Part 1 - The 2030 Challenge: Setting + Achieving Energy Goals and Standards

AIA PittsburghA217

The 2030 Challenge: Setting + Achieving Energy Goals with Integrated Design2.1 +2030

Lance Hosey, FAIA, LEED FellowAnna Siefken, LEED AP BD+CMarc Mondor, AIA, LEED FellowApril 21, 2016

Credit(s) earned on completion of this course will be reported to AIA CES for AIA members. Certificates of Completion for both AIA members and non-AIA members are available upon request.

This course is registered with AIA CES for continuing professional education. As such, it does not include content that may be deemed or construed to be an approval or endorsement by the AIA of any material of construction or any method or manner ofhandling, using, distributing, or dealing in any material or product.___________________________________________Questions related to specific materials, methods, and services will be addressed at the conclusion of this presentation.

This presentation is protected by US and International Copyright laws. Reproduction, distribution, display and use of the presentation without written

permission of the speaker is prohibited.

© AIA Pittsburgh; PEAPC, Green Building Alliance, evolveEA, 2016.

Copyright Materials

Kicking off the 2030 Series for Session I will be:

Lance Hosey, FAIA, LEED Fellow, and Chief Sustainability Officer at Perkins Eastman. Author of “The Shape of Green,” his work challenges those who perceive beauty and sustainability as being mutually exclusive.

Anna Siefken of the Green Building Alliance will describe the Pittsburgh 2030 Districts, the most ambitious in the nation.

Marc Mondor, AIA, LEED Fellow of evolveEA, will describe the Integrated Design Process in theory and practice.

Series Moderator: Gary Moshier, AIA of Moshier Studio

Presenters

Integrated Design is fundamental to the creation of next-generation 2030 Challenge-compliant buildings. In this kickoff to the 10-session AIA+2030 Professional Education series, we will take a fresh look at what the latest best practices are for design teams now that Integrated Design has been a part of the vernacular for more than a decade.

It is now well known that the Integrated Design Process (IDP) is a critical component of high-performance building design. We will explore how it can be used to select collaborative strategies that collectively achieve the latest targets outlined in the 2030 Challenge, which now require 70% energy reduction on newly constructed buildings. In particular, we will examine the utility of IDP, as well as new tools and processes that can be used in defining core, early design decisions such as building form and orientation.

CourseDescription

LearningObjectives

1. Explain how the Integrated Design Process differs from traditional design.

2. Provide examples of the most recent approaches to the Integrated Design Process to achieve higher-performing goals.

3. Identify specific characteristics of Integrated Design and its implications for building energy performance.

4. Understand how integrated design synthesizes climate, use, loads, and systems resulting in a more comfortable and productive interior environment, and a building that is significantly more energy-efficient than current best practices.

At the end of the this course, participants will be able to:

LearningObjectives

5. Summarize the potential benefits gained by employing the Integrated Design Process, including the potential to tunnel through the cost barrier and create buildings with lower first costs, better comfort conditions, and large energy savings.

6. Understand how the Integrated Design Process is a means of testing multidisciplinary impacts of design decisions prior to implementing them.

7. Understand how the Integrated Design Process helps to avoid missed opportunities and unforeseen circumstances or conditions.

At the end of the this course, participants will be able to:

AIA+2030 Professional Series 2.0 PROGRAM SCHEDULE | 2016-2017 Attention: Architects, Building Owners, Engineers, Contractors, and Facilities Managers… AIA Pittsburgh’s Committee on the Environment (COTE) presents the AIA+2030™ Professional Series 2.0. This program helps design professionals create buildings that meet the ambitious energy efficiency goals of the Architecture 2030 Challenge.® 1. The 2030 Challenge: Setting + Achieving Energy Goals with Integrated Design

Thursday, April 21, 1:30-5:30 p.m. – Build Pittsburgh 2016*

*Attendees of this session will receive a 10% discount on the AIA+2030 Professional Series 2.0 Full Package.

2. Getting to 70: The Power of Targets + Load Reduction Tuesday, May 17, 4:30-8:30 p.m.

3. Accentuate the Positive: Climate Responsive Design Tuesday, June 21, 4:30-8:30p.m.

4. Skins: The Importance of the Thermal Envelope Tuesday, September 20, 4:30-8:30 p.m.

5. Aggressively Passive: Employing Passive Systems for Load Reduction Tuesday, October 18, 4:30-8:30 p.m.

6. Illuminating Savings: Daylighting and Integrated Lighting Strategies Tuesday, November 15, 4:30-8:30 p.m.

7. Right-sized: Equipment and Controls for Super-Efficient Building system Tuesday, January 17, 4:30-8:30 p.m.

8. Site Power: Renewable Energy Opportunities Tuesday, February 21, 4:30-8:30 p.m.

9. The Hand-off + Staying in Shape: Operations, Maintenance + Education Tuesday, March 21, 4:30-8:30 p.m.

10. Putting It All Together: Achieving 2030 Goals on the Project and at the Office Tuesday, April 11, 4:30-8:30 p.m.

Stay posted to the AIA Pittsburgh’s website and to eColumns, AIA Pittsburgh’s weekly e-newsletter for program updates. In Partnership with… CONTACT Marc Mondor, AIA, LEED Fellow, COTE Committee Chair: [email protected] AIA Pittsburgh Office: 412.471.9548 | [email protected] | www.aiapgh.org

___________________ Credits per Session: 4 LU/HSW Hours and 4 GBCI CEUs GBCI CEUs provided through the Green Building Alliance. ___________________ Registration Opens April 25, 2016

Full Package Savings* $800 - Members of AIA, GBA, MBA, and CSI $1000 - Non-Members

Single Session Pricing $125 - Members of AIA, GBA, MBA, and CSI $150 - Non-Members ___________________ Seminars will include local case studies, in-depth tours of high-performing built projects, and a broad pool of speakers. ___________________ Version 2.0 will balance new construction and renovation, residential and commercial, theoretical and completed, and urban and rural projects. ___________________ Study the significant changes, including analytical software to predict building energy performance. ___________________

INNOVATIONREDESIGNING

Perkins Eastman

LANCE HOSEY, FAIA, LEED FellowPrincipal / Chief Sustainability Officer

“INNOVATIVE ARCHITECTURE” (GOOGLE)

INNOVATION

“The ability to deliver new VALUE. — Jose Campos

““Change that creates a new

dimension of PERFORMANCE.

“— Peter Drucker

— Peter Drucker“ “The test of an innovation is that

it creates VALUE.

ESSENTIALENERGY INNOVATION IS

March 22, 2016

April 4, 2016

April 11, 2016

Energy efficiency affects the entire triple bottom line

97%

BELIEF IN CLIMATE CHANGE

SCIENTISTS

70%

PUBLIC

34%

CONGRESS

LEADING?BUT ARE WE ACTUALLY

PROPEL THE BELL

**YOU ARE HERE

ANNOUNCED TOMORROW!

Eskew+Dumez+Ripple,New Orleans Bioinnovation C enter

N E W O R L E A N S

2 0 1 5 W I N N E R

The building form is configured to provide a protected courtyard, following

French Quarter precedents. Louvers allow the southwest-facing Canal

Street façade to be 6 3 % glass, while the summer solar heat gain is the

equivalent of a building with 18% glazing.

Photo: Timothy Hursley

Measure 4:

Bioclimatic Design

T H E A M E R I C A N I N S T I T U T E O F A R C H I T E C T S

AIA C O TE Top Ten 1997-2015 0 3 6

F O R W A R D 0 4 / I N T R O D U C T I O N 0 5 / S U M M A R Y 0 6 / B A C K G R O U N D 0 7 / D A T A C O L L E C T I O N + A N A L Y S I S 0 9 / G E N E R A L T R E N D S 1 0 / E V A L U AT I O N C R I T E R I A 22 / M E A S U R E S 2 4 / C O N C L U S I O N + R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S 6 2 / R E F E R E N C E S 6 5 / T O C

http://www.aiatopten.org/node/447

“Sustainable design c onserves resources andmaximizes c omfort through design adaptations tosite-specific and regional climate c onditions.”

2 0 1 6 C A L L F O R E N T R I E S

The narrative requests that designers “describe how the building

responds to local climate, sun path, prevailing breezes, and

seasonal and daily cycles through passive design strategies,”

emphasizing “how these strategies specifically shaped the

building plan, section, and massing” and “how these strategies

specifically affected placement, orientation, and shading of the

building.” No metrics are requested for this measure, but the

researchers looked closely at the 100 winning projects over the

past decade and identified the seven most common strategies

listed under Measure 4. The three most popular—used by

over two thirds of projects—are: (1) orienting the building to

coordinate with the sun and wind; (2) strategic sizing and

placement of windows and glazing; and (3) shading devices to

control solar heat gain. All of these strategies directly affect the

appearance of buildings, so they relate closely to Measure 1and

COTE ’s aim to integrate design and sustainability.

Furthermore, use of the most common strategies—orientation and

fenestration/glazing—appears to be increasing in frequency.

Averaging their use in the annual winners shows an upward trend

of 10- 2 0 % over the past decade. Jury member Peter Rumsey

observed this trend in 2015: “The façades are becoming much

more responsive to climate.”47 This conclusion is consistent with

Robles’ 2012 research, which found that, compared to LEED

Platinum buildings celebrated for performance, not design, a Top

Ten winner is four times more likely to “take its shape from the

particular place in which it occurs.”4 8

47 Quoted in Madsen and O'Malley, 2015

48 Robles, Zhai, and Goodrum, “Beauty in Building,” 2012

Measure 4:Bioclimatic D esign

F I G U R E 2 0 Most c ommon bioclimatic design strategies in Top Ten winners, 2006-2015

0 % 2 0 % 4 0 % 6 0 % 8 0 %

Orientation

Fenestration/Glazing

Shading

P assiveVentilation

Massing

Vegetation

Thermal Mass

Optimize Use of


AIA C O TE Top Ten 1997-2015 037


Measure 4:Bioclimatic D esign

4 0 %

5 0 %

2015201420132012201120102 0 0 92 0 0 820072 0 0 6

F I G U R E 21 Average use of two most c ommon bioclimatic design strategies in Top Ten winners, 2006-2015

Optimize Fenestration/Glazing

Optimize Orientation

100%

6 0 %

7 0 %

8 0 %

9 0 %


AIA C O TE Top Ten 1997-2015 0 3 8


Measure 7:

Energy Flows &

Energy Future

W R N S,Watsonville Water Resource C enter

W A T S O N S V I L L E , C A

2 0 1 0 W I N N E R

According to the New Building Institute, on-site energy

production more than doubles what the building needs to

operate.

Photo: Bruce Damonte


AIA C O TE Top Ten 1997-2015 0 4 6



“Sustainable design c onserves energy andresources and reduces the carbon footprint whileimproving building performance and c omfort.Sustainable design anticipates future energysources and needs.”

2 0 1 6 C A L L F O R E N T R I E S

Over the past decade, AIA and COTE have progressively raised

the bar for energy performance. In 2005, the AIA adopted the

2030 Challenge, which seeks a series of successive targets

toward carbon neutrality by that year, and in 2009 it launched

the AIA 2030 C ommitment to give architects a framework for

reporting their projects. In 2015, the AIA COTE Top Ten call for

entries began emphasizing the importance of meeting 2030

targets: “In acknowledgement of the increasingly important role

architects must play in helping to address the challenges of

climate change, and in keeping with the Institute’s core values

surrounding this issue, submissions are expected to make every

effort to comply with the goals of the AIA 2030 C ommitment.”

The same year, the Top Ten program began requiring that

submitting firms have signed the 2030 C ommitment:

“Submissions failing to provide proof of this commitment will be

disqualified.”

While energy performance has been a constant criterion for Top

Ten since the beginning, the specific metrics have changed

markedly over the years. Early on, relatively little information

was required, while the current forms include eight metrics and

an energy model summary. Over the years, two metrics have

remained fairly consistent:

• Predicted energy use intensity (pEUI) in kBtu/sf/yr

Measure 7:Energy Flows & Energy Future


AIA C O TE Top Ten 1997-2015 0 47


• Percent savings from baseline

Of the two, EUI varies widely between different project types, so

for the purposes of the report the researchers have focused on

the second metric, percent savings from a baseline. However,

the baseline reference changed circa 2010. Prior to that year, the

reduction was based on energy cost, which is how LEED

calculates energy savings, and since then the reduction has been

benchmarked against the national average EUI for the building

type. The first was measured against “a minimally code

compliant base model,” using ASHRAE 90.1, “or the local code/

standard, whichever is more stringent.”ASHRAE 90.1is regularly

updated, so it has been a moving target in itself, and the

provision to choose a local code meant that projects submitted

from different jurisdictions could not easily be compared. Since

2010, energy reduction has been calculated by using the E PA’s

Target Finder to find the national average in the C ommercial

Buildings Energy C onsumption Survey (CBECS) . The change was

due to the launch of the AIA 2030 C ommitment, which uses

C B E C S as the baseline. Firms began reporting to the 2030

C ommitment in 2010, so COTE changed the Top Ten baseline

accordingly.

The differences between the baselines can be substantial. For

example, a recent project submitted showed a 47% energy

cost reduction from the LEE D baseline and a 37% reduction

using C B E C S. C omparing Top Ten winners’ energy reductions

over time is only reliable within a rather wide margin of error.

Nevertheless, the comparison is a useful indication of how

energy performance has progressed generally.

For the 189 entries since 1997, 5 6 % have provided a percentage

for energy reduction, although the volume is improving. In the

first five years (1997-2001), 3 0 % submitted this information,

while in the past five years (2011-2015), 8 6 % did. Two thirds

have provided EUI since 1997, so there are considerable gaps in



AIA C O TE Top Ten 1997-2015 0 4 8


all the available energy data.

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Actual

Predicted

2013:355 11th Street (Aidlin Darling)

2014:Iowa Utilities

Board (BNIM)

2015:Federal C enter South

Building 1202 (ZGF)

The average energy reduction for all Top Ten winners that have

provided this information is 5 4 % , slightly exceeding the upper

limit ( 5 0 % ) of energy credits in LEE D.53 Similarly, a 2009

COTE-sponsored study of energy performance in Top Ten

winners found that 91% of a small sample of projects that

could be compared to a national average performed better than

average.54

Charting energy performance since 1997 shows a significant

upward trend. In recent years, the average has hovered around

6 5 % , compared to 3 5 - 4 0 % in the first decade, a sizeable

improvement, especially given that the standards have become

more aggressive, as well. C onsistently over the past six years—

and in some previous years—the annual average for energy

performance of Top Ten winners has exceeded 2030

targets. (In 2015, 7 0 % became the target, but projects awarded

that year were completed earlier.) The cumulative average

for that period (2010-2015) is 6 4 % reduction, compared to

a 50 - 6 0 % target for 2030 during those years. The annual

averages also are significantly higher—nearly double in some

years—than the annual averages for all projects reported to the

2030 C ommitment, according to the AIA.55 For example, the

2014 average for Top Ten was 67%, compared to 36.9% for all

projects reporting to 2030—a 30 -point difference.

All of these numbers are based on predicted performance, not

actual, and intention and outcome can vary widely. A 2008 study

by the New Buildings Institute examined actual energy

performance (measured post-occupancy) for 121 LEED -certified

buildings and found that 25% achieved higher than expected

53 LE E D for New C onstruction v3 (2009) EA1 “Optimize Energy Performance”awards points for6 % to 5 0 % reduction from a baseline.

54 Brown, “Performance by Design,” 2009

F I G U R E 2 7 Energy savings in “Top Ten Plus” Winners, 2013-2015



AIA C O TE Top Ten 1997-2015 0 4 9


55 “AIA 2030 C ommitment 2014 Progress Report,” 2015

outcomes, while 21% fell below the code baseline.56 In the

aforementioned 2009 COTE-sponsored study, the researcher

collected actual energy performance data for 28 Top Ten winners

and discovered that about a third used “significantly more energy

than predicted.”57

Beginning in 2016, actual energy performance information is

being requested in the submission forms for all Top Ten entries.

COTE believes that collecting more of this information will paint

a clearer picture of how outcome aligns with intent. In the

meantime, for each year since 2013 the “Top Ten Plus” program

has awarded a past winner with exemplary post-occupancy

performance. With the very limited group of three winners, actual

energy performance has been dramatically better (15-31%) than

expected.

Additionally, for the state of California, the New Buildings

Institute (NBI) tracks “Ultra-low Energy Verified” buildings,

which have a year or more of metered data documenting energy

performance 6 0 - 8 0 % better than the national industry

average.58 The most recent list (October, 2015) includes one

Top Ten winner: Brooks + Scarpa’s C olorado C ourt Affordable

Housing (2003 winner). N BI lists the project’s net EUI as 36.4,

7 % better than the pEUI listed in the submission (39).

The research team also looked for net-zero energy (NZE)

buildings among Top Ten winners. One challenge is that this

term means different things to different people. It wasn’t until

2015 that the Department of Energy released its “C ommon

Definition of Zero Energy Buildings”: “an energy-efficient

building where, on a source energy basis, the actual annual

56 Turner and Frankel, 2008

57 Brown, ibid.

F I G U R E 2 8 Energy Performance in Top Ten Winners, 1997-2015

% reduction from national median EUI for building type


1997 1998 1999 2 0 0 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

0 %

2 0 %

4 0 %

6 0 %

8 0 %

1 0 0 %

9 0 %

7 0 %

5 0 %

3 0 %

1 0 %


AIA C O TE Top Ten 1997-2015 0 5 0


58 “California Z NE Watchlist”



Verified “Net-Zero Energy” Top Ten Winners, 1997-2015:


delivered energy is less than or equal to the on-site renewable

exported energy.”59 Nine Top Ten winners have been verified by

New Buildings Institute (NBI) as achieving net zero energy in

this way.6 0 These nine account for a fifth of all projects

confirmed by N BI. One additional Top Ten project, the Wayne

N. Aspinall Federal Building and U.S . C ourthouse, is classified by

N BI as “emerging,” meaning it has yet to verify but is seeking

NZE.

2015

2014

The Bullitt C enter, Seattle, WA (Miller Hull)

David and Lucile P ackard Foundation Headquarters,

Los Altos, CA (EHDD)

N R E L Research Support Facility, Golden, CO (RNL)

Omega C enter for Sustainable Living, Rhinebeck, NY

(BNIM)

Watsonville Water Resource C enter, Watsonsville, CA

(WRNS)

Aldo Leopold Legacy C enter, Baraboo, WI (Kubala

Washatko)

Hawaii Gateway Energy C enter, Kailua-Kona, HI

(Ferraro Choi)

Leslie Shao-Ming Sun Field Station, Woodside, CA

(Rob Wellington Quigley)

Lewis C enter for Environmental Studies, Oberlin, OH

(William McDonough + P artners)

2011

2010

2010

2 0 0 8

2007

2 0 0 5

2002

Finally, the research team studied energy performance in

the 2012-2015 winners, compared to all submissions for

that period (some 300+ projects). The average for the non-

winning submissions actually was slightly higher (4 - 5 % ) than

59 “A C ommon Definition for Zero Energy Buildings,” 2015




6 0 “2015 List of Zero Energy Buildings”













the average for winners. Energy performance alone does not

guarantee a win and does not always demonstrate compelling

sustainable design, which depends on a more holistic approach.

For example, the researchers found a correlation between

daylighting and energy performance. A 10% improvement in

daylight autonomy appears to reduce energy consumption

by 3 - 4 % on average. This trend is yet another indicator of

integrative design in Top Ten winners.

F I G U R E 31 Daylight and Energy Reduction in Top Ten Winners, 1997-2015

1 0 % 2 0 % 3 0 % 4 0 % 5 0 % 6 0 % 7 0 % 8 0 % 9 0 % 1 0 0 %

Energy Reduction

1 0 0 %

9 0 %

8 0 %

7 0 %

6 0 %

5 0 %

4 0 %

3 0 %

2 0 %

1 0 %

0 %Daylight Autonomy


AIA C O TE Top Ten 1997-2015 0 52


ENERGY LEADERSHIP?

2030 AVERAGE35%

TOP TEN AVERAGE63%

PROBLEM?WHAT IS THE

May 8, 2015

McGraw-Hill Construction, “World Green Building Trends,” 2012

F I G U R E 3 7 C ost versus Energy Reduction in Top Ten Winners, 1997-2015

Measure 10:C ollective Wisdom & Feedback Loops

that green building need not cost more than conventional

construction,6 8 and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory

calculates that adopting current best practices can achieve

significant energy savings at no additional cost.6 9 Yet, while

Top Ten winners generally are reaching extraordinary energy

performance, their cost effectiveness may not be as exemplary.

C omparing construction cost to energy reduction shows a very

modest, possibly negligible upward trend: each $100 spent per

square foot yields about 1% additional energy efficiency. The

cost per square foot for the 13 “net-zero energy” projects is

22 % higher than the average for all projects, while studies show

that net zero can be achieved for 5-12% above market rates.70

Nevertheless, some projects have shown excellent performance

at minimal cost. Six dozen Top Ten projects have been built

for less than $250 per square foot, and most of those have

achieved over 5 0 % energy reduction. Overland P artners’

Hughes Warehouse Adaptive Reuse (2015 winner) achieved

a 7 3 % energy reduction at only $71per square foot in the hot,

humid climate of San Antonio, TX. More exemplars of higher

performance with lower cost would be valuable case studies.

COTE is highlighting this opportunity in the current Top Ten

submissions forms, which state in Measure 1, “Exemplary cost-

effective strategies are encouraged.”

68 Morris and Matthiessen, 2007

69 N R E L, 2013

70 C ortese, 2014

$100 $ 2 0 0 $ 3 0 0 $ 4 0 0 $ 5 0 0 $ 6 0 0 $700 $ 8 0 0 $ 9 0 0 $1,0 0 0

3 0 %

2 0 %

1 0 %

0 %

4 0 %

6 0 %

8 0 %

1 0 0 %

9 0 %

7 0 %

5 0 %





AIA C O TE Top Ten 1997-2015 0 4 6


+100%

0

-100%

+50%

-50%

ENERGY SAVINGS

CO

ST D

ELTA

+50% +100

OPTIMIZING ENERGY AND COST Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)

COST NEUTRAL-60% ENERGY,

-30% ENERGY,

-15% COST

EFFICIENCY GAPOPPORTUNITY FOR INNOVATION

MARTIN LUTHER KING SCHOOLCambridge, MA

The NEW Highest-scoring LEED Platinum new school ?

69% energy/cost savings

NO ADDITIONAL COST

“The greenest Federal building ever.”

LEED PLATINUM+90% WATER reduction65% ENERGY reduction (before renewables)Produces 22% more energy than it needs+5-6% > market rate construction

NASAAMES RESEARCH CENTER

WILLIAM MCDONOUGH + PARTNERS

Average Cost Premium: est. 5-12%

Average Payback period: est. 3 yrs +/-

May 8, 2015

‘Green’ and sustainability havenothing to do with architecture.

Peter Eisenman

“ “

Sustainability has, or should have,no relationship to style.

Rafael Viñoly

“ “

Is ‘well-designed green architecture’an oxymoron?

The America Prospect

“ “

Mat

t Ty

rnau

er,

“A

rch

ite

ctu

re in

th

e A

ge o

f G

eh

ry,”

Va

nit

y Fa

ir, A

ugu

st 2

01

0

Lan

ce H

ose

y, “

The

G L

ist,

” A

rch

itec

t, J

uly

20

10

DOES SUSTAINABILITY CHANGE THE FACE OF DESIGNOR JUST ITS CONTENT?

EARLY DESIGN DETERMINES 70-90% OF IMPACT

www.shapeofgreendesign.com

Finalist, “Book of the Year,” Urban Design Awards

Amazon’s #1 bestseller for sustainable design

“An inspirational guide to a future we can't wait to embrace.”

–John Elkington

“A crusade to revolutionize what it means to be sustainable.”

–Builder

SHAPETHREE KINDS OF

CONSERVATIONSHAPE FOR ECONOMY

ATTRACTIONSHAPE FOR PLEASURE

CONNECTIONSHAPE FOR PLACE

CONSERVATIONSHAPE FOR ECONOMY

• 40% more energy-efficient• Faster heating

Lakeland, flared cookware

SAVE• 300X weight of formwork• 50% concrete

Mark West, et al, Fabric-formed concrete

S E L F - S U S T A I N I N G F O R M

FORM-DRIVEN

PERFORMANCEFORM PERFORMANCE

Zaha Hadid

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-copying-the-masters-in-china-fotostrecke-91308-2.html


Zaha Hadid Foster, London City Hall



Foster + Partners, London City Hall

Min. surface area

Self-shading

Max. transparency at north face

Max. sunlight reaches the riverwalk

Reduce surface area by 25% and energy by 75%

Sauerbruch Hutton, KFW Westarkade

SAVE• 70% energy

NET ZEROTOWER

AZURE COAST, CHINA

April 8, 2016

EHDD, Packard Foundation, Los Altos, CA

ATTRACTIONSHAPE FOR PLEASURE

“The most intelligent building in the world.”

Pacific Controls Building, Dubai (2007), 1st LEED Platinum in Middle East

ENERGY LEADERSHIP GROUP

SURVEYPOSITION STATEMENT

NOT ALL ARCHITECTS BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE

REUSING EXISTING BUILDINGS CAN BETWICE AS EFFICIENT WITH RESOURCESAS BUILDING A NEW, HIGH-PERF BUILDING

IT CAN TAKE 80 YEARS FOR A NEW HIGH-PERF BUILDING

TO MAKE UP FOR ITS OWN IMPACT

“In the end, we conserveonly what we love.”

Senegalese poet Baba Dioum

shape

pattern

color

D = 1 D = 2D = 1.3-1.4

Stress reduction: 60%Annual savings: $180 billion ?

D = 1.3-1.4

Nouvel, Louvre Abu Dhabi

CONNECTIONSHAPE FOR PLACE

Colombia Serbia Japan

IsraelUSA Spain

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f0/Mcd-serbia.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f0/Mcd-serbia.jpg

THE SINGLE BIGGEST OBSTACLE TO SUSTAINABLE PERFORMANCESIGNATURE STYLE

New EnglandVirginia

FORM DOES NOT FOLLOW FUNCTION

Renzo Piano Building Workshop, Tjibaou Cultural Center

Lake/Flato, World Birding Center

Glenn Murcutt, Kangaloon House

RESIDENTIAL TOWERSDUBAI, UAE

“a place apart”

“a part of place”

#PEgreen15INNOVATIONREDESIGNING

Perkins Eastman

LANCE HOSEY, FAIA, LEED FellowPrincipal / Chief Sustainability Officer

Part 1 - The 2030 Challenge: Setting + Achieving Energy Goals and Standards

Design

Transcript of Part 1 - The 2030 Challenge: Setting + Achieving Energy Goals and Standards