Oregon Sustainability Center building partnerships : advancing best practices : creating green jobs

Transcription

1 PROJECT Oregon Sustainability Center (OSC) Programming Meeting DATE May 20, 2009 FROM Katherine Schultz: GBD Architects ATTENDE Working Group Committee: ES Bureau of Planning and Sustainability Troy Doss Earth Advantage Institute Sean Penrith Portland + Oregon Sustainability Institute Rob Bennett, Liz Hpokins Green Building Services Terry Miller, Alan Scott Oregon Environmental Council Karen Roberti TACS Alice Forbes Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. - Phil Welker Energy Trust of Oregon Sue Sample Conservations Services Group Robert Cross Oregon BUS Project Nolan Lienhart BEST David Kenney Portland Development Commission Kathryn Krygier, Eugenie Frerichs Development and Design Team: GBD Architects: Phil Beyl, Katherine Schultz, Kyle Andersen Gerding Edlen: Damin Tarlow, Jill Sherman, Dennis Wilde Interface Engineering: Omid Nabipoor PAE Marc Brune Nevue Ngan Kevin Perry SERA Architects: Lisa Petterson INFORMATION ITEMS 1. Introduction and Welcome Groups were asked to provide a word to describe their concerns/goals for OSC programming: Behavior Modification Collaboration without it we re doomed Boundaries of acceptability Synergy working with other organizations Integration shared space Tension balance of collaboration, goals and constraints (performance and goals) Scalability how do we grow and evolve over time Optimize optimizing individual space and shared space 2. January Charrette Review a. In January a group of OSC stakeholders met to solidify and clarify the vision, review goals, identify regional environmental priorities and identify intent & activities/topic/strategies.

2 Intent and Activities What do we do intentionally together? What is the interface between public and private companies to serve business interests? Create a place where community group across the state can come together OSC as a brand Clearing house for best thinking Touchstone for people coming to Portland Education a speakers guild Annual project food, biodiversity, tie into the existing community Social equity Rural/Urban interface b. Identification of strategies to facilitate collaborative programming Map of relationship between organization Identify a broad outcome toward work identify goals, keep a dialogue going about best practices OSC programmed by P+OSI or PDX lounge Lessons learned from EcoTrust Mechanism to ensure collaboration including students Governance governing system and structure March Charrette Review a. In March there was a week long charrette that included the development team and stakeholders. Out of that charrette came five guiding principles for the design: Appropriately scaled 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 of the building a. The group also asked: What if the OSC had no walls or offices: Concerns expressed included: privacy issues, feeling of nesting, culture to respect people s work time, ground-rules for the workspace, put up a flag to stop interruptions, learning to use appropriate volumes, learning to use earphones. Opportunities expressed included: synergies, collaboration, more light. This was a concept was vetted as an idea to encourage collaboration as well as eliminate spatial inefficiencies. To visualize the ideal work environment: Characteristics of this vision included: mobility, information access, choice and variability.

3 To identify the top 5 ways to get organizations to mix. Ideas included: activities and scheduling, materials and space, governance, leasing and integration, programming. The strategy and the implementation of the collaborative programming will take place in the next phase of design. 3. Building Design Apart from achieving the LBC, there is a strong desire for biophilic design. To optimize solar exposure, the building needs to be rotated of the City grid by 10 degrees west of south. The building size is determined by meeting the goal of generating all energy on-site. This has dictated the height and gross square feet of the building. There are terraces on the outside and atriums on the north side to encourage collaboration and interaction of the building occupants. The terraces on the NW provide opportunities for outdoor terraces. The winter gardens are two stories 28. They would have trees in them, but the ground area can be used as programmed space. The winter gardens are not being used to treat water. The large photovoltaic (PV) array collects water while producing 80% of the buildings energy. The arrays have been located to maximize solar gain even taking into account new surrounding development. The street car runs diagonally across the south side of the site. Two streetcar alignments are still being considered. One is a double diagonal. The other is a single diagonal for the southbound car and around the block (to the north) for the north bound car. The southbound car will stop in the OSC plaza. The plaza is seen as the forest floor. It is the yin to the urban plaza s yang and reinforces the Halprin sequence. The canopy over the plaza will be wood to reinforce the concept of the forest. There will be excess gray water which will allow the project to give back and recharge the aquifer. The loading dock is undersized in relation to code requirements (1 bay not 2) It also includes a large area for recycling. There is an interest to open the lobby to allow a more open, flow through space without hard divisions. 4. Living Building Work Cultures What is it like to live and work in a Living Building?

4 The Living Building workplace will be a dynamic changing environment. It will promote health and well being (air quality, day-lighting, thermal comfort). It will foster collaboration and achieve the business goals of supporting Oregon s position as a leader in green building. Energy Use Intensity (EUI) = Energy/Gross Building Area Typical building EUI = 94, NREL s EUI = 30, Chesapeake Bay s EUI = 40. Switzerland EUI = 16 and we are targeting an EUI = 18 To meet this EUI we have maximized use of natural energy and optimized renewable energy. ECM = Energy Conservation Measures. Without tenant engagement we are at a 38% reduction from a building EUI of 60. With the various assumptions, we can generate all power on-site for a cost of $7,180,000. Eight Energy Strategies that require tenant participation and engagement: 1) Lighting (maximize window ratio, use light colored surfaces, use efficient low energy lighting). This has an annual energy savings of 410,000 kwh and equates to a savings of $3,665,000 in PV panels not purchased. There was little concern expressed in the OLBI survey with these measures. 2) Adjust Schedule (clean during daylight hours). This has an annual energy savings of 10,000 kwh and equates to a savings of $89,400 in PV panels not purchased. There was some concern expressed with this measure in the OLBI survey. One option to consider is vacuuming from 5-6 or during the lunch hour to alleviate noise concerns. It was noted that having cleaning during the day allows for interaction with the cleaning staff. 3) Elevators (minimize the use of elevators by eliminating one elevator and making the stairs more attractive). This has an annual energy savings of 79,200 kwh and equates to a savings of $525,000 and $708,048 in PV panels. Concern was expressed for getting bikes up and down the elevator as well as staff with mobility concerns. The team assured the group that the elevators would still be centrally and conveniently located for these uses. 4) Expand Temperature ranges (decrease winter set point to 68). This has an annual energy savings of 30,000 kwh and equates to a savings of $268,000 in PV panels. Due to the efficiency of the building envelope we are not seeing great savings in increasing the summer set point. 5) Limit Hot Water Usage (no hot water in restrooms or just one sink with hot water in restroom). This has an annual energy savings 50,000 kwh and equates to a savings of $447,000 in PV panels. In the OLBI survey concern was expressed with this measure. If the concern centers around sanitary conditions, then it may take some education for people to understand that hot water does not make washing one s hands more sanitary. 6) Eliminate Phantom Loads (time clocks on machines, occupancy sensors on power strips, etc). This has an annual energy savings of 60,000 kwh and

5 equates to a savings of $536,800 in PV panels. 7) Reduce Printer Use (locate printers in common areas and decrease the total amount of printers. This has an annual energy saving 20,000 kwh and equates to a savings of $178,000 in PV panels. There would be even greater savings if people were to agree to print less. 8) Use laptops or thin client technology for computers. (80% of the people with laptops that have no additional screens and 20% of the people have desktops.) This has an annual energy savings of 570,000 kwh and equates to a savings of $5,095,800 in PV panels. Computers could be purchased when the building is complete in approximately two years. 5. Collaborative Programming and Space Impacts The great news is we can meet the Living Building Challenge. a. Space Needs: The results of the Programming effort show that Day 1 = 270,000 gsf is required, Day 5 = 351,383 gsf is required and Day 10 = 419,687 gsf is required. b. How much Space can we build: Conventional office buildings are driven by efficiencies and budgets. This building needs to meet conventional requirements as well as the LBC goals and accommodate a unique program that includes more institutional occupancies. The current design is 221,947 gross square feet (gsf). This leaves a difference of 46,259 gsf between the design and the program needs for Day 1. Shared spaces and efficiencies can reduce the amount of program space requested. a. How might spaces be shared? Conference space = there are 76 conf rooms requested. 56 have been requested to be dedicated and 20 can be shared. If we target using the conference center conf rooms there is a 3,645 gsf savings as well as approx. 2,800 in space that tenants expressed they would be willing to share. Using outdoor space and winter gardens as conference rooms will require all tenants working together to schedule those spaces. Lunch Rooms = either sharing with one per floor or consider a building wide lunch room Workrooms = locate centrally on a floor by floor basis Server Rooms = locate centrally in the basement If you add those up and add a circulation factor there is a savings of 10,908 gsf in savings (almost an entire floor). b. Where else can we save space? Workstation Reduction: With a 10% reduction per person and by

6 eliminating enclosed offices, workstation size can be reduced from an average of 116 sf to 106 sf. The non-box floor plate will accommodate/encourage a more open office plan than a typical box floor plate. The character of the work environment is evolving from a cube farm to a more collaborative work environment. Shared workstations = If you consider that 10% of the offices can be shared you can save about 8,200 gsf. If you add all of those up we are at a savings of 36,000 gsf c. How does the building stack-up to the market place? The load factor = spaces that are common to the floor as well as spaces that are common to the building and are thus pro-rationed out to each tenant to pay for that space. Thus load factor affects rent. A typical building load factor is in the 15% range. Currently the OSC has a 23% load factor. The development team is looking and working hard to reduce this number by scrutinizing these shared spaces and finding efficiencies. 6. Public Spaces a. Ground Floor The ground floor plan is responding to the transit nature of the ground floor. There are multiple goals for the lobby space which include: Gathering/event spaces and/or exhibit space. If the lobby is more open, it will be more difficult to accommodate all of these program requests. The current layout begins to fracture the ground floor into a series of smaller retail spaces. This can be modified to accommodate interested retail tenant requirements. b. Exhibit Space tells the story of the building and the sustainable region. As people come and go from the building there would be interactive areas for people to learn and explore more about sustainability in Portland. c. Bike Lockers/Hub The bike lockers and shower rooms are located in the basement level and are accessed by a stair located in the plaza. How many bikes should be accommodated? Do they all say in the basement or can they also go on the floors? More studying will need to be done to determine how many bikes can be accommodated. Bikes can also be accommodated outside in the plaza. d. Terraces and Gardens The terraces and gardens will either be unique and controlled by each tenant on each floor or open to the public. Currently the design does not accommodate a rooftop terrace. When public access is provided to the roof, the elevator has to go to the top as well as stairs and it is treated as an assembly space which impacts the building efficiency.

7 7. Comments There are not any assumptions about phones, but having a common network would allow for more mobility throughout the building. As part of the pro-forma work Gerding Edlen is looking at trying to assign a number for what the first-cost of moving in the building will be as far as workstations, phone systems, computer systems etc. Some non-profits are locked into specific products due to what products are donated. Maybe there is an opportunity for companies to donate their product to test and market that product? The building is elegant, beautiful and glassy. The energy analysis is based on a well insulated glazing and wall system. The exterior materials include vision glass, daylight glass and shadowbox panels that provide the look of glass (without being vision glass). T he LBC requires operability of mechanical systems and lighting. The team is analyzing and considering all options that will enhance the environment and meet the goals of the building. END OF MEETING MINUTES