P. Tonissi Environmental Portfolio

ENVIRONMENTAL PORTFOLIO

SECTION

SECTION

FROM Boston, Massachusetts

INTERESTS

Science Fiction and Fantasy Round Animals

Classic History Squash

EXPERIENCE

Community Surveyor (2 years)

EDUCATION

B.A. in Architectural Studies (2020) Boston University

Masters of Architecture (exp. 2023) Boston Architectural College

My name is Parker Tonissi. I am an architectural student living in Boston, MA. In 2020, I graduated from Boston University and matriculated to the Boston Architectural College.

Professionally, besides working as a sailing instructor, I have assisted local communities in surveying their populations, working with Easton MA to begin their certification as an AARP Livable Community and with Uxbridge MA to vision a municipal buildings plan.

My architectural interest, as shown by the studio project chosen for this portfolio, lies in radically comfortable and adaptable spaces. I am interested in how buildings might adapt to changing use, health, and climate, for the purpose of both occupants and environment.

Currently, I aim to gain experience in the architecture field, earn a graduate degree from the BAC, obtain licensure, and through all this model myself as an architect adept in sustainable design.

Playing Squash at Boston University

Parker Tonissi

MY CARBON AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

AN ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT MY LIFESTYLE HAS UPON THE ENVIRONMENT

MY CARBON FOOTPRINT

Currently, I am responsible for 3,634lbs of carbon emissions each year, roughly half of the U.S. average for persons in my situation. The graph shows that this difference is due my home energy usage, which is surprising - while I know my usage is lower, given laundry habits and temperature carelessness, half of average is more than expected. Hearteningly so! Though, of course, less is better - replacing lightbulbs with energy-saving fixtures will scrape that number lower.

MY ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

Ecologically, my lifestyle requires 6.5 global hectares (gha) to support. This is lower than the United States average of 8.1 gha, but still more than the nation’s estimated available 3.5 gha per capita. The ecological footprint tested a category not included in my carbon footprint: airplane flights. 60~ hours spent in the air each year places mobility as my highest category of consumption, highlighting the personal and national impact of this travelling method.

Ecological Footprint Calculator Results (Global Footprint Network)

Carbon Footprint Calculator Results (EPA)

THE SPACEMAKER CENTER

AN ACADEMIC DESIGN FOR A COMMUNITY MAKERSPACE IN MISSION HILL, MA

ORIGIN

ARC1002: Architecture Studio 2 Boston Architectural College PROFESSOR Ricardo Souto

YEAR 2021

COLLABORATORS

Farah Abouelenien; Crista Chavez; Miguel Echeverria; Sepideh Falsafi; Jessie Newcomb; Nathalia Quirino; Tian Sun; Parker Tonissi; Hardy Zhang

INTRODUCTION

The Spacemaker Center was our collaborative final studio project for Studio 2, a community makerspace in MIssion Hill, Massachusetts.

In function, the building provides a cafe and DIY equipment - power tools, 3D printers, laser cutters, computers, etc. - to a community comprised of less advantaged students and families, mostly renters. A minimum of four fulltime employees would operate the cafe, monitor the space, and host classes and community events; as an aspiring destination space for groups of students and families, the SpaceMaker’s business model and program are built on group events and inclusive offerings.

In program, to accommodate both large groups and single workers and to reduce costs, the building is dynamic. It consists of three main bays with indoor-outdoor frontage hidden by movable screens; however, two bays (the cafe area is fixed) can slide outwards on rails, creating another 3,000’~ of indoor area which can be enclosed and utilized by occupants. Thus, in contrast to a neighborhood without social frontage, looking at the building clearly shows passersby current occupants and their activities.

Sustainably, beyond saving on heating and making livable spaces which would be unused in other buildings, the main bays are roofed by algae panels which harness

sunlight to create electricity and, depending on climate and mutable opacity, passively heat and light the space. Rainwater is collected and ample green area is left on the site as well, for native plantings and animals.

Overall, the SpaceMaker utilizes local forms in a flexible and sustainable fashion to generate community in a neighborhood which generally lacks it.

Rendered View from Calumet Street (Miguel Hernandez)

INTRODUCTION TO SITE

THE FOLLOWING PAGES WILL DISCUSS THE HISTORY, DEMOGRAPHICS, AND CLIMATE OF THE SITE NEIGHBORHOOD, MISSION HILL.

5 CALUMET STREET, MISSION HILL

This site is located south of Boston’s Fenway neighborhood, adjacent to Huntington Avenue, a major transportation artery within the city. The aerial photograph above shows the disparity in building height and size between Mission Hill and Fenway.

Aerial Photo of Mission Hill

PORTFOLIO | PARKER TONISSI

NEIGHBORHOOD DEMOGRAPHICS

MISSION HILL’S HOUSING STOCK AND POPULATION HAVE BEEN SHAPED BY A HISTORY OF REDLINING AND STIGMATIZATION.

49.7%

49.7 percent of Mission Hill’s population is 20-34 years old. We will be designing for a younger audience.

18.2 percent is 35-59 years old

47.2%

47.2 percent of Mission Hill’s population is enrolled in school. Students will likely value social, group activities.

10.1 percent is enrolled in graduate school

90.7%

90.7 percent of Mission Hill’s homes are rented out. We will be designing for a transient, less privileged population.

A HISTORY OF MARGINALIZATION

In the 1950s, following nationwide narratives of ‘white flight’, the Mission Hill neighborhood acquired a poor reputation. While the surrounding area grew as institutions and universities moved in nearby, Mission Hill stagnated, suffering from ‘redlining’, a process by which housing agencies designate(d) areas as less desirable for living. The map to the right shows that even in 1938, the Mission Hill area had been designated as undesirable.

Thus, the area became a home for less wealthy, mostly ethnic populations. Besides several new affordable housing complexes, little new housing stock was built; rather, most was converted into rental, multi-family homes. Many of the many nearby colleges, including

Wentworth, Simmons, Emmanuel, MSPCA, and Harvard also have formal and informal housing in this area. In the modern day, while the neighborhood is experiencing destigmatization and growth, the majority of residents are still less wealthy or younger. Thus, any project in this neighborhood must be designed for use by a highly liminal community - a mix of young professionals and less wealthy families.

PORTFOLIO | PARKER TONISSI

Map of Boston’s Residential Security by the George F. Cram Company, 1930 (BPR)

FOUNDING HISTORY

BOSTON’S MID-19TH CENTURY POPULATION BOOM AND EXPANSION GAVE RISE TO THE MISSION HILL WE KNOW TODAY.

BACKGROUND

Today, Mission Hill is chararcterized by series of townhomes. This is largely due to a series of developments that occured between 1860 and 1900.

> In 1868, due to steady immigration throughout the century, Boston annexed Roxbury, which then contained Mission Hill (known as Parker Hill).

> In the 1880s, the Muddy River was rerouted as part of Fredrick Law Olmsted’s plan to connect Boston Common with Franklin Park. This meant access was no longer only by bridge.

> By 1894, early public transportation began to glide through the district. In response, the neighborhood became more dense due to development.

A View from Parker Hill, 1910 (Curbed)

Huntington Avenue Under Construction, 1939 (Historic New England)

PORTFOLIO | PARKER TONISSI

BUILDING TYPOLOGIES - BRICK ROW STRUCTURES

THE FIRST OF TWO BUILDING TYPOLOGIES, THESE STRUCTURES ARE FOUND ALONG HUNTINGTON AVENUE.

A Tremont Street, view southeast (Google)

B 770-782 Huntington Avenue, view northeast

TYPOLOGY INFORMATION

This typology is characterized by brick and masonry construction, bay windows, and three-story height - the latter because Boston law only allowed building up to three stories without an elevator. These structures typically can be found along Huntington Avenue. Like many homes in this area, they have puddingstone foundation, a local agglomerate.

owned commercial

rented mixed-use

Model of a Generic Brick Row Structure

PORTFOLIO | PARKER TONISSI

CONTEXT

BUILDING TYPOLOGIES - BRICK ROW STRUCTURES

THE FIRST OF TWO BUILDING TYPOLOGIES, THESE STRUCTURES ARE FOUND ALONG HUNTINGTON AVENUE.

A B

A Tremont Street, view southeast (Google)

RESIDENTIAL EXPERIENCE

As this simple plan of a residential brick row structure shows, the wall to the street that these present leaves little social area outside, in front or behind, the building for occupants to exist, see, and be seen. While these structures do define a pleasing neighborhood aesthetic, undulating along Huntington, the neighborhood experience they create lacks sociality and humanity.

owned commercial

rented mixed-use

B 770-782 Huntington Avenue, view northeast and plan

770-782 Huntington Avenue; Plan

BUILDING

TYPOLOGIES

- QUEEN ANNE HOMES

THE SECOND OF TWO BUILDING TYPOLOGIES, THESE STRUCTURES ARE FOUND FURTHER INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

A B

TYPOLOGY INFORMATION

This typology is characterized by wooden frame construction, which had become a popular way for developers to put up houses efficiently and cheaply. They also feature bay windows, as well as gabled rooves, pediments, and often some form of gingerbread - the latter due to the patternbooks which popularized the style.

owned rented

B 64-70 Calumet Street, view southeast and model

A Francis Street, view southeast (Google)

64-70 Calumet Street; a Typical Row of Queen Anne Houses

BUILDING

TYPOLOGIES

- QUEEN ANNE HOMES

THE SECOND OF TWO BUILDING TYPOLOGIES, THESE STRUCTURES ARE FOUND FURTHER INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

A B

64-70 Calumet Street, plan

RESIDENTIAL EXPERIENCE

Plans show that this typology suffers the same downfall as the brick row structures - they lack social areas for occupants to exist and be seen. The porches are too small and the yards too cramped for socialization, while the back areas lack privacy. Considering the buildings’ long, thin, multi-occupant nature, there is neither much private area nor much public area.

owned rented

B 64-70 Calumet Street, view southeast and plan

A Francis Street, view southeast (Google)

DESIGN RESPONSE TO CLIMATIC CONDITIONS

ORIENTING EXPERIENCE ALONG AN EAST-WEST AXIS MAXIMIZES NATURALITY IN AN URBAN SETTING, TAKING ADVANTAGE OF AVAILABLE FORESTATION TO GIVE OCCUPANTS AN OASIS WITHIN THE CITY.

1 - RAINWATER COLLECTION

The algae panels which cover the building’s main bays require water to operate. Similarly, the bathrooms and kitchens have ample use for non-potable water. Each main bay roof is slightly angled and installed with a catchbasin, which gathers Boston’s 43 inches of annual rainfall. The incline also allows easier maitenance following snowfall.

2 - NATURAL SITE ADVANTAGE

The existing plot of land already is backed to the west by ample treecover and fronted to the east with a view into the nearby Kevin W. Fitzgerald Park. Enclosing the building to the north and south directs experience into this naturality.

3 - BUILT SOCIAL AREA

The Spacemaker is built to allow natural courtyards within its massing, which appear when main bay panelling is retracted or the building is expanded (as shown here). These courtyards are social areas, shaded from summer sun by the cantilever, facing the main road, and providing views to the nearby park.

climate response sketch

SUNLIGHT AND TERRAIN

UTILIZING SUNLIGHT AS AN ENERGY SOURCE AND AN EXPERIENTIAL ELEMENT TO CREATE A COMFORTABLE EXPERIENCE ON A HILL.

1 - VARIABLE WINTER SHADING

The front facade of the building, which faces east, is composed of a retractable panelling system. This system, which can be operated by occupants, allows them to adjust how much glare, light, warmth, and/ or atmosphere they desire while they work. When open, the cantilever allows light into the area.

2 - SUMMER CLIMATE

During Boston’s summer solstice, the sun reaches an tilt of 71 degrees and spends the majority of the day casting rays from southern directions. Thus, to preserve comfort and shade occupants, the building is longer on the east and west sides than the north and south sides. This rectangle, with proper cantilevers and light buffers, allows for maximum winter shading and minimal summer sun.

3 - ALGAE PANELLING

The main bays of the Spacemaker are rooved with algae panelling. This panelling mitigates sunlight, absorbing UV rays to generate power through biomass accumulation, and as a double-pane glass system, provides sufficient insulation. Also, the filtered rays speckle the ground below with liquid patterning, creating a tranquil, underwater atmophere.

4 - STRATEGIC TREECOVER

The west side of the building does not feature cantilevers to block the light; instead, nearby forestation mitigates summer sun and allows winter sun, creating a shaded, sloped back patio for occupants.

sunlight response sketch

CHOICE AND EVALUATION OF RESPONSES

USING CLIMATE CONSULTANT AND THE 2030 PALETTE TO DETERMINE APPLICABLE DESIGN STRATEGIES FOR COMFORT IN MISSION HILL

HOW TO READ THE CHART

The Psychometric Chart (facing page) displays, in one image, every expected temperature throughout the year. The x-axis displays temperature and the y-axis displays humidity; together, these factors can be used to determine apparent temperature.

The blue region contains temperatures within what the ASHRAE Standard classifies as comfortable for living.

The architect’s goal is to implement design strategies which adjust the apparent building temperature to this ‘comfortable’ range during all operational hours.

The Psychometric Chart estimates which strategies might be used when and how impactful they might be (by total applicable hrs/yr). The most impactful strategies for Mission Hill’s climate, unsurpisingly, involve heating.

solar gain at the aldo leopold legacy center (Heffron)

SOLAR GAIN SURFACE RETENTION

One applicable strategy used to reduce direct heating during winter months is to use surfaces which retain temperature. These surfaces, often tiling, slate, or even wood, reduce temperature extremes by absorbing heat or cool during peak times and then slowly releasing that load. In the SpaceMaker, circulation adjacent to the open NE and SW facades is a prime opportunity for this method of reducing costs and carbon use from direct heating.

SOLAR GLAZING

The 2030 Palette recommends using double-pane windows in tandem with surfaces that retain thermal energy. These windows insulate the space, keeping heat in once surfaces have absorbed it. The Palette recommends that these be installed within 150 of true South in the Northern Hemisphere; as such, this is applicable to the front facade.

solar glazing at the rocky mountain institute (Griffith)

PORTFOLIO | PARKER TONISSI

psychometric climate chart: boston

-CLIMATIC RESPONSE

SOLAR GAIN ON THE SOUTH-WESTERN FACADE

USING CLIMATE CONSULTANT TO DETERMINE THE ANGLE OF SHADING FINS NECESSARY FOR COMFORT DURING WARMER MONTHS

HOW TO READ

The charts below show the expected warmth and arrival angle of the suns rays day-by-day, throughout the year, for the south-western facade.

Each arc, from start to end, represents the angle of the sun’s rays throughout one specific day.

Colored dots along each line represent the expected temperature at that time in a day.

DETERMINING SHADING FIN ANGLE

Climate Consultant allows users to design sizing of shading elements by ‘shading’ in grey all sunlight arriving from beyond an angle.

The charts below show that from June to December (left) and December to June (right), shading fins which restrict rays arriving from a vertical angle greater than 400 or a horizontal angle greater than 450 negate sun on most hot days.

sun shading chart: SW facade summer to fall

DISCUSSION

It is possible to increase the amount of shading; the determined angles leave 105 yearly hours of expected temperatures above 680F. However, due to the arrival angle of these rays, additional fin length achieves diminishing returns. The designed lengths accept some solar gain from 2 to 4 PM throughout August and September.

This exercise determined the size of the casing which surrounds the SpaceMaker building. That casing is also the reason why this solar analysis only takes into account the SW and NE facades: the SE and NW facades will be entirely covered.

sun shading chart: SW facade winter to spring

RESPONSE

SOLAR GAIN ON THE NORTH-EASTERN FACADE

USING CLIMATE CONSULTANT TO DETERMINE THE ANGLE OF SHADING FINS NECESSARY FOR COMFORT DURING WARMER MONTHS

HOW TO READ

The charts below show the expected warmth and arrival angle of the suns rays day-by-day, throughout the year, for the south-western facade.

Each arc, from start to end, represents the angle of the sun’s rays throughout one specific day.

Colored dots along each line represent the expected temperature at that time in a day.

DETERMINING SHADING FIN ANGLE

Climate Consultant allows users to design sizing of shading elements by ‘shading’ in grey all sunlight arriving from beyond an angle.

The charts below show that from June to December (left) and December to June (right), shading fins which restrict rays arriving from a vertical angle greater than 400 or a horizontal angle greater than 450 negate sun on most hot days.

sun shading chart: NE facade summer to fall

DISCUSSION

It is possible to increase the amount of shading on the NE side; similarly to the building’s SW front, the determined angles leave 76 yearly hours of expected temperatures above 680F. However, due to the arrival angle of these rays, additional fin length achieves diminishing returns. The designed lengths accept some solar gain from 8 to 11 AM during August and September.

This, given that the expected warmth falls within the ‘comfortable’ range, might be considered a benefit; with proper thermostat scheduling, this solar gain would warm the building during the morning hours of these months.

As stated on the previous slide, this exercise determined the size of the casing which surrounds the SpaceMaker building.

sun shading chart: NE facade winter to spring

DESIGN FOR EFFICIENCY: CIRCULATION

MAXIMIZING AVAILABLE SPACE FOR COMFORTABLE EXPERIENCE AND EFFICIENT PROGRAMMING

1 - PURE CIRCULATION

The building area used only for circulation - and no other purposes - is designed as minimally as possible and placed on the exterior, to blend user types, simplify circulation, and introduce radiant heating. Even this area is planned to double as shop space, with usermade products for purchase hung along the walls.

The area, highlighted on the plan below, is 350’2, ~15% of the overall program.

site plan diagramming circulation

1 - RENDERED HEATMAP

The below rendered occupation heatmap assumes normal daytime operation throughout a spring day, with an active cafeteria and occupied workspaces. It should be noted that, while normal, this state may not be constant; cafeteria and workspace hours being exactly congruous is unlikely due to clientele difference and monetary efficiency.

Nighttime heatmaps were not rendered, as the building is not used during the night.

2 - CONCLUSION

Assumptions show that the existing design maximizes use of indoor space by circulating occupants around storage nodes and combining circulation with workspace area, creating an efficient, interesting user experience. There is no area of the building in which an occupant cannot see another occupant working.

Use of indoor-outdoor spaces will vary by climate; this springtime heatmap assumes these will be in use.

1 - EXPANDED BUILDING AREA

It should be noted that the building does expand, increasing program area, but also remembered that this only occurs when occupation or use desires; this, and the fact that logic for arrangement of pure circulation is kept, should affirm the assumption that an efficient, pleasurable contracted program will correlate to an efficient, pleasurable expanded program.

site plan of expanded building use

DESIGN FOR EFFICIENCY: MATERIALS

SELECTION OF EFFECTIVE, COST-EFFICIENT, AND ECOFRIENDLY BUILDING MATERIALS

1 - CROSS-LAMINATED TIMBER

The structural walls of the building will be constructed of CLT, a growing material in the Boston area; the first residential CLT building was constructed in Roxbury in 2020.

Aesthetically, machined wood is fitting for a shop offering wood machining.

Environmentally, Maine produces double the softwoods used annually in New England and full-CLT construction is half as carbon-intensive as concrete.

Economically, the build cost is estimated to be 20% higher than concrete, but I estimate this a necessary compromise.

Acoustically, treated mass timber framing provides excellent noise isolation, which is a must for makerspaces.

The estimated cost of acousticallyreinforced structural CLT framing is ~$60/ gross square foot, plus consultant and labor costs in a CLT-new area.

2 - DOUBLE-PANED GLASS

Windows along the side of the Spacemaker will be constructed of triple-paned glass. Like CLT, this comes at a higher up-front cost than traditional windows, but provides environmental benefits and reduces costs over time.

Simply put, the greatest single percentage of commercial buildings’ upkeep is climate control, and triple-paned windows reduce heat loss (important in a cold-dominant climate) and by corollary carbon/energy expenditure by as much as 30%. Costs should be offset within 25 years of operation.

Additionally, like CLT, multi-pane windows reduce acoustic transmission.

The estimated cost of triple-pane windows is ~$30/square foot, plus labor costs. This product is easily obtainable in Boston.

3 - ALGAE PANELS

Above the building’s movable pods are algae panels; these utilize photosynthesis to produce energy on par with solar panels at a less carbon-intensive environmental cost. These panels will set ambiance through refracted color and enable controlled passive heating within the structures.

Algae is ideal for this locale because it is culturally tied to the Charles River area and because this climate is cold-dominant: tubed algae systems (as opposed to pond systems) generally require cooling and operational water, both of which can be collected onsite.

As of 2019, glass helical tube algae cultivation systems cost ~$377,892/acre.

top: CLT (USAgriculture)

middle: double-paned glass facade (Koreng)

bottom: algae tubing (Hurtog)

EFFICIENCY

LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS - WOOD FLOORING

ANALYZING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF TWO FLOORING ASSEMBLIES

RESULTS BY LIFECYCLE STAGE

Tally, a Revit add-in, analyzes (among other aspects) the expected environmental impact of building assemblies, as organized into different categories of impact: acidification, et cetera. The assembly analyzed here is a CLT base with typical finish, topped by medium-pile high traffic commercial carpet.

Figure 1 shows that the majority of carbon debt from this product is incurred during End of Life and Maitenance. The product itself, being wood, incurs negative carbon debt and offers considerable reuse opportunities (see rightmost column).

Figure 2 reinforces this initial finding and asserts also that that reuse (Module D) will consume a large portion of the product’s total carbon debt.

ITEMIZED LIFECYCLE RESULTS

This chart further specifies the information shown previously, displaying that the majority of maitenance-related carbon debt is incurred by refinishing the wood. Perhaps due to the transiency that requires consistent maitenance, end of life debt for the finish is negligible. Similarly, the wood itself offers more reuse potential than the finish.

EFFICIENCY

LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS - CONCRETE FLOORING

ANALYZING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF TWO FLOORING ASSEMBLIES

RESULTS BY LIFECYCLE STAGE

Tally, a Revit add-in, analyzes (among other aspects) the expected environmental impact of building assemblies, as organized into different categories of impact: acidification, et cetera. The assembly analyzed here is a typical 4000psi concrete base finished with 4” beech flooring.

Both figures show that the majority of the product’s carbon debt is incurred initially (red columns). End of life occupies the second-largest chunk of carbon debt. Small opportunity for reuse results in small consumption of carbon toward this endeavor. Perhaps because carbon is sourced locally and constructed on-site, transportation-related carbon debt is minimal. Upkeep is similarly minimal..

ITEMIZED LIFECYCLE RESULTS

This chart further specifies the information shown previously, displaying that the majority of initial carbon debt is incurred by the concrete. The wood finish offsets this, providing negative carbon debt and reuse opportunity. However, the finish required, which incurs the majority of maitenance-related carbon debt, suggests that the overall ecological impact is debatable.

Perhaps for the same reasons as discussed on the previous page, transportation-related debt is also incurred primarily by the finish.

FLOOR ASSEMBLY

USING EC3 TO EVALUATE MATERIALS

CONCRETE CARBON DEBT

EC3, developed by the Building Transparency Group, is a database of Environmental Product Declarations. Here, it is used to evaluate the previous floor assemblies by embodied carbon.

One concrete company distributes EPDs for 4000 psi concrete in Massachusetts, manufactured in three plants. Their products, on average, embody 359 kgCO2e of carbon / cubic yard.

Concrete: Comparison by Plant (EC3) ->

Concrete: Comparison by Product (EC3)

CLT CARBON DEBT

In the United States, six companies have submitted one CLT EPD each to the EC3 database. The estimate of embodied carbon ranges widely; for analysis, the -196 kgCO2e / cubic yard product from XLAM was selected, as it falls within the 80% confidence range for all EC3 CLT EPDs (what a mouthful that is). The reason for the other EPDs having high embodied carbon is unknown.

Concrete: Comparison by Manufacturer (EC3) ->

CLT: Comparison by Product, USA (EC3)

COMPARISON CHARTS

The below and opposite page charts compare the concrete and wood assemblies by embodied carbon. It should be noted that this comparison is limited to what Tally refers to as the Product stage. However, even thus, the advantage of the CLT assembly is clear.

Concrete and CLT EPD Summary Boxplots (EC3) ->

Comparison of Floor Assemblies by Embodied Carbon (EC3)

PORTFOLIO | PARKER TONISSI

Comparison of Floor Assemblies by Embodied Carbon with LEED Standard (EC3)

PROJECT PERFORMANCE

The AIA Committee on the Environment (CotE) Super Spreadsheet is a tool developed to dynamically aid a sustainable design process.

The Spreadsheet is divided into ten categories which together encompass the AIA’s Framework for Excellence. Each category evaluates an aspect of sustainable building. The Spreadsheet will be used to quantifiably evaluate the sustainability of this case study.

AIA FRAMEWORK FOR EXCELLENCE

> Design for Integration

> Design for Equitable Communities

> Design for Ecosystems

> Design for Water

> Design for Economy

> Design for Energy

> Design for Wellness

> Design for Change

> Design for Discovery

INTEGRATION

THE INTEGRATION SECTION EVALUATES PROJECT GOALS AS RELEVANT TO EACH SUBSEQUENT SECTION.

DESIGN FOR EQUITABLE COMMUNITY

The Spacemaker is a building which aims to provide social fronting and activity in a neighborhood, Mission Hill, populated by liminal renters and multi-family homes. It draws local students and families in with a ‘cool’ atmosphere, cafe, and makerspace functions, and then displays those people and their passions to passersby.

The building’s sustainability is achieved through functions which also enhance user experience: response to sun, reuse of water, flexible floorplan, effective insulation, and natural building materials. The project uses sustainable design features to inspire social activity and neighborhood character.

2 - COMMUNITY

THE COMMUNITY SECTION EVALUATES EASE OF ACCESS AND COMMUNITY DESIGN INPUT.

ECOLOGY

ECOLOGICAL GAINS

This section evaluates how the SpaceMaker responds to various ecological areas of interest, such as bird safety, soil conservation, and most extensively, green cover.

As the site at 5 Calumet Street has been converted from a parking lot, any green area represents ecological gain; however, to experientially extend the adjacent John F. Fitzgerald Park, site area surrounding the SpaceMaker has been converted into a walkable area and planted with native species. These species and specification of UV-resistant glass for the windows draws and protects avian life. This abundant space is allowed by the lack of on-site parking (as the building is designed for local use and governance).

The building also conserves and provides renewable energies: cisterns catch and reuse water; algae panel roofing provides green energy; natural insulation and secure windows mitigate heat loss.

THE ECOLOGY SECTION EVALUATES A PROJECT’S RELATIVE AND LASTING EFFECTS ON LOCAL FAUNA AND FLORA.

THE WATER SECTION EVALUATES THE PROJECT’S CONSUMPTION AND REUSE OF WATER.

These four pages will detail the project’s consumption of water and reaction to the existing water resources.

INDOOR CONSUMPTION

Here, the building’s daily and annual use of water is evaluated. The SpaceMaker, as a commercial, progressive construction, will have installed fixtures with the lowest possible flow rates.

IRRIGATION AND COOLING -->

About 36% of the site area is occupied by vegetation, the majority of which is native plantings, which reduce necessary irrigation. Potable water is not used to irrigate this area. Drip irrigation lines prove more efficient than traditional sprinklers.

WATER RECLAMATION

The SpaceMaker does collect and reuse rainwater in a cistern (see right), but does not collect and reuse grey/black water. The amount of rainwater collected covers the building’s water demand in all months except the hottest.

STORMWATER AND RUNOFF

As noted, the SpaceMaker houses an underground cistern to collect and store rainwater or stormwater, which manages the majority of stormwater on-site. As a vegetated area, as well, the building offers an increase in stormwater retention from the previous condition of hardscaping.

AND

- ECONOMY; ENERGY

CONSIDERATIONS FOR COST BY SPACE;

COST-REDUCTION METHODS

This section considers costs per square foot and methods for reducing costs. The project reduces operating costs by utilizing water reclamation and burning grown algae to harvest energy. Additionally, as a community-operated workspace, the plan is to have members of the facility claim their own lockers or workstations and maintain them with only some help from staff.

ENERGY

Due to a combination of water reclamation and conversion of solar energy to electricity, the SpaceMaker produces a large share of the utilities it uses, gaining ahead of similar buildings for operating costs.

Low window-wall ratios also reduce the amount of energy used heating and cooling the space.

TONISSI

CLIMATE-FLEXIBLE, OCCUPANT-OPERATED WORKSTATIONS

LIGHTING AND MATERIALS

The SpaceMaker Building, as a commercial facility with frequent visitors and industriallike activities, incorporates daylighting and active windows in addition to the active facade. Like this, with movable workstations, occupants have full control over their hobbyist environment. They are able to be in shade, in sunlight, outside, inside, in a breeze, or in the lee. The main circulation passage is adjacent to the main light corridor, as well.

Efforts were made during construction to avoid harmful chemicals and use natural materials where possible (many of the moving parts, unfortunately, are unsuitable for mass timber or other more sustianable construction methods). Notably, algae tubing runs overtop the main workstations, enabling natural light and lending a natural ambiance to the space.

- RESOURCES

SELECTION OF LOCAL AND NECESSARY MATERIALS

STRUCTURAL SYSTEM

The structural underpinnings of the SpaceMaker utilize steel and masonry construction. Steel framing is used for the strength-to-weight ratio necessitated by the majority of the building being movable along tracks embedded into the plaza.

An estimate for the carbon embodied within the building has not been modeled.

OTHER MATERIALS

Masonry was chosen over wood siding or mass timber as the main non-glass facade material in order to fall in line with surrounding brick structures.

The flooring and some architectural details were constructed with mass timber; while the structure does incorporate quasiindustrial hobbyists, no large or heavy objects are expected to be dragged across or impact upon the flooring. The machined nature of mass timber, additionally, thematically meshes with the building purpose.

Recycled carpeting is incorporated along the circulation spine and in the ‘dirty’ makerspace area.

Steel and masonry are locally sourced from Massachusetts retailers.

PARKER TONISSI

COTE resources section continued

DESIGNING FOR CLIMATE, LONGEVITY, AND DISASSEMBLY

CHANGE

With proper maitenance on its moving parts, the SpaceMaker is expected to last upwards of 200 years. The masonry and steel underpinnings play a part in achieving this goal. Also, the movable parts beneath the building are kept in a climate controlled environment to alleviate additional pressures.

As a space intended to be the center of a community, designing for longevity and designing about the hazards present in Boston - temperatures, hail, power outages - makes sense.

Despite this, the structure is still designed to be completely disassembled. As a place

COTE change section

ANALYZING BUILDING PERFORMANCE FOR LATER GENERATIONS

TYPES OF DATA

The project is intended as a scientific community space, a center that practices what it preaches, and thus it only makes sense to collect and publically distribute information on the systems within.

The movable parts and the algae tubing are innovative enought to warrant interest in this set of results. Data will also be collected on healthiness of occupants, precipitation recollection, utility measurements, and indoor air quality.

PARKER TONISSI

COTE discovery section

SUMMARY

DISCUSSION OF THE BUILDINGS’ OVERALL CHARARCTERISTICS

THE BEST

Overall, the project transforms a concrete parking lot into a community center; thus, any gains in green area and resource management are significant.

However, beyond this, the SpaceMaker especially considers water reclamation and reuse, energy use, and the overall modularity of the building. No figures are available for overall energy consumption; however, the other two rate highly in the COTE Spreadsheet.

THE REST

Of supplementary importance are Design for Discovery - distribution of building data - and Design for Wellness - healthy occupant environments.

Ecology and Economy are the least considered areas.

RESULTS

OVERALL PROJECT PERFORMANCE

MEANING

This section reinforces the findings from the summary section, showing which areas of the project were successful, unsuccessful, or not yet considered as measured by the standards of the COTE Super Spreadsheet.

WORKS CITED

Acitelli, T., 2022. How Boston’s neighborhoods got their names. [online] Curbed Boston. Available at https://boston.curbed. com/2018/7/12/17561908/boston-neighborhood-names-origins-history.

Americal Institute of Architects. (2019, January 7). COTE Top Ten Super Spreadsheet. AIA Professional. Retrieved from https://content.aia. org/index.php/node/6093516

Bostonplans.org. 2017. Historical Trends in Mission Hill. [online] Available at https://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/b7e8da4f-17764ec2-857e-1955b788ba74.

Environmental Protection Agency. (2015, June 1). Carbon Footprint Calculator | Climate Change | US EPA. EPA. Retrieved March 15, 2022, from https://www3.epa.gov/carbon-footprint-calculator/.

The Embodied Carbon in Construction Tool, Building Transparency Group, https://buildingtransparency.org/ec3.

Etsy.com. 2022. Cape Cod Beach Photography Sand Dunes Photo With Dune Grass. [online] Available at https://www.etsy.com/ listing/168441657/cape-cod-beach-photography-sand-dunes.

Global Footprint Network. (n.d.). How many planets does it take to sustain your lifestyle? Ecological Footprint Calculator. Retrieved March 15, 2022, from https://www.footprintcalculator.org/home/en.

Griffith, Tim. “Direct Gain: Glazing.” 2030 Palette, Architecture 2030, http://2030palette.org/direct-gain-glazing/.

Google Maps. 2019. 724 Huntington Avenue. [street view] Available at https://goo.gl/maps/C6hWTKBkbs4LpibLA.

Google Maps. 2019. 788 Huntington Avenue. [street view] Available at https://goo.gl/maps/A8Y841sWvf5vbd4n9.

Google Maps. 2019. 75 Francis Street. [street view] Available at https://goo.gl/maps/NLYpUBVQLZYNGkqz6.

Google Maps. 2019. 62 Calumet Street. [street view] Available at https://goo.gl/maps/TNRErprvVzEgv3Mc6.

Heffron, Mark. “Direct Gain: Heat Storage.” 2030 Palette, Architecture 2030, from http://2030palette.org/direct-gain-heat-storage/.

Huntington Avenue, Boston, Mass., October 13, 1939. Historic New England. (n.d.). Retrieved March 15, 2022, from https://www. historicnewengland.org/explore/collections-access/capobject/?refd=PC017.02.020.004.

Hurtog, Jobke Den. “Algae Tubing at Ecoduna Greenhouse.” Hortidaily, 9 Mar. 2018, from https://www.hortidaily.com/article/6041685/ austria-a-greenhouse-filled-with-algae/.

Koreng, Ansgar. “Fassade Wilhelmstrasse 65, Berlin-Mitte, 160417.” Wikipedia, 17 Apr. 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ File:Fassade_Wilhelmstrasse_65,_Berlin-Mitte,_160417,_ako.jpg.

Ofulue, C. (2021, November 4). Redlining in Boston: How the architects of the past have shaped Boston’s future. Retrieved March 16, 2022, from https://www.bostonpoliticalreview.org/post/redlining-in-boston-how-the-architects-of-the-past-have-shaped-boston-s-future.

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. “Is Cross-Laminated Timber the Concrete of the Future?” Archdaily. 19 Aug. 2019, https://www.archdaily. com/922980/is-cross-laminated-timber-clt-the-concrete-of-the-future.