueness of the building’s intent for cross-organizational collaboration, exemplary building performance and international reach calls for a purposeful approach to space design and programming. The OSC’s intent for a highly integrated program in which ideas and information can readily travel across multiple spatial and temporal scales may call a for a new communications infrastructure. Participants collectively identified flexibility, shared workspace and resources, real-time choice of space to support specific types of work and comfort, access and views of nature, and more generally options and control as imperative conditions of their work environments. In addition to these physical conditions, the OSC might adopt a governance structure that maintains processes and tools to support inter-organizational collaboration (e.g. annual OSC projects) as well as monitors and tracks performance of the building and its occupants.

In addition to informational accessibility, the OSC’s program and research agenda should be at least as magnetic as the building design, drawing visitors from around the world.

research

Following the programming work, participants explored the immediate, short and long-term research needs to support the OSC. Specifically, participants were asked, “What’s your one best idea?” (for research related to any aspect of the OSC). From that emerged a flurry of ideas to support Phase I completion, building materials selection, operations, occupant satisfaction, performance verification, testing of new approaches, product commercialization and scalability of technology among many others.

Design, Construction & Operation

Track degradation of energy, water, materials during construction. What is appropriate life at a systems and component level (not everything needs to last 100 years)? Educational component of the building itself: How much info do you need to run the building? How does info get across, visitor and user? What is the information interface? Ex. Dashboard. How are people actually using the technologies in the building, what are the assumptions of this technology vs. the actual use? Start baselining tenant behavior now…create the tracking system & build the data, so we know how the building performs.

Measurement, Verification & Transfer of Knowledge

Tracking hypothesis made during design – documenting assumptions, research, leads to learning how design changes in the future.

Track performance & resource use (including people hours) during ALL phases of the building – energy use, water use, work hours, etc. Identify a champion to record all of this. From the past? Into the future? Occupants as laboratory research (lab rats!).

Flexible metering of the whole building – water, energy, waste, materials, occupants. Need incredibly robust metering needs. OHSU – needed more baseline knowledge. All the data would be totally open. Open-source BMS protocol. Per capita energy & water use…have a cap & trade system within the bldg. Perhaps exchange water for energy? Carbon footprint analysis at all scales.


Can we have the project show, transparently, good life-cycle analyses? Track financials and move into biz school classes. Info about how much building would cost conventional way vs. new way to be built – comparison is valuable. Must have info about existing costs and do side by side with building usage.

Economics & long-term research. What is the premium? What is the cost consumers are willing to pay for ‘marginal’ social utilities? For their social & ecological satisfaction? Need long-term research on the economics & valuing of financing.

Organizational management

Multiple organizations need flexible space/private workspaces, etc… Complex ownership needs organizational management to be successful. This project is an opportunity to do more research.

Ongoing occupant surveys, but also capturing organizational dynamics. Capture inter-organizational dynamics.

Test different models & environments for work. Organizational barriers: do you have assigned space? Look at how this effects work patterns and even…innovation. Test

some of these environments before moving in – so they can inform the space.

Biophilia

Biophilic choices. Multiple parallel disciplines studying individual factors. Biophilic choices in the way we design, construct. How does it change methodology? What does it do to O&M? This will inform the design. How does the nature of work in the building over time, ex. Transient nature of building – planning research and spaces for this factor, track data of building and post occupancy. Assume x – y happened – therefore z.

Product Innovation

Do a kit of parts building. Exchange building systems & technologies as they are invented/adapted. Research anticipated ecologies. Overlay new design & construction principles with deconstruction overlay. Build in redundancies – so that new systems can be tested out without too much risk.

Material research: Use mind-mapping technologies - figure out a more robust model. Create a red-list ready bin of resources online. Has the city really figured out marginal cost of items provided, carve out financial piece to help offset?

Product sponsorship – new technology comes in, let’s tear out the old one & put in the newest idea, with a level of funding/sponsorship from organization. But this is a slippery slope.

Technology Scalability

Research the legal challenges & solutions surrounding the formation of ecodistricts. Focus on this during the construction phase. Legal, code and zoning. Ex – how do you fight a fire in a building? Buildings are built for the emergency situation, not the everyday… What are the health & life-safety issues at an ecodistrict scale? Example – OHSU fire & water storage tanks are shared between two buildings (economies of scale). Like a fire station working at a district scale.

Broad-based research into living buildings, scalability of occupancy types – what is the appropriate scale, what works, what doesn’t work? : Mix of occupancy, office vs. residential.


Look at existing models: Ex. Smart-grid and eco-districts. Case studies from nation/world. Literature/project search. Honest information.

Economic Development

People make the decision to come to Portland because of what the city has done – how do we track eco-tourism associated with the bldg?

This information supports the creation of a draft research agenda (see Appendix D on page 44) to build upon with the stakeholders. Similar to the program discussion, it is clear that there are opportunities at various temporal and spatial scales to implement research that supports the OSC’s mission.

Next 67 Days / 12 months / Big ideas

The group then focused exclusively on information needs to support successful completion of Phase I. Knowing the building’s ambitions for Living Building status and intent for inter-tenant collaboration, the participants listed specific questions, data and other material that would help to determine the feasibility of these goals. Specifically, the group considered research-ready projects on products coming from university system, and the parameters of research for a given design requirement.

The following is the list of immediate research needs identified by the group:

• Non-CO2 replacement for concrete

• What will the efficiencies of PV be in a few years (at construction)?

• What red-list ready alternatives are out there? Use the red-list ready questionnaire – asking about materials & manufacturing radius.

• What may appear to be available today, may not be tomorrow. What is the time involved? What does the expanded red-list look like? What about materials where red-list materials are used in the process but aren’t in the final product?

• Think about not only red-list materials, but also nanotech & electromagnetic fields.

• Do additional testing on innovative materials that are coming out of small companies that do not have the time or capital to make a material “safe” – or viable financially for insurance of functioning.

• Life-cycle research on carbon footprint, develop a calculator for all materials (for prerequisite 6).

• Energy utilization index – understanding through modeling what is appropriate energy utilization.

• Install a weather station to gather microclimate data. Collect water, animal, insect data on the site now. Collect info on occupant data. Assess local air quality and acoustic conditions. Acoustics are a major problem to major ventilation.

• Establish a water & energy balance worksheet. Can we, and at what cost, can we get there?

• Know quantity & quality of all resources on the site. Resource analysis. Energy use of nearby parking garages for net-zero energy requirement.

• Develop a baseline. Document the interior conditions, using portable parts that can be moved around. Document the building components (operable windows, HVAC systems). If we don’t know what buildings the occupants are in now – we don’t know what’s changing. Understand existing lighting & comfort levels, sick rates, attendance, transportation.

• Studies on buildings that people like for things that have been eliminated.

• Acquisition of equivalent of one acre of site? Habitat exchange. We displaced other ecosystems to make the building – the other acre is restorative. It is a vibrant, diverse, healthy habitat that dovetails with OUS’s research objectives. What type of habitat is equivalent? Habitat in perpetuity – not for people. What is it and how much does it cost?


• Research & evaluate integrated program delivery concept models. Ideas get scrapped because one stakeholder has to take on the burden of the whole program. Innovation is stifled by threat or fear of litigation…research models to overcome this risk.

• Design the most efficient building we can, then start a public relations campaign with the users to see how we can achieve it.

• Research and provide ownership models for leasing agreements & ownership models, governance that are successfully already in use.

• What happens in a community when you create jobs? How does the community react to the stimulus coming from the building?

• Broaden our research on thermal comfort models to international standards.

• What training opportunities are there to involve smaller companies? How can we best make this a robust workforce training opportunity?

• Ecodistricts. Identify hardware, software and time issues that are needed to make ecodistricts happen. Replicate our current exercise. Also – design a building to be a part of an ecodistrict. It may not be here now, but it will be phased in over time. Integrate our efforts into future phased efforts. What is the appropriate phasing?

• Within the next 2 weeks: do some library research on the beauty & inspiration petal. Color, scale, form, etc… Bring in existing research on what humans think is beautiful or not.

ClOSing thOughtS and aCtiOnS

After Tuesday, the Eco-charrette would begin to focus more concretely on the design of the project. So, the participants were asked to identify what needs to happen upon conclusion of the Eco-charrette to ensure that the necessary doors are open, evaluated and engaged. They were also asked to name critical considerations for the design team and owners moving forward. The following are the responses:

We design strategies today for what is installed 2 years from now (as architects and engineers). We need to capitalize on forward-thinking design. We’re always three years behind. A component of the design is the need for adaptability, “loose-fit”. Flexibility & adaptability.

What does ‘iconic’ mean? And what does it have to do with aesthetics?

The building’s interaction with nature will make the building iconic. Or…iconic will mean, people will look at this building, and that it doesn’t have to do with the building’s systems. Iconic is defined as something that symbolizes what it represents. The building as a logo – an iconic representation.

Scale & Programming – what does it mean when we say we have programming at all of these scales, we have research at all of these scales…what does it mean to integrate these together? This needs to be explored further.

Anything we do at any level should be validated by what we do at the next level. Design decisions meet project goals and objectives; these should align with the vision. Use the express goals from the RFP, but also our goal of iconic architecture. We’re beginning to see the formation of principles by which this project will be developed. Have the charrette inform the owner’s project requirements. We are visioning


the owner’s project requirements. We want to put all of this together into a document, from which we can derive the Basis of Design.

There are some tensions between desired outcomes and results: ex – we say we want no walls (though we debate the plusses and minuses of that) and then we talk about systems & metrics that require building a lot of walls. These are in direct opposition – what does the owner really want? What is required by the LBC? We need to articulate the middle ground.

Thinking about measuring & monitoring can be broken down into different components of the building, can think about energy use of building through sum of system uses.

What are the institutional barriers to implementing this process? Get the information about our plans to the relevant bureaus & agencies that are the barriers to these plans.

Build our measurement & verification plan at the beginning, not at the end, of the process. We need to come up a list of variances & appeals, use the city’s advisory board to test these out – and come up with alternatives if they don’t go through.

Project needs to admit its shortcomings openly and honestly. We need to know our shortcomings in order to get past them. Also lessens the power of those who will criticize us.

The sustainability of work: you can be in a very energy efficient building, but if you use broadband – you use up a whole bunch of energy remotely. The consequences elsewhere of the intensive energy use shouldn’t be forgotten in this process.

We should address the lack of sustainability in our own work-life balance. Document the process. Build an archive – researchers in years hence may want to refer back to this process. Document especially the omissions and mistakes.

The program and research concepts and strategies generated on Tuesday provide information for consideration by the design team in planning and designing the space. It also provides the multiple OSC organizations and potential future governing body a foundation on which to develop a framework to support cross-organizational collaboration.

tuesday: key pointsOrganization management strategies that facilitate inter-organizational collaboration should be evaluated immediately to glean implications for space design. if possible, ground-test these strategies prior to occupancy.

the prospective legal barriers associated with unconventional design strategies to achieve exemplary performance (e.g. district systems across buildings) and other issues (fire, life and safety) must be evaluated and addressed early with the proper authorities.

Criteria for what defines a biophilic design strategy or a biophilic material must be established to inform design and material decisions.

building and occupant performance metrics must be established, benchmarked and measurement initiated prior or at occupancy.

longer term research should focus on ongoing building and occupant performance evaluation, partnerships with the Oregon university System in the research and commercialization of products, and small green business incubation.

ensure that the eco-charrette outcome is appropriately integrated throughout project development, to include the development of the owner’s project requirements and basis of design.


The intent of Wednesday was to collectively “problem seek”, or identify key questions to which the design team should respond, in the pursuit of achieving the Living Building Challenge. Secondarily, the intent was to generate preliminary concepts of design strategies that address these questions and support exemplary building performance.

The participants self-selected into two groups for two facilitated sessions addressing building envelope, energy, water and materials. The groups generated a plethora of questions, ideas, strategies and issues in each category that, coupled with the previous work, supported the emergence of design concepts and sketches. The following is a brief summary each group’s work:

building envelOPe Rather than thinking of the building envelope as a simple encasing of the building, the participants explored the envelope’s “potential services” at various scales. As a structure, the envelope could be designed

to mimic and support habitat conditions and natural functions such as photosynthesis, air/water purification, food cultivation and rainwater attenuation. The line between ‘in’ and ‘out’ might be blurred to address occupant need to retain a connection to the outdoors, superior indoor air quality, integration of nature into the building and intentional building transparency without compromising thermal comfort or energy performance. To address these ideas, the skin might be adaptive like nature in that it exposes itself to desirable conditions, protects itself from threats and each surface is intentionally designed for its microclimate and the need to support the building and its occupants.

The participants concluded that building will not require a double skin to support a ventilation and envelope strategy that enables exemplary energy performance.

envelOPe key Points:

• Maximize envelope services

• Integrate nature and natural function

• No double-skin

energy Through some preliminary work, the team established a target energy use index for the project of 20kBtu/sf, or about a 75% energy improvement over comparable buildings nationally. This assumes that a sufficiently sized photovoltaic system will generate energy renewable energy to make up the approximate 25% remaining energy to achieve net zero energy over the course of the year.

The building can be designed and engineered to achieve net zero, but in the end the users will determine actual energy performance. Thermal comfort in particular is a significant variable in occupant behavior to promote energy performance.

• What temperature setpoints will occupants allow with a superior envelope?

• Is task or group-scale heating and cooling viable?

• Is layering acceptable to organizations and occupants?

• Does the building allow for natural/conditioned microclimates to which occupants can migrate to warm up or cool off using the flexible workspace model?

Other assumptions were also challenged such as how cold and how hot water needs to be to yield the desired service (i.e. drinking water, dishwashing, etc.); adjusting building service schedule for daytime to

wed

nesd

ay


use daylight instead of electrical lighting; and, use of direct current energy to avoid waste among others.

In addition to PV, major energy source opportunities persist in Portland State University’s energy master plan, geothermal, sewer waste heat mining and heat capture from nearby energy users.

In the end, how people use, respond and adapt to different conditions arose as the most significant variable in determining actual building performance.

energy key Points:

• EUI of 20kBtu/sf or less

• User preferences and ability to support design intent are paramount

• Rethink O&M protocol, schedules and strategies

water

The Living Building Challenge calls for the building to consume only the water that falls or is reused onsite. The water group immediately questioned the fairness and efficacy of this if applied in all buildings in downtown Portland. For a project the size of the OSC in Portland, it would need to capture all of its on-site rainwater for several months of the year when that water is also in high demand by aquifers, rivers and riparian and in-stream species. Is there a better scale at which to capture rainwater and is it a best practice to keep this water from the ground. From this, the concept of “hydro-equity” emerged, which led to the OSC design principle of resource equity.

Other critical questions:

• How can we best leverage the properties of water to support the building and its occupants?

thermalmass,auditoryandvisualsensoryexperienceofwater,‘sticky’yetfluid

• Do we need to use water for that service? hand washing, irrigation, waste conveyance

• How efficiently can we use the water for that service? lowestflowpossiblewithoutcompromisingeffectiveness

• Can we re-use the water for one or more services after it’s fulfilled that service? on-site treatment and reuse

• How can we create the ‘right’ water for the use? appropriate temperature and quality

• How can the design create awareness about water and promote pro-environmental behavior?

occupants provided choices “at the faucet” with real-time awareness of building performance

• The issue of hydro equity emerged as a great design and research opportunity but also presents a challenge to meeting the Living Building Challenge criteria of zero net water. The large group felt strongly enough about this concept that it evolved into a core OSC design principle that addresses all resources.


water key Points:

• Use water, only when absolutely necessary

• Design for an equitable hydrologic regime

• Engage people in water

materialS

The priority areas for materials included building user experience, materials reduction, quality, flexibility, education and services. Questions for the design team spanned from design to operation of the building.

Of particular importance was the Living Building Challenge’s Materials Red List, which precludes the team from using materials known to have significant deleterious effects on people and the environment. For some structural and fire, life and safety components in the building, there may not be available substitutes to those that contain Red List materials. The group inquired about the criteria that the design team will use to vet design and material selection decisions when a Red List criteria cannot be met.

Another critical question concerned the lifecycle of the components of integrated systems. The integration of multiple components as a system to serve multiple building functions creates efficiency and can expands the number of services provide by each component. In designing these systems, the design team must consider the impact of component failures and the potential for obsolescence. Unaddressed, this presents risk of a greater system failure and a bigger impact on the building and users.

The group also generated the following core questions:

• Does the owner intend to track material flows in and out of the building?

• To what standard will the tenants be held in their improvements and what guidance will be provided?

• How will the design intent be meaningfully carried over into the operation and maintenance of the building and its materials?

• How can each material multi-task?

• Can building design and program reduce the amount of materials required and brought into the building by tenants and visitors?

materialS key Points:

• Beyond-the-red-list criteria, when no known alternative is available

• Life cycle of components in relationship to the system

• Multi-tasking materials

wednesday: key pointsParticipation by the occupants will play a strong role in achievement of the final increments of energy use reduction necessary to achieve net zero energy

if and when an lbC criteria is deemed not feasible, a criterion equal in intent and rigor must be identified

how many services can we get out of components and systems and the building?

Question assumptions about when we need to use anything to achieve the desired service


Thursday drew from the information and concepts generated from the previous three day’s work to explore the experiential impact of the building. More specifically, the participants worked to establish a design vision for the OSC that appropriately represents its purpose, performance and context. This work was driven by the intent for the OSC to not only operate with exemplary performance, but to physically symbolize the magnitude of its ambitions for Oregon’s green economy.

The day began with a summation of the questions, issues and ideas identified by the topic-area subgroup groups the previous day. For each area, a core set of issues were elicited to help create focused guidance for the design team moving forward. The following represent the topic-area principles that emerged:

energy

• Exhaust all passive opportunities first, active is last resort

• To be zero net energy, at the most the building should use a maximum of 18 to 20 kBTU/sf/yr.

• Educate, empower, organize, maintain and possibly govern building users to support design intent

• Identify new ways to align traditionally disconnected systems towards a regenerative, self-supporting, multi-purpose system (repurpose outputs to serve as inputs)

envelOPe

• No one size fits all approach (building, façade, component scale)

• Envelope integration to provide more services- energy production, habitat, rainwater management, biophilial connectivity for occupants.

heating/COOling

• Look at HVAC systems, look at sewer system, how do we become regenerative?

• Discuss atrium and sources of heating cooling.

materialS

• Multi-purpose materials

• Make less do more

• Determine the temporal and organizational scope of influence of the LBC and other criteria (i.e. how far are these criteria applied?)

water

• Hydro-equity: needs of various users met at all scales

• Create the “right” water for each service

• Celebrate water and integrate into building experience

thursday


iCOniC, beauty

The participants then stepped back to explore how the significance of the building’s functional and programmatic endeavors might be communicated through contextually-appropriate, yet marking, design and form. Specifically, the participants worked to identify how the OSC would be both iconic and beautiful.

The participants worked in small groups to discuss what iconic and beautiful are, and are not. Collectively, the exercise generated a number of qualities and intentions that would support the OSC’s intent to be both iconic and beautiful.

The group questioned the notion that iconic necessitates a loud or blatant design statement to distinguish the OSC. A representative sample of the questions includes:

• What are the expectations of the owner and public?

• How will the building showcase its efficiencies, but address the need to do more than that?

• Nature is beautiful to Oregonians so to how should the building work with this sensibility?

• How will the building explain itself, tell a story and be readable?

• Can the building be iconoclastic, but not egotistical?

• How will the building be iconic, yet replicable?

• Should the building reflect Oregon, Portland or both?

• How will other species interface with the building?

• Should Energy Performance be trumped by beauty? (Quick conclusion: Quite the contrary, the two can work hand-in-hand)

The participants were then presented with over 30 images of real and hypothetical projects distinguished by their design, form and/or features. Participants voted for three projects that they felt to best exemplify iconic and beautiful and the group discussed why.

Characteristics shared by the most popular projects included:

• Simple in experience, complex in function or design

• Angles and light suggestive or integrated in nature

• Contrasting, yet complementary, experiences of inside and outside

• Clear expression of technology

• Climate- and context-responsive design

• Well proportioned and scaled volume

• Purposeful contrast in color, light, shape and textures to support biophilic experience


Other comments focused on exposure of the building’s structure, identifying what materials and structural solutions are “Portland” and “Oregon”; and that tacking on green is not good enough- the OSC should communicate its distinguishing performance and program through experience, which requires superior design.

deSign viSiOnS

Building on the exploration of iconic and beauty for the OSC, participants were then asked to inwardly reflect and articulate their design vision for the project. Consistent themes emerged:

• Show the building’s link to nature- ranging from solar energy production to integration of vegetation to support building function and human experience.

• Building (and district) as pedagogy- learning should start once people enter the district

• The building should enable a different way of thinking that transcends convention

• It’s the “unbuilding”- it’s not about the building, but what happens in the building…the people

• The building isn’t telling a story, it’s engaging in a dialogue with people

• Have no fear in taking risks, or we’ll never meet our intent

• The OSC can be elegant without being extravagant

The participants concluded that iconic and beautiful have unique definitions in Portland and Oregon. Specifically, that iconic must be achieved with humility, much like the character of Oregonians. And, that beauty is rooted in the nature that sustains us. The building should offer hope and a vision for true sustainability.

diStriCt COnSideratiOnS

Stepping back from the building, participants gathered around a district plan of the neighborhood in which the OSC will be developed. The participants reviewed current and future development, building ownership, traffic, zoning, the Streetcar line and future green street plans for SW Montgomery among other variables to provide an informed context in which to design the building, specifically the ground level.

Some preliminary ideas of how to respond to these contextual variables included designing a breezeway through the building to facilitate pedestrian access; creating a skybridge over the rail and between the prospective retail outbuilding and the OSC; continued engagement of the historic Harrison Court apartments; a “soft” plaza to respond to the hardness of the PSU Urban Center; and a green wall cascading down to SW Montgomery, the future green street. What is a green street? A street that uses plants to capture, filter, cleanse and infiltrate stormwater. Planters/swales/curb extensions/etc… Level I – add more landscape. Level II – introduce more tree canopy. Level III – use planters/swales to capture stormwater. Level IV – looks beyond stormwater, into alternative transportation and multi-modal access.

In the end, the participants concluded that it would be useful to generate multiple context maps for the retail, vegetation/green street efforts, existing and potential habitat over lay at the district and greater scale, future development, transportation and parking.


SyntheSiS and emerging OverarChing PrinCiPleS

The remainder of Thursday was spent synthesizing all of the week’s work into design concepts and principles for the project. The following five overarching principles emerged from the week’s work and have been identified as the core source of guidance to the design team:

Appropriately scale systems1.

Make less do more2.

Design for resource equity3.

Integrate natural systems to benefit all species4.

Recognize that people are the life in living buildings5.

A brief narrative of these principles follows:

1. aPPrOPriately SCale SyStemS FOr OPtimal PerFOrmanCe

As we consider systems that may be incorporated into the project, we need to determine scale or size of the system that will provide the most cost and resource efficient delivery of services to the project. It is understood that some systems make sense when applied at a building scale, while other systems may make more sense at a district scale, providing services to many buildings. The following systems are being evaluated:

• Stormwater Management

• Rainwater Harvesting

• Wastewater Treatment

• Treated Wastewater Distribution

• Earth-coupled Energy Systems

• Renewable Energy


2. make leSS dO mOre

One way to significantly reduce the environmental impact of the building will be to reduce the total amount of materials used in the project, thereby reducing the resource investment in the manufacture, transport, installation and maintenance of those materials. In order to enable this approach to be successful, we will work to make those materials that remain provide as many functions as they possible. One example is:

A structural system that:

• Is exposed as a finish material for ceilings, floors and walls

• Provides distribution of heating and cooling

• Services as a conduit for plumbing, electrical and tel/data

• Provides thermal mass for night-flushing and passive cooling

3. deSign FOr reSOurCe eQuity

As we evaluate resource budgets for the building and to meet the Living Building Challenge, we must not only consider our own needs for resource use, but also ensure that we consider the needs of other species. For instance, the Living Building Challenge requires that the building use only the water that falls on the site. This can be used to provide the water budget for the building, to meet the need of the occupants and equipment. However, when we consider “water equity”, this begs the question: is it fair to other species if we use all of the water that falls on the site, and what if every building did this? Our project design approach should ensure fair and equitable resource use, while working to meet the Living Building Challenge.

4. integrate natural SyStemS tO beneFit all SPeCieS

Inclusion of natural systems is essential to the success of this building. Judith Heerwagen’s presentation and work clearly show the value of incorporating biophilic design approaches into the workplace environment. Literal, facsimile or representative systems from nature provide psychological as well as performance enhancements for humans. At the same time, natural treatment systems for stormwater, wastewater and air quality provide an ecosystem service without significant chemical inputs and energy use. Through thoughtful design, these systems can also provide habitat for other species and further enhance the local ecosystem.

5. reCOgnize that PeOPle are the liFe in a living building

The Living Building Challenge represents a dramatic paradigm shift in the way that buildings are designed, built and occupied. A vacant building can exist without any resource inputs, but once occupied, a building requires resources to support the health and wellbeing of the occupants. The existing building stock does not provide occupants with information on building performance so that they can make informed decisions about resource use. A Living Buildings provides occupants with a feedback loop on individual resource use and overall building performance as well as providing appropriate choices to support occupant comfort and wellbeing. This approach necessitates the active participation of the people in the building to ensure that resource budgets are met for energy and water use in order to meet the net-zero energy and water prerequisites. With this new approach, occupants become part of the essential functions of the building.


initial deSign COnCePtS

The design concepts included multi-story atria throughout the building to facilitate daylight penetration, interior plant growth, ventilation and access to the outdoors; a multi-faceted OSC hydrologic system to manage potable, storm and wastewater management in a way that enables users to participate and connect with water; a box beam structural system that is a conduit run, provides space conditioning, structurally supports the building, is thermally massive and eliminates the need for a finished ceiling.


Thursday’s intent to culminate in a working definition for the experience of the OSC that emerged from the week’s work was met. Most importantly, a core set of guiding principles were established to lead the design team and provide a means to support decision-making through the completion of the Phase I Feasibility Study.


StakehOlder grOuP meeting and COnCluSiOn OF eCO-Charrette

Friday morning was devoted to summarizing and presenting the week’s work in order to open a dialog with the stakeholder group and gather feedback, review the design approach and clarify next steps for the project team. Rob Bennett welcomed everyone back for the closing session of the week and clarified the roles of some of the key team members. He noted that OLBI’s Sean Penrith and Andrea Durbin have been the “spiritual leaders” of this effort, while Jay Kenton has been the “dealmaker” – getting things done. He noted that there is strong capacity in all areas OLBI – after two years of trying push this notion of a living building, an amazing convergence of partners we have to work really closely and knitting it all together. Rob noted that while we are in the feasibility stage right now; will be making a decision around June tremendous opportunity in Phase II Jay Kenton is doing amazing work in legislature in providing bonds to help fund the project. He also noted that the

principles of the transparency of this process are essential to the project’s success and that the blog and the open house are key elements of that effort.

Andrea Durbin continued by setting the tone for the project moving forward. She said that achieving living building status for a large building integrating a building environment with nature will put Portland on the map and demonstrate that this can be done; inside, the building brings together all areas of tenants. She shared that Oregon is much more collaborative than other places and that this can be demonstrated not just within the building, but also AROUND the building as well. Creating eco-districts and also creating the place where people can come and understand and experience this place – interacting with the building using the plaza and the public space habitat thinking beyond the building creating something really different – built environment in a different way.

All of the work from the previous week was posted on the walls of the workspace, annotated with descriptive summaries and organized by the day of the week that the work was done. A formal summary overview of the outcomes was presented and a dialog opened with the stakeholders. The design team provided an overview of each component of the work as well as a synopsis of how each element of the work that was initiated in the eco-charrette would be carried forward through the remainder of Phase I.

Friday aFternOOn – PubliC OPen hOuSe

On Friday afternoon, the eco-charrette workspace was open to the public so that members of the public could see the work that had been completed and provide feedback to the project team and stakeholder group about the project. Comments were invited on flipcharts and the blog to capture reactions to the eco-charrette work. Mayor Sam Adams took the opportunity to share his vision for the project and state his support for this project and similar efforts in the Portland to define our approach to sustainability.

friday


next StePS

the work of Phase i will continue by building on the principles and core concepts develop during the week-long charrette. detailed design efforts will be made to resolve the connection between the building and its site context as well as integrating the very complex programming requirements for the building occupants. ultimately, the design team will create a conceptual design of the building and work with the development and construction team to price the project and clarify criteria for financial and living building Challenge feasibility.

conc

lusi

on


aPPendiCeS

A: charrette agenda ............................38

B: LBC prerequisites ...........................40

C: preliminary LEED assessment .........42

D: draft research agenda ....................44

E: charrette artifacts ...........................47

F: presentation slides the genesis of the LBC ................................85 eco-districts ..............................................88 bringing buildings to life ..............................91 design slam ...............................................96 energy workshop ........................................105 towards net zero ........................................108 iconic/beauty .............................................115


appe

ndix

a: c

harr

ette

age

nda

Oregon Sustainability Center Eco-charrette week of April 6-10 1120 NW Couch Street, 6TH floor

Day One – Monday, April 6th – Kick-off and Eco-charrette11:00am – 12:30pm Project Kick-off and Lunch (provided)

Rob Bennett, P+OSI • Welcome and Introductions • The Oregon Sustainability Center: Collaboration and Economic Development

Dennis Wilde, GED • Eco-districts, infrastructure and site specific opportunities

Jason McLennan, CEO, Cascadia GBC • Keynote

12:30pm – 12:45pm Break 12:45pm – 5:00pm Eco-charrette/Slam

• A comprehensive team workshop

5:00pm – 6:00pm Happy Hour

Day Two – Tuesday, April 7th – Living and Research in a Living Building8:30am – 9:00am Coffee & Mingle 9:00am – noon Programming at each scale: Spheres of influence and connection

• Cascadia/State/Metro/City/District/Site/Building/Floor/Workspace • Cascadia to Cube…Living in a Living Building

noon – 1:00pm Presentation and Lunch (provided) David Kenney, Oregon BEST

• Collaboration and Economic Development

1:00pm – 5:00pm Research Agenda • Testing and monitoring • Living Laboratory • Eco-districts • Green Materials • etc…

Day Three – Wednesday, April 8th – Technical Day8:30am – 9:00am Coffee & Mingle 9:00am – 10:15am Subgroup Brainstorming Sessions (attend one) Net Zero Water

• How will we only use the water that falls on our site and manage all of our waste water? Building Envelope

• An in-depth exploration of the building’s skin and its response to our climate

10:15am – 10:30am Break 10:30am – noon Subgroup Brainstorming Sessions (attend one) Net Zero Energy

• How will we generate all of our annual energy needs on-site? Materials

• Explore and brainstorm all of the material aspects of the building

1:00pm – 1:15pm Break 1:15pm – 5:00pm Subgroup Work Sessions (attend same as morning) Net Zero Water

Building Envelope Net Zero Energy Materials


Day Four – Thursday, April 9th – Design Day8:30am – 9:00am Coffee & Mingle 9:00am – 10:00am Recap subgroups Programming, Net Zero Water, Building Envelope, Net Zero Energy, Materials 10:00am – 11:00am Explore Design Vision Goals and aspirations into iconic vision 11:00am – noon Synthesis

Beginning the integration of ideas noon – 1:00pm Review and Lunch (provided) visual review and reflection 1:00pm – 1:15pm Break 1:15pm – 5:00pm Design Subgroup Work Session Vision and concepts

Charrette Planning Team Work Session wrap-up and presentation planning

Day Five – Friday, April 10th – Sharing and Celebration8:30am – 9:00am Coffee & Mingle 9:00am – noon Final Presentation: Process mapping of entire week

• Overview of final outcomes • Subgroups report back • Open discussion of findings • Next steps

1:00pm – 1:15pm Break 1:15pm – 3:45pm Charrette Planning Team

preparation for public reception 3:45pm – 4:00pm Break 4:00pm – 6:00pm Public Reception – “Process Exposed”


appe

ndix

b: a

ppro

ach

to L

BC p

rere

quis

ites


1 Appropriately scale systems for optimal performance2 Make Less Do More3 Design for Resource Equity4 Integrate Natural Systems to Benefit All Species5 Recognize that People are the Life in Living Buildings

Prerequisite 1 Responsible Site Selectionstatement The OSC will locate to avoid direct and indirect impacts on existing environmentally valuable sitesapproach Integrate nature into the project design to support restoration of viable ecological functions at different scales

Prerequisite 2 Limits to Growthstatement The OSC will not impinge on undeveloped landapproach Develop within the existing urban fabric

Prerequisite 3 Habitat Exchangestatement The OSC ownership is committed to environmental restorationapproach Work with CREST or Nature Conservancy to set aside habitat areas representative of the state's diverse ecosystems

Prerequisite 4 Net Zero Energystatement The OSC ownership, design team and stakeholders will participate in the achievement of a zero net energy project.approach Generate a passive and active building that engages natural function, creative programming and governance, information accessibility

and people in the pursuit of net zeroPrerequisite 5 Materials Red Liststatement The OSC will always contain only the safest materials availableapproach Create alternative criteria for materials for which there is no known alternative and design so that materials can readily be changed out

as new products emergePrerequisite 6 Construction Carbon Footprintstatement The carbon footprint of the OSC's construction will be at least nuetral, possibly negativeapproach Approximately $100,000 to offset the construction impacts of the project (buildcarbonneutral.org). Also consider the use of biofuels for

const. equip.Prerequisite 7 Responsible Industrystatement The OSC supports material re use markets and ecologically sensitive forestryapproach Identify prospective salvage wood sources and vet against all wood uses in building. Specify all new wood as FSC certified.

Prerequisite 8 Appropriate Materials/Services Radiusstatement The OSC promotes local economies and will minimize the environmental impacts of material transporationapproach Develop and maintain a radius map and approach for the project in keeping with the prerequisite. Consider corresponding criteria for

tenant improvements.Prerequisite 9 Leadership in Construction Wastestatement The OSC aims to not generate any once through waste in the construction of the project.approach Partner with Metro and the Zero waste Alliance to make the project a zero construction and demolition waste development.

Prerequisite 10 Net Zero Waterstatement The project will incorporate a water cycle strategy that will result in a net zero water developmentapproach Harvest rainwater on site for reuse. Treat 100% of wastewater on site and reuse waste water for toilet flushing and irrigation

Prerequisite 11 Sustainable Water Dischargestatement The OSC is commited to resource equity and will capture, treat, use and reuse a fair share of on site water.approach Develop a site and building hydrologic cycle that is equally considers project program, annual rainfall, water available through reuse and

multi scale ecological demandPrerequisite 12 A Civilized Work Environmentstatement The OSC recognizes that the health, productivity and satisfaction of its occupants relies on access to nature, control, choice, mobility andapproach Design for the mobility, choice, variability in space conditions necessary to facilitate collaborative programming and access to daylight

and fresh air through operable windowsPrerequisite 13 Healthy Air/Source Controlstatement The OSC understands the imperative for superior air quality to support occupant health and the challenges of locating in an urbanapproach The project will be designed to include:

Entryways with dirt track in systemsAirlock entriesIndependent exhaust for all copy rooms, janitorial closets, chemical storage spaces ,kitchens and bathroomsAll interior finishes, paints and adhesives will comply with SCAQMD 2007/2008All other interior materials such as flooring and case works will comply with California Standard 01350All buildings will be designated non smoking

Prerequisite 14 Healthy Air – Ventilationstatement The OSC will have oxygen levels simliar to those experienced in a temperate rainforestapproach Design occupied areas of the buildings with optimal outside air ventilation for occupant comfort and wellbeing

Prerequisite 15 Beauty and Spiritstatement The OSC celebrates the role of people in Living Building performance and embraces the need for beauty and inspiration to create aapproach Design the project to integrate nature, natural function and to evoke sensory experiences associated with desireable natural

environmentsPrerequisite 16 Inspiration and Educationstatement The OSC will act as a public magnet, portal, nexus and incubator to advance Oregon's green economyapproach Program and design the building to attract users and participate in the OSC and allow building wide access at least one day a year

Oregon Sustainability Center: Prospective Approach to the Living Building Challenge

Oregon Sustainability Center: Principles


L E E D - N C 2009 S c o r e c a r dProject Name: Oregon Sustainability CenterDate: June 2009

Mos

t Lik

ely

Poss

ible

Not

Pro

babl

e

Points Possible Status

SUSTAINABLE SITES

Y SSp1 C Construction Activity Pollution Prevention EPA reqt to be met

1 SSc1 D Site Selection 1 Yes

5 SSc2 D Development Density & Community Connectivity 5 Yes

1 SSc3 D Brownfield Redevelopment 16 SSc4.1 D Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access 6 Max and Tri-Met

1 SSc4.2 D Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms 1 Yes

3 SSc4.3 D Alternative Transportation, Low Emitting & Fuel Efficient Vehicles 3 Yes, Option 4

2 SSc4.4 D Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity 2 Yes, Option 2 or 3

1 SSc5.1 C Reduced Site Disturbance, Protect or Restore Habitat 1 Case 2, Ecoroof

1 SSc5.2 D Reduced Site Disturbance, Maximize Open Space 1 Yes, Case 3, Ecoroof

1 SSc6.1 D Stormwater Management, Quantity Control 1 Yes, Case 2

1 SSc6.2 D Stormwater Management, Quality Control 1 Yes

1 SSc7.1 C Heat Island Effect, Non-roof 1 Yes, Option 1

1 SSc7.2 D Heat Island Effect, Roof 1 Maybe, PV/Ecoroof

1 SSc8 D Light Pollution Reduction 1 Yes, Option 1 or 226 0 0 Total Points for Sustainable Sites

WATER EFFICIENCY

Y WEp1 D Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction Yes

2 WEc1.1 D Water Efficient Landscaping, 50% Reduction 2 Yes, Option 2

2 WEc1.2 D Water Efficient Landscaping, No Potable Water Use 2 Yes

2 WEc2 D Innovative Wastewater Technologies 2 Yes Options 1 & 22 WEc2 D Innovative Wastewater Technologies 2 Yes, Options 1 & 2

2 WEc3.1 D Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction 2 Yes

2 WEc3.2 D Water Use Reduction, 40% Reduction 2 Yes10 0 0 Total Points for Water Efficiency

ENERGY & ATMOSPHERE

Y EAp1 C Fundamental Commissioning of Building Energy Systems Y EAp2 D Minimum Energy PerformanceY EAp3 D Fundamental Refrigerant Management

EAc1.1 D Optimize Energy Performance, 12% New / 8% Existing 1EAc1.2 D Optimize Energy Performance, 16% New / 12% Existing 3EAc1.3 D Optimize Energy Performance, 20% New / 16% Existing 5EAc1.4 D Optimize Energy Performance, 24% New / 20% Existing 7EAc1.5 D Optimize Energy Performance, 28% New / 24% Existing 9EAc1.6 D Optimize Energy Performance, 32% New / 28% Existing 11EAc1.7 D Optimize Energy Performance, 36% New / 32% Existing 13EAc1.8 D Optimize Energy Performance, 40% New / 36% Existing 15EAc1.9 D Optimize Energy Performance, 44% New / 40% Existing 17

19 EAc1.10 D Optimize Energy Performance, 48% New / 44% Existing 19 Min 75% reduction + 25% PVEAc2.1 D On Site Renewable Energy, 1% 1EAc2.2 D On Site Renewable Energy, 5% 3EAc2.3 D On Site Renewable Energy, 9% 5

7 EAc2.3 D On Site Renewable Energy, 13% 7 Min 75% reduction + 25% PV

2 EAc3 C Enhanced Commissioning 2 Yes

2 EAc4 D Enhanced Refrigerant Management 2 Yes

3 EAc5 C Measurement & Verification 3 Yes

2 EAc6 C Green Power 2 Yes, 100% offset35 0 0 Total Points for Energy & Atmosphere

appe

ndix

c: p

relim

inar

y LE

ED a

sses

smen

t


L E E D - N C 2009 S c o r e c a r dProject Name: Oregon Sustainability CenterDate: June 2009

Mos

t Lik

ely

Poss

ible

Not

Pro

babl

e

Points Possible Status

MATERIALS & RESOURCES

Y MRp1 D Storage & Collection of Recyclables2 MRc1.1 C Building Reuse, Maintain 75% of Existing Walls, Floors and Roof 2 N/A

1 MRc1.2 C Building Reuse, Maintain 95% of Existing Walls, Floors and Roof 1 N/A

1 MRc1.3 C Building Reuse, Maintain 50% of Interior, Non-Structural Elements 1 N/A

1 MRc2.1 C Construction Waste Management, Divert 50% 11 MRc2.2 C Construction Waste Management, Divert 75% 1 Yes, target zero waste

1 MRc3.1 C Materials Reuse, Specify 5% 1 Yes

1 MRc3.2 C Materials Reuse, Specify 10% 1 Maybe, supply dependant

1 MRc4.1 C Recycled Content, Specify 10% 1 Yes

1 MRc4.2 C Recycled Content, Specify 20% 1 Yes

1 MRc5.1 C Regional Materials, 10% Extracted, Processed & Manufactured Regionally 1 Yes

1 MRc5.2 C Regional Materials, 20% Extracted, Processed & Manufactured Regionally 1 Yes

1 MRc6 C Rapidly Renewable Materials, Specify 2.5% 1 Maybe

1 MRc7 C Certified Wood 1 Yes, all new wood7 2 5 Total Points for Materials & Resources

INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Y EQp1 D Minimum IAQ PerformanceY EQp2 D Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control1 EQc1 D Outside Air Delivery Monitoring 1 Yes, research opportunity

1 EQc2 D Increased Ventilation 1 Maybe, balance with energy

1 EQc3 1: C Construction IAQ Management Plan During Construction 1 Yes1 EQc3.1: C Construction IAQ Management Plan, During Construction 1 Yes

1 EQc3.2: C Construction IAQ Management Plan, After Constn./Before Occ. 1 Yes

1 EQc4.1 C Low-Emitting Materials, Adhesives and Sealants 1 Yes

1 EQc4.2 C Low-Emitting Materials, Paints and Coatings 1 Yes

1 EQc4.3 C Low-Emitting Materials, Flooring Systems 1 Yes

1 EQc4.4 C Low-Emitting Materials, Composite Wood & Agri-fiber products 1 Yes

1 EQc5 D Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control 1 Yes

1 EQc6.1 D Controllability of Systems: Lighting 1 Yes

1 EQc6.2 D Controllability of Systems: Thermal comfort 1 Yes

1 EQc7.1 D Thermal Comfort, Design 1 Maybe, greater flexibilty

1 EQc7.2 D Thermal Comfort Verification, Verification 1 Yes, research opportunity

1 EQc8.1 D Daylight and Views, Daylight 75% of Spaces 1 Yes, biophilia

1 EQc8.2 D Daylight and Views, View for 90% of Spaces 1 Yes, biophilia13 2 0 Total Points for Indoor Environmental Quality

INNOVATION & DESIGN

1 IDc1.1 D Innovation in Design: Exemplary Performance WEc3 1 Zero net water

1 IDc1.2 D Innovation in Design: Exemplary Performance EAc1 1 ~50% reduction

1 IDc1.3 D Innovation in Design: Exemplary Performance EAc2 1 ~25% renewable energy

1 IDc1.4 D Innovation in Design: Education 1 Fundemental to OSC

1 IDc1.5 D Innovation in Design: Operations and Maintenance 1 Green O&M Plan

1 IDc2 D LEED® Accredited Professional 16 0 0 Total Points for Innovation & Design

REGIONAL BONUS CREDITS

1 RBc1.1 D Innovation in Design: SSc5.1, Protect or Restore Habitat 11 RBc1.2 D Innovation in Design: WEc2, Innovative Wastewater Technologies 1

1 RBc1.3 D Innovation in Design: MRc3, Materials Reuse 5% 1 First threshold, 5%

1 RBc1.4 D Innovation in Design: MRc7, Certified Wood 13 1 0 Total Points for Regional Bonus Credits

100 5 5 Total Points AttemptingPlatinumCertified: 40-49, Silver: 50-59, Gold: 60-79, Platinum: 80+

Current Level


appe

ndix

d: d

raft

res

earc

h ag

enda draFt reSearCh agenda FrOm OSC eCO-Charrette

process/organization management and how space supports those behaviors1.

Space and complex ownership•

Biophilic choices•

Productivity and performance•

How do you manage (property management) the people in a flexible, overlapping •workspace?

Includes metering, energy/water budgets/rent structure•

Ongoing occupant surveys – capture organizational dynamics as well as physical •aspects

18-24 month: determine metrics for success on productivity, quality of life•

18-24 month: testing models of work and environment regarding environmental •impacts, productivity of group/individual

Biophilic choices•

Designi.

Constructionii.

Occupancyiii.

O&Miv.

Cross/by discipline•

Tracking assumptions•

Kit of parts / testing new systems2.

Materials / testing•

Kits of parts – how to test new systems easily and cheaply•

Look at redundancyi.

Anticipate up-coming technologies and layer with design for deconstruction •principals (12-18 months)

Design buildings to be living lab / swap out technology/materials•

Create redundancy to mitigate riski.

Building construction • → deconstruction

Deconstruct to find failuresi.

Sponsorship opportunities?ii.

Product sponsorship, testing, and replacement program?iii.

Gaps in redlist alternatives•

Materials redlist research – did industry change to reflect the redlist and i. what are the new materials / options to replace the redlist?

Materials redlist – find products for substitutionii.


Ownership of resources and eco-district implementations3.

Code/regulatory policy resolution•

Fire/health/life safety issues with eco-districts•

Eco-district composition, scale, governance, risk/liability, &c•

(12-month design) research legal challenges and solutions surrounding the formation of •eco-districts

At each stage, track resource use and tenant behaviors4.

People and performatnce•

Metering/submetering•

Occupants acting as laboratory research subjects in measurement & verification•

Open source BMS protocol•

Carbon footprint analysis•

All scalesi.

All lifecyclesii.

Flexible submetering of water, energy, waste/materials•

(18month) energy and water consumption by tenant•

Consider cap & trade by organization•

Economics / cost to pay / willingness to pay for their social/ecological satisfaction5.

New economic modes of production?•

Local economies?i.

How building impacts peoples decision to come to pland•

Distribute in district•

Relation of city to pay for infrastructure, look for savings•

(18mo & 24mo) life cycle analysis•

Prove financial casei.

Material valuesii.

material research6.

Robust model for mind mapping to capture list of materials•

(18-24months) mapping material research spec, install (similar to mind map)•

Scalability/mix of livable building by occupancy types7.

Appropriate scale for organizations•

Research into the scale of the LBC – what is the appropriate scale for different occupancy •types and how it relates to the eco-district scale


Building costs 8.

Conventional vs living building approaches•

Tracking degradation of elements (durability cycles) and what’s appropriate9.

(18-24months) degradation of performance of energy and materials•

Deconstructability•

Living Building operation/education10.

LBC • ←→ user

How do people use a living buildingi.

Information interface ii.

Global / national case studies11.

How has the nature of work changed?12.

Track building through evolutioin•

How has/did people work with technology•

Tracking hypotheses•

Research how people respond to new technologies, new social/work structures•


appendix e: monday artifacts


appe

ndix

e: m

onda

y


appendix e: monday


appe

ndix

e: m

onda

y


appendix e: monday


appe

ndix

e: m

onda

y


appendix e: monday


appe

ndix

e: t

uesd

ay a

rtifa

cts


appendix e: tuesday


appe

ndix

e: t

uesd

ay


appendix e: tuesday


appe

ndix

e: w

edne

sday

art

ifact

s


appendix e: wednesday


appe

ndix

e: w

edne

sday


appendix e: thursday artifacts


appe

ndix

e: t

hurs

day


appendix e: thursday


appe

ndix

e: f

rida

y ar

tifac

ts


appendix e: friday


appe

ndix

e: f

rida

y


appendix e: friday


appe

ndix

e: f

rida

y


appendix e: friday


appe

ndix

e: f

rida

y


appendix e: friday


appe

ndix

e: f

rida

y


The Genesis of the

Living Building Challenge

The Genesis of the Living Building Challenge SERA ARCHITECTS, INC. ©2009

WHY BUILDINGS?


PACKARD MATRIX


http://www.bnim.com/fmi/xsl/research/packard/index.xsl

GATHERING MOMENTUMON–THE–BOARDS DESIGN COMPETITION NOVEMBER 2007


GATHERING MOMENTUM ON–THE–BOARDS DESIGN COMPETITION NOVEMBER 2007

The Genesis of the Living Building Challenge SERA ARCHITECTS, INC. ©2009 The Genesis of the Living Building Challenge SERA ARCHITECTS, INC. ©2009

“2030”NET ZERO

appendix f: the genesis of the living building challenge (clark brockman)


LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGEImagine a building:• that is as elegant and efficient as a flower.

• that is informed by the eco–region’s characteristics


http://www.cascadiagbc.org/lbc

region s characteristics

• that generates all of its ownenergy with renewable resources.

• that captures and treats all of itswater on site.

• that uses resources efficiently and formaximum beauty.

LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGEWhy A Challenge?• Rapid adoption of green building

rating system• Address a changing context• Human impact on the


http://www.cascadiagbc.org/lbc

Human impact on the environment is increasing

The Rules • 6 “Petals”• Only Prerequisites, no points• Temporary exceptions exist• Projects must be fully operational

“It’s about what you do, not what you say you’ll do”

SITE DESIGN


ENERGY


MATERIALS


MATERIALS



MATERIALS


WATER


INDOOR QUALITY


BEAUTY



scalesof flows

SERA ARCHITECTS INC. 2009 © EcoDistrictsSERA ARCHITECTS INC. 2009 © EcoDistricts

profile of an ecoprofile of an eco--districtdistrict

imaginea district…a district…




that that generates generates

all of its all of its own energy.own energy.

sub-basin


watershedwatershed

river basin


watershedwatershed



that that captures captures

appe

ndix

f: e

co-d

istr

icts

(den

nis

wild

e)




that that captures captures

and treatsand treatsall it’s water.all it’s water.



with greenwith greenstreetsstreets



with greenwith greenstreets to streets to treat stormtreat storm

water cleanlywater cleanly



designed to designed to accommodateaccommodate

all these systemsall these systems

imaginea place…a place…


designed designed to functionto function

elegantlyelegantlyand efficientlyand efficiently



with transit with transit available available within a within a 1/4 1/4

mile radius.mile radius.


imagine……

bankbankbeautybeauty

churchchurchcleanerscleanerscommunity centercommunity centerconvenience storeconvenience store

fire station fire station day careday care


fitness centerfitness centerhardwarehardwarelaundrylaundrylibrarylibrarymedical/ dentalmedical/ dentalmuseummuseumparkparkpharmacypharmacypost officepost office

restaurantsrestaurantsschoolschoolsenior care facilitysenior care facilitysupermarketsupermarkettheatertheater

with all youwith all youneed withinneed within

a 20 minutea 20 minutewalk.walk.

material ranges




where where the built the built

environmentenvironment

workstogether together and and


the sum of the sum of the parts isthe parts is

greater than greater than the wholethe whole..

imaginethat district…that district…


hereheretoday!today!


4/8/2009

1

Oregon Sustainability Center Eco-CharretteJ di h H PhDJudith Heerwagen, PhD

J.H. Heerwagen & AssociatesSeattle, WA

[email protected]

Creating sustainable conditions in which people of all ages and abilities can flourish.

How do we do this?How do we do this?

1.Turn to other models forinspiration and action.

The Old Zoo

• Dysfunctional behavior

• Illness

• Low reproductive successsuccess

Low zoo attendance

The New Zoo

• Naturalistic habitats

• Behavioral enrichment –foraging, play, control

• Improved animalImproved animal reproduction

Increased attendance

Increased memberships

2.Know your animal – Design with its

basic needs in mind.

appendix f: bringing buildings to life (judith heerwagen)


4/8/2009

2

What does the human animalneed to flourish?

Survival Needs Well Being Needs• Clear air

• Clean water

• Lack of toxins and pathogens

• Safety

• Protection

• Stimulate all the senses

• Atmosphere free of undue pressure and stress

• High degree of pleasure

• Behavioral choice and control

• Rest and recoveryProtection

Boyden, 1971. Biological Determinants of Optimal Health.

Diamond and Hopson, 1999. Magic Tree of the Mind

Rest and recovery

• Varied social interactions

• Exploration and learning

• Novel challenges suitable for age

• Sense of pride

Emotional.

Social

Dimensions of Well Being

PleasureRest & recoveryEngagementValues

CollaborationIntimacyParticipationSocial support

Physical

Muscular-skeletalRespiratoryNeurological

Stress reduction

Case Study Example

Philip Merrill Environmental CenterAnnapolis, MDLEED Platinum

Key Design Intentions• Foster awareness of environmental design• Create a high quality, healthy atmosphere for employees to support job performance

• Create a sense of community and improved ability to interact within and across groupsability to interact within and across groups


4/8/2009

3

Results: IEQ

Thermal

Visual privacy

Speech privacy

0 20 40 60 80 100

Building

Daylight

Workspace

Air Quality

View access

Noise levels

Percent Satisfied with Conditions

Results: Psychosocial Support

I look forward to work

There is a strong sense of community

People regularly help one another

70 75 80 85 90 95 100

I am proud of the building

There are opportunities to developfriendships

I am In good spirits at work

Percent Agreeing

Results: Well Being

I am generally in good spirits t k

I enjoy being in my workspace

I feel valued by the organization

Agree

Neutral

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

I am proud to show the office to visitors

I look forward to coming to work

at work

Percent Responding

Neutral

Disagree

What People Liked Most

• Daylight and sunlight

• Connection to nature and to the Bay

• Feeling great at work

• Inspiration - living the values of the Chesapeake Bay F d iFoundation

“I thought I had died and gone to heaven.” Senor Policy Analyst

“ Everyday we can see what we are working onand what we are working for.” Senior Executive

3.Biophilic design supports many basic needs.

Biophilic Design has many faces


4/8/2009

4

ThreeApproaches

Literal

FacsimileFacsimile

Evocative

Lit l F i il E tiLiteral Facsimile Evocative

Why biophilia matters:key researchfindings

• Psychological & physiological stress reduction

• Shift to positive emotional states

• Improved ability to concentrate

E t i t f i di• Entrainment of circadian rhythms

• NO EVIDENCE of negative effectsKellert, Heerwagen and Mador, 2008. BiophilicDesign: The Theory, Science, and Practice ofBringing Buildings to Life. New York: Wiley.

Sunlight

• Entrains circadian rhythms– Light detectors in eye have peak

sensitivity at 480 nm (blue light/blue sky)

• Reduces depression in clinical settings• Improves moods and reduces

Photons are a precious resource and shouldbe shared by all.Senior Engineer, Sun Microsystems

Improves moods and reduces perception of pain

• Has wide range of other neurological benefits

Kiraly et al, 2006.Vitamin D as a neuroactiveSubstance. Scientific World Journal.

Walch et al, 2005. The effect of sunliught in postoperative analgesic medicine use. Psychosomatic Medicine.

Window views have broad influence on outcomesDesigning window views with nature in mind

Hospital studies• Reduced days in hospital• Reduced use of strong analgesics• Improved emotional functioning

Office studies• Reduced stress• Improved concentrationImproved concentration• Improved life satisfaction

Housing and neighborhoods• Reduce ADHD symptoms• Reduced violence & crime• Improved life satisfaction

J. Heerwagen, 2006. Investing in People. Rethinking Sustainable Construction ‘06, Sarasota, FLR. Ulrich, 2008. Biophilic Theory and Research for Healthcare Design. In Biophilic Design. S.R. Kellert, J. Heerwagen, and M. Mador (Eds). Wiley.

Window Views can Improve Task Performance

A 2003 study by the Heschong-Mahone Group found a 6% improvement in call center average handling time for workers with the highest rated views, as compared to workers with no view at all.


4/8/2009

5

Indoor plants can improve health and performance

23% decrease in neuropsychological symptoms in offices with plants - greatest reduction for fatigue

24% decrease in mucous membrane systems –greatest reduction for dry throat and cough

Fjeld et al 1998

Wargocki et al, 2000

1.1% increase in performance for every 10% reduction in SBS complaints, indicating a 2.3% productivity gain due to the presence of plants in the office.

Fjeld, T, et al (1998) The effect of indoor foliage plants on health an discomfort symptoms among office workers. Indoor & BuiltEnvironment, 7, pp. 204 209.

Wargocki, P, et al. (2000) Pollution Source Control and Ventilation Improve Health, Comfort and Productivity. InProceedings of Cold Climate HVAC 2000, Sapporo, Japan, November 1 3, 2000

4.People actively work to achieve comfort.

UFAD vent

5.There are many behavioral challenges

• Unsustainable biophilia

• Need for substantial changes in behaviors –people, not buildings, consume resources

• Demands of sustainability may run counter to our evolved human nature – do we have a conservation mental module?

6.BUT good reasons to be positive…

• The changing nature of work and workplaces –flexibility, social equity

• Rewarding good behavior – smiley faces on energy billsenergy bills

• The next generation has strong environmental values AND they act on the basis of their values

Maybe we should all think and act more like children. \


www.greenbuildingservices.comGreen Building Services, Inc. © 2009

1

Oregon Sustainability Center of Excellence

Eco-Charrette

April 6th, 2009

Welcome and IntroductionsOSC: Collaboration & Economic Development

R b B ttRob BennettExecutive Director

Portland+Oregon Sustainability Institute

April 6th, 2009

Eco-charrette Facilitators:

Alan Scott Ralph DiNolaPrincipal PrincipalPrincipal PrincipalGreen Building Services, Inc. Green Building Services, Inc.

Terry Miller Amanda RyanSenior Consultant Project CoordinatorGreen Building Services, Inc. Green Building Services, Inc.

April 6th, 2009

Collaboration Commitment1. Engage with an open mind2. Check your ego at the door3. Leave your preconceptions behind4. Listen, then respond5. Acknowledge the contributions of others6. All ideas have value7. Enjoy this moment8. Think outside of ……everything you know9. No filters, let it flow10. Begin with the end in mind

Eco-Districts, Infrastructure and Site Opportunities

D i WildDennis WildePrincipal

Gerding Edlen Sustainable Solutions

April 6th, 2009

appe

ndix

f: d

esig

n sl

am (g

reen

bui

ldin

g se

rvic

es)



2

The Genesis of the Living Building Challenge

Clark BrockmanA i t P i i lAssociate Principal

SERA Architects

April 6th, 2009

Living Buildings and Bringing Buildings to Life

Judith H Heerwagen Ph DJudith H. Heerwagen, Ph.D.J.H. Heerwagen & Associates, Inc.

April 6th, 2009

Sustainability Slam(h ld t t )(hold onto your seats)

April 6th, 2009

first, take a deep breath, and relax…

q:What is the attainable sustainable SLAM?

a: Role-playinga: Role playingBrainstormingOut of the Box ThinkingPresentation exercise

1:00 PM ~ 1:10 PM 0:10 Settle in1:10 PM ~ 1:40 PM 0:30 Slam Intro and Ground rules1:40 PM ~ 2:10 PM 0:30 SLAM2:10 PM ~ 2:20 PM 0:10 Break2 20 PM 2 50 PM 0 30 SLAM2:20 PM ~ 2:50 PM 0:30 SLAM2:50 PM ~ 4:00 PM 1:10 Report Out 4:00 PM ~ 4:15 PM 0:15 Judging / Team Play4:15 PM ~ 4:30 PM 0:15 Unveiling the Winning Team: Honors to winning team4:30 PM ~ 4:35 PM 0:05 Lightning Brainstorm Introduction4:35 PM ~ 5:00 PM 0:25 Lightning Brainstorm5:00 PM ~ 6:00 PM 1:00 Happy Hour5:30 PM ~ 6:00 PM 0:30 Lightning Brainstorm Presentations6:00 PM Adjourn

Listen to the clients’ presentation Ready, set, SLAM!Ask questions along the wayThen SELL IT to your clientsW it t ll t iWait to collect your prize…if your team wins



3

Style countsBe specificTime limits are absoluteJudges’ decisions are FINALFINALIt’s about vision and creative thinking!

The BIG ideaConcrete notions about building a truly sustainable building and communityA radical rethinking of how to integrate unique and separate organizations

Exploration of the relationship between economic, social and environmental needs in a projectA ti l ti fArticulation of yourdesign process under extreme pressureYet unimagined solutions...



4

Grew up in Madagascar, son of a biologist father andzoologist mother.

Educated at Columbia and UC Berkeley where he got hisMasters Degree in Development Philosophy and Ethics.

Simon Schuster, Developer,President of Schuster Associates Worldwide, Inc. (SAW, Inc.)

Mr. Schuster

40 years of commercial and affordable housing development NY Times, March 20, 2059: “…he is a ruthless collaborator,not letting anyone out of the process.”


Turbine Towers at Goose Hollow

ACHOOACHOO

Early Work:CenterforGettingBetter“ACHOO”

Recent Work: Nature Centre on ParkAffordable natural condominium living

Recent Work: Organic AccretionLive close to work!

Eager to develop a legacy project that embodies livingphilosophy of buildings: Buildings will be the key to restoringthe balance of humanity and all other species.




5

Was born in the Columbia River, mom died shortly aftergiving birth to me.

Went to “school” with millions of tiny fish I have sea smarts and function instinctively my reeleducation came from the big blue ocean. Yes, I came to

Sally Salmon, “I Speak for the Fish”Federated Institute for Salmon and Halibut (FISH)

maturity—a little fish in the big ocean, the Pacific that is.

Sally Salmon

Previous Projects:ColumbiaDam(n)Removal

Remember, a dead fish can float downstream, but it takes a live one to swim upstream.” - W.C. Fields

Recent Work

Cool, clean fresh water and a safeplace to lay a roe for baby fishes togrow

A place to call home in the urbanenvironmentS li h i l

FISH is Mission Driven!

Spotlighting natural resourcesintrinsic to the Northwest

Amindset dedicated toreplenishing what is taken

Legacy: Won’t be satisfied til werestore our “Salmon Nation!”

Founder of Physical Ecosystem Earnings Work (“PhEEW!”), Restoration of ecosystem as a means to make money! PhEEW created an internationally adopted ecosystemservices valuation methodology: dollars to be made byprojects (no matter what form) that create nature’s

Dr. Edward Moss, Ecological Capitalist,President/CEO of “Physical Ecosystem Earnings Works” (PhEEW!)

projects (no matter what form) that create nature sfunctions.

Dr. Moss

Raised by a nurse log named Betty Everything I need to know I learned from nitrogen fixingbacteria.

Goal is to test out PhEEW’s new valuation methodology inthe OSC to see how adding ecosystem services can increase


the OSC to see how adding ecosystem services can increasethe ROI in a development project.

Dr. Moss

Betty(Mom)



6


Clean air

Sound attenuation

Beauty

Clean water

Habitatfor many

Thermo-regulation

Nutrients

Lightbulb!•Nature’s strong and never loses•Why fight it, capitalize on it! $$

Disney’s Eco-Dollars Tropical Ecosystem Theme Park Pando: Largest Living Thing on Earth, Makes us Lots of Money!



7

• Life: October to Present…in Portland• First word (pending): anticipated “rain”• Education received: mostly indoors• Likes: windows, a fresh diaper, houseplants,

sunbeams pictures, drooling,

WEE 1

sunbeams pictures, drooling,…• Dislikes: dander, sudden and loud noises,

dust, VOCs• Interested in: being outside• Most interesting (startling?) statistic:

humans spend 90% of time indoors

Favorite Book:

WEE 1

Satisfy my biophilic tendencies!

WEE 1 Born in migrant camps in the California Central Valley, theson of bi cultural immigrant parents, and later lived in ahousing project on Chicago’s Southside.

A Bachelors degree in anthropology from PSU Law degree from the University of Oregon

Cesar Chotchky, Public Interest Attorney

CesarChotchky

Keen sense of the relationship between people and the land,fragility of the human condition, especially when divorcedfrom nature.

Through his travels as a young man, he experiencedfirsthand how environmental health and social equity areinextricably linked. He has dedicated his life to fosteringboth


Let all bear in mind that a society is judged not so much by the standards attained by its more affluent and privileged members as by the quality of life which it is able to assure for its weakest members.H.E. Javier Perez de Cuellar

both.

Sustainability does not live in an ivory tower, it is on thestreet and spread throughout the land.

This project and the movement it represents will only besuccessful if it reaches all people in a language theyunderstand and with a message that motivates them.


If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea.Antoine de Saint-Exupery



8

Recent Work:Ecosystem Services Preservation and Restorative Enterprise Sustaining Solutions for Oregon (ESPRESSO)

• Educating• Connecting•Motivating• Putting people to work

The Project Requirements are Simple: 250,000 square foot office building with retail Exceed the requirements of the Living BuildingChallange NO mechanical HVAC systems NO plumbing NO plumbing NO electric lighting ONLY natural materials

Name your group and tell us what each of you does Tell us how you are going to work with us ONE EYE POPPING PAGE for your proposal

Open your envelopes, Unleash your imagination,

and

Create the future!

The Project Requirements are Simple: 250,000 square foot office building with retail NO mechanical HVAC systems NO plumbing NO electric lightingONLY t l t i l ONLY natural materials

Name your group and tell us what each of you does Tell us how you are going to work with us ONE EYE POPPING PAGE for your proposal



9

Sustainability SlamLightning Round

(but wait, there’s more!)

April 6th, 2009

Lightning Concept: Use any of what you just heard or saw Devise ONE NEW PRODUCT that will developedinto production for this new facility

What is the product?What is the product?What does it do?What R&D is required? ONE EYE POPPING PAGE for your proposal


appendix f: energy workshop (andrew

craig)


appe

ndix

f: t

owar

ds n

et z

ero

(om

id n

abip

oor)


appendix f: iconic/beauty (sera architects)

building partnerships : advancing best practices : creating green jobs1162 3

building partnerships : advancing best practices : creating green jobs 1172 3

building partnerships : advancing best practices : creating green jobs 1194 1

OSC Living Building Eco-Charrette Report

Documents

Transcript of OSC Living Building Eco-Charrette Report