SOLARIUM BUILDING - tboake.comtboake.com/sustain_casestudies/edited/Solarium-Bldg-YMCA.pdfSOLARIUM BUILDING climate must address both heating and cooling. The Solarium building is

SOLARIUM BUILDINGPARADISE LAKE, ONTARIO

CHARLES SIMON ARCHITECT INC.ALLEN ASSOCIATES

Caroline ProchazkaM. Arch CandidateUniversity of Waterloo

ADVANCED STUDIES IN CANADIAN SUSTAINABLE DESIGN

Table of Contents Quick Facts IntroductionProgramFloor Plan Site North-South Building SectionsSustainable DesignLiving Machine Diagram Environmental Controls Office Wall AssemblyConference Room Wall AssemblyConstruction Foundation Wall AssemblySod Roof AssemblyMetal Roof AssemblyIntegration of SystemsCostingLeadership in Energy Efficient Design CertificationConslusionEndnotes, Image and Drawing Credit & Bibliography

i

i1234669

11131414151515161616171819

SOLARIUM BUILDINGPARADISE LAKE, ONTARIO


1

SOLARIUM BUILDING

QUICK FACTS

Building Name YMCA Environmental Learning Centre, Solarium Building

City Paradise Lake, OntarioCountry CanadaYear of Construction 1995-1996Architect Charles Simon Architect Inc.Consultants1 Structural / Project Manager / Contractor:

Walter Fedy Partnership, Environmental / Energy Engineers: Allen Associates,

Mechanical / Electrical Consultant: Peter Meridew, Landscape: Mackinnon Hensel

Program Day Centre, Resource Centre, Assembly Facility

Gross Area2 360m² or 3900sf Owner/User Group3 Kitchener-Waterloo YMCA Climate Temperate, Cold-humid

Site Conditions Located on 77 partially wooded acres of former agricultural land

Aesthetics4 Client prioritized functionality and was not seeking a “one and only” style building

Structural System Wood-frame, Steel truss for glazed

greenhouse wall.Mechanical System Primary: Air pump to circulate heated

greenhouse air; Secondary: wood-fired boilerSpecial Construction Curtain walled solariumDaylighting South-facing curtain wall, interior clerestories

and north-facing clerestory windows.Shading Roof overhangs on all sides except at curtain

wall; some self shadingAcoustics Wood finish interior, recycled tire flooring in

assembly roomVentilation Floor and clerestory vents in greenhouse for

summer cooling; operable windows.Adaptability Operable windows and louversUser Controls Occupant control greenhouse vents,

operable windows, air pump and boiler. Estimated LEED rating Certified Budget5 $400,000 Pre-tender budgetCost of Constructions6 $575,000 (Approx. $1,600/m² or $148/sf)

Maintenance Cost7 Estimated between $600 and $1000, variable by year and weather conditions

Special Circumstances Cost overrun due to rapidly fluctuating labour costs at time of construction. Extra capital expenses for living machine and solar water heater (for demonstration purposes).

2


3

SOLARIUM BUILDING

INTRODUCTION

The architectural trends of the 20th century were dominated by a tendency to separate building design from the building site. With industrialization and mass-production came the dream of a universal architecture. The design field began to eliminate site-dependence in building design, and express globalization through buildings which could exist anywhere8. In the 1960’s more ecologically concerned individuals sought to return to vernacular forms of architecture, using more organic massing and experimenting with materials, though historically they have been perceived as part of a fringe movement. More recently, however, sustainable architecture has gained the spotlight through some much-lauded ‘green buildings’. Many of these buildings, however, have demanded new high performance products and have often combined limited environmental design principles with highly individualized massing and construction technologies.

This case study will review the Solarium building, built in 1996 at the Kitchener-Waterloo YMCA Outdoor Centre at Paradise Lake. The design of the Solarium Building returns to age-old, reliable, building materials and seeks to re-invest the building in its site. The site is 15 minutes from Waterloo, in southern Ontario. Local architect Charles Simon designed two buildings built at that time as part of the YMCA Environmental Learning Centre (Fig.1). The Solarium building (Fig. 2&3), which is the Day Centre for group activities demonstrates that current technology already allows for sustainable design. Sustainable design, here, is not a matter of engineering new environmentally sound technologies, but more an exercise in creating a sensible, comfortable space and maximizing the potential of existing materials. While it is now, more than ever, possible to build in a sustainable way, some advancement must still be made in municipal building codes to allow design projects to take full advantage of their available resources.

The design for the Solarium Building followed the principle of ‘practice what you preach’9. The goal of the YMCA was to create an outdoor center which embodied the environmental values to be taught on site10. Charles Simon, architect, was brought into the design discussions early in a planning capacity, to devise a site strategy11. With the co-operation of Allen Associates, Peter Meridew and the Walter Fedy partnership, an outline was generated for the building strategy, passive design approach and the general goal.

The design team avoided the use of newer (untested) products in favour of more traditional building materials, from local salvage sources where possible. The success of the new building was crucial to encouraging others to delve into sustainable design12. Sustainable architecture in the southern Ontario

Fig.1 Aerial site photo showing Solarium Building (circled), new residence (top right) and Paradise Lake (right)

2


3

SOLARIUM BUILDING

climate must address both heating and cooling. The Solarium building is an example of climate sensitive design. Working with air currents, earth-mass and sunlight, the building is sheltered from northern, winter winds, captures south, summer breezes to ventilate the greenhouse, uses winter sun to heat itself, and capitalizes on daylight wherever possible. The design also incorporates a living machine and a solar water heater (both fairly recent technologies). Both of these are highly analogous to natural systems. The living machine is a condensed version of toxin filtration through a natural wetland (reflecting the nature of the site to the north of the building). The solar water heater demonstrates principles of convection, radiant heat and another use for abundantly glazed areas. As all environmental systems are connected to the glazed greenhouse space, the success of this space directly impacts the success of the entire building. The solarium building is an example of ‘low-tech’ sustainable architecture.

PROGRAM

The day centre provides space and programming for children’s summer camps, church and youth group retreats as well as occasional conferences. The plan of the building is divided into four principal areas (Fig.4): a foyer and office area of 79m², a large greenhouse of 77m², an assembly room of 105m², and a washroom area of 29m² (Fig.1). Mechanical spaces occupy an additional 19m². The primary circulation axis runs east-west from the parking area towards Paradise Lake while the primary program axis, that of the greenhouse and assembly room, is aligned north to south to optimize ventilation and lighting.

The section of the Day Centre is dominated by the pairing of the greenhouse and assembly room. These two rooms can become one large space when the folding doors are opened (Fig.5 & 6). The dramatic slope of the glazing

Fig.2 (Above) Solarium building main entry from the west. Fig.3 (Below) Rear view, bermed north-east side of the building.

4


5

SOLARIUM BUILDING

Fig.4 Solarium Building Floor Plan

W.C.14.5m2

W.C.14.5m2

Assembly Room105m2

Foyer34m2

Office45m2

Mech.19m2

Greenhouse77m2

(+21m2)

To Parking

To Burrows Building

To Paradise Lake

To Older Bunk Houses

4


5

SOLARIUM BUILDING

emphasizes the design of the natural ventilation. Access to the mezzanine allows one to experience the significant heat gain at the top of the solarium. The greenhouse wraps over the assembly room and provides direct light through clerestory windows while shading the roof of the assembly room to reduce heat gain. The earth on the north side huddles up to the assembly room, to shelter it from cold winter winds and further insulate it from summer heat (Fig.7).

A similar section is developed through the office and washrooms (Fig.8). The office receives direct south light in the winter, and is sheltered from light in the summer by the roof overhang. An additional outdoor trellis could provide shading if it were hung with vines, but to date the trellis is bare. Clerestory windows provide lighting to the foyer and washrooms. As the success of this building depends primarily on ample sunlight, it is only suiting that the focal point is a large greenhouse. The greenhouse alone provides interior climate control for the whole building, including lighting, heating and cooling, fresh air supply, water purification as well as some water heating functions.

In the office and assembly room, the usable space is relatively unaffected by the environmental strategies which have been implemented. It is the quality of the spaces which is greatly improved here. The assembly room and washrooms are well lit and comfortably ventilated. The glazed doors between the assembly room and greenhouse enhance the assembly space through a visual connection to the sunny, airy, neighbouring space. By comparison, the greenhouse, while generating these amenities for the rest of the building, is a much less useable space in itself. More than 50% of the floor area has been devoted to and greatly segmented by the living machine, by the tanks as well as by simulated marsh and waterfall areas. The usability of the remaining floor area fluctuates dramatically with the season. While summer heat gain can be vented by stack effect, drawing air in by lower louvers and exhausting hot air out

Fig.5 (Above) View from conference room to solarium. Fig.6 (Below) View of the conference room and north wall from the second storey of the greenhouse.

6


7

SOLARIUM BUILDING

the clerestory louvers, winter heat gain is retained in order to heat the rest of the building. On a sunny afternoon in February, where the exterior temperature was -4 °C, temperature readings in the greenhouse showed that the temperature ranged from 22 °C in the lower level to 43 °C on the mezzanine. In addition, the presence of the living machine introduces humidity to the room, resulting in a high (c.60%) relative humidity in the greenhouse13. The hot air is siphoned off at the mezzanine into ducts and redistributed through the building, warming the other spaces. While part of the floor space of the greenhouse is occupied by a seating area, the hot, humid, afternoon microclimate results in the entire room being almost unusable. There is, however, a period of the morning where temperatures drop as low as 12 ºC in the winter, offering a few hours of more comfortable temperatures. This is unfortunate as the greenhouse would seem to be the most enjoyable space, offering bright sun and the soothing noise of bubbling water. In this context, the greenhouse is an oversized, though lovely, mechanical room.

SITE

The Solarium building was built almost simultaneously with the Burrows building, a residence for visiting groups. As a pair, the two buildings sit at opposite sides of a natural wetland. The Day Centre sits towards the centre of the site facing south towards the older camp buildings. This location allows the large greenhouse to be unaffected by the shadows of the surrounding trees. The form of the greenhouse comes from consideration for prevailing winds and sun angles on the site.

Prior to construction, the site was lightly treed and covered in meadow. The site development had only two key requirements: that all trees should be kept, or if

Fig.7 (Above) Principle North-South section showing summer sun in solarium. Fig.8 (Below) Principle North-South section showing winter sun penetration.

6


7

SOLARIUM BUILDING

Fig.9 (Above) Bermed North wall of the building. Fig.10 (Below) View into the Greenhouse from the exterior of the building

they are obstructing the building, should be transplanted safely elsewhere on the property; and sod roofing, along with berming would replace some of the meadowland that the building would disturb.

The site is harnessed in two primary ways. Facing the large meadow to the south, the building can maximize heat gain in the green house. The sunlight is harnessed to provide solar heating and cooling, as well as to give light to the water-purifying plants. The earth-berm up against the north wall uses the earth mass as insulation for the assembly room (Fig.9). Furthermore, with the raised grade level the summer vegetation of native plants is visible through the north windows of the assembly room, improving the view from the room.

The orientation of the building is informed primarily by the quantity and quality of light required in each space. The greenhouse has the greatest light demands and thus faces due south. The office/resource centre is also south facing. The assembly room requires abundant light, but for the purposes of presentations and children’s activities, indirect light is preferred, to lessen heat gain and provide even, diffuse lighting. The north orientation promotes such lighting, though some direct light is allowed through clerestory windows to the greenhouse. The placement of the large greenhouse to the south of the assembly room results in self-shading - the greenhouse keeps the assembly room in shade, thus further reducing heat-gain. The washrooms, while of least priority and placed against the north side, also benefit from clerestory windows to significantly reduce electrical lighting needs.

Initial site work included burying a cistern to collect storm-water run-off. The intention was that this cistern would then supply water to a feed-pipe at the top of the greenhouse, pouring water over the glass at night. This would absorb some of the internal heat and provide evaporative cooling of the building.

8


9

SOLARIUM BUILDING

Unfortunately, the piping from the cistern to the roof froze in the first winter, and the system had to be re-worked to feed from well-water. Fortunately, as the Solarium is a small building, with a sod roof along with both natural and soft landscaping, storm-water retention without the cistern does not pose any difficulties.

The use of such a greenhouse (Fig.10 & 11) to provide the amenities for this building is a climate specific choice. As the construction only makes indirect use of the thermal mass (by passing warm air ducts through the concrete floor - Fig.12), it is not suited to extreme climates, such as hot desert regions or even very cold climates. In a hotter climate, the louvre ventilation and night time radiant cooling alone would not be adequate to remove the rising temperatures. Instead, a significant amount of thermal mass would be required to slow the rate of temperature increase in the space. This excess heat could then be removed by night-time evaporative cooling as described above.

In a colder climate, summer ventilation would work well, but winter heating would require a greater contribution from a mechanical heater or, again, direct gain in thermal mass in order to store adequate amounts of heat that would last into the night time hours. As the building exists, with the majority of its interior finished in wood, the range of temperatures inside the greenhouse are only comfortable when the vents are open in the summer. In climates similar to that of Paradise Lake, such as drier regions of similar seasonal temperatures, the building might be able to make more use of the greenhouse space. In such a case, the relative humidity inside might dissipate, causing less condensation (as well as a decreased potential for mold growth) and making the heat in the greenhouse in the winter drier, and hence more tolerable.

Fig.11 (Above) View of closed louvres on interior of solarium. Fig.12 (Below) View of in-floor ducts running from greenhouse through the rest of the building.

8


9

SOLARIUM BUILDING

Embodied Energies of Principal Materials

Material Embodied Energy (MJ.kg)Wood (EE value does not account for salvage and recycling) 1.16Concrete (reinforced) 1.6Steel (virgin, galvanized) 34.8Aluminum (virgin, extruded anodized) 227Batt Insulation 30.3EPS Insulation 117Glass (float) 15.9

SUSTAINABLE DESIGN

The foremost criteria in materials selection for the Solarium building was the 3 R’s principle: Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle14. Where possible, materials were salvaged from demolition sites in the surrounding cities. Many of the large structural timbers come from an old factory in Hamilton. Old concrete formwork was reused as sheathing. Other wood was collected and milled into siding by local Mennonites15. In this way the construction of the Solarium building embodies significant parts of local history.

The Solarium building contains five primary building materials: wood, concrete, metal (steel and aluminum), insulation and glass. These all have remarkably different embodied energy coefficients (EEC), all of which are tempered by their use in the building. Wood, the most prominent material in this building, when managed prudently, is a renewable resource with very low embodied energy. The wood in the Solarium building is primarily from recycled or salvage sources and was re-milled on site. Table 1 summarizes the embodied energy of the materials in the Solarium building.

Efficient reuse of materials means fewer trees are required to make several buildings and the embodied energy is diluted over a greater time-period. The balance of the materials is recyclable to varying degrees and contains varying amounts of recycled content. By far, the curtain wall on the greenhouse has the highest total embodied energy of all elements in this building. The recycled content of the aluminum is uncertain, although aluminum is lightweight and easy to recycle and this suggests some benefit to its use in this design. Virgin aluminum consumes great quantities of energy in the smelting process, though once purified, it takes little energy to melt and reshape old aluminum. There are also very limited amounts of aluminum in the ducting. Two large ducts carry

Table.1 (Above) Embodied energies of principal materials. Fig.13 (Below Left) Fans and ducting used to redistribute hot green house air. Fig.14 (Below Right) View of solarium under construction.

10


11

SOLARIUM BUILDING

hot air from the mezzanine back to the main floor level (Fig.13). Under the assembly room are lengths of downspouts which carry warm air to the north-side floor vents16. As an indication of the degree of consideration applied to this design, one must consider that aluminum was used only in those areas of the building where strength and reliability were important. The steel trusses were also an important selection for the structure of the sloped glazing wall. The tension cables allowed for a lighter structure, but the galvanized coating on the vertical members implied virgin content and prevented the use of recycled steel in this instance17.

The power and resources saved by using the greenhouse to naturally heat the building may offset the embodied energy of the structure. The glazed greenhouse wall requires a strong foundation to support the weight of the glass and the large trusses. The use of concrete foundation and slab on grade throughout the building has both benefits and drawback. As a weighty material, the total embodied energy is quite high. The aggregate, however, is crushed concrete from another demolition site. A similar reuse can be applied when the Solarium outlives its usefulness. The thermal mass potential of the concrete was considered as significant to the design18. Unfortunately, due to the number of children using the facility, the floor has been covered with recycled tire flooring to provide a softer surface. While this provides a more functional space, it greatly decreases the thermal storage ability of the concrete floors. The windows are triple glazed in order to minimize heat loss. Glass, however, is very easy to recycle and depending on the amount of recycled content, the EEC will decrease. Through an embodied energy analysis, it becomes clear that several concessions were made in order to provide the greenhouse wall (undoubtedly the most important element) with a structure which was strong, but not bulky. The design of the Solarium building incorporates conservative

Fig.15 (Above) Living machine primary storage tank. Fig.16 & 17 Living machine intermediate plant takes from the second storey of the greenhouse (Below Left) and from the main floor (Below Right).

10


11

SOLARIUM BUILDING

use of well tested, recyclable materials. A long-term benefit of this building is that when it comes to the end of its useful life, it can be recycled nearly 100%.

The water requirements in the Day Centre are very low. The faucets, low flush toilets and urinals are the only plumbing in the building. The design aims to purify all water used in the building through a living machine. Municipal bylaws, however, required the building to have a full septic system regardless of the planned living machine. This duplication of systems initially allowed for the delay in the installation of the living machine until necessary funds were raised, but at present, with the living machine installed, the septic tank and bed are redundant.

The living machine (Fig.15,16,17&18) is a sequence of closed and open tanks which contain different bacteria, plants and organisms. Each tank functions like a mini-ecosystem and works to break down the waste products in the water19. Through a sequence of five tanks and an artificial marsh (Fig.19), waste water is purified and made potable. The waste water is first pumped into a closed sewage tank where bacteria working through anaerobic (oxygen free) processes begin to breakdown the harshest toxins. The water is then pumped through three open tanks containing plants and aerobic (oxygen needing) bacteria. These tanks contain primarily umbrella plants, red taro, cala lily and yellow iris. The proportion of plant species, as well as the types of bacteria varies slightly depending on the mineral and toxin content of the water in each tank. The water is then pumped to a final cleansing tank where snails and fish digest any remaining waste matter. From this tank, the water is sent through an artificial marsh, in the south-east corner of the greenhouse, planted with native Ontario plants, for final filtration. The resulting clean water is then stored in two tanks for later use. This clean water can also be pumped to a small waterfall and artificial swamp in the south-west corner of the greenhouse so that samples

1. Black/Grey Water from Washrooms2. Setting Tanks (Anaerobic Bacteria)3. Aerobic Tanks (Plants4. Aerobic Tanks (Fish, Snails)5. Simulated Marsh (Native Grasses)6. Storage Tanks (Potable Water)7. “Swamp” Waterfall

Fig.18 (Above) Living machine “swamp” waterfall. Fig.19 (Below) Diagram of Living Machine system.

12


13

SOLARIUM BUILDING

can be taken for testing. The swamp included an additional heat exchanger so some water can be warmed and sent back into the purification tanks to promote bacterial growth. Callum McKee, the Director of the Outdoor Centre, hopes to add sand filters to the clean water storage tanks in the near future to remove the risk of e.coli and choliform contamination20.

The Solarium building also employs a solar water heater in the glazed greenhouse wall to generate hot water for the washrooms. The system is quite small in scale, yet requires a lot of piping. Callum McKee noted that it takes several minutes to get hot water to flow from the washroom faucets. For this reason, most of the water used at the centre is cold.

While the Day Centre is connected to municipal hydro power, it has been designed to minimize electrical loads. The low energy light fixtures, and the fans for the air pump together use only 2 kW of power. Discounting the load of the recently added office components, such as computers, fax and photocopiers, the centre can run on less energy than an electric tea kettle21. Office computers and appliances used have been selected for efficiency. The water pump for the living machine draws 1.8kW but only runs for a few seconds a day.

While the building aims to primarily use the greenhouse for heating and cooling, a wood-fired boiler was installed as a fail-safe to supplement the heat from the greenhouse, to ensure occupant comfort. A typical winter temperature cycle in the building dips to 12 ºC in the early morning, and while this is more than adequate for plant survival, the few hours before the greenhouse is able to provide significant heat to the human occupant could be uncomfortably cool without the use of the boiler22. While wood is not the cleanest burning fuel, it is in plentiful supply and a wholly renewable resource soon to be harvested entirely on site23.

Fig.20 (Above) Firewood used for the boiler is stacked near the west entrance. Fig.21 (Below) Daylighting in the main foyer space.

12


13

SOLARIUM BUILDING

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS

In a climate where the winters are characteristically cold and often sunny, and summers are hot and humid, the significant loads are winter heating and summer ventilation. As a ventilation scheme, the greenhouse is extremely effective in summer months. The green house successfully heats the entire building except for a few weeks each year when the boiler must be fired in the mornings24. Since the addition of the living machine, however, the greenhouse has had very high relative humidity, and this is a concern in regards to the longevity of the building. With a high relative humidity, the dewpoint rises and in the winter, exceeds the temperature of surfaces such as the concrete foundation and rear exit door.

The interior lighting of the building is based on clerestory glazing supplemented during occasional evening use by high-efficiency light fixtures. The Solarium building demonstrates a very effective lighting scheme for this size of building; electrical lighting is rarely used, as the clerestory lighting and greenhouse pro-vide an abundance of natural light throughout the building (Fig.21).

The building uses a ventilation system of louvers (Fig.22&23) and operable windows, in combination with a fan for heat distribution. While a vestibule was included at the main entry, presumably to lessen heat loss through the doors in the winter and buffer against heat gain in the summer, the exit doors at the east end of the greenhouse are less than adequate for their task. The wooden door has no weather-stripping and offers a one-inch gap at the threshold for air leakage. Furthermore, as the air leaks out, particularly in the winter, it condenses on the door, causing harmful mildew on the wood and ice buildup at the base of the door. While the building was originally tested to perform at 1.2 air exchanges per hour (better than the C-2000 standard)25, it is unclear how this leaky door would affect the test today.

Fig.22 (Above) Interior view of lower louvers in greenhouse. Fig.23 (Below) Exterior view of upper louvers at the mezzanine level.

14


15

SOLARIUM BUILDING

The environmental design principles incorporated in the Solarium building are primarily passive strategies. The greenhouse acts as a large solar collector and this solar energy feeds many processes in the moderation of the internal environment. The building offers few automated functions, relying on the user to take responsibility for the environmental controls. Operable windows and louvers allow the user to control ventilation. The wood-fired boiler must be fed by hand, so heat is only produced when the building is occupied. The building employs very few active technological interventions and in this way manages to save on cost and resources.

When the Day Centre was first constructed, the main office was in another building. The design for the Day Centre located the resource center in the south west quadrant of the building. As an area for demonstrations or reading or quiet activity, this was appropriate. The adaptation of this space to an office environment has not been entirely successful, although the occupants seem to enjoy the space nonetheless. The large amounts of light which can enter the space in winter create severe glare on the computers and result in staff shuffling their workspace to seek a shady patch26.

As discussed previously, it seems the temperature and humidity in the greenhouse make for a space which can be used for teaching environmental principles, although not a space for long term occupation.

The assembly room, by contrast is a very adaptable space. With a podium style presentation corner and recycled tire flooring, the room can serve purposes ranging from conferences and presentations, to boisterous youth-group activities. The air quality can be kept cool for busy activities or the doors can be opened to the greenhouse for more direct heating. Humidity does not seem to be a noticeable problem in this room. As a building which entertains

Fig.24 (Above) Typical office wall assembly, south side. Fig.25 (Below) Typical conference room wall assembly, north side.

14


15

SOLARIUM BUILDING

youth activities which are inherently noisy, the acoustic treatment is simple and effective. The assembly room and greenhouse are each separated from the rest of the building by wooden doors. Furthermore, the extensive rough milled wood finish acts as an acoustic absorber, helping to dull the noise of ongoing activities.

CONSTRUCTION

The typical wall section (Fig.24) used in the east and west greenhouse walls and around the office has a heat loss resistance of RSI 5.44 (R=30.89, U=0.03). The north facing wall has a slightly different wall assembly (Fig.25) with an additional furring space, providing RSI 6.77 (R=38.44, U=0.03). The foundation wass (Fig.26) is simply concrete with exterior rigid insulation and performs at approximately RSI 2.08 (R=11.81, U=0.08). The roofing of the Solarium uses two assemblies: a sod roofing (Fig.27) with calculated RSI 5.81 (R=32.99, U=0.03) and a metal roofing (Fig.28) with RSI 554 (R=31.46, U=0.03).

These wall and roof assemblies, though more thoroughly insulated than required by code, are not very different from those found in conventional building practice. This would appear to indicate that sustainable architecture is not as much a change in building practice, but a change in attitude. Current construction techniques, if combined with creative planning and judicious sourcing of materials, can already produce buildings which not only demonstrate a significant reduction in resource consumption, but which function at a high level of efficiency.

Fig.26 (Above) Typical foundation wall assembly. Fig.27 (Below) Sod roof assembly above conference room on north side.

16


17

SOLARIUM BUILDING

INTEGRATION OF SYSTEM

All of the systems in the Day Centre interact in the greenhouse. Heating and cooling are both generated in the greenhouse, with the major ventilation path following the slope of the glazing. Water is heated in a section of the greenhouse glazing. Water is purified by tanks of vegetation which thrive on the ample sunlight in the greenhouse. The primary source of light, south light, enters through the greenhouse and is redistributed to the assembly room (and to a lesser degree, to the foyer and office). The only two redundancies among the systems are the septic bed in addition to the living machine, and the wood-fired boiler in addition to the passive solar heating of the greenhouse. This building strives to be an example of a design which maximizes the potential of a space, and seeks to integrate environmental control systems.

The Solarium building seems very rooted in the present. The design does not seem to anticipate much change. Perhaps the activities in the building may change slightly over time, but with respect to construction there seem to be few areas for further development. The solar water heater could potentially be replaced as technology advances. Also, if thermal mass were to be added, perhaps in the greenhouse floor or in part of the wall separating the assembly room and greenhouse, the wood-fired boiler could be made obsolete. The design seems to have focused on the use of available and reliable technologies rather than risking speculation on future technologies.

The YMCA site at Paradise Lake is a 15 minute drive from Kitchener-Waterloo, near St. Clements. It is not serviced by the transit system, and is too far to reach comfortably by foot or bicycle, using current traffic routes. For this reason, all visitors arrive by motor vehicle: either charter bus or automobile. This seems to be a general trend for environmental education centres: they are typically

Fig.28 Metal roof assembly used throughout the rest of the Solarium Building.

located in a naturalized environment, outside of urban centres. As such they are out of reach of transit systems or more environmentally sound modes of transportation. It is unfortunate that in order to learn the lesson of environmental awareness, visitors to the centre must engage the least environmentally sound mode of transportation.

COSTING

The Solarium building was built at a cost of $575 000 which corresponds to an average price of $1590/m². Compared to a standard educational facility, this cost seems high. While initial ‘grunt-work’ was done by Paradise Lake staff, and local Mennonites provided milling services, the cost over-run, above the initial

16


17

SOLARIUM BUILDING

budget of $400 000, was primarily due to a rapidly fluctuating labour market at the time of bidding27. The living machine was installed in 1998 at an additional cost of $30 00028 or 5% of the total building cost. Economically speaking, this is a great reduction in floor space for a system which, though functioning well, serves in large part as a demonstration facility. Since the municipality requires that the building be connected to a septic bed regardless of on-site water treatment, the cost of the living machine will never be directly recuperated.

Daily maintenance is done by the occupants and requires only a few minutes to adjust ventilation in summer, turn the fans on and off in winter, run the water pumps and occasionally feed the boiler. The simplicity of controls in this building have resulted in financial savings where a designated maintenance person was not required on staff. The Solarium building has an annual maintenance budget of between $600 and $1000 variable by year. Assuming a maintenance staff

Table 2: LEED Green Building Rating System Summary Project Checklist Sustainable Sites 7/14 Possible Points Water Efficiency 5/5 Possible Points Energy & Atmosphere: Prerequisite not met 0/17 Possible PointsMaterials & Resources 8/13 Possible PointsIndoor Environment Quality 8/15 Possible PointsInnovation & Design Process 1/5 Possible Points Project Totals 30/69 Possible PointsSolarium Building Result Certified Status

salary of $15/hr, working half-time, 50 wks/yr, the Centre saves $15 000 each year. At this rate, the Day Centre will have paid for the living machine in only two years.

The triple glazed windows were an increased capital cost, necessary in order to decrease heat loss through conduction and ensure the success of the heating strategy. An additional, though small, capital cost resulted from the solar water heater, which does not draw on electrical resources, but is quite inefficient. Many of these extra capital costs were offset by using salvaged (therefore cheaper) materials throughout the building.

LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY EFFICIENT DESIGN CERTIFICATION

During the design process, the Solarium building was never subjected to a LEED rating analysis. This is because the design pre-dates the inception of the LEED program. Table 2 summarizes an estimated LEED analysis. A detailed breakdown of the point allotment is attached in the LEED spreadsheet.

The LEED rating system is heavily oriented towards high density building re-use on urban brownfield sites. For this reason the Solarium in immediately ineligible for 9 points. Nonetheless, the Solarium succeeds in meeting a LEED Certified standard primarily through its accomplishments in energy and resource conservation. An additional point in the innovation and design process category was allotted because the education of the occupants was a significant aspect of the design intent, aiming to make evident the manner by which the building moderates the indoor climate in response to the outdoors. It is the overall simplicity and elegance of the systems which allows the success of the Solarium under the LEED analysis.

18


19

SOLARIUM BUILDING

CONCLUSION

The Solarium building at the Paradise Lake camp is an example of a true environmental education centre. The building works in harmony with the surrounding site to adapt to the changing seasons of a Canadian climate and educates camp participants about the value of sun, wind and light. It demonstrates a means of using simple, tried-and-true technology to produce integrated building systems in an architectural design. The integrated design process resulted in building services which are all generated in the greenhouse, but which create a comfortable interior for most of the year. With a few changes, such as direct thermal mass and reduced water treatment redundancy, the building could set an example for rural sustainable building. In today’s architecture context, torn between elegant high-tech design and issues of climate change, the Solarium building is a reasoned response to a question of architecture and education.

18


19

SOLARIUM BUILDING

ENDNOTES

1. Canadian Architect. Volume 41, No. 7, July 1996 . Green Buildings 1: Natural Harmony.” Bronwen Ledger. p14-15

2. Canadian Architect. July 1996 3. Interview with Callum McKee, Manager, Outdoor Services, KW YMCA

Outdoor Centre. February 21, 2003. 4. Callum McKee. February 21, 2003. 5. Callum McKee. February 21, 2003. 6. Callum McKee. February 21, 2003. 7. Callum McKee. February 21, 2003. 8. The David and Lucilie Packard Foundation: Los Altos Project. On-line source:

http://www.packard.org/pdf/2002Resources.pdf 9. Callum McKee, January 24, 2003. 10. Advanced Buildings. YMCA Environmental Learning Centre Case Study. On-

line source: http://www.advancedbuildings.org.main_cs_ymca.htm 11. Interview with Charles Simon, Architect. March 10, 2003 12. Canadian Architect. July 1996 13. Caroline Prochazka. Site visit February 14, 2003. Air temperature and RH

readings taken with handheld meter c/o Terri Meyer Boake. 14. Callum McKee. January 24, 2003. 15. Canadian Architect. July 1996. 16. Callum McKee. February 14, 2003 17. Charles Simon, March 10, 2003 18. Callum McKee, February 21, 2003 19. Ocean Arks International. On-line source: http://www.oceanarks.org/ 20. Callum McKee, January 24, 2003 21. Callum McKee, January 24, 2003 22. Callum McKee, January 24, 2003 23. Callum McKee, January 24, 2003 24. Callum McKee, February 21, 2003 25. Callum McKee, January 24, 2003 26. Callum McKee, January 24, 2003 27. Callum McKee, January 24, 2003 28. Callum McKee, January 24, 2003

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PERIODICALS1. Canadian Architect. Volume 41, No. 7, July 1996. “Green Buildings 1:

Natural Harmony.” Bronwen Ledger. p.14-15.2. Perspectives: The Journal of the OAA. Volume 5, No. 2, Summer 1997. “The

OAA Architectural Excellence Awards Program.” p.11.

INTERNET SOURCES1. Advanced Buildings Technologies and Practices: Case Study on YMCA

Environmental Learning Centre: http://www.advancedbuildings.org/main_cs_ymca.htm

2. Centre for Building Performance Research: http://www.arch.vuw.ac.nz/cbpr 3. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation: Los Altos Project: http://

www.parkard.org/pdf/2002Resources.pdf 4. Embodied Energy Coefficients: http://www.arch.vuw.ac.nz/cdpr/embodied_

energy/files/eecoefficients.pdf5. Ocean Arks International: http://www.oceanarks.org/ 6. Which is Better? Steel, Concrete or Wood: A Comparison of Assessments

on Three Building Materials in the Housing Sector. Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Sydney, Fourth Year thesis by Joanna Glover: http://www.boralgreen.shares.green.net.au/research3/chap3.htm

PERSONAL INTERVIEWS1. McKee, Callum. Manager, Outdoor Services. Interviews and tours at

Solarium Building: January 24, 2003; February 14, 2003; February 21, 20032. Simon, Charles. Architect. Interviewed March 10, 2003

IMAGE & DRAWING CREDIT

Professor Terri Meyer-Boake of the University of Waterloo provided the images used on the title, quick facts and conclusion pages as well as Figures 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 23. The author supplied Figures 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28. All drawings are based on information provided by Charles Simon Architect. Fig.1, the site plan, was provided by Callum McKee of the YMCA.

Documents

SOLARIUM BUILDING - tboake.comtboake.com/sustain_casestudies/edited/Solarium-Bldg-YMCA.pdfSOLARIUM BUILDING climate must address both heating and cooling. The Solarium building is