Copper Lane, London

Architectural Association School of Architecture Graduate School AA SED MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design 2015-16

Term 1 Project - Refurbishing the City : London Case Studies

COPPER LANE

ALVAREZ Kristina ANKA Elias DE LOS SANTOS Tim SALAMA John

SUMMARY

The group would like to thank Mariam Kapsali, our tutor, and the entire teaching staff and visiting faculty of the MSc/March Sustainable Environmental Design 2015/2016 programme at the Architectural Association School of Architecture for mentoring and giving us a very helpful critique during our 2 presentations in this first term project.

We also thank them for guiding us and redirecting our attention when it was lost.

We would like to acknowledge the residents of 1-6 Copper lane, specifically Boris Bartkiw and his wife, for their permission to study the site, for their patience and cooperation with our project.

We would also like to thank our classmates in the Sustainable Environmental Design 2016/2015 program for helping us and sharing their ideas and showing us other ways of doing things.

Elias Milad Anka and John Mourice Salama would like to acknowledge the AA bursary committee for the bursary they were awarded to attend the AA SED MArch course 2015 to 2017.

Lastly, we would like to thank our families for their continuing encouragement and support as we live the AA experience.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The group would like to thank Mariam Kapsali, our tutor, and the entire teaching staff and visiting faculty of the MSc/March Sustainable Environmental Design 2015/2016 programme at the Architectural Association School of Architecture for mentoring and giving us a very helpful critique during our 2 presentations in this first term project.

We also thank them for guiding us and redirecting our attention when it was lost.

We would like to acknowledge the residents of 1-6 Copper lane, specifically Boris Bartkiw and his wife, for their permission to study the site, for their patience and cooperation with our project.

We would also like to thank our classmates in the Sustainable Environmental Design 2016/2015 program for helping us and sharing their ideas and showing us other ways of doing things.

Elias Anka and John Salama would like to acknowledge the AA bursary committee for the bursary they were awarded to attend the AA SED MArch course 2015-.2017 Lastly, we would like to thank our families for their continuing encouragement and support as we live the AA experience.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 - Introduction 2 - Overview 2.1 Site Location 2.2 Weather Data 2.3 Context 2.4 Timeline 2.5 Building Features 2.6 Massing and Distribution 2.7 Building Envelope 2.8 Architect and Tenant Interviews 3 - Outdoor Studies 3.1 Outdoor Measurements 3.2 Solar Analysis 3.3 Sunlight Hours Analysis 4 - Indoor Studies 4.1 House Overview 4.2 Daylighting Studies 4.3 Thermal Studies 4.4 Spot Measurements 4.5 Data Loggers 4.6 Data Logger Results 4.7 Appliance Information 4.8 Appliance Schedule 5 - Conclusions 5.1 Strategy Conclusions Personal Outcome References Appendices

08 09 10 12 14 16 17 18 20 22 23 24 28 31 32 33 34 36 37 41 44 45 46 47

Let me leave you with one thought – London’s population is set to rise by a million in the next decade.

The 2011 census recorded 8 million people living in 3.27 million households- an average of 2.5 people per household. Therefore, in the next decade, replicating this ratio, one million people will need 400,000 homes.

INTRODUCTION Cohousing is a way of living, which brings individuals and families together in groups to share common aims and activities while also enjoying their own private accommodation and personal space.

Cohousing communities are a mean of compensating for the alienating effects of modern life where neighbors don’t recognize each other and where day-to-day collaboration is minimal. The modern form of co-housing is loosely based on a Danish model dating from 1964.

The UK ‘s first major co-housing project, Springhill, in Stroud, has been operating for six years, with 34 homes – from one-bed flats to five-bed houses in a car-free site. Over the last couple of years, London has been trying to refurbish the city in order to adapt to the overpopulation and high property prices. This gave rise to a number of cohousing developments including projects that lean to a more sustainable living. The first sustainable co-housing scheme in London is a group of houses, 6-1 Copper Lane, in Stoke Newington.

Copper Lane project, designed by Henley Halebrown Rorrison Architects, is a unique cohousing project that came to light when a group of 5 families decided to combine resources to buy a peculiar site. The amount each family was able to contribute determined the size of their space. The different families shared a large communal area where they could have meetings and host gatherings and events. They also share the laundry area and a workshop directly adjacent to the communal area. The greenhouse and the gardens surrounding the houses are also a shared space.

We were only granted an interview with 1 of the 5 families and the information gathered was used as basis for this study. Unit 3 tenant, Boris Bartkiw, expressed his overall satisfaction with the project except for some overheating issues.

Our study is divided into 4 sections. The first section, the overview, gives a detailed background of the site and how its surroundings affect the sustainable aspects of the project: The enclosed perimeter, the history of the site and the architect’s choice of massing, distribution and materials. The second section presents the findings on outdoor studies such as the spot measurements taken on a specific day and the wind and solar analysis simulated using software learned throughout term 1. The third section covers indoor studies by looking at ventilation, daylighting and thermal analysis. The last section presents the strategy and conclusions.

7

Overview Outdoor Studies 2.1 Site Location

Indoor Studies

Conclusions

?II LĘ2 9 2 U&UZ ĘĘĘ9ĘíéĿëéĖéïüíêêĔ íéüíêéíëĿ

Figure 2.1.1 Building and green areas

Green spaces

Ę2?9 &UZ ĘĘĘdĘèĿíĖéîüííìĔ èüèðïñëéîïĿ

Building and hardscapes

Figure 2.1.3 Location Map

Project Information Architect Location Developer Contractor Planning Budget

2&PP?2 ĘI L0

Henley Halebrown Rorrison 1 to 6 Copper Lane N9 16NS, Stoke Newington, London, UK Springdale Gardens Ltd. Sandwood Design and Build London Borough of Hackney £ 1.8 M

Latitude Longitude

N 17.522 ‘31 ° 51” OR °51.52153 W 16.554 ‘5 ° 0” OR °0.08793167

Location

6 Copper Lane is located North-East of London in Stoke Newington N9 16NS which is part of the Borough of Hackney. This area of London is primarily residential with some commercial regions along the main roads. The Copper lane entrance is situated facing the North-West (Figure 2.1.1) Copper lane is accessible by Overground and Bus. The nearest Overground station is Canonbury which is a twelve minute walk.

(Figure 2.1.2)

PĘ&ĘUĘ

LP 9 2Ę ??U 22Ę 2Z

Figure 2.1.2 Bus routes Bus routes

éêĘ8&9 èüîĘ8&2

L jU?9Ę I L0

Railway

9?9 ZLj

2PU?9Ę 0&9 2 9

$& $ ZLjĘ & 2 P 9?9 ZLj

$& $ ZLj 9 Ę &P2&9 U?9

Figure 2.1.4 Vicinity Map

8

Overview Outdoor Studies 2.2 Weather Data

Indoor Studies

Conclusions

.............

LATITUDE: 5 51°33'16.06"N LONGTITUDE: 0° 5'14.56"W

.............

.............

.............

LATITUDE: 51°33'0.45"N LONGTITUDE: 0° 6'5.98"W

COPPER LANE WEATHER STATION HIGHBURY CRES

Figure 2.2.1 Weather station location

January February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September October November December

Figure 2.2.2 Weather station location

Historical Weather Data was obtained by selecting Highbury Cres weather station due to its proximity to the site (Figure 2.2.1).

Recent Weather Data used to analyze spot measurements and data loggers was obtained from the wunderground website (source: www.wunderground.com) by selecting the Mile End East London weather station.

The comfort band obtained from course tools ranges between 20 and °26C. These values are slightly higher during summer time where the comfort temperature ranges between 22 and °27C (Figure 2.2.2).

9

Overview 2.3 Context

Outdoor Studies

Indoor Studies

Conclusions

Figure 2.3.1 Springdale Road: Panoramic view

êi êi

i

ñª

ñª

éìªéìª

i

Figure 2.3.2 Springdale Road: Sketch and annotations

ééèª ééèª

In order to study the surroundings of the site, we took 2 panoramic views from 2 different locations and analyzed them.

Figure 2.3.3 Stoke Newington: Panoramic view

Figure 2.3.1 shows a linear view of Springdale Road. The buffer zone in red is a 2.4 meter narrow lane that is the only entrance to the project.

The Victorian terraced houses along the street change at this level. It is a breaking point of rhythm and proportions. The heights of the buildings pass from 9m to 14m and the grid changes from x to 2x as seen in Figure 2.3.2.

Figure 2.3.3 shows a panoramic view of Stoke Newington with Copper Lane in the middle of the landscape. We can clearly see how enclosed the project is with urban fabric from all orientations. The empty space in the middle is divided into private gardens with different typologies and large trees with dense foliage overshadowing most od the area including our case study.

Figure 2.3.4 Stoke Newington: Sketch and annotations

10

Outdoor Studies

Indoor Studies

Conclusions

4 62 32 26

Overview 2.3 Context

U ¾¾s Ę$±Í « Ę ±ª «s«È¤ÝĘ¾ ªs «ÂĘȱĘ~ ĘÈ Ę ª±ÂÈĘ ±ªª±«ĘÈÝ» ʱ Ę ±Í « Ę «ĘÂȱ¢ Ę« × « ȱ«÷Ę × Ę ÂĘÖ ¾ÝĘ ±ªª±«Ę «ĘÈ ĘÂÍ~;~s«Ęs« Ę «« ¾Ę ÈÝĘ 2±« ±«ü ±«Ö ¾È Ęs« ĘI;»±Â č Í ¤ Ę ¤sÈÂĘ~±È Ę s¤¤Ę~ « Ę × È ĘI;»±Â č Í ¤ Ę ¤sÈÂĘ~ « ʤ ȤÝĘ»¾ ±ª «s«ÈĘ ±Ö ¾Ę ±«Ö ¾È Ę ¤sÈÂü P ª č Ès Ę ±Í « Ę ÂĘÖ ¾ÝĘ¾s¾ Ę «ĘÈ Ęs¾ sĘ~ÍÈĘ P ª č Ès Ę È ¾ Ę ÂĘsĘªs¤¤Ę«Íª~ ¾Ę± ĘÈ Â Ę ±Í « ĘÍ« ÈÂĘ «ĘÈ Ę s¾ sü Ès Ę$±Í « Ę sÂĘ~ «Ęs~ «ÈĘ «ĘÈ ĘPȱ¢ Ę 9 × « ȱ«Ę Í ĘȱĘÈ Ę«sÈ;s¤Ę «Â ÈÝʱ ĘÈ Ę ÈÝüĘ

Figure 2.3.5 Road Map Showing Site

Figure 2.3.6 Different Typologies of Residential Houses in Stoke Newington

Stoke Newington has 4 different house typologies. The dominating type is the terraced housing. The houses encircling Copper lane area all terraced housing.

The site is surrounded by 3 roads, namely, Springdale road to the north, Aden grove to the South and East, and Green lanes to the west. Copper Lane is accessed through Springdale road which is connected to both Green Lanes and Aden grove The nearest bus stop is in the main thoroughfare, Green Lanes.

Copper lane is enclosed by the rear gardens of the surrounding terraced houses. All the surrounding gardens are fenced at a minimum of 2 meters.

s¾ «Ę2s« Â

¾ «Ę ±ÍÂ

PsÈ ¤¤ È Ę s¾ «Â

±Í¾ÈÝs¾

Figure 2.3.7 Different Typologies of Outdoor Spaces around Copper Lane

11

Overview Outdoor Studies 2.4 Timeline

Indoor Studies

Conclusions

«Ę « ÍÂȾ s¤Ę s ȱ¾ÝĘ ± Í» Ę È Ę Â È Ę «Ę È Ę éñëèÂüĘ È ¾ĘÈ Ę×s¾÷ĘÈ Ę~Í ¤ « Ę×sÂĘ¾ «±ÖsÈ Ę «È±ĘsĘ«Í¾Â ¾ÝĘ ±±¤ü

ê

Ę Ęêèèî

Ęéñìí

I PU

P IĘ éñññ

Ę »±ÂÈč×s¾Ę s~s« ±« Ę ¤ ¾ «āÂĘ «Í¾Â ¾ÝĘ Â ±±¤Ę ±«Ę sĘ ~s ¢¤s« Ę Â È Ę ~ « Ę¾  «È s¤ĘÂȾ ÈÂ

12

Overview Outdoor Studies 2.4 Timeline

Indoor Studies

Conclusions

È ¾Ę ª±¤  « ĘÈ Ę Ü ÂÈ « ĘÂÈ¾Í È; ÷ĘÈ ĘªsÈ ¾ s¤ÂĘ× ¾ Ę¾ Ý ¤ Ę s« Ę ¾ ÍÂ Ę «Ę È Ę ±«ÂÈ¾Í È ±«Ę » sÂ Ę ± Ę È Ę Â ÜĘ Ę ±Í ÂĘ s« Ę È ¾Ę ±ªªÍ«s¤Ę»s Âü

±«ÂÈ¾Í È ±«Ę ±ª»¤ È ü éčîĘ ±»» ¾Ę2s« Ę ÂĘ ±«Â ¾ ĘÈ Ęæ¾ÂÈĘ ±č ±Í « ĘĘ ª Ęª± ¤ĘĘ «Ę2±« ±«ü

Ę ¾±Í»Ę ± Ę æÖ Ę » ±»¤ Ę ~±Í ÈĘ È Ę ¤s« Ę «Ę ¤sÈ Ę êèèñĘ ¾±ªĘ È Ę È ±» s«Ę ¾ ÂÈ s«Ę ¤¤±× »Ę ; ü

ĘĘĘĘĘ9?cĘĘ ĘêèèñĘ

8 LĘĘ ĘêèéëĘ

IL P 9U /Z2Ę êèéë

/Z9Ę êèéí

±Í« sÈ ±«Ę ¾ ª±«ÝöĘ Ę~ sÍÈ Í¤Ę ¤sÝĘ ± s ¾±«Ę×sÂĘ ª~ č Ę× È ĘÖs¾ ±ÍÂĘÈ±È ª ʱ~¡ ÈÂĘ «È±ĘÈ Ę ¾±Í« ü

13

Overview Outdoor Studies 2.5 Building features

Indoor Studies

Conclusions êčÂȱ¾ ÝĘ~¾ ¢ĘÂÈ¾Í È; Â

ëčÂȱ¾ ÝĘÈ ª~ ¾ĘÂÈ¾Í È;  Obstructions Copper Lane Sepration Wall Outdoor Spaces

Figure 2.5.2 Section AA

±ªªÍ«s¤Ęs¾ s

Obstructions Copper Lane Sepration Wall Outdoor Spaces

Figure 2.5.3 Section BB

The design seeks a spatial typology that manifests the idea of communality on a backland site sunken by 1.2 m surrounded by 3 to 4 storey houses and gardens. (Figure 2.5.2 – Figure 2.5.3) The concept behind the Copper Lane project is based on six units, comprising 7 adults and 6 children, grouped around an outdoor courtyard in the vheart of the site beneath which the communal facilities are located. The main outlook, however, is outwards into the garden, rather than facing the courtyard. (Figure 2.5.1) The architect tried to reduce the household’s collective impact on the environment in the construction of their homes. The performance of the building fabric (insulation and air tightness) plays a vital role with low cost technology. Each house has been designed to have a generous provision of natural light whilst ensuring privacy.

?ÍÈ ±±¾Ę»s Â

Courtyard

Unit 3

ÂÂĘ ¾±ªĘP»¾ « s¤ ĘL±s

Terraced houses Underground +3 Figure 2.5.1 Conceptual layering Sunken site by 1.2m Communal room

B

A Entry lane Figure 2.5.4 Conceptual 3D

14

Overview Outdoor Studies 2.5 Building features

Indoor Studies

5

Conclusions

3

1

8 4

Spot 1 | Entrance 6

Spot 4 | Passage leading to courtyard

Spot 5 | Narrow entrance of the project

Spot 6 | Outdoor Layout

Spot 7 | Shared green house

7 2

Figure 2.5.5 Photos- Key plan

Spot 5, shown in Figure 2.5.5, is a view of the narrow 2.4 meter entrance to Copper lane which opens up to Spot 1.

Spot 1 shows the view of house number 4, which is a 2 storey brick clad house.

Spot 3 shows a view of house number 6, which is a 3 storey timber clad house.

Spot 2 | Outdoor Layout

Spots 2 and 6 show different ways tenants have managed their outdoor spaces.

Spot 7 opens up to the communal garden and greenhouse where they plant herbs. They have made this area a local plant nursery for the primary school children where they are taught to grow and care for plants.

Spots 4 and 8 show the communal courtyard leading to the main entrances to each house. The two skylights on the courtyard provide natural light below into the communal room and laundry area.

Spot 3 | Outdoor Layout

Spot 8 | Courtyard

15

Overview Outdoor Studies 2.6 Massing and Distribution

6

Indoor Studies

Conclusions

3

AL SPACE 5

2

Communal Space

4 1

6 5 4

Figure 2.6.1 Units massing and distribution: Second Floor 3-Storey Units

2-Storey Units

Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 5 Unit 6

Unit 3 Unit 4

3 2 1

Figure 2.6.2 Individual access to units: Lower groundfloor

Figure 2.6.3 Individual access to units: Upper groundfloor

Communal Space

Figure 2.6.1 shows the different layouts of the second floor. Units 5 and 6 contain the kitchen and dining area on the second floor while units 1 and 2 contain bedrooms. The 2 storey houses, houses 3 and 4 contain the green roofs at this level.

All houses have 2 separate entrances, a formal entrance located on the first floor communal courtyard and another more private entrance on the ground floor (Figures 2.6.2 and 2.6.3)

Figure 2.6.4 East elevation

Figure 2.6.4 shows houses 4 (brick-clad) and 1 (timber-clad) from the east elevation.

The stairs shown in the elevation lead up to the courtyard where the main entrance to each house is located. Below the courtyard is the communal area.

The slope from the entrance going down towards the houses is also seen in this figure.

The west elevation presents house number 3 (Our studied house) and house number 6 (figure 2.6.5). House number 3 is brick-clad while house 6 is timber-clad. The communal greenhouse and herb garden is located in this area adjacent to house number 3. The variance in slope is most evident from this elevation. As stated by the architect, the houses have been sunken 1.20 m. This sunken open area has been transformed into an outdoor activity area for games. This space also has a retractable clothes line for outdoor air-drying of laundry since the space has direct access to the communal laundry room.

Figure 2.6.5 West elevation

16

Overview Outdoor Studies 2.7 Building Envelope

Indoor Studies

Conclusions

The design of Copper lane uses 2 main exterior materials, namely, timber and brick. The 2 storey houses (houses 3 and 4) are clad in light gray brick while the 3 storey houses are clad in timber.

Only one wall-section of the timber building envelope was supplied by the architect. We were informed that houses 3 and 4 had the same components except that the exterior was clad in brick instead of timber (Figure 2.7.1).

Windows: According to the architect, the windows have been fitted with double and triple glazed windows depending on the exposure and orientation of the window.

Floor: Most of the flooring, based on our site visit is made up of polished concrete.

Some spaces, such as the communal area and living areas have underfloor heating.

Roof: Most of the roof is made up of metal sheeting except the areas that have skylights and green roofs.

The green roofs are placed on the-2 storey houses (houses 3 and 4).

U-Values Windows: U=1.30 W/m2K Walls: U=0.20 W/m2K Floor: U=0.30 W/m2K Roof: U=0.20 W/m2k

Figure 2.7.1 Isometric View of Wall Sections

17

Overview Outdoor Studies Interviews | 2.8 Architect

Indoor Studies

Conclusions

Design

|

Design Challenges

. Choice of construction materials. . Transportation into the site knowing that the project’s only accessible entrance is through a narrow 2.40 m wide lane. . Finding the right massing and orientation to allow maximum light inside the spaces and the courtyard considering the site’s location and closed surroundings. . Creating an intentional community. . Linking the external an d internal public courtyards to the private households. |

Design Strategies

. Reuse of bricks from the old nursery school for paving landscapes . Reduction of the site by 1.2 meters and building gabion walls and retaining walls . Timber as a construction material for cladding and window/door frames with insulation in between timber battens . Reduction of concrete use: Cobiax technology (hollows inside a reinforced concrete slab using synthetic void formers)

9 ¤ĘL± ¾ÂĘ Neil Rodgers

ĉ ±«ÂĊĘ »ĉ ¾ Ċ BA(hons) Dip(Arch) Project Architect I¾±¡ ÈĘ ¾ È È Materials Neil Rodgers graduated from Hull School of Architecture in 2003 before 9 ¤Ę L± ¾ÂĘ ¾s ÍsÈ Ę ¾±ªĘ $ͤ¤Ę to moving to Westminster University continue ± Ęhis ¾ È È; Ę architectural «Ęeducation, P ±±¤Ę êèèëĘ graduating in 2006.

Before joining ~ ±¾ Ęª±Ö « ĘȱĘd ÂȪ «ÂÈ ¾ĘZ« č Henley Halebrown Rorrison, Neil worked Ö ¾Â ÈÝĘÈ±Ę ±«È «Í Ę ÂĘs¾ È È;s¤Ę in a number of practices including Í sÈ ±«÷Ę ¾s ÍsÈ « Ę «Ę êèèîüĘ Studio BAAD in West Yorkshire, where

±¾ Ę ¡± « « Ę $ «¤ ÝĘ $s¤ ~¾±×«Ę he was involved in a diverse array L±¾¾ ±«÷Ę 9 ¤Ę ×±¾¢ Ę «Ę sĘ «Íª~ ¾Ę of projects and sectors including ± ± Ę»¾s È ÂĘ « ¤Í « ĘPÈÍ ±Ę Ę residential, arts and education buildings.

«Ęd ÂÈĘj±¾¢Â ¾ ÷Ę× ¾ Ę Ę×sÂĘ «č Ö±¤Ö Ę «ĘsĘ Ö ¾Â Ęs¾¾sÝʱ Ę»¾±¡ ÈÂĘ s« Ę Â È±¾ÂĘ « ¤Í « Ę ¾  «È s¤÷Ę s¾ÈÂĘs« Ę Í sÈ ±«Ę~Í ¤ « Âü

|

Inspiration

. 2 two-levels houses where the distance to the neighbors gets critical are made of bricks to obtain the concept of pulling the ground up on the facades. . 4 three-levels houses made of 42x42 square recycled timber battens with a 10 mm gap and 3 meters in length. . Only material they could get that was recycled . Celotex was used for internal insulation

Sustainability

|

Benchmarks

. No environmental assessment methods were adopted during the development of the project. . Achieved code 4 in sustainable homes. |

Opportunities

. Solar water heating panels are incorporated into the external roofing structure . Highly insulated houses . Air tight 0.2 . Double and triple glazing . Heat recovery ventilation system

18

Overview Outdoor Studies Interviews | 2.8 Tenant

Indoor Studies

Conclusions

Unit 3 resident Tenancy situation: Living alone Occupancy Pattern: Works from home Co-housing Privacy : Satisfied.

Whenever I want my own privacy, I just stay indoors. Keeping your door open is a signal for others that they’re welcome to come in.

Opportunities : Extremely Satisfied.

We have gained gardens a communal space which is larger than anything we can ever have if we were living separately.

Space

c ȱ¾Ę ±¾ ÂĘ s¾È¢ × Victor Boris Bartkiw Independent Design Professional &« » « «ÈĘ Â «ĘI¾±  ±«s¤ Copper Lane tenant ±»» ¾Ę2s« ĘÈ «s«È

Victor Boris Bartkiw is the company c ȱ¾Ę ±¾ ÂĘ s¾È¢ ×Ę ÂĘÈ Ę ±ª»s«ÝĘ director of Springdale Gardens Limited ¾ ȱ¾Ę P»¾ « s¤ Ę which was± Ę founded on the 21sts¾ «ÂĘ of July 2 ª È Ę× Ę×sÂĘ ±Í« ʱ«ĘÈ Ę 2009 prior to buying the backland that êéÂÈĘ ± Ę on /ͤÝĘ êèèñĘthe »¾ ±¾Ę È±Ę ~ÍÝ « Ę will later become Copper Lane cohousing scheme. È Ę ~s ¢¤s« Ę È sÈĘ × ¤¤Ę ¤sÈ ¾Ę ±«Ę

~ ±ª ĘÈ Ę ±»» ¾Ę2s« Ę ±č ±ÍÂč « Ę ª ü

Best Aspects

Community Privacy Outdoor Spaces

Worst Aspects

Slight overheating during the summer Narrow entry lane

Most used spaces

Master Bedroom Living Room Kitchen

Least used spaces

Guest Bedroom Workshop

“The technology is there so it seems illogical not to be sustainable”

ĕU ĚÈ «±¤± ÝĚ ÂĚÈ ¾ ĚÂ±Ě ÈĚ Â ªÂĚ ¤¤± s¤Ě«±ÈĚȱĚ~ ĚÂÍÂď Ès «s~¤ Ė

Energy

Figure 2.8.1 Plans showing the most and least used spaces in unit 3

Energy Consumption : Extremely satisfied.

Bills are substantially lower less than half of my old bills.

Most used spaces Least used spaces

Heating System Performance : Satisfied.

Underground heating system only warms up 2 to 3 degrees.

Concrete floor takes about 3-2hrs until heating kicks in. Timber floor takes slightly less.

Daylighting : Extremely satisfied.

The house is very well lit naturally

19

Overview

Outdoor Studies Indoor Studies 3.1 Outdoor measurements

Conclusions

21 Oct

12:00 PM

Air Temperature from Wunderground: 15 °C

Relative Humidity Range 70-80%

One of our first site visits to Copper Lane was on October 21 in order to take spot measurements. The initial thing we noticed was that Springdale road was significantly colder than the entrance to Copper Lane. There was almost no wind once we passed from Springdale road to Copper Lane.

One of the tenants of the cohousing was enthusiastic about the research and allowed us to take measurements around the site.

Our Spot measurements were taken in all ground floor corners and sides of the quadrilateral site as well as the center upper floor terrace. There were still no significant readings of wind as we went around the site and the illumination was fairly coherent except when we took measurements around the garden areas where trees were more abundant thus shading was lowering our lux values. Another interesting part about the site was that the upper floor terrace (on top of the communal area), the lux and surface temperature values were the highest values among the rest. This indicates that the terrace is very much exposed to the sun more than the other parts of the site (Figure 3.1.1 to 3.1.4).

Figure 3.1.1 Spot measurements taken around the site comparing illuminance and surface temperature

20

Overview

Outdoor Studies Indoor Studies 3.1 Outdoor measurements

Conclusions

21 Oct

12:00 PM

Air Temperature from Wunderground: 15 °C

Relative Humidity Range 70-80%

Figure 3.1.3 Graph showing the variation of the five considered parameters around the site

Figure 3.1.2 Spot measurements taken around the site comparing: Temperature, Windspeed and PET

Figure 3.1.4 Graph showing the different microclimates in the courtyard and around it

21

SUMMER SOL

Figure 3.2.1 Wind studies simulation (Source: Autodesk Flow Design)

WIND STUDIES

After we learned that the surroundings affected the site by blocking the wind, we thought to check if there were also some overshadowing that occurs between the site and the residential strips (Figure 3.2.3). We ran an analysis to check the shadowing during the summer, winter, and spring at 3 intervals during the course of one day. In order to arrive at a more in-depth understanding of the site. There was, in fact, overshadowing from the surrounding buildings but just during the winter. During the summer and spring, the Copper lane residential buildings themselves were causing a bit of overshadowing around the communal area. This poses a problem for the daylighting in some of the interiors.

Figure 3.2.2 Sun Path Analysis (Source: Ladybug for Rhino Grasshopper)

12:00

15:00

SPRING EQUINOX

WIND STUDIES

To have a better understanding as to why there was very minimal wind in the site during our site visits, we ran a wind rose simulation in order to determine the prevailing wind direction (Figure 3.2.1). And from that we projected the wind direction (°28 West of South) in Flow Design in order to simulate a wind tunnel of the model together with the surrounding buildings. We then discovered that the surrounding -3storey residential groups was the main reason as to why there was almost no wind in the site. The south-western strip of residences blocks most of the prevailing wind and that would reduce the air ventilation rate in the building and contribute to overheating during the summer.

SUMMER SOLSTICE

WINTER SOLSTICE

09:00

SUMMER SOLSTICE

WINTER SOLSTICE

Conclusions

SPRING EQUINOX

Indoor Studies

SPRING EQUINOX

Outdoor Studies 3.2 Solar analysis

WIND STUDIES

Overview

Figure 3.2.3 Solar analysis during spring equinox and summer and winter solstice at three different times of the day

22

Overview

Outdoor Studies Indoor Studies 3.3 Sunlight hours analysis

Conclusions

North-West Perspective

SUNLIGHT ANALYSIS

South-East Perspective

We proceeded to do an in-depth Sunlight hours analysis in order to view the extent of overshadowing between the Copper lane structures. We simulated in Rhino – grasshopper using the honey-bee tool.

This gave us summer, winter, and spring The southern houses dim the southernfacing facades of the other houses across.

During the winter the site is completely engulfed in shadows except for the roofs.

The results are shown in Figure 3.3.1

Spring

Summer

Winter

Figure 3.3.1 Sunlight Hour Diagrams

23

Overview

Outdoor Studies

Indoor Studies Conclusions 4.1 House Overview

House No. 3 First Floor Second Floor

131.40 m2 65.98 m2 65.42 m2 Figure 4.1.3 Occupancy Info

Figure 4.1.2 Key Plan of Ground and First Floor

GROUND FLOOR

Figure 4.1.1 Isometric View of House 3

House number 3 was made available for us by the residents to use for the study. The house is located at the south-east corner of the property (figure 4.1.2).

Figure 4.1.4 highlights the different spaces of house number 3. The house is a 2 bedroom dwelling with 2 levels. The Masters bedroom and guest room is located on the ground floor (sunken 1.2 m from ground level) along with the office and a bathroom. The kitchen, dining, living area and a second bathroom are located on the first floor. The first floor receives a lot of natural light from the windows and skylights. The skylights are located above the living area and the bathroom.

Office

Guest Room

FIRST FLOOR

Masters Bedroom

Guest Room

Kitchen and Dining

Living Area

Living Area

Skylight

Figure 4.1.4 Isometric Views highlighting the main spaces and elements of House 3

Kitchen and Dining Floor Area

Glazing Ratio

The flooring of the ground level is made of polished floor concrete. The kitchen and dining area on the first floor is made of floor tiles while the living area is made of timber. All the walls and ceilings are painted in flat white.

The occupant of the house mentioned that he rarely uses his kitchen because he is still in the process of slowly fixing the interior spaces. A carpenter comes every day to help with the improvements. When we visited the house, there were working tables beside the dining area and the living area.

Figure 4.1.5 House 3 Ground Floor Plan

Figure 4.1.6 House 3 First Floor Plan

Figure 4.1.7 Floor Area and Glazing Ratio

24

Overview

Outdoor Studies

Indoor Studies Conclusions 4.1 House Overview

Communzal Area 74.87 m2 Communal 55.43 m2 Laundry 6.72 m2 Workshop 9.16 m2 Toilet 3.56 m2 Figure 4.1.8 Isometric View of House 3

Figure 4.1.9 Aerial View highlighting the Communal Area

Toilet

Skylights

Entry

Workshop

View of from communal area

GROUND FLOOR

Laundry Room

Communal Area

Figure 4.1.10 Isometric Views highlighting the spaces of the communal area

Skylight in communal area

We were also given the permission to study the communal area apart from house number 3. The communal area is a space shared by all the occupants. It is located in the center of the site and is accessible by all houses (figure 4.1.9). This space is frequently used for meetings, parties and painting (one of the occupants is an artist).

The communal area includes a shared laundry room, a toilet and a workshop for carpentry work. Figure 4.1.10 highlights the different components of the communal area. There are 2 skylights in the space, one is above the main communal area and the other is above the laundry room.

The flooring of the communal area is polished concrete. There is an underfloor heating system under the space which they can program to turn on and off at certain times of the day.

Figure 4.1.11 Isometric View of House 3

25

26

Overview

Outdoor Studies

Indoor Studies Conclusions 4.1 House Overview

Doors

Windows

Curtains or Blinds

Skylights

Under floor Heating

Thermostat

Figure 4.3.12 Adaptive Opportunities

The adaptive opportunities are illustrated in figure 4.3.12. The houses are all generally well lit from the large glazed areas. Almost all glazed areas that were exposed to communal spaces (gardens and open courtyard) had curtains. The glazed areas that did not have curtains had vertical timber louvers that provided privacy without drastically compromising the natural light that entered the space. We observed that privacy for them was important but was not of utmost priority because they were all familiar with each other.

Main Entrance to House 3

Corner Window of House 4

Most of the large glazed areas had openable sections which gives the occupants control over the indoor temperature. The only large glazed areas that were not openable were those facing the courtyard (beside the main entrances of each house), which we ruled out as a more of a security requirement. The houses also have skylights which bring in natural light.

Each dwelling has programmable underfloor heating which they can set at the times they require. They can control and set the temperature with the thermostat.

A problem expressed by the occupant of house 3 was that the underfloor heating was quite complicated to program. He mentioned how they have not fully mastered the programming because of their busy and varying schedules.

27

Overview

Outdoor Studies

Indoor Studies Conclusions 4.2 Daylighting Studies

Figure 4.3.12 Adaptive Opportunities

Figure 4.2.1 Indoor Sun Patch Diagrams

We observed after simulating the sun patch analysis that one cause of overheating during the summer is the window orientation. The two larger windows located in the right side of the kitchen and the bottom of the living room are oriented towards the south-east. Without any shading during the summer, the solar radiation abundantly permeates through the two windows and causes direct solar gains onto both the kitchen and living room areas from the morning and early afternoon sun.

We simulated the sun patch at 3 distinct points in the day for both summer and winter in order to better pinpoint the time of day when the sun enters the room and at which spot (Figure 4.2.1). In our analysis we found the hours in which the room is most exposed to the sun. Mostly due to the orientation, the hours in between 9:00 am and 12:00pm are the peak hours of the sun both during summer and winter. This helped us in better understanding the wanted and unwanted solar exposure.

Figure 4.2.2 First floor Illuminance measurements

Figure 4.2.3 Ground Floor Illuminance measurements

28

Overview

Outdoor Studies

Indoor Studies Conclusions 4.2 Daylighting Studies

-First Floor Living Room and Kitchen -Diva Illuminance Analysis -Sky Condition: Overcast -Month: June -Day: 21 -Time: 12:00pm -Useful Daylight Illuminance: 84.1 %

Figure 4.2.4 Point-in-Time Illuminance Simulation from Diva for Rhino)

-Communal Room -Diva Illuminance Analysis -Sky Condition: Overcast -Month: June -Day: 21 -Time: 12:00pm -Useful Daylight Illuminance: 87.6 %

Figure 4.2.5 Point-in-Time Illuminance Simulation from Diva for Rhino)

-First Floor Living Room and Kitchen -Mean Daylight Autonomy = 63 % -Daylit Area = 78 % of Floor Area with Autonomy over 50 % -Annual Occupancy = 3650 Hrs.

Figure 4.2.6 Daylight Autonomy Simulation from Diva for Rhino)

Figure 4.2.7 Climate-based simulation from for Rhino)

-Mean Daylight Factor = 3.79 % 100 % of Area between 20 & 0 % -According to Cibse Guide Daylighting and Window design: Minimum Average Daylight Factor of 1.5 % for living rooms and 2 % for kitchens.

2 % = dim and requires elec. lighting 5 % = well lit with natural light

Figure 4.2.8 Daylight Factor Simulation from Diva for Rhino)

Figure 4.2.9 Daylight Factor Simulation from Diva for Rhino)

-Communal Room -Mean Daylight Autonomy = 61.58 % -Daylit Area = 81 % of Floor Area with Autonomy over 50 % -Annual Occupancy = 3650 Hrs.

-Mean Daylight Factor = 3.50 % 100 % of Area between 0 20 & % -According to Cibse Guide Daylighting and Window design: Minimum Average Daylight Factor of 1.5 % for living rooms and 2 % for kitchens.

2 % = dim and requires elec. lighting 5 % = well lit with natural light

As we studied how the sun permeates through the glazing, we proceeded to investigate the daylighting of both the communal room and the kitchen/living room area. We first ran a daylight simulation for the illuminance for a specific day, which we chose to do during the overcast and during the peak of summer in order to get a better understanding of the overheating problem during the summer in London. The results were, as we expected, from when we first visited the site. The spaces were well lit in majority of the spaces due to the spread out windows althroughout the areas. When we compared the ranges with a standard threshold of useful daylight illuminance which states that illuminance that fall between 100 and 2000 is useful, for both areas we arrived at a result of around %85 useful daylight which is an indicator of a well lit area.

To study the daylight further, we simulated a daylight autonomy analysis in order to study the illumination of over an annual period. The daylight autonomy gave us a percentage of every point in the space that is well lit during the course of a year. This gave us the mean daylight autonomy and gave us positive percentages representing points that are well lit for at least half of the year. This tells us that both the communal room and the kitchen/living area are quite well lit most of the year.

Afterwards, we simulated the daylight factors in order to further compare the illumination with the standards of the CIBSE guide. Under the CIBSE guide for Daylight and Window design, the spaces must have a daylight factor of more than %2 to be described as an acceptable illuminated space while %5 describes a well illuminated space. For both spaces, we received a mean daylight factor of about 3.5 to 3.8 which is not far from the upper standard and mirrors the tenants absence of complaints on illumination.

29

Overview

Outdoor Studies

Indoor Studies Conclusions 4.2 Daylighting Studies

Figure 4.2.10 Daylight Visualization Using Diva

12:00 PM

12:00 PM

21 Jun

21 Jun

12:00 PM

12:00 PM

21 Dec

21 Dec

We ended our daylighting studies with a daylight visualization on both the common room and the kitchen/dining area. Here we wanted to observe the lighting zones on the floors, walls, ceilings and furniture. We projected the daylight visualization during both winter and summer for both respective spaces. This will allow us to further our understanding of daylighting in 3d space. we simulated the runs during overcast at noon.

Here we saw how the window orientation (south-east) was effective in illuminating the space. Orienting the window allowed enough light to penetrate during the day but most probably could result in additional solar gains.

The findings are shown in Figure 4.2.10.

Conclusions: The Spaces were all well lit during the summer since the sun is at its high elevation.

Although more illumination could have been provided for the winter months, the result of the spread out windows is effective to illuminate each part of the areas which need natural sunlight. And so the Daylighting is still sufficient enough to be useful.

30

Overview

Outdoor Studies

Indoor Studies Conclusions 4.3 Thermal Studies

Kitchen, Dining and Living Room

Communal Area

Figure 4.3.1 Mint Calculations

We calibrated the Mint sheets in order to investigate the different factors of each space. We made quick scenarios using the mint sheets on both the communal room and the kitchen/living room to simulate different occupancies as well as different temperatures outdoors. Changing the temperature outdoors to simulate summer and winter gave us an understanding that there is about a 7 ° c difference between the indoor and outdoor environment. Although changing the number of occupants did not change much due to low number of maximum occupancy, which we simulated and got small temperature differences of 2 °c to 4 °c. (see appendices)

31

Overview

Outdoor Studies

Indoor Studies Conclusions 4.4 Spot measurements Heater ON in communal room Underfloor heating by gas condensing boiler

+

30 Oct

13:00 PM

Air Temperature from Wunderground: 16 °C

Relative Humidity Range 55-65%

Windows and door open in living room/ kitchen

Mean indoor temperature

Temperature difference from outdoor

22.5 °C

6.5 K

Air Temperature | Upper Floor

Air Temperature | Lower Floor

Spot measurements were taken on the 30th of October at 13:00 pm, indoors and in the courtyard (Figure 4.4.1).

When these measurements were taken, the underfloor heating in the communal room has been on for two hours and the windows and doors in the living room / kitchen area on the upper floor were open. The results show a roughly stable temperature throughout the house except for the workshop space which had the highest value of 24.9 °C mainly because of the limited surface of glazing reducing the amount of heat loss and because of its proximity to the laundry room and the heat gains of the appliances it contains.

Considering these conditions, the mean indoor air temperature in the house was °22.5C with 6.5 k difference from the outdoor temperature taken from wunderground on the same day.

Surface temperatures are lower in the upper floor area possibly because of the convective cooling of the fresh air supply from open windows and doors when the measurements were taken. The values vary from 16.2 to 16.5 °C with a 14.2 °C temperature for the outdoor exposed brick surface of the courtyard. That value is substantially higher than the °11.6C surface temperature taken on October 21st when the bricks were still wet after the rain.

Surface Temperature | Upper Floor Figure 4.4.1 Indoor Spot Measurements

Surface Temperature | Lower Floor 32

Overview

Outdoor Studies

Guest bedroom

Indoor Studies 4.5 Data Loggers

Conclusions

Kitchen

First Floor

Communal room

To analyze how the unit performs during a longer period of time taking into consideration occupancy, the occupants’ activities and appliances, we placed four data loggers: one in the communal room and one in the guest bedroom, both on the lower floor, and two in the kitchen/living room area on the upper floor.

The loggers were installed for a period of 8 days (from October 30th to November 6th).

It wasn’t obvious to find the right location to place the data loggers away from direct sunlight without interfering with the tenant’s everyday life. The logger locations are shown in Figure 4.5.1 The one in the guest bedroom was taped to the wall next to the window to expose the antenna to the outdoor so we could get a better understanding of the exterior temperature in relation to the indoor performance.

Unfortunately, the results of this logger weren’t reliable as it gave us unreasonable indoor temperatures reaching °45-C.

Ground Floor Figure 4.5.1 Data Logger Locations

33

Overview

Outdoor Studies

Indoor Studies Conclusions 4.6 Data logger Results 30 Oct

06 Nov

Heater ON Underfloor heating by gas condensing boiler

Heating turned on

Figure 4.6.1 Graph showing the temperature and humidity values given by the Data Loggers between 30-10 and 06-11 in the Communal Room

The temperature of the communal room peaked at °22.5C right after it reached its lowest of °18.7C and then roughly stabilized at °21C. The tenant told us that the heating was turned on Sunday afternoon because of a small gathering planned out later on during the day.

The outside temperature varied between °6.8C and °15.2C. The difference between inside and outside ranged between a minimum 5K and a maximum 12K.

34

Overview

Outdoor Studies

Indoor Studies Conclusions 4.6 Data logger Results 30 Oct

The temperatures of the open kitchen and living room were roughly the same considering there are no partitions separating the two spaces from one another. The values range from °19C to °21C. The temperature in the living room reaches its lowest at °17.5C on Monday morning then regains its previous stability two hours later. We assume it’s because the tenant kept the windows open for a while.

The outside temperature varied between °6.8C and °15.2C. The difference between inside and outside ranged between a minimum of 6K and a maximum of 12K.

06 Nov

Heater ON Underfloor heating by gas condensing boiler

35

Overview

Outdoor Studies

Indoor Studies Conclusions 4.7 Appliance Information

Figure 4.7.1 Graph Showing the Appliance Data

36

Overview

Outdoor Studies

Indoor Studies Conclusions 4.8 Appliance Schedule

Figure 4.8.1 Appliance Schedule (diagram source: Openstudio, Sketchup)

37

Overview

Outdoor Studies

Indoor Studies Conclusions 4.8 Appliance Schedule

38

Overview

Outdoor Studies

Indoor Studies Conclusions 4.8 Appliance Information

39

Overview

Outdoor Studies

Indoor Studies Conclusions 4.8 Appliance Information

40

Overview

Outdoor Studies

Indoor Studies

Conclusions 5.1 Strategies

41

Overview

Outdoor Studies

Indoor Studies

Conclusions 5.1 Strategies

42

Indoor Studies

Thermal Analysis | Mint and EI calculations

UNIT 3 Building Heat Loss Coefficient Sustainable Homes Code 4

151.6 W/K 1.39 per m2 1.28 per m2

Annual Heat Loss

10094 kWh

Excess Gains Peak Temperature Number of hours above 27 째C

4864 kWh 33.3 째C 327

Internal Gains

3500 kWh

Annual Heat Gains

11367 kWh

Internal Gains

4000 kWh

Annual Heat Gains

5714 kWh

COMMUNAL ROOM Building Heat Loss Coefficient Sustainable Homes Code 4

62.5 W/K 1.25 per m2 1.28 per m2

Annual Heat Loss

4162 kWh

Excess Gains Peak Temperature Number of hours above 27 째C

2133 kWh 28.7 째C 34

43

Conclusions

44

Personal Outcome

45

References

Henley Halebrown Rorrison Architects. Copper Lane. Retrieved October 2015 ,10, from Henley Halebrown Rorrison Architects: http://hhbr.co.uk/work/copper-lane/ Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE). (1999). Daylighting and window design – Lighting Guide LG10:1999. London, England: Department of environment transport regions (DETR).

Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE). (2007, January).

Environmental Design – CIBSE guide A. Norwich, Norfolk, Great Britain: Page Bros.

(Norwich) Ltd. The Guardian. (August 2014). Copper Lane review. Retrieved October 2015 ,11, from the guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/aug/31/copper-lanereview-cohousing-stoke-newington-henley-halebrown-rorrison Yannas, S. (1994). Solar Energy and Housing Design (1st edition ed., Vols. Volume 1: Principles, Objectives, Guidelines). London, England: Architectural Association.

Baker N., and K. Steemers (2002). Daylight Design of Buildings. London: James & James Science ( Science Publishers) Ltd. Meteonormhttp://meteonorm.com/ Dezeen Ltd. (2014, september). Copper Lane by Henley Halebrown Rorrison Architects. Retrieved October 2015 ,18, from Dezeen: http://www.dezeen. com/21/09/2014/copper-lane-co-operative-housing-henley-halebrown-rorrisonlondon/ Archdaily Ltd. (2014, December 6-1 (26 Copper Lane, Retrieved October 2015 ,24, from Archdaily: http://www.archdaily.com/-1/580881nil-6-copper-lane-n9-16nshenley-halebrown-rorrison-architects 46

Appendices

Appendices

47

Appendices

48

Appendices Communal Area Communal Area

House Number 3

49