A. Knochel Environmental Portfolio

ENVIRONMENTAL PORTFOLIO

SPRING 2022 | SUSTAINABLE SYSTEMS ALYSSA KNOCHEL

COVER IMAGE: Rendering of the Axis

CONTENTS

SECTION 01 - INTRODUCTION

SECTION 02 - PROJECT: AXIS FOOD HALL

DESIGN FOR INTEGRATION........................................................................................................... 10 DESIGN FOR EQUITABLE COMMUNITIES..................................................................................... 14 CLIMATE & DESIGN STRATEGIES................................................................................................. 21 DESIGN FOR ECOLOGY.................................................................................................................. 25 DESIGN FOR WATER...................................................................................................................... 26 DESIGN FOR ECONOMY................................................................................................................. 30 WINDOW WALL RATIOS................................................................................................................. 46 DESIGN FOR ENERGY..................................................................................................................... 49 DESIGN FOR WELLNESS................................................................................................................ 51 DESIGN FOR RESOURCES.............................................................................................................. 53 DESIGN FOR CHANGE.................................................................................................................... 55 DESIGN FOR DISCOVERY............................................................................................................... 56

SECTION 03 - BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABOUT ME

ALYSSA KNOCHEL

FROM Lafayette, Indiana EDUCATION

B.S. Interior Design (2013) Purdue University

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Interior Designer (10 Years)

INTERESTS

Hiking, Biking, Singing, Traveling

SUSTAINABLE LIVING

Recycling, Up-cycling

ABOUT ME

Good to meet you! I’m an interior designer/ project manager currently working at a commercial design firm in Indianapolis, Indiana. We specialize in K-12 and Higher Education designs, with some workplace design as well.

I graduated from Purdue University in 2013, and have been working for the past 10 years in commercial architecture. I love having the opportunity to work with and get to know different clients and businesses, and team with them to create efficient and engaging space. It’s been my goal to continue to broaden my education in architecture, and I’m excited to start another semester at the BAC.

I’ve always loved the architecture and design industry, and knew from high school on that it was something I wanted to be part of. I’m inspired by new designs, but also have an interest in architecture history.

I currently live in Lafayette, Indiana, in a historic home built in 1901. My husband and I both have a love for historic buildings, so it’s been fun to live in a neighborhood with older homes, and right next to a historic  fire station.

IMAGE: Photo from AZ

MY CARBON & ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

CARBON FOOTPRINT

Calculated through the Global Footprint Network, it was found that my Ecological Footprint is 12.7, with my Carbon Footprint as 24. It was also found that it would take 7.8 combined if everyone lived like me.

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

Looking at the EPA to understand my Ecological Footprint, it was found that my current is below the current US average. The highest CO2 Estimate for my household is in Home Energy.

IMAGE: EPA, 2016

IMAGE: Global Footprint Network, 2022

COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET - INTRODUCTION SECTION 02 | PROJECT: AXIS FOOD HALL

Step 1: Fill out the below basic information of your project

Program Breakdown(?) % of Building Area

Building Program #1 Food - Restaurant 30%

Building Program #2 Recreation (Visitor Center) 70%

Building Program #3 Building Program #4 Building Program #5 Building Program #6 Building Program #7 Building Program #8

Total must equal 100% 100%

Step 2: Review your benchmarks to evaluate your projects performance.

Basic Project Information Transportation

Additional Building Information

Project Name AXIS Building

Project Type New Construction Site Environment(?) Urban

Total Annual 86,462 kg-CO2e / yr Project Address 39 Quincy Ave.

Previously Developed Site Yes - Brownfield

Is the firm an AIA 2030 Signatory No

Reported in the AIA DDx No

Total Annual per Occupant 1,729 kg-CO2e / occupant / yr apt., suite, etc. City Braintree Water State MA Total Annual Water Use 973,500 gal / yr Zip Code 2184 WUI - Water Use Intensity (Program-based) 0.0 gal / sf / yr User-Defined Benchmark

Third party rating system 1

ASHRAE Climate Zone 5A (Link) WUI - Water Use Intensity (User-Defined) 64.9 gal / sf / yr Other Climate Zone(?): Water Use per Occupant 19,470 gal / occupant / yr

Total Building Area(?) 15,000 Gross sf Site Area(?) 390,000 sf Energy

Third party rating system 2

Regularly occupied space(?) 10,000 sf Total Annual Energy Use 2,052,000 kBtu / yr Avg daily occupancy(?) 50 People EUI - Energy Use Intensity (Program-based) 136.8 kBtu / sf / yr Peak occupancy(?) 100 People EUI - Energy Use Intensity (User-defined) 136.8 kBtu / sf / yr Use ZeroTool designated FTEs(?) 20 People Energy Use per Occupant 41,040 kBtu / occupant / yr

Project completion year 2022 Annual days of operation(?) 365 Days Operational Carbon Emissions Avg. daily hours of operation(?) 10 hours Total Annual Carbon Emissions 183,000 kg-CO2e / yr Total Construction Cost(?) 10,000,000 USD Carbon Use Intensity (Program-based) 12.2 kg-CO2e / sf / yr User-Defined Benchmark FAR 0.04 Carbon Use Intensity (User-Defined) 12.2 kg-CO2e / sf / yr Cost/sf ($ 666.67) Carbon Emissions per Occupant 3,660 kg-CO2e / occupant / yr sf/occupant - Avg. 300 sf/occupant - Peak 150 Electric Lighting

Annual hours of operation 3,650

Building Program

Building

Lighting Power Density 1.22 W / sf User-Defined Benchmark

Lighting Power Density (User-Defined) 1.22 W / sf

This first page assigns benchmarks based on building-specific, national data for the project to be compared against.

If a user-defined benchmark is present, the national benchmarks will be overridden.

For COTE Top Ten energy reductions, the benchmark should be user-defined using Architecture 2030's Zero Tool. Optional user-defined can be entered above as a way of tracking any specific benchmarking research that the team conducted.

DESIGN FOR INTEGRATION

SITE INTEGRATION

The Axis Food Hall is located at 39 Quincy Avenue in Braintree, MA. This site map shows the contour lines at the site and surrounding area, showing a 9ft elevation change across the site.

The site is adjacent to the Fore River, and the site elevation grades down gradually towards the river creating a water flow to the river.

The site has existing green space and industrial buildings. The existing industrial buildings will be removed in order to provide more green space and access to the river.

GREEN SPACE WATER

IMAGE: Axis Site View

DESIGN FOR INTEGRATION

DAYLIGHT INTEGRATION

The Axis Food Hall was placed at the South-West corner of the site, taking advantage of the major street access along Quincy Ave.

Large archways and windows bring light through the building along the South side of the building and through to the Town Lawn at the North.

NATIVE PLANTINGS

Native planting to the East Coast landscape were selected for the site design, including tall grasses, shade trees, and screening trees.

DESIGN FOR INTEGRATION

SECTION VIEW

The Axis Food Hall will be constructed along an existing smelt brook which connects with the Fore River. The building will feature the use of horizontal shading.

MONTHLY AVERAGE Chart featuring the average temperature, rainfall, humidity and cloud cover in Braintree, MA, showing cold winters with some precipitation, and warm and muggy summer months.

IMAGE: Weather Spark, 2022

IMAGE: Site Section of the Axis

RIVER PATH TURF

LAWN STEPS REST AREA TOWN LAWN

HARDSCAPE LANDSCAPE SIDEWALK PARKING HARDSCAPE

SUMMER SUN WINTER SUN

COTE MEASURE 1 - DESIGN FOR INTEGRATION

Measure 1

‐

Design for Integration

Inputs: Describe your project's big idea on integrating design and sustainability in the green cell below. Look at chart below for inspiration HOLISTIC SUSTAINABILITY 1 ‐ What is the big idea?

Explanations

Sustainability strategies can affect and involve multiple COTE measures. As an example: think how many measures are influenced by carbon metrics? The chart below represents the interconnectivity of the COTE measures.

COMMUNITY

Place based. ECOLOGY

Aquifer/watershed, shared resource.

Climate appropriate landscape. Rainwater harvesting. WATER

Financial resilience. Economic benefits of biophilic design. Low maintenance design.

Axis will have opportunity to be place based, a watershed shared resource, social equality shared space, connection to nature, daylighting as energy.

Water savings, water independence.

District systems. Bioclimatic and passive design. Energy savings from transportation and treatment of water.

Carbon emissions from transportation. Air quality. Connection to nature.Water quality.

Locally sourced materials. Environmentally conscious material extraction, mfg., transp. and disposal.

Social equity is a major component of resilience.

Climate change: fires, earthquakes, floods, ocean rise.

Aquifer conservation, surface water quality and enjoyment, watershed protection.

Water resilience. Flooding, precipitation changes, drought.

User groups, profiles, heat maps. Biodiversity.Mindful presence of water.

ECONOMY

Life cycle cost, Life cycle analysis.

Operational costs and costs from productivity of building occupants.

Durability and maintenance of materials.

Right sizing, flexibility for growth and change.

Replicable, cost effective strategies.

ENERGY

Daylighting as energy conversation measure. WELLNESS

Embodied carbon of materials. Safer material selection, material transparency. RESOURCES

Carbon's role in climate change. Passive survivability. Embodied carbon savings from adaptive reuse. CHANGE

Measurement and verification. Tracking health impacts.Future adaptability. Post‐occupancy evaluations. DISCOVERY

DESIGN FOR EQUITABLE COMMUNITIES

THE AXIS MANIFESTO

Weymouth Landing at the intersection of Braintree and Weymouth was analyzed to understand the makeup of the site, community and history. It was found to have local adjacencies including River front access, high residential area, local business, and some industrial sites and green space. The two communities were found to have a lack of local gathering space, or a third place, and a minimal

amount of river access. The demographics show the local community to be made up of a high percentage of residential area and homeowners, with the local activities being boating, bike riding, walking and children’s activities. These things are a piece of the identity of the community.

With a strong sense of community, the Landing shows a lack of identity. This concept focuses on highlighting the

community and the amenities it provides through a beacon that represents the community. It will support local businesses and create a third place for gathering, utilize the direct river access and provide river access to the greater community, and will support local recreation through creation of paths and walking space. The beacon will highlight Weymouth Landing on the map.

DESIGN FOR EQUITABLE COMMUNITIES DEMOGRAPHICS

DEMOGRAPHICS

Demographics charts include averages household type, employment by industries, race and ethnicity, and domestic trade for the town of Braintree, MA.

The charts indicate a large percentage of families, and high percentages in White (Non-Hispanic) and Asian (Non-Hispanic) ethnicities.

There is a high percentage of domestric trade in gasoline, mixed freight and electronics, and a high percentage of employment in the health care industry.

IMAGE: Demographics Data USA, 2022

IMAGE: Employment by Industries Data USA, 2022

IMAGE: Domestic Trade for the town of Braintree Data USA, 2022

IMAGE: Race and Ethnicity Data USA, 2022

DESIGN FOR EQUITABLE COMMUNITIES

REGIONAL MATERIALS

IMAGE: Concrete material, Hassiotis, Christopher, 2018

CONCRETE

Concrete was a prominent material selected because of its locality to the site and ease of access. Different concrete mixes where reviewed in order to provide a mix with a low carbon footprint. It became a main material on the project because of its use of a structural material and as well as its use for landscaping paths through the site.

IMAGE: Wood material, Home Stratosphere, 2021

WOOD

Wood became one of the most prominent cost effective materials on the Axis project because of its ease of access, sourced for interior finish flooring, exterior cladding and some decorative elements. It was able to be sourced locally and stored ahead of schedule, making it an economical choice for selection.

IMAGE: Steel material, Advanced Refractory Metals, 2022

STEEL

Steel was used in multiple facets throughout the building. It was easily sourced locally, and used for structural, and decorative purposes. Because it was easily sourced in the region, this cut down in costs associated with transport of this heavier material. It was also able to be purchased early and stored for installation.

DESIGN FOR EQUITABLE COMMUNITIES

WALK SCORE

WALK SCORE

39 Quincy Ave in Braintree, MA has a Walk Score of 67, and a Bike-able score of 37.

It is located right next to the Greenbush rail line and the Weymouth Landing bus line.

IMAGES: Walk Score, 2022

COMMUNITY STRATEGIES

With a strong sense of community, the current site shows a lack of identity. This concept focuses on highlighting the community and the amenities it provides through a beacon that represents the community.

It will support local businesses and create a third place for gathering, utilize the direct river access and provide river access to the greater community, and will support local recreation through creation of paths and walking space. The beacon will highlight Weymouth Landing on the map.

The building site will also give the local community direct access to the Greenbush rail line, Fore River Trail, and bus stop.

CLIMATE & DESIGN STRATEGIES

SOLAR SHADE CHARTS

IMAGE: Chart created with Climate Consultant

CHART 1: SOLAR SHADING - NORTH HORIZONTAL SHADE: 60 DEG

VERTICAL FIN: --

The Axis Food Hall on the North side will be shaded throughout most of the day. It is recommended to use horizontal shades at 60 degrees at this side as the best design strategy.

IMAGE: Chart created with Climate Consultant

CHART 2: SOLAR SHADING - SOUTH HORIZONTAL SHADE: 60 DEG

VERTICAL FIN: --

The Axis Food Hall on the South side will get some shade throughout most of the day. It is recommended to use horizontal shades at 60 degrees at this side as the best design strategy.

CLIMATE & DESIGN STRATEGIES

SOLAR SHADE CHARTS

IMAGE: Chart created with Climate Consultant

CHART 3: SOLAR SHADING - EAST

HORIZONTAL SHADE: 60 DEG

VERTICAL FIN: --

The Axis Food Hall on the East side will be shaded during half of the day. It is recommended to use horizontal shades at 60 degrees at this side as the best design strategy.

IMAGE: Chart created with Climate Consultant

CHART 2: SOLAR SHADING - WEST

HORIZONTAL SHADE: 60 DEG

VERTICAL FIN: 90 DEG

The West facade will receive the most sun, and will require both horizontal shades and vertical fins. It is recommended to use horizontal shades at 60 degrees and vertical fins at 90 degrees as the best design strategy.

PSYCHOMETRIC CHART

CLIMATE CONSULTANTPSYCHOMETRIC CHART

The Psychometric Chart takes a look at the potential design strategies throughout the year for the Axis in Braintree, MA.

The study shows that this location near Boston will need Heating provided to the site buildings because of the local climate. It also shows that the site will get a high internal heat gain.

In contrast, because of the local climate, the site will have less need for Cooling or Humidification.

IMAGE: Chart created with Climate Consultant

CLIMATE CONSULTANT

DESIGN STRATEGY 1:

HEATING, ADD HUMIDIFICATION

To provide passive summer heating, much of the building glass can be oriented South in order to maximize winter sun exposure. Provide shades for summer sun exposure.

DESIGN STRATEGY 2:

INTERNAL HEAT GAIN

Provide double pane high performance glazing (Low-E) on west, north and east, but clear glazing on south facade for maximum passive solar gain.

IMAGE: Sourced from Climate Consultant

IMAGE: Sourced from Climate Consultant

ECOLOGY STRATEGIES

The Axis project in Braintree, MA, offers a lot of opportunity to focus on supporting and encouraging the local ecology. The existing site is made up of more than 50% of hardscape and parking, and little vegetation. One of the core tenants of the Axis project is to provide a space that allows local residents to explore natural resources, taking an area that was formerly an industrial building, to allow local residents

to nearby green space and access to the Fore River.

The site will provide more than 75% green space, including spaces to explore both local vegetation and the river scape.

COTE MEASURE 4 - DESIGN FOR WATER

WATER DESIGN STRATEGIES

The Axis is located on a 390,00SF site in Braintree, MA, and along the Fore River. The average rainfall annually is 43 inches.

Because of the amount of rainfall, the site lends itself to the use of water retention. A water retention pond is proposed that can capture rainwater for reuse in the buildings across the site.

The site also sits along the Fore River, and will feature a living shoreline. A boat dock and green steps will give access to the shoreline, and the intention is to restore the shoreline and surrounding local ecology from a previously industrial use.

Calculators: Enter your values into the yellow cells

1 - Predicted and Measured Water Consumption

Step 1: Benchmark

Water Use Intensity 64.9 gal / sf / yr

Daily Avg Occupancy 50

Annual days of operations 365

Step 2: Indoor Water use

Flow Rate (GPF|GPM) Usage / day / occupant Daily Water Use (gal) Annual Water Use (gal) Toilet 1.6 2.0 uses 160 58,400

Urinal* 1 1.0 uses 50 18,250

Shower 2 0.5 minutes 50 18,250

Lavatory 0.5 1.5 minutes 38 13,688 Kitchen faucet 2.2 0.3 minutes 28 10,038

* if no urinal, use toilet value for fixture flow rate

Total daily water use 325 gal / day ( -

Total annual water use 118,625 gal / yr

Step 3: Irrigation Water Use

Is potable water used for irrigation? No

COTE MEASURE 4 - DESIGN FOR WATER SECTION 02 | PROJECT: AXIS FOOD HALL

Quick Irrigation Estimation Calculator

Proposed Design Baseline #1: All Turf Baseline #2: All Native Irrigated Area (potable or non-potable) 195,000 sf 195,000 195,000

Summer Evapotranspiration Hot Humid 8.3 8.3 8.3 Plant Quality Factor (Qf) Baseline 0.8 0.8 0.8 Type of plantings (Plant Factor) Native plants 0.2 1 0.2 Irrigation efficiency Drip Irrigation 0.9 0.75 0.9 179,258 1,075,547 179,258

Proposed Design Comparison

Month Irrigation Co. gal 83% 0%

January 31% 55,569.9

February 38% 68,118.0 March 60% 107,554.7 April 77% 138,028.6 May 88% 157,746.9 June 99% 177,465.3 July 100% 179,257.9 August 100% 179,257.9 September 77% 138,028.6 October 60% 107,554.7 November 38% 68,118.0 December 30% 53,777.4 Annual Irrigation Water Use 1,430,478 gal / yr

Step 4: Cooling tower

Percent of the buidling cooled by a water-cooled chiller 0%

Cooling tower water use intensity 0 gal / sf / yr 0 gal / yr

Does the cooling tower use potable water? n/a

Assume: 0 water for non-potable use, 25% less water for conservation strategies.* Where strategies taken to conserve cooling tower water? n/a

January 65,455 59,265 6,190 0 11,853 6,500 0

February 78,003 71,813 6,190 0 14,362 6,500 0

March 117,440 111,250 6,190 0 22,250 6,500 0

April 147,914 141,724 6,190 0 28,344 6,500 0 May 167,632 161,442 6,190 0 32,288 6,500 0 June 187,351 181,161 6,190 0 36,232 6,500 0 July 189,143 182,953 6,190 0 36,590 6,500 0 August 189,143 182,953 6,190 0 36,590 6,500 0 September 147,914 141,724 6,190 0 28,344 6,500 0 October 117,440 111,250 6,190 0 22,250 6,500 0 November 78,003 71,813 6,190 0 14,362 6,500 0 December 63,663 57,473 6,190 0 11,494 6,500 0 Total (gal) 1,549,103 1,474,823 74,280 0 294,959 78,000 0

3 - Stormwater Managed On-site

Type of Storm Event 2yr-24hr

Storm Event 3.4 in

Storm Event 0.28 ft

Stormwater Storage 401 cf

Surface Runoff Co. Area (sf) Stormwater (cf) Total Runoff (cf)

Roof 0.9 45,882 ( 13,000) ( 11,700) Impervious 0.9 35,700 ( 10,115) ( 9,104)

Turf 0.2 154,209 ( 43,693) ( 8,739)

Native Plantings 0.05 154,209 ( 43,693) ( 2,185)

Semi-Pervious 0.5 0 ( - ) ( - )

Sub Total ( 390,000) 110,500 31,727 After Storage 31,326

Percentage of Stormwater Managed On-site 71.7%

DESIGN FOR ECONOMY

RS MEANS

RS MEANS

The RS Means Square Foot Cost Estimator tool was used for the Axis project to determine an estimate for construction costs on the project. It was used as materials were selected to help understand the impact on the overall cost.

Overall, the project was determined to be budgeted at $4.3M for total building costs, equaling about $142.49/SF for the Food Hall building.

This estimate was based off of material prices for Boston, MA, near the site in Braintree and Weymouth.

Calculations were also made to understand the overall cost for the size of the building as well, at two stories high, and 18 feet high per level, with an overall square footage of 30, 295 SF.

RS Means Data, 2022

IMAGE:

DESIGN FOR ECONOMY CIRCULATION

CIRCULATION RATIO

The Axis Food Hall will be a place for local businesses and restaurants and community gathering in a variety of forms, including a Food Hall, indoor and outdoor seating, an event hall, and a bar.

The building is unique in that the main site circulation path goes directly through the building to create a dynamic entrance. The circulation ratio started at 50% but after further analysis, it was edited down to 25% by adjusting some circulation paths to be used both as circulation and seating areas for a dual use. Circulation space is also be used as waiting space for vendor booths.

FLOOR PLAN -FOOD HALL -LEVEL 1

DESIGN FOR ECONOMY

HEAT MAPS

DAYTIME MAP

The main public circulation route is shown in Red, starting from a south entrance, and leading to the central path circulation. Secondary paths of circulation flow around the vendor booths, to the outdoor seating, and to the central stairs to the second floor of the building.

High Traffic

Moderate Traffic

High Traffic

IMAGE: Axis Food Hall Heat Map

NIGHTTIME MAP

Moderate Traffic Low Traffic

At nighttime, the vendor booths will be closed, and the main circulation will route through the building from the south entrance to secondary outdoor entrances.

Low Traffic Low Traffic No Traffic

Low Traffic No Traffic

IMAGE: Axis Food Hall Heat Map

DESIGN FOR ECONOMY REGIONAL MATERIALS

BUILDING MATERIALS

The Axis Food Hall focused in on the local building materials of steel, concrete and wood, to be used in various capacities.

These three materials were economical to use because of their locality to the site, and ease of access. They were also economical because they were able to be used in multiple facets of the building -- as structural materials as well as cladding and interior finish materials.

ECONOMY STRATEGIES

There were multiple cost effective strategies used at the Axis Food Hall to be conscious of the design for economy. The design tried to pair down and focus on a smaller material palette in order to minimize the cost of material as well as types of installation required.

The strategy was also implemented to merge the main site circulation path with

the building itself in order to cut down on overall circulation, and provide multiple uses at one building. While the building’s primary use will be for local vendors and community events, it will also serve as an outdoor circulation path and connection to the Town Lawn.

IMAGES: Sourced from RS Means

IMAGE: Wood material, Home Stratosphere, 2021

IMAGE: Steel material, Advanced Refractory Metals, 2022

IMAGE: Concrete material, Hassiotis, Christopher, 2018

DESIGN FOR ECONOMY

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT - CONCRETE + CARPET

LIFE CYCLE STAGE ANALYSIS

The Life Cycle Stage chart compares the carbon footprint at each stage along the lifespan for the Concrete and Carpet flooring.

Overall, it’s highest global warming potential percentage is in the product category, followed closely by maintenance and replacement. Creating the concrete and carpet product itself will cause the highest impact during its life cycle stages, causing the highest impact in global warming potential and smog formation potential.

There will also be a high impact to eutrophication potential during the maintenance and replacement stage it’s life cycle.

There are some opportunities for recyclability as shown by the small percentage at the Module D Segment.

IMAGES: Charts created with

DESIGN FOR ECONOMY

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT - CONCRETE + CARPET

ANALYSIS BY DIVISION

In the Itemized chart, the higher percentage of concrete product shows the amount of embodied carbon, versus how wood sequesters carbon.

Overall, in breaking down the concrete and carpet flooring system, the concrete will have a significantly higher global warming impact that than the carpet finish, especially in the smog formation potential, global warming potential and acidification

potential categories.

In contrast, the carpet finish will have a higher impact than the concrete in the maintenance and replacement segment and the end of life segments. But, it will have more opportunity for recyclability shown in the module D segment.

The highest percentage shown is in the maintenance and repairs segment, because of the maintenance and upkeep required for this product through its life

cycle.

DESIGN FOR ECONOMY

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT - WOOD + ENGINEERED WOOD PLANK

LIFE CYCLE STAGE ANALYSIS

The Life Cycle Stage chart compares the carbon footprint at each stage along the lifespan for Wood and Engineered Wood Flooring system.

Overall, it’s highest global warming potential percentage is in the end of life segment, followed by much smaller percentages in maintenance and replacement and module D.

The wood and engineered wood flooring system will have it’s highest impact in end of life stage in the global warming potential and eutrophication potential segments. The product stage will also have a high impact in the non-renewable energy and smog formation potential segments.

In contrast, the product stage will have a negative impact in the global warming potential segment.

DESIGN FOR ECONOMY

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT - WOOD + ENGINEERED WOOD PLANK

ANALYSIS BY DIVISION

Overall, the structural wood portion of the flooring system will have a higher impact than the engineered wood finish, specifically in the product stage. This is followed by a smaller impact the engineered wood finish will have in the maintenance and replacement stage.

In the global warming potential segment, the wood product is shown at a negative value because of it’s ability to sequester carbon and is able to absorb carbon, giving it a lower footprint.

The highest percentage in the chart comes in the End of Life cycle because of the binders chemical processing and the composition of wood product materiality.

There is some potential for recyclability for the wood and wood finish as shown by the Module D percentage.

DESIGN FOR ECONOMY

EPD - FLOOR CONCRETE

CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE -2500PSI

These charts show the comparison of the EPD for Cast-in-Place Concrete Structural Flooring with a 2500 PSI.

1 - BOXPLOT CHART

In analyzing the boxplot chart for cast-inplace concrete it can be found that the Baseline for embodied carbon will fall at 340 kgCO2e, and the achievable target falls at 235.5 kgCO2e of embodied carbon.

2 - COMPARE BY PRODUCT

In comparing by product, it is found that there is a range of embodied carbon options between 231 kgCO2e from CEMEX at the low end and 380 kgCO2e also from CEMEX at the high end.

1

DESIGN FOR ECONOMY

EPD - FLOOR CONCRETE

CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE -2500PSI

These charts show the comparison of the EPD for Cast-in-Place Concrete Structural Flooring with a 2500 PSI.

1

- COMPARE BY MANUFACTURER

In comparing by manufacturer it appears that many of the products have similar embodied carbon ranges. The manufacturer with the lowest achievable target for embodied carbon is Firth at 217 kgCO2e.

2

- COMPARE BY PLANT

After comparing by plant, there is a larger range of embodied carbon that can be observed. The plant with the lowest achievable target for embodied carbon is South-San-Francisco Central Concrete at 243 kgCO2e.

IMAGE 1

IMAGE 2

IMAGES: Charts created with EC3

DESIGN FOR ECONOMY

EPD - FLOOR WOOD

LVL STRUCTURAL WOOD

These charts show the comparison of the EPD for Composite Wood Structural Flooring with LVL Wood.

1 - BOXPLOT CHART

The boxplot chart for LVL structural wood has similar findings to the chart for castin-place concrete. It can be found that the Baseline for embodied carbon will fall at 400 kgCO2e, and the achievable target falls at 230.3 kgCO2e of embodied carbon.

4 - COMPARE BY PRODUCT

In comparing by product, there is a wide range of embodied carbon options, ranging between 9.12 kgCO2e from Saint-Gobain Weber and 361 kgCO2e from Metsa Wood.

1

Charts

DESIGN FOR ECONOMY

LVL STRUCTURAL WOOD

These charts show the comparison of the EPD for Composite Wood Structural Flooring with LVL Wood.

1 - COMPARE BY MANUFACTURER

There are far less EPDs recorded for LVL structural wood to compare by manufacturer, and some with negative embodied carbon. From the chart, the manufacturer with the lowest achievable target for embodied carbon is Stora-Ens at

EPD - FLOOR WOOD -1000 kgCO2e.

2 - COMPARE BY PLANT

Again after comparing to concrete, the compare by plant chart has far less data available for LVL structural wood, and also features negative embodied carbon options. The plant with the lowest achievable target for embodied carbon is Varkaus at -1000 kgCO2e.

IMAGE 1

IMAGE 2

IMAGES: Charts created with EC3

DESIGN FOR ECONOMY PLAN & COMPARE BUILDINGS

GWP SANKEY DIAGRAM: THE AXIS

The GWP Sankey diagram compares the embodied carbon for both the Floor Concrete and Floor Wood analyzed for the Axis building.

In analyzing the global warming potential Sankey diagram, the cast-in-place concrete begins with a higher global warming potential. Then it is found that the building design saves 50% embodied carbon per the final estimate.

IMAGE: Charts created with EC3

DESIGN FOR ECONOMY

PLAN & COMPARE BUILDINGS

GWP SANKEY DIAGRAM: BT MID-RISE

The GWP Sankey diagram compares the embodied carbon for the materials studied in the BT Residential Mid-Rise Building.

In comparing the concrete and wood materials in the project it is found that the largest area of embodied carbon is from the concrete materials, with wood being a smaller amount. Then it is found that the building design saves 44% embodied carbon per the final estimate, which comes out higher than the Axis estimate.

IMAGE: Charts created with EC3

DESIGN FOR ECONOMY

PLAN & COMPARE BUILDINGS

LEED BAR CHART: THE AXIS

This LEED Bar Chart compares the concrete and wood flooring options for the Axis building. In analyzing the chart, both the concrete and wood materials realized embodied carbon amounts align with the CLF baseline of embodied carbon for that material.

Both the concrete and wood products selected could be researched further in order to lower the embodied carbon to

the achievable levels shown. Because of this, the overall building total reduction in embodied carbon was reduced by 0%, which could be improved. Also, overall, the wood material showed a higher embodied carbon amount.

LEED BAR CHART: BT MID-RISE

This LEED Bar Chart compares the concrete and wood materials used in the BT Residential Mid-Rise Building. In

analyzing the chart, both the concrete and wood materials realized embodied carbon amounts align with the CLF baseline of embodied carbon for that material.

Similar to the Axis chart, both of these materials could be studied further to reselect another option with a lower embodied carbon closer to the achievable range shown. The overall building total reduction was reduced by 1%, which while better then the Axis, could still be lowered. Overall, the concrete material showed the most embodied carbon.

IMAGES: Charts created with EC3

COTE MEASURE 5 - DESIGN FOR ECONOMY

DESIGN FOR ECONOMY ANALYSIS

There were multiple strategies used in the design for economy. Strategies were included to improve the economy at both indoor and outdoor areas.

In-house cleaning equipment was purchased in order to maintain and clean the on-site buildings by the staff, rather than subbing out this work at an added cost per year. There was also special attention shown to the amount of circulation space and how to make it dual purpose through use as waiting and seating areas.

The outdoor park paths were paved with a long-term strategy so that they could be maintained multiple years in between new paving.

WINDOW WALL RATIO

BRICK -DARK GRAY

WWR FOR ALL WALLS

Total Wall Area: 23,800 SF

Total Window Area: 7013 SF

WWR: 29.4%

NORTH ELEVATION -FOOD HALL

POLYCARBONATE

BRICK -DARK GRAY

BUILDING MATERIALS

NORTH ELEVATION

NORTH ELEVATION -FOOD HALL

WWR: 14% Windows

BUILDING MATERIALS

Total Wall Area: 8200 SF

Window Area: 1125 SF

NORTH ELEVATION -FOOD HALL

WEST ELEVATION

WWR: 44% Windows

EAST

Total Wall Area: 3520 SF

Window Area: 1560 SF

SOUTH ELEVATION

SOUTH ELEVATION -FOOD HALL

WWR: 48% Windows

Total Wall Area: 5400 SF

Window Area: 2600 SF

EAST ELEVATION

EAST ELEVATION -FOOD HALL

WWR: 25% Windows

WEST ELEVATION -FOOD HALL

Total Wall Area: 6680 SF

Window Area: 1728 SF

EAST ELEVATION -FOOD HALL BUILDING ELEVATIONS -FOOD HALL

PATTERN 1: FLOOR PLATE GEOMETRY

PATTERN GUIDE

d e

FLOOR PLAN

The Axis Food Hall building is most similar to the Marshall-Field Wholesale Building, designed by architect H.H. Richardson. Both floor plants have a less than 10 story structure, rectangular shape, and windows all the way around the exterior. Both buildings also feature a central, interior courtyard space.

The Axis Food Hall is designed in a way that no portion in the building is more than 40 ft away from a window to provide ample daylighting. The building’s second floor has an opening to the first floor and skylight above, which also provides daylighting to the center of the building. There is also an adjacent courtyard as part of the floor plate that allows light into the building’s central corridor.

Marshall-Field Wholesale Building

Location: Chicago, IL 18911930

Architect: H.H. Richardson Floor Plate Area: 9940 sf

Perimeter Length: 620 ft Max. Dist. to Perimeter: 23 ft

Percentage of Area Within 20’ of a Window: 96%

The Marshall-Field Wholesale Building, designed in 1890, was a very large building for its time. It covered the majority of a city block in Chicago and rose to seven stories. Despite its imposing scale, the functional aspects of the project were more nuanced. A central courtyard allowed for all areas of the interior to be illuminated from two sides, and created a thin plan that ensured that no portion of the building was more than 23 ft from a window Beyond this, the floors consisted of open loft spaces facilitating the interreflection of light within the structure and balanced brightness across the section of the space.

D a y l i g h t i n g P a t t e r n G u i

P a t t e r n 1 : F l o o r P l a t e G e o m e t r y

C o u r t y a r d P l a n

Slideshow

Home Patterns Using this Guide About

DPG+E

Development

PATTERN 2: WINDOW AREA

DAYLIGHTING PATTERN GUIDE

BUILDING FACADE

The Pattern 2: Window Area (Window Spacing) 30% Glazing Area was selected as the closest comparison to the Axis Food Hall exterior window glazing. At the Food Hall, the typical window glazing ratio will be 29% at the exterior walls.

According to the Pattern Guide, the 30% glazing area will provide approximately 40% of floor area that will be above 300 lux, this is standard acceptable amount of daylighting. Also, the light will begin to penetrate into the space, and daylight interior surfaces, providing daylighting at the central core of the building for the food vendor spaces and interior seating.

D a y

Vertical windows comprising 30 percent of the wall area provide daylight illumination that meets or exceeds commonly accepted minimum daylight illumination criteria at approximately 40 percent of the adjacent 26’-0” section. Excessive contrast remains between the interior surfaces and the glazing. The interior surfaces are beginning to receive some illumination to balance the contrast with the windows. This is most noticeable on the lower portion of the “back” wall (at left).

g h t i n g P a t t e r n G u i d e

l i

Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. New Buildings Institute Integrated Design Lab Boise | Integrated Design Lab Puget Sound Login

P a t t e r n 2 : W i n d o w A r e a ( W i n d o w S p a c i n g ) 3 0 % G l a z i n g A r e a

Home Patterns Using this Guide About DPG+E Development

IMAGE: Advanced Buildings, 2022

IMAGE: Axis Food Hall building section

MEASURE 6 - DESIGN FOR ENERGY

DESIGN FOR ENERGY ANALYSIS

Various strategies were used in the design for energy at the Axis. The campus features multiple buildings and large areas of open landscape that provided opportunities for different energy use types.

The buildings on the site designed with a flat roof style, provided the opportunity to feature solar panels to provide a passive form of energy for each building’s use.

The buildings also feature timed lighting schedules coordinated with the building daylight and windows access, to cut back on lighting at certain times of the day. Window locations and quantities were selected to provide ample natural lighting opportunities.

January ( 137,000.0) ( - ) ( - ) ( - ) ( 239,276.0) ( 120,000.0) ( - ) ( - ) ( - ) ( 225,000.0)

February ( 137,000.0) ( - ) ( - ) ( - ) ( 239,276.0) ( 120,000.0) ( - ) ( - ) ( - ) ( 225,000.0)

March ( 137,000.0) ( - ) ( - ) ( - ) ( 239,276.0) ( 120,000.0) ( - ) ( - ) ( - ) ( 225,000.0)

April ( 137,000.0) ( - ) ( - ) ( - ) ( 239,276.0) ( 120,000.0) ( - ) ( - ) ( - ) ( 225,000.0)

May ( 137,000.0) ( - ) ( - ) ( - ) ( 239,276.0) ( 120,000.0) ( - ) ( - ) ( - ) ( 225,000.0)

June ( 137,000.0) ( - ) ( - ) ( - ) ( 239,276.0) ( 120,000.0) ( - ) ( - ) ( - ) ( 225,000.0)

July ( 137,000.0) ( - ) ( - ) ( - ) ( 239,276.0) ( 120,000.0) ( - ) ( - ) ( - ) ( 225,000.0)

August ( 137,000.0) ( - ) ( - ) ( - ) ( 239,276.0) ( 120,000.0) ( - ) ( - ) ( - ) ( 225,000.0)

September ( 137,000.0) ( - ) ( - ) ( - ) ( 239,276.0) ( 120,000.0) ( - ) ( - ) ( - ) ( 225,000.0)

October ( 137,000.0) ( - ) ( - ) ( - ) ( 239,276.0) ( 120,000.0) ( - ) ( - ) ( - ) ( 225,000.0) November ( 137,000.0) ( - ) ( - ) ( - ) ( 239,276.0) ( 120,000.0) ( - ) ( - ) ( - ) ( 225,000.0) December ( 137,000.0) ( - ) ( - ) ( - ) ( 239,276.0) ( 120,000.0) ( - ) ( - ) ( - ) ( 225,000.0) Total 1,644,000

COTE MEASURE 7 SECTION 02 | PROJECT: AXIS FOOD HALL

- DESIGN FOR WELLNESS

DESIGN FOR WELLNESS ANALYSIS

Much consideration was given to the Design for Wellness of the Axis Food Hall. First, during the conceptual and schematic design phases, daylighting and window locations were specifically located in order to provide optimal daylighting and views of the adjacent Fore River.

Also specific materials were selected in order to lower the presence of VOCs. One of the primary materials in the interior of the space will be natural wood flooring, in which the manufacturer was specifically selected because of their Living Product Challenge certification.

Calculators: Enter your values into the yellow cells. Enter non-numerical data into the green cells

1 - Quality Views, Operable windows, & Daylighting

Total area of regularly occupied space 10,000 sf

Percent of building that is regularly occupied 67%

Area with quality views 7,500 sf 75%

Area with operable windows 7,000 sf 70% Daylit area (sDA 300/50%) 7,500 sf 75%

Annual Solar Exposure Compliant Area (ASE 1000,250) 7,500 sf 75%

Daylight sensors installed? Yes

Are operable windows used? Yes

2 - Occupants Per thermostat, Occupants who can control their own lighting

Total accessible thermostats 4 Thermostat Occupants per thermostat 12.5 Do occupants have task lights? Yes

Percent of occupants who control their own light levels 25%

3 - CO2 & VOCs

Goal Maximum CO2 levels 5 ppm

Is CO2 measured? Yes

Maximum Measured CO2 levels 9 ppm

Is VOC measured? Yes

Maximum Measured VOC levels 500 ppb

COTE MEASURE 7 - DESIGN FOR WELLNESS

Number of materials with health certifications 1 Materials

Notable Material 1 Natural Wooden Flooring Certification Living Product Challenge Certified

Notable Material 2 Certification

Notable Material 3 Certification Notable Material 4 Certification Notable Material 5 Certification

Number of chemicals of concern that where avoided 2 Chemicals

Chemical of concern AVOIDED Formaldehyde Standard LBC Red List Chemical of concern AVOIDED Asbestos Compounds Standard LBC Red List

Chemical of concern AVOIDED Standard Chemical of concern AVOIDED Standard Chemical of concern AVOIDED Standard

DESIGN FOR RESOURCES ANALYSIS

Measures were taken to evaluate the carbon footprint of the Axis Food Hall. Multiple programs were used to understand the overall building carbon footprint, including Tally using a Revit 3D model, and EC3 for further analysis. The total predicted embodied carbon was found to be 35.0 kg CO2e.

Different resources were researched in order to reduce the building’s embodied carbon. One example was the use of structural concrete. A specific mix was studied and selected for a lower carbon footprint, and sourced from a regional supplier.

An effort was also made to use regional materials for the building construction, including concrete, steel, and wood.

DESIGN FOR CHANGE ANALYSIS

The Axis Food Hall will be located in Braintree, MA, along the Boston Harbor and near the city of Boston. The local weather patterns of this area were studied in order to understand special design considerations to implement.

Because the site is located along the Fore River, which is a tidal river, flooding was studied in order to design the correct grading and docking systems needed. Other local hazards that were studied include: Hail, Extreme Temperatures, Power Outage, and Grid Instability.

Renewable/battery power was selected as a power backup in case of emergency. This backup power will be in part supplied by the solar panels on the site.

COTE MEASURE 10 - DISCOVERY

Calculators: Enter your values into the yellow cells. Enter non-numerical data into the green cells

DESIGN FOR DISCOVERY ANALYSIS

There were multiple post occupancy studies done in order to evaluate the building process and provide insight to the users and design industry at large.

Multiple studies were conducted to interact with the users and understand their experience, including: contacting the owner after occupancy, comparing utility bills to design predictions, and testing the actual daylighting and air quality of the building.

It was important to the design process as well to share post occupancy findings with the owner, but also the design industry at large to help in the furtherance of sustainable design. Outcomes and lessons were compiled and presented to the industry, as well as published for the general public.

1 - Level of Commissioning

Which of the following did you do to stay engaged with the building?

2 - Level of Post Occupancy Engagement

Basic Commissioning Yes

Enhanced Commissioning (Third Party) No Continuous Commissioning Yes Monitoring-Based Commissioning No Enclosure Commissioning Yes

Commissioning Score 60%

Which of the following did you do to stay engaged with the building?

Contact the owner / Occupant to see how things are going Yes

Obtain utility bill to determine actual performance Yes

3 - Level of Transparency

Formal post occupancy air quality testing Yes

Data logging of indoor environmental measurements No Survey building occupants on satisfaction Yes Post occupancy energy analysis Yes Formal onsite daylight measurements Yes Develop and share strategies to improve the building's Performance Yes

Share collected data with building occupants Yes Teach occupants and operators how to improve building performance Yes

Post Occupancy Evaluation Score 90%

Which of the following did you do to share the lessons of the project?

Present the design of the project to the office Yes

Present the design of the project to the profession Yes

Present the design of the project to the public No

Present outcomes and lessons learned to the office Yes

Present outcomes and lessons learned to the profession Yes

Present outcomes and lessons learned to the public No

Publish post occupancy data from the building Yes Publish any lessons learned from design, construction, or occupancy Yes other: No other: No

Transparency Score 60%

4 - Level of Occupant Feedback

Who has access to performance feedback?

Choose one Occupants who specifically request it

Feedback Score 60%

SUPER SPREADSHEET - SUMMARY

SUMMARY ANALYSIS

Results were compiled for the ten measures in the COTE spreadsheet, including: Integration, Community, Ecology, Water, Economy, Energy, Wellness, Resources, Change and Discovery.

Overall, the sustainability and wellness of the building were considered at all levels during the conceptual, design and construction phases of the project. The owner and architect formed a team

in the pursuit to study and apply these characteristics to the site and building.

The building’s site in the Eastern region, and along the Fore River and Boston Harbor were considered, for the weather patterns, flooding considerations, sunlight patterns, and native plantings.

Specific building considerations were made as well focusing on the use of regional materials, renewable materials, and strategies around energy and water.

Overall, it was also found through the study that one area that could be improved is the Design for Economy in the estimated cost/SF for the building.

COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET - SUMMARY SECTION 02 | PROJECT: AXIS FOOD HALL

Measure 5 - Design for Economy

Actual construction cost $667 Dollar (USD) / sf

Benchmark Construction cost $477 Dollar (USD) / sf

Construction cost Reduction from the Benchmark -40%

Efficiency Ratio Achieved 40% Net to Gross

Efficiency Ratio Percent Improvement 33%

Measure 6 - Design for Energy

Net site EUI -543.6 kBtu / sf / yr

Gross site EUI 109.6 kBtu / sf / yr

Predicted

Net Energy Use Reduction from Benchmark 497%

Operational Carbon Emissions per Area -64 kg-CO2e / sf / yr

Percent from Renewable Energy 596%

Percent Operational Carbon Reduction from Benchmark 627%

Net site EUI -518.2 kBtu / sf / yr

Gross site EUI 96.0 kBtu / sf / yr

Measured

Net Energy Use Reduction from Benchmark 479%

Operational Carbon Emissions per Area 84 kg-CO2e / sf / yr

Percent from Renewable Energy 640%

Percent Operational Carbon Reduction from Benchmark -588%

Lighting Power Density 1.05 W/sf

Lighting Power Density % Reduction 14%

COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET - RESULTS

RESULTS ANALYSIS

Overall, each measure of the COTE spreadsheet was considered in the design and construction of the Axis Food Hall, with the results shown here. All measures were considered to some degree with some measures achieving higher performance ratings.

There were both high and low scores referring to the site. The building site and location received a high transit score, but

a lower bike score. Also, the site received a high score for post development site vegetation, as well as high scores for onsite rainwater management.

The building itself received high scores for the use of renewable energy and carbon reduction. It also received high scores for many wellness measures, including: quality views, operable windows, daylit areas, and ASE compliant areas.

While no building areas were reused in the construction of the building, a high percentage of construction waste was diverted.

There were also high performance scores in the measures of change and post occupancy research.

THE BIG IDEA:

Axis will have opportunity to be place based, a watershed shared resource, social equality shared space, connection to nature, daylighting as energy.

THE BIG IDEA:

Axis will have opportunity to be place based, a watershed shared resource, social equality shared space, connection to nature, daylighting as energy.

CARBON OVER TIME:

CARBON OVER TIME:

Carbon Calculations

Total kg of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents from:

Lifespan Commute/year Energy/year Building Materials Total

1 Year 22,307 1,259,265 35 1,281,607

20 Year 446,135 25,185,298 35 25,631,467

100 Year 2,230,673 125,926,489 35 128,157,196

200 Year 4,461,345 251,852,977 35 256,314,358

Carbon Calculations

Design 200 Year 4,461,345 251,852,977 35 256,314,358

Total kg of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents from:

Total Percentage of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents from:

Lifespan Commute/year Energy/year Building Materials Total

Lifespan Commute/year Energy/year Building Materials Total

1 Year 1.7% 98.3% 0.0% 100.0%

1 Year 22,307 1,259,265 35 1,281,607 20 446,135 25,185,298 35 25,631,467

20 Year 1.7% 98.3% 0.0% 100.0%

100 Year 2,230,673 125,926,489 35 128,157,196

100 Year 1.7% 98.3% 0.0% 100.0%

200 Year 4,461,345 251,852,977 35 256,314,358

200 Year 1.7% 98.3% 0.0% 100.0%

Design 200 Year 4,461,345 251,852,977 35 256,314,358

Design Year 1.7% 98.3% 0.0% 100.0%

Total Percentage of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents from:

Lifespan Commute/year Energy/year Building Materials Total

1 Year 1.7% 98.3% 0.0% 100.0% 20 Year 1.7% 98.3% 0.0% 100.0%

COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET - RESULTS

Baseline Response

Very High Performance

This page compares metrics against their benchmark along a scale from "Baseline" to "Very High Performance"

Measure 2: Design For Community

Walk Score 0% 67% 100%

Transit Score 0% 70% 100%

Bike Score 0% 37% 100%

Community Engagement Level 0% 43% 100%

Measure 3: Design

For Ecology

Percent of Site Vegetated - Post-Development 0% 79% 100%

Percent of Site Vegetated - Pre-Development 0% 48% 100%

Vegetated area increase 0% 31% 100%

Percent of Site with Native Plantings 0% 40% 100%

Percent of Vegetated Area with Native Plantings 0% 50% 100%

Ecological Design Score 0% 63% 100%

Measure 4: Design For Water

Potable water reduction 0% -51% 70% 100%

Potable Water Used for Irrigation Yes (0) 1 No (1) Rainwater Managed On-Site 0% 72% 100%

Estimated Runoff Quality 0% 60% 100%

Measure 5: Design For Economy

Construction cost Reduction from the Benchmark 0% -40% >50%

Efficiency ratio percent improvement 0% 33% >50%

Measure 6: Design For Energy

Net energy reduction from Benchmark 0% 497% 479% 105%

Percent from renewable energy 0% 596% 640% 100%

Percent Operational Carbon Reduction from Benchmark 0% 627% -588% 100%

Lighting Power Density % Reduction 0% 14% 75%

COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET - RESULTS SECTION 02 | PROJECT: AXIS FOOD HALL

Measure 7: Design For Wellness

Quality views 0% 75% 100%

Operable windows 0% 70% 100%

Daylit area (sDA 300/50%) 0% 75% 100%

ASE Compliant Area (ASE 1000,250) 0% 75% 100%

Is CO2 Measured? No (0) 1 Yes (1)

Is VOC measured? No (0) 1 Yes (1)

Materials with health certifications 0 1 10+

Chemicals of Concern Avoided 0 2 10+

Measure 8: Design For Resources

Embodied carbon intensity (kg-C02e / sf) 0.00

Total embodied carbon (kg-C02e) 35

Embodied carbon modeled No (0) 1 Yes (1)

Biogenic carbon considered? No (0) 1 Yes (1)

Percent of reused floor area 0% 0% 100%

Percent of construction waste diverted 0% 50% 100%

Percent of recycled content of building materials 0% 4% 100%

Percent of regional materials 0% 29% 100%

Percent of installed wood that is FSC Certified 0% 100%

Measure 9: Design For Change

Local Hazard Research Score 0% 100% 100%

Functionality Without Power (Resiliency) Score 0%

Measure

10: Design For Discovery

Level of Commissioning Score 0% 60% 100%

Level of Post Occupancy Evaluation Score 0% 90% 100%

Level of Knowledge Distribution / Transparency Score 0% 60% 100%

[This page intentionally left blank for the purpose of double-sided printing.]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Advanced Buildings. “Daylighting Pattern Guide,” Accessed May 11, 2022. http://www. https://patternguide.advancedbuildings.net/ patterns.html.

Advanced Refractory Metals. “7 Common Metal Materials & Typcial Uses,” Accessed May 16, 2022. https://www. https://www. refractorymetal.org/7-common-metal-materials-typical-uses/.

Buildings of New England. “Braintree,” Accessed February 22, 2022. https://www.buildingsofnewengland.com/category/massachusetts/ braintree/.

Data USA. “Braintree Town, MA,” Accessed February 22, 2022. https://www.datausa.io/profile/geo/braintree-town-ma/.

EPA. “Carbon Footprint Calculator.” Last modified July 14, 2016. www3.epa.gov/carbon-footprint-calculator/.

Global Footprint Network. “What is Your Ecological Footprint?” Accessed February 1, 2022. www.footprintcalulator.org.

Hassiotis, Christopher. “Most Abundant Man-Made Material is Cutting its Carbon Footprint” How Stuff Works. Last modified June 22, 2018. https://www.home.howstuffworks.com /home-improvement/construction/materials/most-abundant-man-made-material-is-cutting-itscarbon-footprint.htm

Home Stratosphere. “Epic Lumber Dimensions Guide and Charts (Softwood, Hardwood, Plywood),” Last modified June 24, 2021. https:// www. https://www.homestratosphere.com/lumber-dimensions/.

National Association of Home Builders. “Regional Variations on Most Popular Exterior Wall Materials,” Last modified October 8, 2020, https://www.nahbnow.com/2020/10/regional-variations-on-most-popular-exterior-wall-materials/.

RS Means Data. “Square Foot Cost Estimator Report,” Accessed March 30, 2022. https://www.rsmeans.com/

Walk Score. “39 Quincy Avenue,” Accessed February 22, 2022. https://www.walkscore.com/score/39-quincy-ave-braintree-ma-02184.

Weather Spark. “Climate and Average Weather Year Round in Braintree Massachusetts, United States,” Accessed February 8, 2022. www. weatherspark.com/y/26860/Average-Weather-in-Braintree-Massachusetts-United-States-Year-Round.

[This page intentionally left blank for the purpose of double-sided printing.]