AIA Awards - defining beauty

You could use the CaGBC TEDI metric, thermal energy demand intensity, in addition to EUI. Rachel Bannon-Godfrey Principal, Sustainability Discipline Leader (303) 547 7557

I support the idea of including peak heating and cooling loads if they aren’t already included in reporting; they would be unique to climates and building uses, of course. We are setting these on some projects, sometimes even have client requirements. The next step for AIA would be to actually require some level of performance for awards; I think they could be assisted to get there over the next few years. -Kjell F

Jacob & Pete – now you are talking! We definitely need to change the narrative – low-load buildings are SEXY – love it!! Metrics are always tricky & numbers can always be manipulated. In particular I have a love/hate relationship with EUI. It doesn’t take into account hours of operation. In the education projects, hours of use can be a huge factor – it can, in some cases, double your EUI if you have robust after-school programming & summer/vacation programming. It’s a really good thing for communities if schools buildings are put to good use all the time. The metrics need to account for this. Jana Silsby Principal, DLR Group From: Rache

I’m having a somewhat complimentary conversation in an upcoming competition in Massachusetts for residential projects. The criteria is all energy metrics. I’m pushing for them to add criteria around design and have some great suggestions from some green gurus. I love “Low Load Buildings Are Sexy.” Maybe it changes to “can be”. Because looking back to the 70’s not all low load buildings were sexy. I buy the bit that buildings need to be beautiful and beloved to be sustainable. Jacob, we should talk (ha) Meredith Built Environment Plus

IMO cut to the chase: low / no emissions buildings.

This may be a very personal thing, but I always flinch when “sexy” is used to imply great things. Too many flashes into MeToo about being sexy as a requirement for advancing in the world. Jean Carroon, FAIA, LEED Fellow Principal - Design, Preservation and Sustainability Goody Clancy 617 850 6651 (direct) 617 285 5936 (mobile) [Goody Clancy] Reusing buildings is climate action! Fro

Hi all, I always flinch at the use of sexy as a descriptor that supposedly indicates excellence or quality or appeal.  Too many flashbacks to the MeToo movement where sexy is a supposed attribute for success in work and life.

Agreed Jean. I thought to say something like that and didn’t and I’m sorry I didn’t. I’m glad that you did. Thank you. What are some other suggestions to get across the same idea? Low Load Buildings are Good Design Low Load Building are Excellent Low Load Buildings are Lovely Low Load Buildings Rock Low Load Buildings are Wicked Low Load Buildings are BadA** Low Load Buildings are ....

zero emissions buildings are good for life

Playing a little Devil’s Advocate, is the problem with the word “sexy” or about redefining the word? I am a fan of reclaiming and redefining terms when possible. There is more power in that process than running from it. To me, smart can be sexy, healthy can be sexy, brave can be sexy…. Heather DeGrella AIA, LEED AP BD+C, Fitwel Ambassador, EAC-PS, | sustainable design director, senior associate | she / her / hers | opsis architecture LLP | o:503.525.9511 d:503.943.6228 | www.opsisarch.com Opsis remains committed to our clients and projects and will continue working throughout the COVID-19 emergency through remote locations and tools. Due to our office closure, please use cell phones or email as the primary contact and note that we will conduct meetings online wherever possible. Updates to our office status or policies will be posted here. From: J

sexy (by Merriam-Webster) adjective \ ˈsek-sē\ 1 : sexually suggestive or stimulating : erotic 2 : generally attractive or interesting : appealing I don’t know how “erotic” became “appealing” (Language is not my strong suit & I’m a foreigner!), but I prefer using other words to define something appealing. In general, I hate to limit or lose perfectly good vocabulary (since I have so little to begin with ^_^), but personally I’m ok with “sexy” taking a back seat in expressing success & excellence.

Like Jacob's and Pete's original approach to focus more on "heating load" of the envelope, but may need to be more holistic to include embodied carbon to umderstand the price of carbon we pay for the "load"? Here is why.... 1. Punishing density if include cooling load?  Urban taller office buildings usually have higher density (e.g. Manhattan) and more cooling "loads" per sf compare to lower suburban office buildings.  Is higher density, and as a result higher cooling "load", bad in cities? 2. A really low heating "load" building can be done by piling on insulation that can have much higher embodied carbon, does that means it is a good design in terms of total carbon?  What is our "8" ball?

One more interesting thing I’ve recently learned about lower load buildings: the embodied carbon for electricity-generating infrastructure is non-negligible. When we consider that better U value lowers loads, it also reduces the investment of embodied carbon in new electrical generation infrastructure. https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints -Kjell F

ILFI set an upper bound on total project embodied carbon for Zero Carbon Certification (500 kg-CO₂e/m²) - could we use that for now?  

The ILFI upper bound is certainly based on the best available data, but the best available data isn’t very good, yet, and it has no flexibility for other building types. It would be similar, at least in some ways, to saying that all projects have an EUI below 30. Certainly we can require that all award applicants have done a certain rigor of embodied carbon analysis or reduction from a baseline, with the intent to use that to benchmark in the coming years. F

The 2030 Challenge for Embodied Carbon sets a percentage reduction target, and I believe they have a set of baselines. It's a similar concept to the 2030 Challenge for operating EUI. https://architecture2030.org/2030_challenges/embodied/

There is an interesting approach to this question that was created for the City of Boston Zero Emissions Buildings Guidebook web link: https://www.boston.gov/departments/neighborhood-development/purchase-or-develop-property#zero-emissions-buildings This approach posits a limit of carbon per person inhabiting the space. So far, it is only looking at operational carbon per year. But it would be very easy to adapt this approach to include embodied carbon, and give it a lifetime of 50 or 60 years. This is what Christopher Magwood did in creating this municipal guidelines in a small city in Canada. Quoting Christopher: In looking at what kind of threshold would be relatively easy to achieve for a builder in the area, I think we've settled on a cap of 75 kgCO2e/m2. This would be a 250 kgCO2e/m2 reduction from the study average, or around 50 tonnes per typical residential build in the municipality. The buildings also need to hit a threshold of 10kgCO2e/m2 from operational loads (there's a bit of discussion around this number, so it may change before the program opens up on March 1). And here is a link to the guidelines: https://bc3-production-blobs-us-east-2.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/3526c742-4cf3-11ea-b81e-ecf4bbd6f9a0?response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3D%22Sustainable-Development-Guidelines-2020.pdf%22%3B%20filename%2A%3DUTF-8%27%27Sustainable-Development-Guidelines-2020.pdf&response-content-type=application%2Fpdf&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAS5PME4CT5QW2PJJU%2F20200616%2Fus-east-2%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20200616T190644Z&X-Amz-Expires=86400&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=c5415842fb2bca12ae8e2fb6b7c112bf66300485a70d7b8442419abc05e0feba -jim Jim Newman | Principal Linnean Solutions Cambridge, MA | Portland, ME www.linneansolutions.com (617) 699-7323

I'm doing a session on the AIA's Framework for Design Excellence, particularly the measure for Designing for Energy, for a local AIA Chapter's upcoming "Credit Carnival".  So, I figured that I would review what AIA has to say about that:  https://www.aia.org/showcases/6076709-designing-for-energy.  Lots of good stuff (shout-out, Corey Squire and Tate Walker!):  benchmarking and goal-setting, passive design features/climate responsive design, energy modeling, etc.  When you look at the Resources for benchmarking and goal-setting, there're several resources for setting your EUI and carbon goals, but I couldn't find anything about setting peak demand goals (the "Low Load Buildings are ..." objective).   So, we have this disconnect:  We are focused on annual energy use/operational carbon (LEED points), but not focused on doing the things that reduce load (and, at least theoretically, reduce first cost).  ASHRAE Standard 209-2018 (stop me if you've heard this), section 5.6.5.1 requires establishing performance goals for the building envelope, and Section 6.3.3.2a requires peak load reduction strategies for the building envelope.  There is some mention of limiting window-to-wall ratio in the Designing for Energy guidance.  Can't we come up with, perhaps climate and/or building-type specific, a realtively simple load reduction metric for the envelope, like composite UA < x?

This is why Green Gurus is such a great resource!  Thanks, Kim for posting that - I have totally been a part of that disconnect and would look forward to understanding more about how to set a load reduction metric for the envelope.  Not to be too transparent about my lack of knowledge, but can you elaborate a bit about UA < x?  Is that wizardry?

I should have been a little more precise.  I'm looking for an area weighted U value to be less than a certain value.  This is explained somewhat in Code language in the 2018 IECC, section C401.2.5.  Simply (I hope), if you multiply the U value of each of the different envelope assemblies (opaque wall, roof, exposed floor, fenestration, etc) by the area of that assembly, sum those up, and divide it by the total area of the envelope, you will come up with that area-weighted U value.  To get a lower area weighted U, you could reduce the area of things with high U values (windows being the obvious example), and/or decrease the U value of the envelope assemblies.  The U value metric is good for heating climates, but not as significant for cooling load dominated buildings - for those buildings it might be something like a budget for overall peak energy (watts/sf).    

Great conversation! On projects where this is of concern in Boston (heating dominant climate), we're finding MA Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) review, which is the toughest hurdle to jump to obtain a building permit, is requesting the average weighted value of facades be R-5, min.(U-0.02, max.). While this might not be exactly the "silver bullet" number we're looking for, it is a great start, especially for projects that are over-glazed, and/or aiming for LEED equivalency, etc. Footnote: MEPA review is triggered when a project "could" negatively impact surrounding ecological communities, most often when a project/s seeking permit exceed 1Mgsf. The theory is the projects that can do the most harm should be leveraged to do the most good. This makes me think - like scale jumpin in ILFI - wecould apply prescriptive criteria for both climate and scale. Enjoy! -Blake

Heating & cooling load targets are built into PHIUS+ certification, and adapt based upon location, occupancy, and building scale. There's an online calculator for determining the targets: https://www.phius.org/phius-certification-for-buildings-products/project-certification/phius-2018-getting-to-zero The PHIUS targets may be overly-ambitious for buildings not pursuing PHIUS certification, and may need to be revised to better reflect different building types, but they're certainly a good start (or stretch goal), and perhaps the PHIUS methodology could be adapted. Carl *Carl Sterner, *AIA, LEED AP, CPHC Director of Design & Sustainability cell 347 604 0257 | office 513 455 8228 x710 | fax 513 455 8227 www.soldesignconsulting.com

Yes we there are a few local AIA COTE chapters who have done this, including AIA Los Angeles. At AIA LA COTE we just merged our local COTE awards with AIA LA’s design awards. We’re using the COTE Top Ten common app to collect technical information on all submissions and will be evaluating sustainability as well as the other criteria within the design awards. The Common App collects information on EUI, total energy load, etc, but we have not set a limit to loads. Here is a snip: [cid:image001.png@01D6455A.2837B140] AIA CA COTE is also currently looking for technical advisors to sit on the awards committee. Would be fantastic to have some engineers on this committee. Please contact me directly if you’d like more info… Avideh Haghighi AIA, LFA, LEED GA Associate ZGF ARCHITECTS LLP T 213.253.5880 E avideh.haghighi@zgf.com 515 South Flower Street, Suite 3700 Los Angeles, CA 90071 From: J

Hi wonderful people, I am looking for input on establishing some embodied carbon benchmarks. I am attempting to come up with a short list of building and renovation categories and their associated embodied carbon footprints. I would love to get your input on both the categories - do they cover enough building/structural types; and on my initial embodied carbon assumptions for each type,( maybe they should be ranges?) I am familiar with the CLF Embodied Carbon Study, and the Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Residensity charts that were in the Architecture Carbon Issue. Any and all input is welcome, but if you have actual LCA data on a specific project, and some specifics about the project I would love to see it. I am particularly lacking LCA data on renovation projects. I am curious to know whether you think these assumptions are in the ballpark for the different buildings/renovations you can reply through Green Gurus or to my email below Thanks, Larry Larry Strain, FAIA LEED AP S I E G E L & S T R A I N A r c h i t e c t s 6201 Doyle Street, Emeryville, CA 94608 510.547.8092 x103 fax 510.547.2604 (Enter on 62nd Street) lstrain@siegelstrain.com www.siegelstrain.com