Eficiencia operativa de los edificios de oficinas Dinámica de los centros de negocios

B.RA.VE© BUILDING RATING VALUE©

THE ASSESSMENT OF BUILDING PERFORMANCE: A PROPERTY RATING MODEL FOR OFFICE BUILDINGS

l Dos áreas grises: l  Medición de áreas (IPMS) l  Clasificación por eficiencia

l Diferentes intereses: l  El propietario l  El inversor l  El inquilino l  El trabajador

l  BOMA -Building Owners and Managers Association- indica: l  Class A, “the most prestigious buildings competing for premier

office users with rents above average for the area, high quality standard finishes, state of the art systems, exceptional accessibility and a definite market presence”

l  Class B, those that compete “for a wide range of users with rents

in the average range for the area, adequate systems and finishes that are fair to good for the area, but these buildings do not compete with Class A buildings for the same prices”.

l  Class C, “buildings that are aimed towards tenants requiring

functional space at rents below the average for the area.

l  La falta de de objetividad o especificidad produce imprecisión en la clasificación.

4

Office Building : Longaberger, Newark, Ohio, USA, 1998

Office Building: Maroussi, Attiki, Greece

Scottish National Heritage HQ, 2007

La investigación que desarrolló la Universidad Politécnica de Milán reveló que no hay un sistema reconocido internacionalmente que permita clasificar los edificios de acuerdo con las definiciones aplicadas por el mercado (clase A, B, C) Performance Rating Systems for Office Buildings - The following systems were examined: BOSTI (Buffalo Organization for Social and Technological Innovation) (USA, 1980) - BQA, Building Quality Assessment (New Zealand, 1985) - BQI, Building Quality Index (Hong Kong, 2004) - Building Class ABC (Atlanta Office Space, USA) - Building Class Moscow (Moscow, 2003) - Office class classification BOMA (Building Owners and Managers Association International, USA) - DQI, Design Quality Indicator (UK, 2002) - The International Classification of Office – Logometrix (Australia, 2006) - Office Class Bulgaria (Bulgaria, 2006) - Office Class ABCD (Australia, 2006) – Offices Development Handbook (Urban Land Institute, 1998) - PEBBU, Performance Base Building (NL, 2004) – POE, Post Occupancy Evaluation (USA, 1980) - REN, Real Estate Norm (NL, 1992) - Star Office Rating (EU) – STM, Serviceability tools and methods (Canada, 1995) - Office Building Rating, Politecnico di Milano (Italy, 2008) Sustainability and Energy Certification Systems - The following systems were examined: 3System (China, 2006-2008) – LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) (USA, 2000) - BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) (UK, 1990) DGNB (Germany, 2008) - EU Energy Pass (EU, 2002) - GREEN BUILDING CHALLENGE (2002) – HK-BEAM , Hong Kong Building Environmental Method (Hong Kong, 2003) – NABERS Australian National Built Environment Rating System (Australia, 2009) - ITACA (Italy, 2002)

Project & Mission Performance-based rating system, real-estate and building quality The property market and, in particular, the market of buildings for the services industry typically rate as “Class A buildings” those facilities that meet high quality standards. The definition of Class A buildings, drawn from financial rating models, is not always supported by precise, objective and scientific identification of its characterizing elements. The objective of the research is the determination of useful parameters and variables in the construction of a property rating model, aimed at identifying those elements that can objectively define the “Quality” level of the buildings destined to the services industry in line with the criteria generally applied by the market to represent quality buildings (Class A). Findings and Methods The definition of Class A buildings is fairly diffuse in the property market. Operators in the real estate market usually utilize a parametric scale to represent the level of compliance of buildings with market requisites (A, B, C). The requisites are generally more or less the same. The completed analysis revealed that the parameters utilized to define the level of compliance with the requisites are unclear or not very objective The research group of the GestiTec Laboratory examined the main practices adopted internationally for the evaluation of building performances according to functional and/or technological criteria. The rating systems used today are varied; many are applied locally only, since they have to follow requisites and criteria that often depend on local regulations. If we exclude certain “labelling” systems dedicated to the sustainability issue, we may say that no “standard” systems for the evaluation of building performances have spread.

Campos de análisis:

•  Ubicación •  Arquitectura •  Flexibilidad tecnológica •  Diseño interior y mobiliario •  Estructura •  Confort •  Facilidades para el personal •  Eficiencia energética •  Protección •  Seguridad •  Valor en alquiler o renta •  Gestión,”facility management” •  Fases del ciclo de vida •  Antigüedad Respuestas: •  Método de clasificación (áreas de estudio y preguntas clave) •  Método de evaluación (pesos) •  Sistema basado en internet •  “Benchmarking” de edificios

Score and n. of questions of the 14 Sections SECTION SCORE QUESTIONS

1 BUILDING FRAME 10,6 202 INNER SOUNDPROOFING 1,4 113 POWER 10,0 74 AIR CONDITIONING 18,0 335 LIGHTING 6,5 186 SURFACE EFFICIENCY 13,5 457 SAFETY/SPECIAL PLANTS 8,0 138 MANAGEMENT 9,0 119 COMMUNICATION/WIRING SYSTEM 6,0 9

10 INDOOR FINISHES 5,0 4011 EXTERNAL FACILITIES 9,0 3012 LIFTING PLANTS 2,0 913 WATER 1,0 5

+14 CERTIFICATIONS 3 2

T O T A L S 103 253

Sample Sections 6.1 space flexibility and efficiency 37%6.2 performance indicators 37%

6 SURFACE EFFICIENCY 6.3 activity and organization facilities 16%6.4 areas for people facilities 7%6.5 "eco-friendly" areas 4%

6.3 - ACTIVITY AND ORGANIZATION FACILITIES

6.3.1 - Reception area

6.3.2 - CED area or local server

6.3.3 - Meeting area (permanent rooms or movable strucutres)

6.3.4 - BMS (Building Management System) area

6.3.5 - Photocopies, printers, fax area

6.3.6 - Warehouse/closet area

6.3.7 - Conference room or auditorium

6.3.8 - Training courses area

6.3.10 - WI-FI and/or multi-media area

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

NO

YES

NO

YES

6.3.9 - Room devoted to a centralized control of the technological systems in auditorium and trainingcourses areas

6.4 - AREAS FOR PEOPLE FACILITIES (PRESENT OR PLANNED IN CASE OF UNINHABITED BUILDINGS)

INSIDE THE BUILDINGS THERE ARE:

6.4.1 - Gym/fitness area 6.4.2 - Relax/reading area

6.4.3 - Cafeteria 6.4.4 - Nursery

6.4.5 - Smoking area 6.4.6 - Restaurants

6.4.7 - Shopping area (newspaper, magazines) NO

YES

YES NO

YES NO

NO6.5 - "ECO-FRIENDLY" AREAS

6.5.1 - Eco-friendly area for garbage collection on every floor

6.5.2 - Eco-friendly areas feature separate garbage collection of:

Paper/cardboard Aluminum and plastic Glass

Batteries Exhausted oils Organic garbage

Exhausted toners Bulky garbage (wood, iron, drawers, obsolete pc etc) NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

Indicadores de eficiencia NRA = Net Rentable Area GIA = Gross Internal Area NUA = Net Usable Area NPA = Net Productive Area Eficiencia para el propietario: NRA/GIA (ej. IBM 88%) Eficiencia para el inquilino: NUA/NRA (ej. IBM 92%) Eficiencia productiva: NPA/GIA (ej. IBM 49%) (del libro: “Facility Management. Progettare, misurare, gestire e remunerare i servizi”, `por Oliviero Tronconi y Andrea Ciaramella)

Sample Sections

Sample Sections 4.1 general 53%

4 AIR CONDITIONING 4.2 flexibility 22%4.3 control and power consumptions 25%

4.2 - FLEXIBILITY

4.2.1 - Plants divided by areas (atrium, inner areas, perimetral areas, CED)

4.2.2 - Floors power plants

4.2.3 - Air conditioning system backup for CED or local server

4.2.4 - Plants which can be selected for renting as a hypothetic "basic pattern"

4.2.5 - Possibility, in case of malfunction/lack of power of an internal source providing power to all remaining internal units

NOT APPLICABLE

NO

YES

YES

NO

4.3 - CONTROL AND POWER CONSUMPTIONS

4.3.1 - Units checking and management (fan coil, radiators, VRF internal units etc.)

4.3.2 - Remote control and management via internet

4.3.3 - Building automation and energy management system

4.3.4 - Setting intervals in units switching on and off

4.3.5 - Setting plants timetable

4.3.6 - Maximization of plant starter and stopping

4.3.7 - Availability of a monitoring system, signaling and diagnosing malfunctions

4.3.8 - Local monitoring system through CO2 detectors

4.3.9 - Door/window contact for ignition and stopping

4.3.10 - Free-cooling system (use of external ventilation for room cooling)

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

SINGLE

NO

YES

Single zone

YES - Energy Performance Class B (EN 15232)

4.3.11 - Water free-cooling (water cooling through external ventilation)

4.3.12 - Natural ventilation systems

4.3.13 - Passive system accumulating cool air

4.3.14 - Heat recovering systems

4.3.15 - Different counters for power consumption referred to lighting and air-conditioning

4.3.16 - Consumption sharing systems

4.3.17 - Limitation of power peaks

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

The weight of the 13 sections Water

Inner Soundproofing Lifting plants

Indoor Finishes Communication/Wiring System

Safetyspecial plants Lighting

External Facilities Management

Power Building Frame

Air Conditioning

Surface Efficiency

Building Performances: As Is and To Be Figure 3: The radar graph represents the

performances of the building under examination based on its actual status. Sections as Energy, Water, and Safety Systems are particularly wanting. It is reasonable to expect that a redevelopment intervention would give priority to these aspects.

RATING SCORE

AAA 100 - 90

AA 89 -80

A 79 - 70

BBB 69 - 60BB 59 - 50

B 49 - 40

CCC 39 - 30

CC 29 - 20

C 19 - 10

D < 10

AS IS

RATING

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%BUILDING FRAME

INTERNAL SOUNDPROOFING

ENERGY

AIR CONDITIONING

LIGHTING

EFFICIENCY OF SURFACES

SAFETY SYSTEMSMANAGEMENT

COMMUNICATION/WIRING SYSTEM

INDOOR FINISHES

URBAN FACILITIES

LIFTING DEVICES

WATER

Figure 4: The figure gives a graphic representation

of the consequences of a redevelopment intervention that would take into consideration the sections that resulted below performance level in the evaluation.

RATING SCORE

AAA 100 - 90

AA 89 -80A 79 - 70

BBB 69 - 60

BB 59 - 50

B 49 - 40

CCC 39 - 30

CC 29 - 20

C 19 - 10

D < 10

TO BE

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%BUILDING FRAME

INTERNAL SOUNDPROOFING

ENERGY

AIR CONDITIONING

LIGHTING

EFFICIENCY OF SURFACES

SAFETY SYSTEMSMANAGEMENT

COMMUNICATION/WIRING SYSTEM

INDOOR FINISHES

URBAN FACILITIES

LIFTING DEVICES

WATER

RATING

Improvement by the Building Rating: case study

Typical 60’s office building close to the Central Railway Station in Milan. In 2009 – 2010 the building has undergone a refurbishment intervention especially with regard to the building envelope and the mechanical plants.

Improvement by the Building Rating The orange areas represent the potential optimization working on particular investments. The “as is” situation is showed by blue areas

0

20

40

60

80

100Building frame

Inner soundproofing

Power

Air conditioning

Lighting

Surface efficiency

Safety/special plantsManagement

Communication/wiring system

Indoor finishes

External facilities

Lifting plants

Water

Improvement by the Building Rating The yellow bars represent the areas where it is possible to increase the performance, by comparison with the “as is” situation (blue bars). The red bars show the maximum potential result for each section of the Rating

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

14,0

16,0

18,0

Building  frame Inner  soundproofing

Power Air  conditioning

Lighting Surface  efficiency  

Safety/special  plants

Management Communication/wiring  system

Indoor  finishes External  facilities

Lifting  plants Water

AS  IS 4,9 1,0 0,0 14,6 2,6 8,7 0,0 8,0 5,0 4,9 7,5 2,0 0,0TO  BE 8,2 1,0 5,0 15,1 2,9 8,7 4,2 8,0 5,0 4,9 7,5 2,0 0,0MAX 10,6 1,4 10,0 18,0 6,5 13,5 8,0 9,0 6,0 5,0 9,0 2,0 1,0

Improvement by the Building Rating The improvement of the Rating after working in the critical areas.

RATING SCORE

BRAVE 10 - AAA 100 - 90

BRAVE 9 - AA 89 - 80

BRAVE 8 - A 79 - 70BRAVE 7 - BBB 69 - 60

BRAVE 6 - BB 59 - 50

BRAVE 5 - B 49 - 40

BRAVE 4 - CCC 39 - 30

BRAVE 3 - CC 29 - 20

BRAVE 2 - C 19 - 10

BRAVE 1 - D < 10

Assessments by rating score

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

80,0

90,0

100,0

Ratin

g  score

Assessments  by  rating  score

Assessment Average score

Built between the late eighties and early nineties, in support of the Regional Railway, Garibaldi Office Centre consists of two towers. The buildings have undergone a heavy refurbishment intervention with special regard to the building envelope. The case study is related to the Tower B: the rating system has been applied at the end of the refurbishment works. • Year of construction: 1983-1992 • Structure: reinforced concrete core and steel columns • Floor dimensions: 42 × 20 meters • Height: 100 meters

Building Rating: case study

RATING SCORE

AAA 100 - 90

AA 89 -80

A 79 - 70BBB 69 - 60

BB 59 - 50

B 49 - 40

CCC 39 - 30

CC 29 - 20

C 19 - 10

D < 10

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%INVOLUCRO EDILIZIO

ISOLAMENTO ACUSTICO INTERNO

ENERGIA

CLIMATIZZAZIONE

ILLUMINAZIONE

EFFICIENZA DELLE SUPERFICI

IMPIANTI DI SICUREZZA/SPECIALIGESTIONE

IMPIANTO DI COMUNICAZIONE/CABLAGGI

O

FINITURE INTERNE

SERVIZI ESTERNI

IMPIANTI DI SOLLEVAMENTO

ACQUA

Building Rating: case study

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

14,0

16,0

18,0

20,0

INVOLUCRO EDILIZIO

ISOLAMENTO ACUSTICO INTERNO

ENERGIA CLIMATIZZAZIONE

ILLUMINAZIONE

EFFICIENZA DELLE

SUPERFICI

IMPIANTI DI SICUREZZA/S

PECIALI

GESTIONE IMPIANTO DI COMUNICAZIONE/CABLAG

GIO

FINITURE INTERNE

SERVIZI ESTERNI

IMPIANTI DI SOLLEVAMEN

TO

ACQUA

MAX 10,6 1,4 10,0 18,0 8,0 12,0 8,0 9,0 6,0 5,0 9,0 2,0 1,0AS IS 6,4 1,3 8,0 15,2 3,3 7,7 6,2 6,9 5,0 4,7 7,6 1,9 0,5

0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

RISK MANAGEMENT ON INVESTMENT (BUILDING/REAL ESTATE RISK)

Property Co

PROJECT BRIEF

SUPPORT FOR THE SALE/RENT

SUPPORT FOR THE PURCHASE

PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT (SEGMENTATION)

BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR REFURBISHMENT: CAPEX

Investor

Developer/Promoter

RE Advisor/ Consultant

Agency

BRaVe support

Certification (14)

Energy (3)

Distritos de negocios, eficiencia y gestión l  Parte la metodología para edificios se puede

trasladar a zonas de negocios. Ejemplos: l  AZCA (Madrid) l  Canary Wharf (Londres) l  La Defénse (París) l  Porta Nuova (Milán)

l  El concepto BID: Business Improvement District.

l  La importancia de la marca.