Graduate Case Study

Adam Joseph Lewis CenterOberlin Collegeby William McDonough + Partners

burwinkel, david | dober, stephan | koesters, hans | schoeppner, nicholas 23 ARCH 667 | SEC Tech 01

index

[pages_3-6]

[pages_1-2]

[pages_7-9]

[pages_10-13]

[page_14]

[pages_15-17]

[pages_18-19]

[pages_20-21]

[pages_22-24]

[pages_25-27]

[page_28]

[pages_29-30]

[pages_31-33]

[page_34]

as-built elevations, plans and sections

abstract and information study

William McDonough design mentality

general environmental information

passive ventilation

solar angles study of the photovoltaic roof

heating

living machine

daylighting levels

meeting the sky and ground

building as a town square

materials and structure

energy exporter and conclusion

SEC Tech case study information

abstract |study

The Adam Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental Studies is a 13,600 square foot building on the campus of Oberlin College. It is used as an environmental laboratory and houses classrooms and a “Living Machine” that filters wastewater for re-use. The building was opened in 2000 and was de-signed by William McDonough + Partners. Based on a set of uncompromising goals put forward by Professor David Orr of the University in a number of meetings and courses, the building was de-signed to reverse many of the environmental stresses that most buildings place on their surround-ings and to restore the landscape and site around it to the quality of the area before human inter-vention. Among the major goals of the building were power using current Northern Ohio sunlight, on-site wastewater treatment and re-use, and an approach that wouldn’t compromise human or environmental health.

William McDonough, the architect responsible for the overall design of the Lewis Center believes that “design is the first signal of human intention.” With a philosophy like this, he seeks to create buildings that instead of achieving a prescribed level of efficiency and becoming “less bad” are actually a net benefit to both society and the environment they occupy. His firm’s goal in design is “a delightfully diverse, safe, healthy and just world, with clean air, water, soil and power – economi-cally, equitably, ecologically and elegantly enjoyed.” By the standards of modern buildings these are very lofty aims to shoot for. For the design of the Lewis Center the design intent was stated even more specifically: To design a building like a tree.

When comparing this boldly stated intention with the building as it exists today, a reasonable con-clusion is that the Lewis Center has some of the right ideas but falls far short of achieving the ideal of “tree-ness.” It reproduces several primary functions of a tree, including converting solar power into usable energy. However, due to restrictions placed upon the final design by the client’s wishes and limitations in modern technology the Lewis Center’s success at imitating and replicating the processes of plant life is limited.

In some areas, such indoor air quality, daylighting quality, and material use, the building functions admirably. Its landscaping, which consists of native plants to northern Ohio, provides food produc-tion, water management, and a natural habitat for living in through on-site orchards and construct-ed wetlands. On the south façade of the Center trees are used for summer shading to minimize heat gain, and there are numerous operable windows to provide passive shading.

Despite these clear design successes, the building has several significant criticisms, most impor-tantly that it fails to produce an energy surplus as it was claimed to be capable. The building gener-ates its energy through a 4,700-ft2 photovoltaic array on the curved roof surface. Any excess power generated is sent to the local utility grid, but for the first ten years of its existence the building used more energy than the output of the PV array. The architects and college were not too concerned about this issue because they considered the building a work in progress and recognized that achieving their high-performing goals would take a bit of tweaking of the buildings systems, esti-mating that it would take 10-12 years to fully realize the goal of net energy production, but several members of the community publicly criticized this weakness in the design and pointed to flaws in the buildings mechanical systems as one of the reasons for this inefficiency. These flaws include improperly sized exhaust fans and a geothermal heating/cooling system that is only partially effec-tive due to cost considerations and design uncertainty. Today, the building has still failed to become a net energy exporter, and for the last five years has actually been shifting further away from this reality due to an overall increase in energy usage.

In the end, the building doesn’t realize the lofty vision it was designed to meet, but it makes sig-nificant strides in the right direction in several areas and maintains an attitude of adaptability and change that indicate its potential in the future to close in upon its goals with new technological advances. Falling short, however, does not mean complete failure. The building was designed to be a laboratory and a place for education, and in that regard, it could hardly have been designed bet-ter. Both the buildings successes and its obvious shortcomings become opportunities for learning, and the fact that there is ample room for improvement means that the educational quality of the building itself will be ongoing.

To this end, the building is closely monitored at all times and students, faculty, and professionals can use it as a case study of the potential and obstacles to true energy efficient design that be-comes an asset to not just its users but to the environment and greater society as well. In a modern society where many buildings are bad for the environment, McDonough believes it is not enough to be “less bad.” You must make a building that is good. When viewed in this light, the Lewis Center is a partial success; It is good, but it is far “less good” than it has the potential to be. It is at best a stepping-stone to a greater vision of design.

information |study

September 2001 – August 2002

*image courtesy of www.nrel.gov

east elevation

south elevation

[3]

north elevation

west elevation

elevations |

The exterior treatment of the Adam Joseph Lewis Center is almost half fenestrations. This amount of glazing results in an extremely well lit daylight space. The wash of light also serve as a reminder of the buildings primary energy provider, the sun. The overall total wall to fenestration ratio is .43. The other .67 of the facade is brick and cmu which serve the dual purpose of providing better R values and also serving as a contextual gesture to the surrounding buildings and the typology of academic buildings. The North facade is protected by an earth mound and an orchard that sits atop it to dampen cold winds and also serve as a thermal barrier to the cold weather which is the pre-dominant concern for building environments in this area.

as built

plans| The plan was developed to orient the high use areas along the south facade to afford maximum daylight to the critical spaces and also take advantage of the windows as a means of inducing solar gain. This area is predominantly a heating loaded area with 6497 heating degree days a year com-pared with 594 cooling degree days.

as built

[4]

sections |as built

north | south section

west | east section [5]

sections | as built

[6]

design mentality | William McDonough

The design process was headed by William McDonough and Partners. The major concept behind the design was that a building should behave like a tree. This design also treated the Lewis Center as a laboratory for learning and experimentation for the future of ecological design. It also was seen as the perfect platform to push ecological design as it was an academic environment. Below are some of the projects that McDonough has also worked on. In all case a strong emphasis is placed upon the metaphor of a building as a tree. This is mainly achieved through the use PV panels. This allows the building to draw from the energy of the sun.

William McDonough also wrote “Cradle to Cradle” in which he postulated that sustainability is a misguided goal because its major theme is being less bad. He states that, “being less bad is not good,” rather we need to drastically change the way in which we use and recycle the environment we inhabit. His designs reduce or do not use toxins that are harmful to the environment either before or after the construction.

[7]


Nike has crafted one of the world’s most readily recognizable corporate identities through its emphasis on world-class athletic performance. Wil-liam McDonough + Partners furthered Nike’s mission by bringing world-class innovation to the Nike European Headquarters. Located within easy access to the train station and the city, the site was once a former harness track and Olympic training ground. The new campus continues the tradition of physical excellence through incorporation of a jogging track that bridges the entry doors, a central pond that becomes an ice rink in the winter and numerous athletic fields and courts. The campus’s quartet of office buildings with parking below and the commons building surround a large central public lawn which includes one of the largest rainwater collection systems in Europe. The flexible, adaptable workplace, designed to convert to housing in the future, includes strong connections to the outdoors through daylighting, natural ventilation, and access to views. Employee health is further optimized through the use of low-VOC finishes in a virtually PVC-free environment. Renewable energy sources provide 30% of the total supply, due in large part to one of northern Europe’s largest geothermal heating and cool-ing systems. Designed and built on a schedule as rapid and ambitious as any European office complex of its size, the project offers a model of effective resource management, community connection, long-term flexibility, and aesthetic appeal while reflecting its tenants’ commitment to corporate social responsibility.

[8]


Sustainability Base, NASA’s new facility at the entrance to Ames Research Center, is designed to showcase NASA’s culture of innovation. The client charged the team with delivering a facility that embodies NASA’s spirit, fosters collaboration, supports health and well-being, and goes beyond LEED® Platinum in its pursuit of Cradle to Cradle solutions.

As design architect, WM+P led an intensive fast-track effort. The three-month concept and schematic design phase incorporated significant analysis of each scheme to test, and later tune, building performance against project goals. One result of this integrated dialog was an innovative approach to building structure. The exoskeleton approach offers increased structural performance during seismic events, provides an armature for daylighting and shading strategies, and creates a column-free interior that facilitates workplace flexibility. It also becomes the icon for the building, recalling lunar modules and satellites. Other project innovations range from aggressive daylighting and natural ventilation design to in-depth materials screening. The resulting building will be a flexible workplace filled with glare-free daylight, fresh air and abundant connections to the outdoors, serviced by systems that, in time, will use only renewable energy and will maintain water in closed loops.

[9]

environmental | built form

The design process was headed by William McDonough and Partners. The major concept behind the design was that a building should behave like a tree. This design also treated the Lewis Center as a laboratory for learning and experimentation for the future of ecological design. It also was seen as the perfect platform to push ecological design as it was an academic environment. Below are some of the projects that McDonough has also worked on. In all case a strong emphasis is placed upon the metaphor of a building as a tree. This is mainly achieved through the use PV panels. This allows the building to draw from the energy of the sun. William McDonough also wrote “Cradle to Cradle” in which he postulated that sustainability is a misguided goal because its major theme is being less bad. He states that, “being less bad is not good,” rather we need to drastically change the way in which we use and recycle the environment we inhabit. His designs reduce or do not use toxins that are harmful to the environment either before or after the construction.

[10]

*Climate information courtesy of “Heating, Cooling, Lighting: Design Methods for Architects” by Norbert Lechtner [11]

environmental | general information

[12]

[real_thing]The Environmental Studies Program a is a new field of study for Oberlin College and its formation was placed in the hands of Professor David Orr. Orr, together with a group of dedicated students, initiated the concept of ecological studies and the fund-raising and lobbying that was essential to create the space, recognition and validation for this young program to foster. Their needs were for a permanent space to house classes, offic-es, assembly, lecture halls and places for experiment. This was achieved through the construction of the Adam Joseph Lewis Center, which has become the symbol of their efforts and the new movement. The Lewis Center was constructed in collaboration with the students who served key roles in developing the program and over arching ideas of the architectural implementation.

program| environmental studies

[13]

The ideal ventilation method for a tree-like building would be windows that function like stomata on leaves. The stomata open and close to allow passive exchange of gases and moisture. The mechanism regulating this exchange functions based on the amount of water stored in the stomata walls. When they swell with water, the openings constrict stopping water and air from enter-ing the leaf. Once the water levels drop, the stomata walls slacken and the tree begins to take in needed air and water from the environment. The system regulates itself based on its own needs and available supplies for photosynthe-sis with no extra energy needed to facilitate this process. A building function-ing on a similar model would need a way of detecting current air temperature, CO 2, and O2 levels and using these levels as mechanical inputs to open or close windows on the proper building facades to allow more or less air through the building.

The utilization of operable windows at varying heights allows for the free move-ment of air throughout the space. Cool air will be allowed to enter and exit through the lower windows and the same goes for the upper windows in terms of the hotter air. The orientation of the lower atrium windows to the upper rear windows are in line to create a path of least resistance for the air to move throughout the space. The major downside of such a system is when Ohio’s extreme temperature differentials come into play during the winter and sum-mer months, meaning passive ventilation can only be used as the main source of cooling or heating during the 4 or 5 months of Spring and Fall. For the winter months, the temperatures get so low that artificial heating is a must; and in the summer months, the heat gain from the large atrium windows negate any change in temperature the passive system has achieved.

environmental | “breathe like a tree: open and free”

“my harsh climate scoffs at your notions of an open-air building”

passive ventilation

The interior comfort of the interior of this building is extend-ed by venting hot air through clerestory windows and pulling in cool air on the first floor.

Optimum angle of roof for passive ventilation.

[ideal_thing] [real_thing]

[14]

environmental | “the best roof for PV’s is a flat slope”

“I just like curved roofs”

solar angles

[15]

The ideal solar angle for a PV array to collect the most energy from the sun is one that is exactly perdendicular to the sun’s rays at all times. This can only be achieved by a system that constantly tracks the sun across the sky and adjusts the angles of the panels to point directly at it. The optimal tilt for a fixed solar array at the Lewis Center’s latitude of 41.3 degrees is 34.5 degrees from horizontal. This angle would produce the optimal amount of energy without having to change the tilt throughout the year, resulting in a production ratio of 71% of the energy a tracking array would produce.

Utilitarian Environmental ResponseAesthetic Environmental Response

The reality of the Lewis Center roof is a graceful curved arc chosen more for its aesthetics than for its performance. The angle of the curve from horizontal is only optimized to receive the greatest amount of sun energy in the middle of the summer when the sun is at its highest in the sky.


[16]

environmental | solar angles

“but I’m telling you a flat slope is the best for utilizing solar energy” “good to know, I still want a curved roof”

30.19°

34.5°

19.96°

16.55°

13.14°

9.73°

4.61°

1.20° 2.21

°

5.62

°

9.04

°

12.4

5°

15.8

6°

7.17°

26.78°

23.37°

7° average roof angle

100%

71%57%

roof angle analysis

optimal fixed roof comparison

optimal fixed array

optimal fixed array

tracking array

tracking array

horizontal array

horizontal array

existing roof comparison

energy percentage achieved

existin

g array

optimal fi

xed arra

y

optimal fixed arra

y angle

track

ing array

The optimal fixed angle for an array in the Lewis Center’s area is 34.5 degrees above horizontal. The Lewis Center roof has approximately a 7 degree angle when the angles along the curve are averaged out. This means that the Lewis center is about 20% less efficient at generating solar energy than if the existing roof were a flat slope at 34.5 degrees.

[ideal_thing]

The roof of the Lewis Center is not flat, it is curved and as a result the maximum efficiency is not achieved. This move was done for aesthetics only in order to mimic the hills as a contextual gesture. This design decision is in stark contrast to the overall goal and message of the building as an example of built form in its most efficient state.

The sun was looked at in this project as the major nuclear reactor upon which this project would rely for its energy. Working with this idea it was important that the roof be covered with photovoltaic panels to achieve maximum sun exposure, generating enough energy not only for the Lewis Center but also enough to be pumped into the grid for other building’s usage.

environmental |


Summ

er Sun

Summ

er Sun

Winter Sun

Winter Sun

Roof Angled to receive more direct solar angles

Roof Angle directs ventilation

solar angles

[17]

[18]

Much of the heating was to be processed through the use of large windows in the atrium and geothermal systems that draw heat from the Earth. The massing walls of CMU and brick in most of the facade was in place to retain much of the heat gained through these applications. Ideally, these building elements would all work together to create a comfortable interior environment for all who use the spaces.

The validity of these systems working together is lost in the actual performance of this building throughout the winter montsh. The large glass walls that al-low the light to enter into the atrium loses the heat faster than it can capture it, causing HVAC to be used at full capacity. In order to accomplish McDonough’s dream of energy efficiency, the HVAC systems are shut off periodically to save energy, creating uncomfortable interior conditions.

environmental | heating


“a building must not only be energy efficient, but comfortable for the user”

“but in order to achieve energy efficiency on paper, our heating and cooling is sacrificed, leaving us cold in winter and hot in the summer”

Thermal Mass was a critical key to extending the thermal comfort zones. The overhang of the roof was de-signed to reduce direct solar gain during the summer months. The inverse is true during the winter months when maximum solar gain through the south and east glazing is encouraged and the heat from these rays is absorbed by the thermal mass in order to regularize the temperature of the space.

environmental | heating

December 21st 2:00 P.M.

June 21st 2:00 P.M.

Shaded Region

Thermal Mass

Defining Elements

[real_thing]

[19]

[20]

In the perfect application, a living machine is used to treat wastewater from the occupants of that particular building. For example, all of the toilets in the restrooms drain to a holding tank which is then drawn into the wetlands. These wetlands become a landscaping opportunity for the design of a building, allow-ing the people in the buildings to experience the purification process of water even if they do not know it. After filtering through a series of wetlands that purify the water wtih biological means instead of chemical treatment, the water is stored in a final tank awaiting reuse into toilets, irrigation and cooling towers.

The living machine in the Lewis center is an ambitious undertaking. When Mc-Donough conceived of this building as a town center, the current application of water purification would have been ideal. However, in reality this building is not a town square, meaning the size of the living machine oversized for the building’s occupancy. In order for the water purification to be energy efficient or neutral, more people would have to be using the toilets at the Lewis Center. As it stands today, the living machine wastes more energy than its saves, and as a result, Ober-lin College had actually paid people to use the toilets in the building to increase the amount of waste entering the system.

environmental | “a living machine will be great for this building”

“a building of this size will use more en-ergy than it saves using a living machine”

wastewater treatment


As a building for environmental studies, McDonough wanted the Lewis Center to demonstrate an aesthetic of exposing where and how each system was being used. To further what he had already done with the PV roof and the large atrium space as a town square, McDonough wanted to locate the living machine on the southern facade where the main entry would be. Not only would all who enter the space be able to see the living machine in action, but it would provide a proper amount of shading for the southern sun exposure.

After further consideration, the living machine was designed to attach to the auditorium instead, avoiding energy loss and preventing it from interfering with the entry sequence. Also, the living machine in its original position would de-tract from the feeling of a town square in the atrium by blocking an extension of the space and the transition to the outdoors. A more likely reason is that the technology was new and they didn’t want to have the atrium centered around a failed experiment. Regardless of the reason, after the living machine was moved to a different location, little thought was given to redesigning the front entrance.

environmental |

“I want the living machine to be a prominent feature”

“the machine has special needs and requires separate consideration”

building configuration


[21]

As a “nuclear reactor,” not only does the sun provide energy to the PV panels on the roof, but also to the interior spaces through direct light. When looking at this chart showing the amount of sun energy hitting the building’s surfaces, we can see that the heat on the win-dow mullions and the floor directly next to the windows is just as intense as the materials with direct exposure to the sun. However, deeper into the space, the heat intensity is severely reduced due mainly to the fact that the sun is almost directly overhead.

construction | daylighting levels

summer sun

time of year: June 21_2:00 pm

“in order to create a comfortable setting for the occupants of the space, a large glass atrium was designed to let natural light enter the space freely”

“if light enters too freely, it can be more of a detriment than a benefit”

[22]


winter sunDuring the winter, the sun is much lower, which creates higher heating levels on the interior of the space. Compared with the summer sun, the winter sun heats up deeper into the atrium, thus directly affecting the air temperature of the interior. Higher levels of heat gain are achieved throughout the Lewis Center, but with certain drawbacks. For instance, the more direct sunlight entering the space, the greater the glare. Also, as seen on the roof, not as much solar energy can be captured with the PV cells during the winter months.

time of year: December 21_2:00

[23]


June July August September

October November December January

February March April May

[24]

A tree makes oxygen, sequesters carbon, fixes nitrogen, distills water, provides a habitat for hundreds of species, accrues solar energy, makes complex sugars and food, creates micro-climates, self-replicates, etc. In order to replicate some of these features, the living machine was meant mimick the distilling of water that a tree accomplishes and harbor microclimates in the wetlands. The PV roof is what collects solar energy, just the way the leaves spread out in an organic fashion to gain as much attention from the sun as possible, the roof of the Lewis Center wants to capture as much as sun it can with the square footage available. In order to maximize the number of PV panels, McDonough curved the roof, increasing the amount of surface area for the panels to exploit.

The reality of the curved roof is that it is improperly shaped to receive solar rays. Although it has the feel of an organic canopy in a tree; whereas a tree spreads out to give each leaf access to the sun’s warming embrace, the Lewis Center roof seems to shy away from the sun on the northern side. What should have been designed is a sloped flat roof with PV panels that operate to follow the sun path.

construction | meeting the sky


This worms eye view shows the building from the perspective of how the roof’s glulam beams curve and receive the solar rays.

“what would it be like to design a building like a tree, so we can become good, not just less bad”

“make sure you fully understand how we work”

[25]

Stated by WIlliam McDonough, “Designed to reverse environmental stresses and restore the local landscape, the building is like a tree: Enmeshed in local energy flows, it accrues solar income, filters water - abosrbing it quickly and re-leasing it slowly - and creates habitat for living things.” Alluding to this concept, only geothermal systems would be used in the Lewis Center for heating and cooling. This type of utilization would reduce energy costs between 30 to 70 percent, further advancing McDonough’s concept of a building as a tree to be realized. According to an EPA study, geothermal systems have the lowest life-cycle cost of all heating and cooling systems currently on the market; so instead of using an HVAC system to be cheaper as the college saw it, a geothermal us-age would be beneficial in the long run; not only as a maintanance cost savings, but also as an energy efficient solution sought out by McDonough.

The geothermal was value engineered out because it was thought to be cost inefficient by Oberlin College. However, there was no reason for William Mc-Donough to go about his design in the same fashion as if the heating and cool-ing system had not changed. There was not enough thought put into the final design after the fact, due mainly to the way the HVAC system was treated in the construction. The heating and cooling system was designed to be placed in the second floor slab in the middle walkway of the building; which meant the main heating and cooling for the large atrium and many of the other spaces were being controlled from the center of the building, making for a more uncontrol-lable interior environment.

construction |


“In order to further the notion of a building as a tree, the use of geothermal heating and cooling will ground the building like a root system for a tree.”

“The amount of geothermal elements needed to fully accomodate the energy needs of the Lewis Center is too expensive, thus needs to be cut out of the budget.”

meeting the ground

[26]

environmental |

[compromise]

ideal geothermal usage realistic HVAC

compromised systems

geothermal

McDonough, in order to fit the budget set forth by Oberlin College, designed and fitted the building with a large HVAC system capable of handling all the heating and cooling needs plus some extra. However, some geothermal sys-tems were put in place later on in the design, which created a mix of inefficient systems; meaning the HVAC system was now too large for the spaces provided and the geothermal system was too small to make any real difference in energy savings. Below is a diagram of the planned geothermal heating and cooling sys-tem along with a current HVAC system. As the HVAC was implemented into the design, geothermal was re-implemnted, creating an inefficient conglomeration of multiple energy systems.

Geothermal Heating

Value Engineered Out

Geothermal Cooling

Geothermal Remaining

[27]

The design intent of the atrium was that it should serve as a town square. Draw-ing students and the community together from every corner of the campus and its surroundings. The students proposed this idea along with David Orr who worked closely with William McDonough and Partners to develop a program for the space. They wanted to capture the feeling of this town nucleus encap-sulating the views, focus and unifying element. This imagery was important to develop in this building because it was to house the fledgling program of environmental studies. The design sought to make this building a center piece of the campus that would draw students, professors and the community in so that the environmental studies and techniques in the building could educate and also validate the program and its intent.

The outcome of this design intent was the atrium of the Lewis Center. The glazing on the Eastern and Southern facades was meant to blur the spatial barier and create an interior space that captured the feel of the town square. The effect is entirely lacking. The architectureal attempt is made through the landscape and glazing but falls short in scale, accesibility, environment and landmark. The interior atrium is eighteen hundred square feet and paired with the limited accesibility of the space falls well short of its goals. The accesibility of the space is one of the biggest pitfalls of the space. The views into the atrium are only available from the South and East of the building. These facades of the building are also facing away from ninty percent of the campus. The landscap-ing response is to place a paved funnel entering the the atrium that is purely two dimensional and fails to define or direct the space and movement. The space also is devoid of landmark that would actually denote it at as destination or gather point of movement. The environment of the space is also kept at un-comfortable ranges to save on energy costs. These result in a space that is not condusive to a gathering space or one that resembles a town square.

Program|


“as a student, i want a building like a town square”

“I know just the thing for that - how about a couple of glass walls”

Atrium

[28]

The ideal material palette for this project as proposed by William McDonough and partners was local materials that did not use hazardous elements. The materials they proposed would cause no ecological ugliness now or in the future. The materials used were to be local to reduce the embodied energy of the production. Many of the materials were to be recycled and manufactured locally. The wood was sustainably harvested and the carpet tiles were to be made using recycled materials. They were also tiled to enable easy removal and replacement. The auditorium seating is covered with biodegradable Climatex Lifecycle fabric by DesignTex. Materials were also preferred for their recycled content and re-cyclability. Structural steel, brick, the aluminum curtain-wall frame, ceramic tile, plastics, and fabrics all contain recycled material.Not only are the carpets and the access floor recycled, they are also products of service. Oberlin does not own these materials but has instead purchased the services they provide. Interface Flooring owns the easily replaceable carpet tiles as well as the access-floor system, retaining responsibility for replacement and eventual disposal. Potential financial savings encourage material reuse and recycling while discouraging the use of toxic chemicals that may carry liability.

The material palette used in the final design remained true to the initial intent and in this regard the building was successful in setting a precedent for the use of materials. The idea of renting materials was particularly successful in that it rethought how materials are used, purchased and recycled. It also used tiled materials as in the case of the carpet that when certain tiles wear out they could be replaced without having to replace the entire flooring. The exception to this rule is the glulam beams that support the roof. These Douglas fir glue-laminated beams and the Hemlock auditorium stage are from the Collins Pine Company’s Almanor Forest in northern California. These beams were harvested sustainably but in order to reach the site they had to be transported four thousand miles, which was very unsustainable and did not match the stated material intent.

construction|


“all materials should be harvested locally, causing no ecological ugliness”

“I found these super rad glulams in california”

materials

4000 ml.50 ml.

[29]

The Lewis Center is supported through basic post and beam construction. The elements are inexpressive of the tree analogy. The ideal in this case was not used because cost and the material waste that would have resulted from creating a structural system of non-orthogonal origins. This would not have been more inefficient in theory but fabrication and realization of such a concept would have been. The vertical structure in many ways in this building is minimized both visually and programmatically with the major focus being the horizontal beams of the roof, in stark con-trast to the sprawl idea of a tree. This move reflects the approach of McDonough in regards to his projects and the ecological movement in which he is more salesman than architect. He focuses on the final product, in this case being energy production represented in the roof. In order to get the desired project, he fails to ground his process in reality. In other words, he designs bits and pieces of a building, almost setting aside the larger compostion.

[real_thing]

The ideal thing is to reflect the overall intent of the building, to exist like a tree. To achieve this, the structural intent would be translated into the different details and components of the building, creating a cohesive building with a strong overall design intent. Ideally, the structural composition would resemble a tree’s trunk and branches, with the most massive elements contained verti-cally in columns and thinner brances (or beams) sprawling from the center. This composition would create the allusion of these members fully supporting the roof which acts as the canopy of leaves, collecting and sequestering the power of the sun.

structure |

[ideal_thing]

“the structure will be very simple and yield itself to environmental strategies.”

“this works for me, the simpler the better.”

post and beam

[30]

One of the primary design drivers in the pursuit of “a building like a tree” was creating a functioning building that relied only on currently available solar power for its energy needs. Ideally, the building would be a net energy exporter sending surplus energy to the grid rather than being a draw on the local energy source. William McDonough design mentality is that why pay for energy when a giant nuclear power plant is hovering above our planet providing all the power we could ever need. This is a major movement of McDonough’s design mentality. This project had at its root the idea of the building as a tree and as such it should capture the energy from the sun. This idea was projected in the intent to create a building that was a net energy producer. As a net energy producer the building would become a powerplant recieving the rays from the sun and translate it into energy that would be used in the building and the extra power would be charged back into the grid. This would become a powerful statement to undermine the reliance of our cul-ture on fossil fuels.

The Lewis Center has been presented as a net energy exporter but the actu-ality is that the building falls short of these goals. The numbers have been fudged. Looking closely at the claims made by McDonough and the university one can see that at no point has the building produced more energy annually than it uses. The claim is based upon the energy usage through 2002 – 2010 in conjunction with the energy production from 2007 - 2010. In order for the find-ings to become legitimate, the same years need to be used for their findings. (Reference the graphs on the next page).

environmental |


“with the amount of solar panels on the roof, the Lewis Center will be a substantial energy exporter for the college”

“the curved roof at such a shallow average angle decreases the amount of energy available for solar capture”

energy exporter

PV PV PV PV PV PV PV PV PV PV PV PV PV PV PV PV PV PV PV PV PV







PV PV PV PV PV PV PV PV PV PV PV PV PV

*image courtesy of smart source energy [31]

58 kw/hr PV array (constructed in 2001)101 kw/hr PV array (constructed in 2006)

environmental | energy exporter

[32]

As per our previous analysis, the Lewis Center is a building of idealogical concepts with no or little concern on the overall composi-tion of the building. The PV roof on the main building seem to be the main feature, but without an honest look on the cells ability to capture the sun’s energy, a secondary roof was required over the parking structure to try to achieve a net zero energy consumption overall. Simultaneously, the structural intent of the building uses thermal walls responsibly in the classrooms, but is contradicted by the large curtain wall in the lobby, creating a building that leaks much needed heat in the winter. Also, the living machine is a great concept designed for the wrong program. The living machine used here would be suitable for a large commercail building that receives much more restroom traffic that produces a significantly more amount of waste. All in all, the separate elements of this project would be a grand idea, but for the most part in a completely different climate or another program. All except for the curved PV roof, that makes no sense in a ny climate when a sloped flat roof with operable PV panels is best for any climatic zone.

overview|

[real_thing]

“the Lewis Center was designed like a tree, and is intended as a foundation for the a new generation of environmental design”

“when we look at the building, we see that it is a bunch of parts stuck together with no intent on designing a coherent composition”

separate elements

[33]

SEC

Tech

CAS

E St

udy

Info

rmat

ion

23 A

rch

667.

07A

Stu

dent

Tea

mD

avid

Bur

win

kel

Ste

phan

Dob

er

Han

s Ko

este

rs

Nic

k Sch

oepp

ner

Bu

ildin

g F

acts

Bui

ldin

g N

ame

Clie

nt

City

Latt

itude

Long

itude

Elev

atio

n

Nor

mal

Clim

ate

Dat

aJa

nFe

bM

arApr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Year

Hea

ting

Deg

ree

Day

s12

7710

6689

153

825

255

621

124

428

735

1104

6497

Coo

ling

Deg

ree

Day

s0

00

144

125

208

160

515

00

594

Extr

eme

Hig

h73

6982

8892

104

100

102

101

8982

7710

4N

orm

al H

igh

3336

4658

6979

8381

7463

5038

83N

orm

al A

vera

ge26

2837

4959

6873

7164

5443

3150

.25

Nor

mal

Low

1920

2838

4858

6261

5444

3524

19Ex

trem

e Lo

w-1

9-1

5-5

1025

3141

3834

193

-15

-19

Dew

Poi

nt19

2127

3647

5761

6154

4333

2440

.25

Max

%RH

Min

%RH

% D

ays

with

Rai

n55

%48

%48

%50

%42

%37

%32

%32

%33

%35

%50

%52

%43

%Ra

in I

nche

s2.

42.

33.

13.

43.

53.

53.

53.

43.

22.

63.

22.

93.

083

% O

verc

ast

Sky

82%

77%

72%

71%

62%

59%

55%

62%

51%

51%

75%

91%

67%

% C

lear

Day

s10

%10

%16

%17

%19

%23

%26

%29

%27

%26

%10

%10

%19

%Pr

evai

ling

Direc

tion

SW

SW

SS

SSW

SW

SW

SS

SW

SW

SW

Spe

ed,

Kno

ts14

.95

14.9

514

.95

14.9

511

.511

.59

89

1013

1312

.07

Perc

ent

Cal

mRa

in17

1415

1513

1110

1010

1115

1615

7Fo

g12

1213

1113

1112

1412

1112

1314

6H

aze

Sno

w12

108

20

00

00

04

1147

Hai

lFr

eezi

ng R

ain

adap

ted

from

Int

egra

ted

Bui

ldin

gs b

y Le

onar

d Bac

hman

Bu

ildin

g F

acts

Floo

r Are

a sq

.ft/

floor

Occ

upan

t lo

ad

Cos

t Pr

ogra

m

Site

Des

crip

tion

(acr

es?)

Site

Typ

e ur

ban,

rur

al,

etc

Park

ing

spac

es #

Project Project SiteDays ObservedTemperature Humidity Sky Wind

Ada

m J

osep

h Le

wis

Cen

ter

for

Eniv

ronm

enta

l Stu

dies

Obe

rlin

Col

lege

Obe

rlin

, O

H

41°

17' 2

6.81

52"

N

82°

13' 1

8.89

76"

W

816'

6,80

0

80 $6,4

05,0

00

clas

sroo

ms,

an

audi

torium

, an

d a

smal

l lib

rary

13 a

cres

rura

l col

lege

cam

pus

[34]

Graduate Case Study

Documents

Transcript of Graduate Case Study