I. Powers Environmental Portfolio

ENVIRONMENTAL PORTFOLIO

ENVIRONMENTAL PORTFOLIO | ISIAH “ZEKE” POWERS

SECTION 01- INTRO AND FOOTPRINT

PAGES 3-5

> Introduction Bio

> Carbon & Ecological Footprint

SECTION 02- SITE ANALYSIS

PAGES 6-15

> Historical Context

> Physical and Ecological Conditions

> Material Access

> Sun Shading Analysis (3 pages)

> Psychrometric Chart

> Relevant Case Studies

SECTION 03- COTE SPREADSHEET

PAGES 16-33

SECTION 04- BUILDING ANALYSIS

PAGES 34-46

> Heat Mapping

> Tally Material Studies

> EC3 Material Comparisons

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INTRO AND FOOTPRINT

Isiah “Zeke” Powers

B.ARCH IPAL Participant- Est. Grad: 2026

Boston Architectural College

FROM Triad Area, North Carolina, USA

PREVIOUS EDUCATION

B.ARCH, Savannah College of Art and Design (1 yr, 2018-2019)

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

CAP HEADER (CHARACTER STYLE)

Bold Bullets

> Jr. Interior Designer, 2019-2021

> Architectural Designer/Carpenter, 2021-Present

INTEREST

> Art: Painting, Multi-media drawing, Ceramics, Multi-media sculpture, Digital Design, Photography, Performance, and Music (vocal & instrument).

> Academia: Self-led research into other fields of study including medicine, physics, biology, civil rights, etc.

> Language learning

> Religion and theological practice

> International and domestic traveling

> Culinary practice

> Outdoor activities: Hiking, Biking, Kayaking

WHO AM, AND WHO WANT TO BECOME

am from the rural town of Thomasville, NC. This town use to be a very largescaled manufacturing town for well-crafted furniture; however, since the industry left to other countries, it has become a shell of stagnant reminiscence where new ideas are rarely accepted.

Growing up in a place like this, wasn’t opened up to the modern movements in society until my adolescence. Once I cracked the door into a the multitude of worlds not explored, chose to embrace as many avenues of knowledge and culture could handle. I dove into the endless practices of fine arts and am still

exploring new ways to be creative. had many opportunities to travel to other states in the U.S. and to a few other countries, and experience how other groups of people have organized their society and created their own culture. One of the most concerning things I found through my years of redefining myself, is how communities like the one was raised in are some of the largest dampeners to the momentum of change in this world. This has led to my newest vow for my life: keep seeking truth, no matter by whom you’re surrounded, and fight for the irrefutable change that is needed for the longevity of us as humans.

CARBON AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

Per my results, I am living with a much larger ecological and carbon footprint than the national average. Some of the aspects that have increased them are currently unavoidable for my circumstances. However, there are clear steps that I will begin to take to lower this deficit.

REDUCTION OF ARTIFICIAL CLIMATE CONTROL

My major contributor to this aspect occurs during the summer. do increase air conditioning in the house and will now investigate other opportunities of cooling that don’t require a higher footprint.

INCREASE IN PLANTING AND GARDENING

One suggestion that is feasible for me and my household is planting carbonmetabolizing trees and plants that will hopefully contribute to overall increase of air quality.

ALTERNATIVE MOTIVES OF RECYCLING

Unfortunately, my current municipality does very minimal in the field of recycling. However, there are other ways that my household can turn our reusable waste products into something else productive.

SITE ANALYSIS

DESIGN STATEMENT

PRELIMINARY

This site is located at a hub of transportation and pedestrian traffic. It is zoned by the city as “community commercial,” just like many surrounding buildings are in its immediate surroundings. There is a lot of residential structures in the larger scale that is still in the walkable area, giving the site a large advantage to promoting eco-friendly travel for the occupants and visitors.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT DIAGRAM

This site has very few historic attributes in relation to the history of Boston; however, there are some like, Harvard Medical School (1782), and historical housing, both highlighted in orange.

Boston naturally developed from East and expanded from the water ways. Huntington Avenue, however was a main thoroughfare even before the area being developed.

SITE ANALYSIS

SITE ANALYSIS DRAWINGS

25 Calumet St, Boston, MA, is the location of the project. It is a densely populated urban area, surrounded by historic and modern buildings.

Being inundated with polluting vehicles, and little vegetation in the surrounding areas, the air quality and carbon footprint is quite high. There is however, some vegetation located in a near by park.

It is nestled on a narrow road with a large commercial building to the East, and a row of trees and multi-story residences to the West. So this site gets limited sunlight through out the day, especially during the winter. The site has a substantial grade down to the major highway so runoff is efficient.

MATERIAL ACCESS

DIAGRAM

For the material access for the construction of the project, there are many suppliers that are located very near the site. This allows a smaller footprint for the carbon emissions caused by delivery of materials.

DEMOGRAPHICS

DIAGRAM Mission Hill is the area of Boston where the site is located. This area is considered to be diverse with less that 50% being white. It is also home to many academictype settings including Harvard Medical School, and the Brigham Medical Facilities.

Income in this area has been up and down in recent history but as of 2015, it was slightly below Boston’s Median Income.

NORTH-WEST FACE OF SITE

SUN SHADING CHART

This sun context would require a very long horizontal, and a very short vertical shading device. The horizontal device would need at least 30 degrees from the level-line at the bottom of the window for it to keep the space at a comfortable temperature.

The vertical device would take very little intervention to shade the warm/hot periods of the day with an angle of 70

degrees from the perpendicular line at the lateral midpoint of the window.

Overall this facade would mainly benefit from just one horizontal overhang, and a deeper exterior sill to provide the vertical shading.

SOUTH-EAST FACE OF SITE

SUN SHADING CHART

In this condition, it would only require a horizontal overhang or shading device that would meet at a 30 degree angle from the level-line at the bottom of the window. Because, the vertical angle need for shading is 80 degrees, in which the wall offset would likely meet.

This facade would need the least amount of intervention to keep the space at a comfortable temperature.

SOUTH-WEST FACE OF SITE

SUN SHADING CHART

This facade would take the most intervention because it is the closest to facing south than the other two.

The horizontal shading device would need to meet a 40 degree axis off of the levelline at the bottom of the window. This would remove the warm/hot temperatures during the hours: Sunrise 5pm.

The vertical is relatively shallow but it would still be needed meeting a 65 degree angle off of the perpendicular axis at

the lateral midpoint of the window. This shading device would shade the interiors from 5pm- Sunset.

PSYCHROMETRIC DATA

PSYCHROMETRIC CHART ANALYSIS

According the Best Set of Design Strategies given by the Climate Consultant app, the two most effective strategies were: Heating & Humidifying as needed when dry-bulb temperature is around 20 degrees (52.5%). Second highest would be to utilize the Internal Heat Gain when the dry-bulb temperature is between 55-70 degrees outside (24%). The internal heat gain is the use of natural heat supplied by internal loads such as lights, people, and equipment. This heat would keep

the space at a comfortable temperature without the use of artificial heating, reducing the amount of energy used.

PSYCHROMETRIC DATA

MATERIAL HEAT RETENTION

This was suggested for this project’s location weather conditions. This case study was used to illustrate the effect of using materials with a high thermal mass (like masonry, adobe, etc.) would retain the heat to slowly release during the cool hours of the night. Conversely, it would also stay cool during the day and reduce the amount of heat needed.

PASSIVE HEATING/COOLING EXAMPLE

The case study provided for this design strategy, faced their windows south to gain the solar heat during the winter. However, they also applied an open curtain wall with horizontal louvers. These louvers are angled specifically to shade the hot summer sun to reduce internal heat, while allowing in the warm winter sun to enter the space to naturally heat the cool interior.

Explanation

This tool has been created by COTE members to help architects calculate project performance metrics. After entering information on each measure tab, the "Results" tab will graphically display the holistic project's performance across all 10 COTE measures of sustainable design.

Whether it's used to better understand a design's performance or to streamline the process of submitting for the COTE Top Ten award, this tool will allow easy, consistent calculation and evaluation of project performance metrics and benchmarking.

Note: This version is not compatible with Excel 2016 or older. For questions email cote@aia.org, we are looking to improve the tool, and appreciate your feedback!

INTRODUCTION

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

Project Name Calumet Project Total Annual 103,754 kg-CO e / yr Project Address 25 Calumet Street Total Annual per Occupant 1,729 kg-CO e / occupant yr apt., suite, etc. City Roxbury Water State MA Total Annual Water Use 208,000 gal / yr Zip Code 2120 WUI - Water Use Intensity (Program-based) 37.3 gal / sf yr User-Defined Benchmark Source

ASHRAE Climate Zone 5A (Link) WUI - Water Use Intensity (User-Defined) 8 gal / sf yr Other Climate Zone(?) n/a Water Use per Occupant 3,467 gal / occupant yr Total Building Area(?) 26,000 Gross sf Site Area(?) 13,180 sf Energy Regularly occupied space(?) 13,180 sf Total Annual Energy Use 1,838,200 kBtu yr Avg daily occupancy(?) 60 People EUI Energy Use Intensity (Program-based) 120.6 kBtu sf / yr Peak occupancy(?) 100 People EUI Energy Use Intensity (User-defined) 70.7 kBtu sf / yr Use ZeroTool designated EUI FTEs(?) 60 People Energy Use per Occupant 30,637 kBtu occupant yr

Cell Type Legend Project completion year 2022 Input data Explanation Annual days of operation (?) 260 Days Operational Carbon Emissions

Avg. daily hours of operation (?) 8 hours Total Annual Carbon Emissions 182,000 kg-CO e / yr Total Construction Cost(?) 6,000,000 USD Carbon Use Intensity (Program-based) 11.2 kg-CO e / sf yr User-Defined Benchmark Source FAR 1.97 Carbon Use Intensity (User-Defined) 7 kg-CO e / sf yr COTE Top 10 Award Program Color Scheme Cost/sf 230.77 $ Carbon Emissions per Occupant 3,033 kg-CO e / occupant yr sf/occupant Avg. 433 Optional for COTE Top 10 Mandatory for COTE

Development team Helena Zambrano, AIA (Project Lead) Mahlum Architects, Portland, OR

Corey Squire, AIA Bora Architects, Portland, OR

Tate Walker, AIA OPN, Madison, WI

Z Smith, FAIA EDR, New Orleans, LA Billie Faircloth, FAIA KieranTimberlake, Philadelphia, PA Janki A Vyas, AIA KARMA co/lab, Philadelphia, PA

Ryan Welch

KieranTimberlake, Philadelphia,

benchmark should be user-defined using Architecture 2030's Zero Tool. Optional user-defined benchmarks can be entered above as a way of tracking any specific benchmarking research that the team conducted.

INTEGRATION

INTENT FOR PROJECT

Measure 1 - Design for Integration

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.

To create

a carbon negative building that absorbs the

Climate appropriate landscape. Rainwater harvesting. WATER

Financial resilience. Economic benefits of biophilic design. Low maintenance design. Water savings, water independence.

District systems. Bioclimatic and passive design.

Energy savings from transportation and treatment of water.

ECONOMY

Life cycle cost, Life cycle analysis.

ENERGY

Carbon emissions from transportation. Air quality. Connection to nature. Water quality. Daylighting as energy conversation measure. WELLNESS

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

Social equity is a major component of resilience.

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

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

Durability and maintenance of materials.

Water resilience. Flooding, precipitation changes, drought.

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

Right sizing, flexibility for growth and change.

Replicable, cost effective strategies.

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

COMMUNITY EXPERIENCE

Walkscore.com generates several scores for walkability and community resources for any address in the US. The higher the score, the more pedestrianfriendly the site.

Based on Sherry A Arnstein's, "A Ladder of Citizen Participation", what was the level of community engagement during the design and construction process?

If no information is available, use the baseline (US national average). Though it's designed for office projects, the calculator can produce good results for all buildings that people travel to and from.

SECTION 03 | COTE SPREADSHEET 20 ENVIRONMENTAL PORTFOLIO ISIAH “ZEKE” POWERS SECTION 03 | COTE SPREADSHEET 21 ENVIRONMENTAL PORTFOLIO ISIAH “ZEKE” POWERS

Measure 3 - Design for Ecology

Explanations Calculators: Enter your values into the yellow cells

ECOLOGY

VEGETATION CONCERNS

Determine the area of the site reserved for vegetation, both before and after development by subtracting all impervious areas from the site area. Green roofs are included in the percent vegetated calculations.

The project will have a large overall focus on the carbon-negative effects of the incorporation of native vegetation into the architecture as well.

There is not much native fauna on the site since it is a urban area with a high percentage of hardscaped surfaces and low landscaped. Hopefully, this project will be able to bring back a micro-ecology system that benefits the overall health of the area.

Native plants include those that are indigenous to a specific geographic location and are adapted for the local climate and ecosystems. Use "turf grass" for any landscape areas with decorative plants not adapted to the local climate.

1 Vegetated Area

PostDevelopment PreDevelopment

Green roof area 6,000 sf 6,000 sf Building footprint area 6,500 sf 6,500 sf Surface parking area - sf - sf Area of additional on site hardscapes 1,500 sf 1,500 sf Area of the total site that is vegetated 11,180 sf 11,180 sf Site Area 13,180 sf 13,180 sf Percent vegetated 84.8% 84.8% Increase in Percent of vegetated area 0.0%

2 Native Plantings

Identify the strategies implemented by the project to help users become more aware or connected with the site and their regional ecosystems.

3 Level of Ecological Design

Measure 4 - Design for Water

Explanations

WATER USAGE AND RECYCLED

This simple calculator will give an estimate of a building's water consumption. Three uses are taken into account for this calculation, indoor water use, irrigation, and cooling. For the sake of simplicity, other water uses, such as pools or commercial kitchens are not included. If your project has had a more sophisticated water use analysis, you can skip the calculator and enter the modeled values below in section 3.

By utilizing design elements that decrease the need for over water usage, this project generates a more efficient and renewable source of water to supply the building. This structure uses a highly effective gray/ black water retrieval system to provide the majority of non-potable water sources to the building and exterior. There is also sophisticated rainwater retrieval systems to supply another significant portion of the buildings water. This reduces the usage of potable water to 33.5% for the entire building.

Commercial v Residential: Choose either "Commercial" or "Residential" from the dropdown for "Water Use Profile" under section 1 of this tab and input the flow rates for the corresponding table. Residential includes single family, multifamily, and lodging.

Calculators: Enter your values into the yellow cells

Is potable water used for irrigation (after a two year establishment period)?

Enter the total area that will be irrigated and then for each dropdown, choose the characteristic that best matches your site, plantings, and irrigation system.

Step

Design Comparison

Month Irrigation Co. gal 25% -350% January 31% 4,696.9 February 38% 5,757.5 March 60% 9,090.8 April 77% 11,666.5 May 88% 13,333.2 June 99% 14,999.8 July 100% 15,151.4 August 100% 15,151.4 September 77% 11,666.5 October 60% 9,090.8 November 38% 5,757.5 December 30% 4,545.4

Annual Irrigation Water Use 120,908 gal yr

Proposed SECTION 03 | COTE SPREADSHEET 23 ENVIRONMENTAL

This section is an extremely rough estimate of the water consumption of cooling tower.

PORTFOLIO ISIAH “ZEKE” POWERS

Step 4: Cooling tower 10% 0.7 gal sf yr

Percent of the buidling cooled by water-cooled chiller

USAGE AND RECYCLED

January 31% 4,696.9

February 38% 5,757.5

March 60% 9,090.8

April 77% 11,666.5

May 88% 13,333.2 June 99% 14,999.8 July 100% 15,151.4 August 100% 15,151.4 September 77% 11,666.5 October 60% 9,090.8 November 38% 5,757.5 December 30% 4,545.4 Annual Irrigation Water Use 120,908 gal / yr Step 4: Cooling tower 10% 0.7 gal / sf yr 18,200 gal / yr

Enter the monthly modeled and measured water consumption for each water source.

1 Predicted demand water use is pre-entered from the above calculator and only takes into account bathroom use, irrigation, and an order of magnitude estimate for cooling tower use. (Note: Due to complexity and variability, water used in restaurants, laboratories, or industrial processes, is not take into account.)

2 Measured potable use can be read off utility bills.

3 For grey/black water and rainwater, only include the purified water that is reused for another purpose and offsets a potential potable use, such as irrigation. Condensate and foundation water that offsets potential potable water use can be included here as well

Predicted gal/mo

January 10,345 345 2,000 8,000

February 11,406 1,406 2,000 8,000 March 14,739 4,739 2,000 8,000 April 17,315 6,315 3,000 8,000 May 18,982 7,982 3,000 8,000 June 20,648 9,148 3,500 8,000 July 20,800 8,800 4,000 8,000 August 20,800 10,800 2,000 8,000 September 17,315 7,315 2,000 8,000 October 14,739 4,739 2,000 8,000 November 11,406 1,406 2,000 8,000 December 10,194 194 2,000 8,000

Total (gal) 188,690 63,190 29,500 96,000 0 0 0 Total Annual Potable Rainwater Grey/Black Total Predicted 188,690 33.5% 15.6% 50.9% 100.0% Measured 0 0.0%

Water Use Summary

This table shows how the predicted water use from the calculators above compares with the benchmark.

Benchmark Predicted Improvement Measured Improvement 208,000 63,190 70% 0 100% 3,467 1,053 0 8.0 2.4 0

ECONOMY

Measure 5 - Design for Economy

COMPARED WITH BENCHMARKS

This structure actually came in much higher in budget than the benchmark values. In further development of the project would have to go through a strenuous value engineering process in order to revisit the items that are making it over budget.

There are many design strategies for reducing building operating costs. Include design strategies, along with their estimated numerical impact here.

This should be pretty rough and is most valuable as a thought exercise. The cost savings from utilities are already populated.

An efficient building will use fewer resources to construct, operate, and maintain. Enter the typical building efficiency ratio for the building type as a benchmark, the source of the benchmark, and the efficiency ratio achieved.

ENERGY

PREDICTED USAGE

Measure 6 - Design for Energy

Benchmarks will auto-fill from the Introduction or the Reference Tables tab.

For both Predicted and

Monthly Energy Use:

This project has a smaller than typical window-to-wall ratio (WWR) of the facades of the building. This reduces the need for artificial cooling systems during the summer. This, with other energy reducing systems put into place, will ultimate optimize this building’s efficiency and reduce the total operational carbon produced.

Step Select and confirm the unit of measurement for each fuel type, i.e. kWh or kBTU of grid electricity.

Step Fill out the predicted energy consumption or generation per fuel type. Use energy model outputs for predicted energy and a utility bill for measured energy. On-site renewables calculations in this spreadsheet require gross metering, not net-metering values. If an energy model was not completed for the project, just fill out the measured energy use. a fuel type was not used, leave the monthly inputs as Zero.

Step Enter the local energy cost for each fuel type if available. The cost of renewables is calculated as negative.

Step For projects using Chilled Water for cooling, use the dropdown to assign the appropriate carbon conversion factor by system type. The default is a natural gas absorption chiller.

53.1 52.7 - - 118.2 53.1 52.7 - -

53.1 52.7 - - 118.2 53.1 52.7 - -

53.1 52.7 - - 118.2 53.1 52.7 - -

53.1 52.7 - - 118.2 53.1 52.7 - -

118.2 53.1 52.7 - - 118.2 53.1 52.7 - -

118.2 53.1 52.7 - - 118.2 53.1 52.7 -August 118.2 53.1 52.7 - - 118.2 53.1 52.7 -September 118.2 53.1 52.7 - - 118.2 53.1 52.7 -October 118.2 53.1 52.7 - - 118.2 53.1 52.7 -November 118.2 53.1 52.7 - - 118.2 53.1 52.7 -December 118.2 53.1 52.7 - - 118.2 53.1 52.7 - -

Step 1: Calculate the total installed lighting power density for your building.

Step 2: The benchmark value is autofilled from the Referenced Tables tab.

Record your building's window wall ratio.

For

Measure 7 - Design for Wellness

WELLNESS

INHABITANT IDEALS

a

work stations within 25' of an operable window. For Daylight, input a continuous daylight autonomy metric. If daylight performance wasn't simulated, input the total area within 15' from a perimeter wall.

For operable

This project has an overall high rating to inhabitant wellness. With several thermostats and ample light penetrating the spaces, life in these spaces would prove very comfortable for the day-day occupants, and the visitors.

Input the total number of accessible thermostats and the percent of occupants who control their own light levels.

Input information on indoor air quality measurements.

Input the total number of materials that have a third-party health certification in the yellow box. Then name each of those notable materials and their certification. Examples of certifications: *Declare *Health Product Declaration *Cradle to Cradle *Level -ORInput the total number of chemicals of concern that you avoided. Then name each of those chemicals and the standard that you used as a guide. Examples of the standards include:

*Living Building Challenge Red List

*WELL Building Standard

*Healthier Hospitals Initiative Safer Chemicals

*Six Classes (chemicals from Green Science Policy Institute)

*Kaiser Permanente Facilities Design Program's Chemicals of Concern in Bildi Mtil Fbi Fit d Fiih lit

Measure 9 - Change

PREDICTED FOR AREA

As far as outages go, the building will have stored back up energy from renewable sources derived from the site or outsourced. This building being a artist-specific museum, the total lifespan estimated is around 80 years; however, with elements of the structure meant to be disassembled at the end of its life, a majority of the materials can either be disposed of resourcefully, or recycled entirely.

DISCOVERY

PROJECT TRANSPARENCY

Actual

Potable Water Use Intensity 0.0 gal sf / day

Percent Rainwater Use % total water use from collected rainwater

Percent Grey/Black Water Use % total water use from grey or blackwater

Potable Water Use Reduction 100%

Potable Water Used for Irrigation Yes

Rainwater Managed On-Site 65%

Estimated Runoff Quality 60%

Measure 5 - Design for Economy

Actual construction cost $231 Dollar (USD) / sf

Benchmark Construction cost $134 Dollar (USD) / sf

Construction cost Reduction from the Benchmark -72%

Efficiency Ratio Achieved 80% Net to Gross

Efficiency Ratio Percent Improvement 0%

Measure 6 - Design for Energy

Net site EUI 49.0 kBtu / sf / yr

Gross site EUI 49.0 kBtu / sf / yr

Net Energy Use Reduction from Benchmark 31%

Operational Carbon Emissions per Area 3 kg-CO2e / sf / yr

Percent from Renewable Energy 0%

Percent Operational Carbon Reduction from Benchmark 63%

Net site EUI 49.0 kBtu / sf / yr

Gross site EUI 49.0 kBtu / sf / yr

Net Energy Use Reduction from Benchmark 31%

Operational Carbon Emissions per Area 3 kg-CO2e / sf / yr

Percent from Renewable Energy 0%

Percent Operational Carbon Reduction from Benchmark 63%

Lighting Power Density 1.00 W/sf

Lighting Power Density % Reduction 11%

Window to Wall Ratio 2000%

RESULTS

OVERALL PERFORMANCE SCALES

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

Baseline Very High Performance

Measure 2: Design For Community

Walk Score 0% 100%

Transit Score 0% 100%

Bike Score 0% 100%

Community Engagement Level 0% 100%

Measure 3: Design For Ecology

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

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

Vegetated area increase 0% 100%

Percent of Site with Native Plantings 0% 100%

Percent of Vegetated Area with Native Plantings 0% 100%

0% 63%

Ecological Design Score 0% 100% Predicted Measured

Measure 4: Design For Water 0 65%

Potable water reduction 0% 70% 100% 100%

Potable Water Used for Irrigation Yes (0) No (1)

Rainwater Managed On-Site 0% 100%

Estimated Runoff Quality 0% 100%

Measure 5: Design For Economy

Construction cost Reduction from the Benchmark 0% >50%

Measure 6: Design For Energy

Efficiency ratio percent improvement 0% >50% Predicted Measured

Net energy reduction from Benchmark 0% 31% 31% 105%

Percent from renewable energy 0% 0% 0% 100%

Percent Operational Carbon Reduction from Benchmark 0% 63% 63% 100%

Measure 7: Design For Wellness 11% 61%

Lighting Power Density % Reduction 0% 75%

Quality

RESULTS

DURATION CARBON PRODUCTION CHARTS

Building Materials 0% SECTION 03 | COTE SPREADSHEET 34 ENVIRONMENTAL PORTFOLIO ISIAH “ZEKE” POWERS

Cumulative carbon over building life SECTION 03 | COTE SPREADSHEET 35 ENVIRONMENTAL PORTFOLIO ISIAH “ZEKE” POWERS

CARBON OVER TIME:

HEAT MAPPING CIRCULATION ANALYSIS

As shown. only a small portion of the circulation reamins inside the building.

During the day, there is a higher flow of traffic between the two different wings but many will travel through the exterior gardens and interlocking green roof to level connections. Even more so, at night there is only a few workers of the facility to bounce between the offices in their wing.

BUILDING ANALYSIS

HEAT MAP- DAYTIME HEAT MAP- NIGHTTIME

TALLY LIFE CYCLE STUDY

STUDY FOR CONCRETE FLOORS

Per these results, the concrete option for flooring material makes up 95% of project; however, only makes up 40% of overall building Global Warming Potential (GWP). Excluding the other factors included in GWP, the material itself is considered a moderate to poor effect on the environmental crisis. If one looks at the breakdown by division on the following page, one can see how the net value of the GWP is 89% due to the fact that the finishes fall a negative 11% below 0%.

This is due to the protective qualities that reduce the need and frequency in which the maintenance and replacement are necessary.

TALLY LIFE CYCLE STUDY

STUDY FOR CONCRETE FLOORS

TALLY LIFE CYCLE STUDY

STUDY FOR WOOD FLOORS

Based on the results of the concrete study, wood flooring materials produce a much more efficient Global Warming Potential (GWP). The largest negative impact of the material is the end-of-life stage of the cycle. This is estimated at 87% for this project due to the removal and disposal of the product when it no longer performs and needs replacement.

The overall impact of wood floorings has a net value of negative 20%, which is considered to be very effective in bettering the state of our global environment.

TALLY LIFE CYCLE STUDY

STUDY FOR WOOD FLOORS

EC3 MANUFACTURER

COMPARISON

STUDY FOR CONCRETE FLOORS

Comparatively, the Aggregate Industries EC range lays around the median of the all the manufacturers listed. This particular manufacturer’s achievable level and conservative level are lowered far beyond the LEED standards threshold (line in purple). This means that the embodied carbon that is produced by their product is significantly less that a large majority of the rest of the manufacturers and would be a great choice for the project.

EC3 PLANT-BY-PLANT COMPARISON

STUDY FOR CONCRETE FLOORS

The Waltham plant is presenting as a much lower EC range than the average results. Even the maximumthat this plant could produce is much lower than the average meaning this would be a wise choice for plant selection.

EC3 PRODUCT COMPARISON

STUDY FOR CONCRETE FLOORS

Studying the first 6 product types of concrete, the product that produces the least amount of embodied carbon is the AGIL5AE product from the Waltham plant. However these first 6 selections would all be overly acceptable since they fall significantly below the mean results of the entire list of products.

EC3 BOXPLOT DIAGRAM

STUDY FOR

CONCRETE

FLOORS

As a general reflection, concrete’s EC range falls in the majority above the CLF Baseline. This means that is it vital that when chosing a product, that it should be deeply researched to reduce the environmental impact that this material could have.

EC3 BOXPLOT DIAGRAM

STUDY FOR WOOD FLOORS

From this boxplot chart it is apparent that wood is a much more efficient product for the environment. Even the maximum falls slightly above the CLF Baseline and the conservative and achievable levels fall significantly below.

EC3 GWP SANKEY DIAGRAM COMPARE

COMPARED PERSONAL PROJECT AND USGBC LA BUILDING PERSONAL PROJECT SANKEY

In the personal project, there was a generated potential savings in Global Warming Potential of 37%. This is not an optimized system if the total savings is this low. Much more care and research would have to go into this project to improve this score.

This project used concrete and steel instead of concrete and wood. Because of this, it reduced their GWP savings to 34%. This is likely due to the less efficient material, steel.

USGBC LA PROJECT SANKEY

EC3 LEED BAR CHART

COMPARE

COMPARED PERSONAL PROJECT AND USGBC LA BUILDING

PERSONAL PROJECT LEED BAR CHART

The achievable level of the flooring materials falls fairly below the CLF Baseline and the LEED Realized. This could be further optimized by the choice of more efficient materials.

USGBC LA PROJECT LEED BAR CHART

The achievable level of the flooring materials falls significantly below the CLF Baseline, but slightly above the LEED Realized standard.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. “How Many Planets Does It Take to Sustain Your Lifestyle?” Ecological Footprint Calculator. Accessed March 16, 2022. https://www.footprintcalculator.org/en/.

2. “Carbon Footprint Calculator Climate Change US EPA.” EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, June 1, 2015. ://www3.epa.gov/carbon-footprint-calculator/.

3. “Boston Landmarks Commission (BLC) Historic Districts.” BostonMaps Open Data Site. BostonMaps, December 7, 2020. https://bostonopendata-boston. opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/boston-landmarks-commission-blc-historic-districts/ explore?location=42.332040%2C-71.063867%2C13.55.

4. U.S. Census Bureau. “Mycensus Viewer: BPDA.” MyCensus Viewer | BPDA. BPDA and GIS, 2020. http://maps.bostonplans.org/census/#/census2020.

5. Boston Planning & Development Agency. “Mission Hill.” At a Glance Boston Planning & Development Agency. Boston Planning & Development Agency. Accessed February 28, 2022. http://www.bostonplans.org/neighborhoods/mission-hill/ata-glance.

6. EC3. (n.d.). Retrieved May 10, 2022, from https://buildingtransparency.org/ec3/buildings/