EC3 COMPARISON
CONCRETE FLOOR ASSEMBLY
The charts show the embodied carbon ranges for ready mix concrete.
Most of the manufacturers compared have ECs that fall within the achievable range.
The top 6 products have the lowest ECs.
Generally concrete should be avoided in construction.
Graphs: EC3. [11] 24 ENVIRONMENTAL PORTFOLIO | ROUWA QADOUMI SECTION 02 | CIDER HOUSE STUDY
EC3 COMPARISON
WOOD FLOOR ASSEMBLY
The charts show the embodied carbon ranges for LVL wood structure material.
Most of the manufacturers compared have ECs that fall way above the achievable range and more so closer to the maximum range.
The top 6 products have the highest ECs.
Wood is a highly recommended material in construction.
Graphs: EC3. [11] 25 ENVIRONMENTAL PORTFOLIO | ROUWA QADOUMI SECTION 02 | CIDER HOUSE STUDY
EC3 COMPARISON
WOOD FLOOR ASSEMBLY
The top 6 products have the highest ECs.
Wood is a highly recommended material in construction.
Graphs: EC3. [11] 26 ENVIRONMENTAL PORTFOLIO | ROUWA QADOUMI SECTION 02 | CIDER HOUSE STUDY
WINDOW WALL RATIO
CIDER HOUSE WWR
The image below shows the WWR for each of the elevations in the project.
As you can see the North and East elevations have the highest percentages of windows.
While the South and west elevations have lower window percentages.
A large portion of the windows in the project are not operable, and are only intended to bring in daylight, and a visual connection to the surrounds.
First Floor 24' - 0" First Floor 24' - 0" Ground Floor 12' - 0" First Floor 24' - 0" Ground Floor 12' - 0" First Floor 24' - 0" NORTH ELEVATION TOTAL WALL AREA 657 SQF WINDOW AREA 332 SQF WWR 332/657 = 50% WEST ELEVATION TOTAL WALL AREA 838 SQF WINDOW AREA 185 SQF WWR 185/838 = 22% SOUTH ELEVATION TOTAL WALL AREA 1562 SQF WINDOW AREA 311.5 SQF WWR 311.5/1562 = 20% EAST ELEVATION TOTAL WALL AREA 1018 SQF WINDOW AREA 481.5 SQF WWR 481.5/1018 = 47%
27 ENVIRONMENTAL PORTFOLIO | ROUWA QADOUMI SECTION 02 | CIDER HOUSE STUDY
I believe my design has sufficient natural light due to the amount of exterior glazing (windows, skylights, etc.), And therefore thereby reducing the need for artificial lighting.
But in order to save energy required for cooling the space with a vast amount of glazing, adding vertical and horizontal shading devices is something I will consider.
While curtain walls are not always the best solution having it on the main facade and the stairwell really helped to brighten up the building. And create a unique visual experience.
Image:
[13] 28 ENVIRONMENTAL PORTFOLIO | ROUWA QADOUMI SECTION 02 | CIDER HOUSE STUDY
DAYLIGHT PATTERN GUIDE PATTERN 1 - PLAN
Patterns.
My facades are divided into 2 percentages, the 20% range and the 50% range.
The main reason for that was the different functions within the building, and locations of the windows within these spaces.
I utilized the design of curtain walls in particular spaces within my design, to increase the amount of natural lighting within the space.
And in other spaces where focus and less amount of light is required I put in operable windows for some lighting and air circulation.
Images: Patterns. [13]
DAYLIGHT PATTERN GUIDE PATTERN 2 - SECTION
29 ENVIRONMENTAL PORTFOLIO | ROUWA QADOUMI SECTION 02 | CIDER HOUSE STUDY
Step 2: Review your benchmarks to evaluate your projects performance. Basic Project Information Transportation Project Name Cider House & Neighborhood Center Total Annual 34,585 kg‐CO2e / yr Project Address Calumet st./ Mission Hill Total Annual per Occupant 1,729 kg‐CO2e / occupant / yr apt., suite, etc. City Boston Water State MA Total Annual Water Use 0 gal / yr Zip Code 2120 WUI ‐ Water Use Intensity (Program‐based) 0.0 gal / sf / yr User‐Defined Benchmark Source ASHRAE Climate Zone 5A (Link) WUI ‐ Water Use Intensity (User‐Defined) gal / sf / yr Other Climate Zone (?) Water Use per Occupant 0 gal / occupant / yr Total Building Area(?) 5,600Gross sf Site Area(?) 13,300sf Energy Regularly occupied space (?) 3,000sf Total Annual Energy Use 0 kBtu / yr Avg daily occupancy (?) 20People EUI ‐ Energy Use Intensity (Program‐based) 0.0 kBtu / sf / yr Peak occupancy (?) 50People EUI ‐ Energy Use Intensity (User‐defined) kBtu / sf / yr Use ZeroTool designated EUI FTEs(?) 10People Energy Use per Occupant 0 kBtu / occupant / yr Project completion year 2021 Annual days of operation (?) 365Days Operational Carbon Emissions Avg. daily hours of operation (?) 10hours Total Annual Carbon Emissions 0 kg‐CO2e / yr Total Construction Cost (?) 5,000,000USD Carbon Use Intensity (Program‐based) 0.0 kg‐CO2e / sf / yr User‐Defined Benchmark Source FAR 0.42 Carbon Use Intensity (User‐Defined) kg‐CO2e / sf / yr Cost/sf 892.86 $ Carbon Emissions per Occupant 0 kg‐CO2e / occupant / yr sf/occupant ‐ Avg. 280 sf/occupant ‐ Peak 112 Electric Lighting Annual hours of operation 3,650 Lighting Power Density 0.00 W / sf User‐Defined Benchmark Source Lighting Power Density (User‐Defined) W / sf Building Program Program Breakdown (?) % of Building Area Building Program #1Cider house 50% Building Program #2Restaurant 25% Building Program #3Community Engagment 25% Building Program #4 Building Program #5 Building Program #6 Building Program #7 Building Program #8 Total must equal 100% 100% Additional Building Information Project TypeNew Construction Site Environment(?) Urban Previously Developed SiteNo Is the firm an AIA 2030 Signatory Reported in the AIA DDx Third party rating system 1 Third party rating system 2 Third party rating system 3 If other, specify Step 1: Fill out the below basic information of your project 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 benchmarks can be entered above as a way of tracking any specific benchmarking research that the team conducted. COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET - INTRODUCTION CIDER HOUSE PROJECT INFORMATION 30 ENVIRONMENTAL PORTFOLIO | ROUWA QADOUMI SECTION 03 | COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET
COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET
DESIGNING 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.
District systems. Bioclimatic and passive design.
Water savings, water independence.
Energy savings from transportation and treatment of water.
conservation and life cycle costs. Creating a space for the community’s benefit that is both connected to nature as well as economically beneficial.
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.
Climate change: fires, earthquakes, floods, ocean rise.
User groups, profiles, heat maps. Biodiversity.
Aquifer conservation, surface water quality and enjoyment, watershed protection.
Water resilience. Flooding, precipitation changes, drought.
Mindful presence of water.
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.
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
Building a Cider‐house & community engagement center in Mission Hill, reflecting on the city's history while planing towards a better future. The materials used ar
31 ENVIRONMENTAL PORTFOLIO | ROUWA QADOUMI SECTION 03 | COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET
Building a Cider-house & community engagement center in Mission Hill, reflecting on the city’s history while planing towards a better future. The materials used are locally sourced, taking into consideration energy
Calculators: Enter your values into the yellow cells Reasonable Ranges 1 ‐ Walk / Transit / Bike Score RangeWalk Score Transit ScoreRangeBike Score 0% ‐ 24% Minimal Transit0% ‐ 49%Somewhat Bikeable Walk Score 90% 25% ‐ 49% Some Transit50% ‐ 69%Bikeable Transit Score 89% 50% ‐69% Good Transit70% ‐ 89%Very Bikeable Bike Score 77% 70% ‐ 89% Excellent Transit90% ‐ 100%Biker's Paradise 90% ‐ 100% Rider's Paradise 2 ‐ Community Engagement Type Manipulation00% Poor Community Engagement Level Citizen Control Therapy114% Informing229% Community Engagement Score100% Consultation343% Baseline Placation457% Partnership571% Better Delegation686% Citizen Control7100% Best! 3 ‐ Simple Transportation Carbon Calculator kgs of CO2e/Occupant ProposedBaseline Unit > 1800Baseline Average Daily Occupancy 20 1350 ‐ 1800Getting there No. of occupants commuting by single‐occupancy gas vehicle (?) 7 900 ‐ 1350Better Percent of occupants commuting by single‐occupancy vehicle 35%76%Weekly Avg. 450 ‐ 900High Performing Average round trip commute 1525.4Miles 0 ‐ 450Very High Performing Days Commuting per week 55Days Weeks commuting per year 4050weeks Average Car Fuel Economy(?) 2624.9mpg Average carbon emission per gallon of gasoline 8.898.89 kg‐CO2e / gal Annual transportation carbon per occupant 359 1,729 kg‐CO2e / occupant / yr Annual transportation carbon7,178 34,585 kg‐CO2e / yr Percent reduction over the baseline79.2% Car Dependent Mostly Car Dependent Somewhat Walkable Very Walkable Walker's Paradise Score COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET DESIGNING FOR EQUITABLE COMMUNITIES 32 ENVIRONMENTAL PORTFOLIO | ROUWA QADOUMI SECTION 03 | COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET
COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET
Based on the location and shape of the site and also the building shape, there are many ecological
Located near residential buildings increasing the number of trees to increase privacy will definitely be welcomed and beneficial.
The flat roofs make it possible to have beautiful green roofs that the surrounding houses and buildings will enjoy looking at. Also it will increase the green footprint on the space.
Having such a sloped site, planting different size plants and trees in different zones along this slope will create a visual hierarchy and make the site and project more visually appealing.
Using a verity of plants and trees will attract different species, welcoming more life onto the site.
Enter your values into the yellow cells
Calculators:
sf
sf Site
sf
Increase in Percent of vegetated area17.6% Area of the total site covered by native plants‐ Post Development 2,000 sf Area of the total site covered by turf grass ‐ Post Development ‐ sf Native plantings ‐ Percent of vegetated area85.5% Turf grass ‐ Percent of Site0.0% Native plantings ‐ Percent of site15.0% Intentional design strategies were used to promote: BiodiversityNo Dark SkiesNo Bird SafetyNo Soil ConservationYes Carbon SequestrationNo Habitat Conservation, Flora/FaunaYes Abatement of Specific Regional Environmental ConcernsYes Other:No Ecological Design Score37.5% 3 ‐ Level of Ecological Design 2 ‐ Native Plantings 1 ‐ Vegetated Area Post‐Development Pre‐Development
DESIGNING
ECOLOGY
Green roof area ‐ sf ‐ sf Building footprint area 5,600 sf ‐ sf Surface parking area 1,200 sf 13,300 sf Area of additional on site hardscapes 4,160 sf ‐
Area of the total site that is vegetated 2,340 sf ‐
Area13,300 sf 13,300
Percent vegetated17.6% 0.0%
FOR
opportunities.
33 ENVIRONMENTAL PORTFOLIO | ROUWA QADOUMI SECTION 03 | COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET
SUPER SPREADSHEET
DESIGNING FOR WATER
There is a very good opportunity for water conservation and water reuse in this project. The size of the project, as well as the chosen functions and services in this building resulted in low water consumption, also most of the water consumed can be re-used for irrigation of the plants on site.
The project being located in Boston where this is high volume of rainfall through the year, and the site being such a steep slope, both increase the possibility of rainwater conservation on site.
Planting native species on the site reduce the amount of water needed for irrigation, also helping in the water conservation process.
Rate (GPF|GPM) Usage/ day / occupant Daily Water Use (gal) Annual Water Use
* if no urinal, use toilet value for fixture flow rate Total daily water use 0 gal / day ‐Total annual water use 0 gal / yr
water used for irrigation? Yes
Step 1: Benchmark Water Use Intensity 0.0 gal / sf / yr Daily Avg Occupancy 20 Annual days of operations 365 Step 2: Indoor Water use Flow
(gal) Toilet 1.6 0.0uses 0 0 Urinal* 1 0.0uses 0 0 Shower 0 0.0minutes 0 0 Lavatory 0.5 0.0minutes 0 0 Kitchen faucet 2.2 0.0minutes 0 0
Is potable
Proposed Design Baseline #1: All Turf Baseline #2: All Native Irrigated Area (potable or non‐potable) 2,340sf 2,340 2,340 Summer EvapotranspirationHot Humid8.3 8.3 8.3 Plant Quality Factor (Qf)Water stress0.4 0.4 0.4 Type of plantings (Plant Factor)Native plants0.2 1 0.2 Irrigation efficiencySprinklers on a slope0.6 0.75 0.9 1,613 6,453 1,076
Month Demand1 Potable
Potable2 3 Reclaimed Predicted gal/mo 1 ‐ Predicted and Measured Water Consumption Measured gal/mo 2 ‐ Account for Rainwater and Reclaimed Water (Grey/Black) Step 3: Irrigation Water Use Quick Irrigation Estimation Calculator Calculators: Enter your values into the yellow cells Percent of the buidling cooled by a water‐cooled chiller Cooling tower water use intensity Where strategies taken to conserve cooling tower water? Does the cooling tower use potable water? Assume: 0 water for non‐potable use, 25% less water for conservation strategies.* Total cooling tower water use Proposed Design Comparison
MonthIrrigation Co. gal 75% ‐50% January31% 500.1 February38% 613.1 March60% 968.0 April77% 1,242.3 May88% 1,419.7 June99% 1,597.2 July100% 1,613.3 August100% 1,613.3 September77% 1,242.3 October60% 968.0 November38% 613.1 December30% 484.0 Annual Irrigation Water Use12,874 gal / yr Step 4: Cooling tower 30% 2.1gal / sf / yr 11,760gal / yr Yes 1 Yes 0.75 8,820 gal / yr
3 Reclaimed
COTE
34 ENVIRONMENTAL PORTFOLIO | ROUWA QADOUMI SECTION 03 | COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET
COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET
DESIGNING FOR WATER
As shown there is possibility of managing 50% of the storm-water on site. And the 40% run off can be directed into underground tanks conserving even more water.
January1,235
February1,348
5,652 5,000 2,000 0 5,148 3,000
March1,703 ‐5,297 5,000 2,000 0 5,382 3,000 April1,977 ‐5,023 5,000 2,000 0 5,148 3,000 May2,155 ‐3,545 4,500 1,200 0 4,680 2,000 June2,332 ‐3,368 4,500 1,200 0 4,446 2,000 July2,348 ‐3,352 4,500 1,200 0 4,446 2,000 August2,348 ‐3,352 4,500 1,200 0 4,446 2,000 September1,977 ‐5,023 5,000 2,000 0 5,382 3,000 October1,703 ‐4,297 5,000 1,000 0 5,382 4,000 November1,348 ‐5,152 5,000 1,500 0 5,850 4,000 December1,219
Step 4: Cooling tower 30%
sf / yr
yr Yes
Yes
gal
yr
Demand1 Potable Rainwater3 Reclaimed grey/black3 Potable2 Rainwater3 Reclaimed grey/black3
2.1gal /
11,760gal /
1
0.75 8,820
/
Month
‐5,765 5,000 2,000 0 5,148 3,000
‐
0
‐
Total AnnualPotableRainwaterGrey/BlackTotal Predicted21,694 ‐251.7%267.4%84.4%100.0% Measured96,308 0.0% 63.7% 36.3%100.0% Water Use Summary BenchmarkPredictedImprovementMeasuredImprovement 0 ‐54,606 0 0 ‐2,730 0 0.0 ‐9.8 0 3 ‐ Stormwater Managed On‐site Type of Storm Event2yr‐24hr Storm Event 3.4in Storm Event0.28ft Stormwater Storage 1000cf SurfaceRunoff Co.Area (sf)Stormwater (cf)Total Runoff (cf) Roof0.9 5,600 1,587 1,428 Impervious0.9 5,360 1,519 1,367 Turf0.2 0 ‐ ‐Native Plantings0.05 2,000 567 28 Semi‐Pervious0.5 340 96 48 Sub Total 13,300 3,768 2,871 After Storage 1,871 Percentage of Stormwater Managed On‐site50.3% 4 ‐ Water Runoff Quality 40% Predicted gal/mo Estimated Water Runoff Quality Measured gal/mo 2 ‐ Account for Rainwater and Reclaimed Water (Grey/Black) Estimated Water Runoff Quality Score Percent of the buidling cooled by a water‐cooled chiller Total Annual Potable Water Use (gal / yr) Water Use Intensity (gal / sf / yr) Hardscape Total Annual Water Use per Occupant (gal / occupant / yr) Cooling tower water use intensity Where strategies taken to conserve cooling tower water? Does the cooling tower use potable water? Assume: 0 water for non‐potable use, 25% less water for conservation strategies.* Total cooling tower water use
‐4,781 5,000 1,000
5,850 4,000 Total (gal)21,694
54,606 58,00018,300 0 61,30835,000
35 ENVIRONMENTAL PORTFOLIO | ROUWA QADOUMI SECTION 03 | COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET
DESIGNING FOR ECONOMY
The project is meant to be for the community, the intent is that community members can enjoy and benefit from this project.
A way for us to help them enjoy it is by making it possible and also easy to maintain.
By choosing efficient local materials we save costs and improve insulation as well as building operation and upkeep.
The more efficient we make the building the more the community can enjoy using it & benefit from having it.
1 ‐ Construction cost benchmark Benchmark ‐ Building Type Specific $119.50/ sf Benchmark SourceRS Means Data / Gordian Actual construction cost $892.86/ sf Construction cost reduction from the benchmark ‐647% 2 ‐ Estimated operating cost reduction Operating and maintenance cost reduction strategies: From utility savings $8,035.20/ year Major StrategyEnergy efficint materials and equipment. From cleaning $8,000.00/ year Major StrategyA large percentage of the glazing is fixed, also clear circulation space Durability investments $10,000.00/ year Major StrategyDurable and easy to clean floors and paint. Other / year Major Strategy Other / year Major Strategy Total $26,035.20 / year 3 ‐ Building space efficiency Efficiency ratio Benchmark ‐ Building Type Specific 65% Benchmark SourceGSA Efficiency ratio achieved 78% Major Strategy Efficiency ratio percent improvement 20% Calculators: Enter your values into the yellow cells. Enter non‐numerical data into the green cells.
COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET
36 ENVIRONMENTAL PORTFOLIO | ROUWA QADOUMI SECTION 03 | COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET
DESIGNING FOR ENERGY
The choice of efficient local materials and renewable energy sources within the project helped reduce the consumption while increasing the amount of energy generated.
When building with local materials they are design to withstand local weather, and that reflects on the buildings efficiency.
Paying attention to the type, size and location of windows affect not only the human experience inside the building but also the energy consumption within.
The different types of functions within the building also had an affect on the energy consumption.
January10,360.0 5,490.0 8,000.0 5,000.0 February10,360.0 5,490.0 8,000.0 4,500.0 March10,360.0 5,490.0 9,000.0 6,000.0 April10,360.0 5,490.0 10,000.0 6,560.0 May10,360.0 5,490.0 12,300.0 7,400.0 June10,360.0 5,490.0 12,600.0 8,000.0 July10,360.0 5,490.0 12,500.0 6,800.0 August10,360.0 5,490.0 12,000.0 5,000.0 September10,360.0 5,490.0 10,500.0 5,700.0 October10,360.0 5,490.0 10,000.0 4,600.0 November10,360.0 5,490.0 9,500.0 3,400.0 December 10,360.0 5,490.0 7,000.0 4,000.0
Step 1: Benchmark Benchmark Site EUI0.0kBtu / sf / yr Benchmark Site Annual Energy kBtu / yr Benchmark Operational Carbon Intensity0.0 kg CO2e / sf / yr Benchmark Operational Carbon kg CO2e / yr Step 2: Record Tool Information Was ASHRAE Standard 90.1 used to determine pEUI? What tool was used to model energy? What version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 was used? Other: Other: What is the tool version? Step 3: Record Monthly Data Grid ElectricityNatural Gas District Chilled Water District Steam Onsite Generation (?) Grid ElectricityNatural Gas District Chilled Water District Steam Onsite Generation (?) Month kWh MBtu MBtu kLbs kWh kWh MBtu MBtu Lbs kWh
kBTU Conversion Factor
Total Energy (kBtu/yr)
0 0
0 0
Cost of Energy (per selected unit) $0.12 $0.94 $0.18 $9.39 ‐0.02 $0.12 $0.94 $0.18 $9.39 ‐0.02 District Chilled Water Type (if applicable) Carbon Conversion Factor (kg‐CO2e / kBtu) 0.118 0.053 0.053 0.066 ‐0.118 0.118 0.053 0.053 0.066 0.118 Total Operational Carbon (kg‐CO2e / yr) 50,144 0 0 0 ‐26,57348,967 0 0 027,008 Step 4: Review Outputs Energy PredictedMeasured Operational Carbon PredictedMeasured Gross Annual Consumption (kBtu / yr)424,197414,234 Annual (kg‐CO2e / yr)23,57275,975 Gross Annual Generation (kBtu / yr)224,792228,477 Annual Intensity (kg‐CO2e / sf / yr) 4 14 Net Annual (kBtu / yr)199,405185,757 Percent Reduction from Benchmark Percent of Total Energy from Renewable Energy 53.0% 55.2% Gross Energy Use Intensity (kBtu / sf / yr)75.7 74.0 Cost PredictedMeasured Net per Area (kBtu / sf / yr)35.6 33.2 Net Annual Cost ($)$13,601$13,229 Percent Reduction (Inclusive of Renewables) 2‐ Lighting Power Density (LPD) Installed (LPD)0.80W/sf Benchmark (LPD)0.00W/sf LPD Reduction 3 ‐ Window Wall Ratio (WWR) North0.30 East0.60 South0.50 West0.10 Building Aggregate0.38 Calculators: Enter your values into the yellow cells. Enter non‐numerical data into the green cells Predicted Measured Predicted Measured Yes Other 2,018.0 2016 0 0 Operational Carbon Emission Calculations per EPA Scope I and II Portfolio Manager 1 ‐ Predicted and Measured Energy Consumption Energy Consumption or Generation District Chilled Water ‐ Electric Driven
SUPER SPREADSHEET
Total 124,320 0 0 065,880121,400 0 0 066,960
3.411000.001000.001194.00 3.41 3.411000.001000.00 1.19 3.41
424,197
0224,792414,234
0228,477
COTE
37 ENVIRONMENTAL PORTFOLIO | ROUWA QADOUMI SECTION 03 | COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET
COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET
FOR WELLNESS
When designing the project, the human experience and relationship to the outdoor surroundings was taken into consideration when designing each space in this building.
A clear visual connection, and easy access to the outdoor was looked into. As well as bringing natural sunlight throughout the spaces.
There are operable windows to create indoor/ outdoor experiences within certain spaces in this building.
1 ‐ Quality Views, Operable windows, & Daylighting
area of regularly occupied space3,000sf Percent of building that is regularly occupied54%
with quality
83% Area with
50%
area
Annual Solar Exposure Compliant Area
60% Daylight sensors installed?Yes Are operable windows used?Yes 2 ‐ Occupants Per thermostat, Occupants who can control their own lighting Total accessible thermostats 8Thermostat Occupants per thermostat2.5 Do occupants have task lights?Yes Percent of occupants who control their own light levels20% 3 ‐ CO2 & VOCs Goal Maximum CO2 levels ppm Is CO2 measured? No Maximum Measured CO 2 levels ppm Is VOC measured?No Maximum Measured VOC levels ppb 4 ‐ Number of materials specified that have health certifications OR avoided chemicals of concern Number of materials with health certifications Materials Notable Material 1 Certification Notable Material 2 Certification Notable Material 3 Certification Notable Material 4 Certification Notable Material 5 Certification Number of chemicals of concern that where avoided Chemicals Chemical of concern AVOIDED Standard Chemical of concern AVOIDED Standard Chemical of concern AVOIDED Standard Chemical of concern AVOIDED Standard Chemical of concern AVOIDED Standard Calculators: Enter your values into the yellow cells. Enter non‐numerical data into the green cells
DESIGNING
Total
Area
views2,500sf
operable windows1,500sf
Daylit
(sDA 300/50%)2,000sf 67%
(ASE 1000,250)1,800sf
38 ENVIRONMENTAL PORTFOLIO | ROUWA QADOUMI SECTION 03 | COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET
RESOURCES
The
And while concrete was the main structural material, other supporting materials were chosen to help reduce embodied carbon.
The building was constructed on a parking lot, the asphalt was sent to landfills, but the dirt dug up from the ground however was used on the site to fill other parts of it.
Measure 8 ‐ Resources Explanations PredictedMeasured Annual (kg‐CO2e / yr)23,571.775,974.8 Annual Intensity (kg‐CO2e / sf / yr)4.213.6 Percent Reduction from Benchmark Was embodied carbon modeled?No Total Predicted Embodied Carbon kg CO2e Embodied Carbon Intensity kg CO2e / sf What tool was used? Other: What is the tool version? Is biogenic carbon considered?(?) Yes Indicate the LCA system boundary:YesProduct (A1‐A3) YesEnd of Life (C1‐C4) YesConstruction (A4‐A5) NoBeyond (D) YesUse (B1‐B5) Indicate the LCA scope:YesSubstructure YesMEP Systems NoSuperstructure NoSite/Landscape YesEnclosure No YesInteriors Major Structural System?(?) Major strategy for reducing embodied carbon? Major strategy for reducing embodied carbon? 3 ‐ Number of Materials Specified with EPDs (or similar) Number of materials with EPDs Materials Notable Material 1 Certification Notable Material 2 Certification Notable Material 3 Certification Notable Material 4 Certification Notable Material 5 Certification Notable Material 6 Certification Notable Material 7 Certification Notable Material 8 Certification Notable Material 9 Certification "An Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) is a document that communicates verified, transparent and comparable information about the life‐cycle environmental impact of products." ‐ International EPD System List EPS (or similar certifications) collected for materials used and tally up the total number. There are a variety of tools for estimating the embodied carbon of an entire building. The simplest is Build Carbon Neutral, which only takes a few minutes and inputs. For a more detailed analysis, try Tally or Athena Minimizing the amount of concrete as much as possible The building envelope is wrapped in wood. Concrete 1 ‐ Operational Carbon (Reference from 6‐Energy) 2 ‐ Embodied Carbon Portfolio Manager Calculators: Enter your values into the yellow cells. Enter non‐numerical data into t 23,571.7 4 Other 2,015 Other: 4 ‐ Percent of Reused Floor Area Total floor area reused sf Percent reused 5 ‐ Construction Waste Diverted Percent of construction waste diverted from the landfill How the above was the above number determined? Notable Strategy Notable Strategy Notable Strategy 6 ‐ Recycled Materials, Regional Materials, & Materials with Third Party Certifications Total Construction Cost Total Materials Cost Percent Total cost of recycled materials 0% Total cost of regional materials 80% How much of installed wood is FSC Certified? 67% Notable Reused or Recycled Material Notable Reused or Recycled Material Notable Reused or Recycled Material Notable Regional Material Source Location Notable Regional Material Source Location Notable Regional Material Source Location Calculate or estimate the total value of materials that were recycled, local, or certified by third‐party programs. Local Materials: Don't worry about staying in a specific radius from the site. Use your best judgment to determine which materials were harvested or manufactured "locally" Recycled / Reused Materials: Include all materials that contain some component or ingredient that is reused or recycled. Weighing and recording dumpster fills during construction is best practice, but a good estimate will do as well. How much floor area was already existing? $0 $4,000,000 Most 0 the wood used to build the project the paving/ Hardscape on site Dirt/ soil dug up from the site 0% 50% Estimated $5,000,000 $5,000,000
COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET
choice of efficient local materials that can withstand local weather, and increase the buildings overall efficiency.
39 ENVIRONMENTAL PORTFOLIO | ROUWA QADOUMI SECTION 03 | COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET
COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET CHANGE
Measure 9 ‐ Change Explanations 1 ‐ Local Hazard Research HailNo EpidemicNo EarthquakesNo Social UnrestNo DroughtNo Power OutageNo Extreme TemperaturesYes Grid InstabilityNo FloodingYes Research Score50% 2 ‐ Resiliency Choose passive functionality Relative ranking33% Type of Backup Power Other Percentage of Project Power from On‐site Generation(?) 3 ‐ Building Lifespan Building design lifespan200Years Was the building designed for disassembly?Partially Notable longevity Strategy Notable longevity Strategy Notable longevity Strategy MATERIALS THAT WITHSTAND WEATHEER CHANGES TO LAST LONGER INTIGRATED WITH THE SURROUNDINGS TO BE FUNCTIONAL AND COMFORTABLE Was research conducted on the most likely local hazards? Other: grid/battery 55% DESIGNED TO SERVE MULTIPLE PURPOSES / POSSIBILITY OF REUSE IF NEEDED Choose the most relevant description of passive functionality and type of backup power from the dropdown.
design
based on
design choices such as material durability, functional adaptability,
water management. Calculators: Enter your values into the yellow cells. Enter non‐numerical data into the green cells Passive survivability Choose the local hazards researched
Input the building's design lifespan. The
lifespan is
a variety of
and
spaces
services.
other
ends.
The building was designed to last for a very long time, regardless of its function, it was designed to house different
and
The materials used can be reused in
projects when the lifespan of this building
regional
40 ENVIRONMENTAL PORTFOLIO | ROUWA QADOUMI SECTION 03 | COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET
The building was constructed to withstand different local and
hazards.
DISCOVERY
While this project was never really built I filled out this sheet using the
that I believe I would have used had it been completed and occupied. Post occupancy studies really help us designers learn from our failures and successes in our designs, in designing better future projects.
1 ‐ Level of Commissioning Basic CommissioningYes Enhanced Commissioning (Third Party)Yes Continuous CommissioningYes Monitoring‐Based CommissioningNo Enclosure CommissioningYes Commissioning Score80% 2 ‐ Level of Post Occupancy Engagement Contact the owner / Occupant to see how things are goingYes Formal post occupancy air quality testingNo Obtain utility bill to determine actual performanceYes Data logging of indoor environmental measurementsYes Survey building occupants on satisfactionNo Post occupancy energy analysisNo Formal onsite daylight measurementsYes Develop and share strategies to improve the building's PerformanceYes Share collected data with building occupantsYes Teach occupants and operators how to improve building performance Yes Post Occupancy Evaluation Score70% 3 ‐ Level of Transparency Present the design of the project to the officeYes Present outcomes and lessons learned to the office Yes Present the design of the project to the professionNo Present outcomes and lessons learned to the profession Yes Present the design of the project to the publicYes Present outcomes and lessons learned to the public Yes Publish post occupancy data from the buildingYes Publish any lessons learned from design, construction, or occupancyYes other: other: Transparency Score70% 4 ‐ Level of Occupant Feedback Choose one Feedback Score100% Who has access to performance feedback? All occupants are presented with feedback Which of the following did you do to stay engaged with the building? Which of the following did you do to share the lessons of the project? Calculators: Enter your values into the yellow cells. Enter non‐numerical data into the green Which of the following did you do to stay engaged with the building?
COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET
41 ENVIRONMENTAL PORTFOLIO | ROUWA QADOUMI SECTION 03 | COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET
strategies
SUMMERY
Looking at the overall summery of all the different aspects analyzed I can say that the strongest aspects of the design is designing for economy, wellness and change.
COTE_Super_Spreadsheet_Version_2.3
Cider house project.xlsx Measure
COTE SUPER
SPREADSHEET
‐
1 ‐
2 ‐ Design
Walk
0.9 Transit
0.89 Bike
0.77
100% Transportation
‐
7,178 kg
year
3 ‐ Design for Ecology
of
‐ Post‐Development 18% Percent
‐ Pre‐Development 0% Increase
18% Percent
15% Percent
85% Ecological
38%
Annual
Use per Occupant ‐2,730 gal / occupant / year
‐7.5 gal
‐
267% %
The weakest was designing for ecology and the resources used, meaning I will definitely consider them a little closer in the next project. 84% %
Design for Integration Measure
for Community
Score
Score
Score
Community Engagement Level
Carbon
Total Annual
CO2e /
Measure
Percent
Site Vegetated
of Site Vegetated
in Percent of Site Vegetated
of Site with Native Plantings
of Vegetated Area with Native Plantings
Design Score
Total
Potable Water
Total Daily Potable Water Use per Occupant
/ occupant / day Potable Water Use Intensity
9.8 gal / sf / day Percent Rainwater Use
of total water use from collected rainwater Percent Grey/Black Water Use
of total water use from grey or blackwater Potable Water Use Reduction
0 gal / occupant / year Total
0.0 gal
day Potable
0.0 gal
sf
day Percent
Use 64% % total water use
Percent
36% % total water use
Potable Water Use Reduction Potable Water Used
Irrigation Yes Rainwater
‐Site 50% Estimated Runoff Quality 40% Measure 5 ‐ Design for Economy Actual construction cost $893 Dollar (USD) / sf Benchmark Construction cost $120 Dollar (USD) / sf Construction cost Reduction from the Benchmark ‐647% Efficiency Ratio Achieved 78% Net to Gross Efficiency Ratio Percent Improvement 20% Measure 6 ‐ Design for Energy Net site EUI 35.6 kBtu / sf / yr Gross site EUI 75.7 kBtu / sf / yr Net Energy Use Reduction from Benchmark Operational Carbon Emissions per Area 4 kg‐CO2e / sf / yr Percent from Renewable Energy 53% Percent Operational Carbon Reduction from Benchmark Net site EUI 33.2 kBtu / sf / yr Gross site EUI 74.0 kBtu / sf / yr Net Energy Use Reduction from Benchmark Operational Carbon Emissions per Area 14 kg‐CO2e / sf / yr Percent from Renewable Energy 55% Measured Measure 4 ‐ Design for Water Predicted Measured Predicted 42 ENVIRONMENTAL PORTFOLIO | ROUWA QADOUMI SECTION 03 | COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET
Total Annual Potable Water Use per Occupant
Daily Potable Water Use per Occupant
/ occupant /
Water Use Intensity
/
/
Rainwater
from collected rainwater
Grey/Black Water Use
from grey or blackwater
for
Managed On
Measure 5 ‐ Design for Economy Actual construction cost $893 Dollar (USD) / sf Benchmark Construction cost $120 Dollar (USD) / sf Construction cost Reduction from the Benchmark ‐647% Efficiency Ratio Achieved 78% Net to Gross Efficiency Ratio Percent Improvement 20% Measure 6 ‐ Design for Energy Net site EUI 35.6 kBtu / sf / yr Gross site EUI 75.7 kBtu / sf / yr Net Energy Use Reduction from Benchmark Operational Carbon Emissions per Area 4 kg‐CO2e / sf / yr Percent from Renewable Energy 53% Percent Operational Carbon Reduction from Benchmark Net site EUI 33.2 kBtu / sf / yr Gross site EUI 74.0 kBtu / sf / yr Net Energy Use Reduction from Benchmark Operational Carbon Emissions per Area 14 kg‐CO2e / sf / yr Percent from Renewable Energy 55% Percent Operational Carbon Reduction from Benchmark Lighting Power Density 0.80 W/sf Lighting Power Density % Reduction Window to Wall Ratio 38% Measure 7 ‐ Design for Wellness Quality views 83% % occupied area Operable windows 50% % occupied area Daylit area (sDA 300/50%) 67% % occupied area ASE Compliant Area (ASE 1000,250) 60% % occupied area Individual thermal control 2.5 Occupants per thermostat Individual lighting control 20% % occupants who control their own lighting Peak measured CO2 0 ppm Peak measured VOC 0 ppb Materials with health certifications 0 Materials Chemicals of Concern Avoided 0 Chemicals Measure 8 ‐ Design for Resources Embodied carbon intensity 4.2 kg‐C02e / sf Total embodied carbon 23,572 kg‐C02e Embodied carbon modeled No Y/N Biogenic carbon considered? Yes Y/N Number of EPDs Collected 0 Percent of reused floor area 0% Percent of construction waste diverted 50% Percent of recycled content of building materials 0% Percent of regional materials 80% Percent of installed wood that is FSC Certified 67% Measure 9 ‐ Design for Change Local Hazard Research Score 50% Functionality Without Power (Resiliency) Score 33% Building Design Lifespan 200 Years Measure 10 ‐ Design for Discovery Level of Commissioning Score 80% Level of Post Occupancy Evaluation Score 70% Level of Knowledge Distribution / Transparency Score 70% Level of Feedback (Ongoing discovery) 100% Predicted Measured COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET SUMMERY 43 ENVIRONMENTAL PORTFOLIO | ROUWA QADOUMI SECTION 03 | COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET
COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET
RESULTS
The carbon footprint of this building may not be the best, and I would reconsider using it next time, but the overall performance of the building I believe is great.
Seeing it all in numbers definitely puts things into perspective when deciding on how to design moving forward.
This page compares metrics against their benchmark along a scale from "Baseline" to "Very High Performance"
Measure 2: Design For Community
Walk Score 0% 100%
90%
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%
100% 77% 89% 18% 0% 15% 85%
Percent of Vegetated Area with Native Plantings 0% 100%
Ecological Design Score 0% 100%
18% 38%
Measure 4: Design For Water 0 50%
Predicted Measured
Potable water reduction 0% 100% Potable Water Used for Irrigation Yes (0) No (1) Rainwater Managed On‐Site 0% 100%
Measure 5: Design For Economy
Estimated Runoff Quality 0% 100% \
40%
Construction cost Reduction from the Benchmark 0% >50% Efficiency ratio percent improvement 0% >50%
Measure 6: Design For Energy
20% ‐647%
Predicted Measured
Net energy reduction from Benchmark 0% 105% Percent from renewable energy 0% 53% 55% 100%
Percent Operational Carbon Reduction from Benchmark0% 100%
Lighting Power Density % Reduction 0% 75%
Measure 7: Design For Wellness 0
Quality views 0% 100%
Operable windows 0% 100% Daylit area (sDA 300/50%) 0% 100%
83% 50% 67%
ASE Compliant Area (ASE 1000,250) 0% 100%
0
Is CO2 Measured? No (0) Yes (1)
0
Is VOC measured? No (0) Yes (1)
0
Materials with health certifications 0 10+
Chemicals of Concern Avoided 0 10+
Embodied carbon intensity (kg‐C02e / sf)
Total embodied carbon (kg‐C02e)
Measure 8: Design For Resources 4.21 23,572 0 1
Embodied carbon modeled No (0) Yes (1)
Biogenic carbon considered? No (0) Yes (1)
Percent of reused floor area 0% 100%
60% 0%
44 ENVIRONMENTAL PORTFOLIO | ROUWA QADOUMI SECTION 03 | COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET
Operational
Lighting Power Density % Reduction 0% 75%
Measure 7: Design For Wellness 0
Operable windows 0% 100% Daylit area (sDA 300/50%) 0% 100%
ASE Compliant Area (ASE 1000,250) 0% 100%
Is CO2 Measured? No (0) Yes (1)
Overall
I believe I have some very strong aspects in the design, I just need to improve and alter some of the weaker ones to make it a more sustainable project.
This page compares metrics against their benchmark along a scale from "Baseline" to "Very High Performance"
Is VOC measured? No (0) Yes (1)
Materials with health certifications 0 10+
Chemicals of Concern Avoided 0 10+
Measure 8: Design For Resources
Measure 2: Design For Community
Embodied carbon intensity (kg‐C02e / sf)
Walk Score 0% 100%
Total embodied carbon (kg‐C02e)
Transit Score 0% 100% Bike Score 0% 100%
Embodied carbon modeled No (0) Yes (1)
Biogenic carbon considered? No (0) Yes (1)
Community Engagement Level 0% 100%
Percent of reused floor area 0% 100%
Measure 3: Design For Ecology
Percent of construction waste diverted 0% 100%
Percent of Site Vegetated ‐ Post‐Development 0% 100%
Percent of recycled content of building materials 0% 100%
Percent of Site Vegetated ‐ Pre‐Development 0% 100%
Percent of regional materials 0% 100%
Vegetated area increase 0% 100%
Percent of installed wood that is FSC Certified 0% 100%
Measure 9: Design For Change
Percent of Site with Native Plantings 0% 100%
Percent of Vegetated Area with Native Plantings 0% 100%
Local Hazard Research Score 0% 100%
Ecological Design Score 0% 100%
I haven't thought about it. CARBON OVER TIME: Carbon Calculations Total kg of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents from: Lifespan Commute/yearEnergy/yearBuilding Materials Total
18% 38%
Measure 4: Design For Water 0 50%
Predicted Measured
Functionality Without Power (Resiliency) Score 0% 100%
Building Design Lifespan 30 200
Measure 10: Design For Discovery
Potable water reduction 0% 100%
Potable Water Used for Irrigation Yes (0) No (1) Rainwater Managed On‐Site 0% 100%
Level of Commissioning Score 0% 100%
Level of Post Occupancy Evaluation Score 0% 100%
Measure 5: Design For Economy
Estimated Runoff Quality 0% 100% \
Level of Knowledge Distribution / Transparency Score 0% 100%
Level of Feedback (Ongoing discovery) 0% 100%
70% 100% 60% 0% 50% 0% 80% 70% 67% 0 200 33% 50%
Construction cost Reduction from the Benchmark 0% >50% Efficiency ratio percent improvement 0% >50%
Measure 6: Design For Energy
Predicted Measured
Net energy reduction from Benchmark 0% 105%
Percent from renewable energy 0% 53% 55% 100%
Total Percentage of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents from: Lifespan Commute/yearEnergy/yearBuilding Materials Total 1Year6.7% 71.2% 22.1% 100.0% Commute/year 7% Energy/year 71% Building Materials 22% Cumulative carbon after 1 year occupancy Commute/year 9% Energy/year 91% Building Materials 0% Cumulative carbon over building life
Percent Operational Carbon Reduction from Benchmark0% 100%
from: Lifespan Commute/yearEnergy/yearBuilding
Lighting Power Density % Reduction 0% 75%
Measure 7: Design For Wellness 0
Quality views 0% 100%
Operable windows 0% 100% Daylit area (sDA 300/50%) 0% 100%
83% 50% 67%
ASE Compliant Area (ASE 1000,250) 0% 100%
Is CO2 Measured? No (0) Yes (1)
0
Is VOC measured? No (0) Yes (1)
Materials with health certifications 0 10+
Chemicals of Concern Avoided 0 10+
Embodied carbon intensity (kg‐C02e / sf)
Total embodied carbon (kg‐C02e)
Embodied carbon modeled No (0) Yes (1) Biogenic carbon considered? No (0) Yes (1)
Percent of reused floor 0% 100% 60% 0% 0 20% ‐647% 40% 100% 77% 89% 18% 0% 15% 85% 90%
Measure 8: Design For Resources 4.21 23,572 0 1 Percent
0 Carbon Reduction from Benchmark0% 100%
Quality views 0% 100%
0 80%
4.21 23,572 0 1 0 83% 50% 67% THE BIG IDEA: Hmm…
Carbon Calculations Total kg of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents
Materials Total
Total Percentage of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents from: Lifespan Commute/yearEnergy/yearBuilding Materials Total 1Year6.7% 71.2% 22.1% 100.0% 20Year8.5% 90.1% 1.4% 100.0% 100Year8.6% 91.1% 0.3% 100.0% 200Year8.6% 91.2% 0.1% 100.0% Design 0Year8.6% 91.2% 0.1% 100.0% Commute/year 7% Energy/year 71% Building Materials 22% Cumulative carbon after 1 year occupancy Commute/year 9% Energy/year 91% Building Materials 0% Cumulative carbon over building life COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET
45 ENVIRONMENTAL PORTFOLIO | ROUWA QADOUMI SECTION 03 | COTE SUPER SPREADSHEET
1Year7,178 75,975 23,572 106,724 20Year143,5591,519,497 23,572 1,686,628 100Year717,7967,597,483 23,572 8,338,851 200Year1,435,59215,194,96623,572 16,654,130 Design 200Year1,435,59215,194,96623,572 16,654,130
THE BIG IDEA: Hmm… haven't thought about it. CARBON OVER TIME:
1Year7,178 75,975 23,572 106,724 20Year143,5591,519,497 23,572 1,686,628 100Year717,7967,597,483 23,572 8,338,851 200Year1,435,59215,194,96623,572 16,654,130 Design 200Year1,435,59215,194,96623,572 16,654,130
RESULTS
REFERENCES
1. The Boston Globe. (2017, February 14). What is it like to live in Mission Hill? - , Location, location - Boston com real estate. Boston.com. Retrieved March 15, 2022, from http://realestate.boston.com/location-location-location/2017/02/14/like-live-mission-hill/
2. Climate consultant 6. Software Informer. (n.d.). Retrieved March 15, 2022, from https://climate-consultant.informer.com/
3. 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/
4. Gehrman, E. (2013, October 27). A field guide to local architecture - The Boston Globe. BostonGlobe.com. Retrieved March 15, 2022, from http://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2013/10/26/house-styles-new-england-greek-revival-italianate-andmore/6zddJvpf0kN9Y0OnzOHRnM/story.html
5. How many planets does it take to sustain your lifestyle? Ecological Footprint Calculator. (n.d.). Retrieved March 15, 2022, from https:// www.footprintcalculator.org/home/en
6. Johnson, M. (2020, January 13). So you want to live in Mission Hill. Boston Magazine. Retrieved March 15, 2022, from https://www. bostonmagazine.com/property/neighborhood-guide-mission-hill/
7. Mission Hill neighborhood in Boston. Walk Score. (n.d.). Retrieved March 15, 2022, from https://www.walkscore.com/MA/Boston/Mission_ Hill
8. Salem Marine National Historic Site. (2008). In Architecture in Salem: A guide to four centuries of design. essay.
9. “GIS Maps.” Neighborhood Maps | Boston Planning & Development Agency. Accessed February 12, 2022. http://www.bostonplans. org/3d-data-maps/gis-maps/neighborhood-maps.
10. “RSMEANS Data: Construction Cost Estimating Software.” RSMeans Construction Cost Database. Accessed April 17, 2022. https://www. rsmeans.com/.
11. EC3. Accessed April 24, 2022. https://buildingtransparency.org/ec3/users/me.
12. “Tally®.” Tally® | Revit | Autodesk App Store. Accessed April 26, 2022. https://apps.autodesk.com/RVT/en/Detail/ Index?id=3841858388457011756&utm_medium=website&utm_source=archdaily.com.br.
13.“Patterns.” Patterns | Daylighting Pattern Guide. Accessed May 10, 2022. https://patternguide.advancedbuildings.net/patterns.html.
47 ENVIRONMENTAL PORTFOLIO | ROUWA QADOUMI SECTION 04 | BIBLIOGRAPHY
