MATTHEW WONG | FINAL PROJECT PRESENTATION

CN TOWER LAKE ONTARIO GARDINER EXPRESSWAY

“OLD TORONTO”

EAST BAY FRONT WEST PRECINCT

SITE DESIGN

PHASE 1

ZONING BYLAWS FOR THE SITE WERE ANALYZED TO DETERMINE THE MAXIMUM VOLUME ALLOWED.

TWRC EAST BAYFRONT WEST

BUILDING TYPOLOGY: MID-RISE

MAX HEIGHT: 50M

BASE BUILDING HEIGHT: 12M (MIN)

STREET FRONT SETBACK: 0.15M (MAX)

SETBACK ABOVE 12M HEIGHT: 5 FROM LOT LINE

PHASE 3

FURTHER MASSING SUBTRACTION TO ISOLATE PODIUM LEVEL AND RESIDENTIAL TOWER TOWARDS QUEENS QUAY EAST. TOWER MASSING KEPT AND ANGLED TO FACE LAKE ONTARIO AND SHERBOURNE PARK. PODIUM LEVEL ALSO CONTINUES SIMILAR MASSING LANGUAGE FROM GEORGE BROWN COLLEGE JUST SOUTH OF SITE.

PHASE 4

TOWER MASSING OFFSET 5M FROM FRONT STREET PROPERTY LINE AND WEST PROPERTY LINE TO EMPHASIZE PODIUM LEVEL. THE TOWER ALSO LINES UP TO NEIGHBOURING BULIDING TO THE WEST OF SITE.

PHASE 5

PASSIVE DESIGN INTENTION ALONG TOWER TO CREATE MORE SURFACE AREA FACING THE SOUTH FOR SOLAR ENERGY PURPOSES (I.E. PV PANELS).

PHASE 5

CURVES INTRODUCED AS PART OF DESIGN CONCEPT ALONG EDGES FACING THE INTERIOR PORTION OF THE SITE.

PHASE 6

LEVELS CARVED OUT FOR EACH MASS TO REFLECT PROGRAMMATIC LAYOUT. PODIUM LEVEL INCLUDES COMMERCIAL PUBLIC SPACES, WHILE THE TOWER INCLUDES RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AND THE TOP FLOOR A LABORATORY.

PHASE 7

PODIUM LEVEL OFFSET INSIDE TO EMPHASIZE MAIN BULIDING ENTRANCE.

PHASE 8

TOWER LEVEL FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS STAGGERED OUTWARDS IN A “WAVE FASHION” TO FURTHER THE DESIGN CONCEPT AS WELL AS INTRODUCE MORE RESIDENTIAL UNITS.

THIS ALSO CREATE A GREATER SURFACE AREA FACING SOUTH FOR PASSIVE/ACTIVE SOLAR ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES.

GARDINER EXPRESSWAY

LAKE ONTARIO

SHERBOURNE PARK

SUGAR BEACH

IMPORTANT GREEN SPACE WIITH INTENSIONS OF OPENING UP VISUAL CONNECTION TO LAKE ONTARIO

PUBLIC WATER EDGE CIRCULATION DEVELOP A CONTINOUS AND ACTIVE PUBLIC WATER EDGE

EXTENDED PATH TO WATERFRONT

THE DIVISION IN THE MASSING INTRODUCES MORE NATURAL CIRCULATION TO THE WATERFRONT EDGE

MAIN E-W CIRCULATION SPINE

DESIRED LINE PATH

SINCE SHERBOURNE PARK IS AN IMPORTANT PUBLIC SPACE IN THE EAST BAY FRONT, THE PLANS ACCOUNTED FOR THIS NATURAL CIRCULATION PATH TO BRING PEOPLE TO THE PARK THROUGH THE SITE

STREET FRONT CONTINUITY

THE BUILDING WAS INTENTIONALLY PUSHED TOWARDS THE EDGE OF THE PROPERTY TO NOT ONLY KEEP THE STREET LINE, BUT TO ALSO MAXIMIZE PROGRAM SPACE ON SITE.

ROOF PLANE CONTINUITY

THE CURVES IN THE DESIGN CREATE A SMOOTH / GRADUAL TRANSITION ALONG THE STREET FRONT BETWEEN SHERBOURNE PARK AND THE SURROUNDING CONTEXT. IT ALSO HELPS TO PUT EMPHASIS ON DRAWING PUBLIC CIRCULATION TOWARDS THE SITE AND THROUGH THE BULIDING OR TOWARDS THE WATERFRONT EDGE.

SIGHT LINES

A TALL DESIGN WAS CONSIDERED TO KEEP UNOBSTRUCTED VIEWS TO LAKE ONTARIO AND SHERBOURNE PARK

SUN PATH

THE TALL DESIGN AND CURVED FORM MAXIMIZES SOLAR RADIANCE EXPOSURE ALONG THE BUILDING TO ALLOW FOR SUSTAINABLE OPPORTUNITIES, SUCH AS SOLAR CHIIMNEY’S, RAIN WATER HARVESTING AND PV PANELS.

FLOOR PLANS

1.

LEVEL 10

1. MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE

ELEVATIONS

BRICK MASONRY

ALUMINUM PANELS

FIBER CEMENT PANELS

FLY-BY CURTAIN WALL

WHITE TEXTURE TOWARDS STREET FRONT FOR ACCENT ARCH AND BALCONY TO EMPHASIVE CURVE ALONG MAIN STREET QUEEN QUAY EAST.

DARK GREY AT BACK TO MATCH BRICK MASONRY TO FURTHER EMPHASIZE CURVE ON ELEVATION.

DARK GREY BRICK FOR CORE TO FURTHER EMPHASIZE CURVE ON ELEVATION.

LIGHT TEXTURE FOR FLOOR 1 TO 3 WRAP AROUND 2ND FLOOR BELT.

SOLAR ANALYSIS

THERMAL MASS

WALLS IN SOLAR CHIMNEY’S WILL HEAT UP AIR TO CAUSE NATURAL AIR CONVECTION CIRCULATION THROUGHOUT BUILDING.

LEARNING SPACES

SPACES STAGGER AS YOU MOVE UP BULIDING FOR DYNAMIC EXPERIENCE AND VARYING VIEWS FOR USERS.

WALLS

TRANSPARENT PV PANELS

AMORPHOUS SILICON PHOTOVOLTAIC GLASS BY ONYX.

THESE PV PANELS WOULD BE UTILIZED FOR ALL AREAS THAT REQUIRE VIEWS (I.E. LEARNING SPACES ON RESIDENTIAL FLOORS, LAB, ETC.)

BI-FACIAL PV PANELS

DOUBLE SIDED ENERGY GENERATING PANELS TO BE UTILIZED IN ALL AREAS WHERE THERE ARE REFLECTIVE SURFACES BEHIND.

SOLID HIGH EFFICIENCY PV PANELS

TO BE UTILIZED ON HIGHEST POINT OF ROOF WHERE VIEWS AREN’T NECESSARY AND MAXIMUM SOLAR EXPOSURE OCCURS.

SYSTEM ANALYSIS

STRUCTURAL SPINE DETAIL

RENDERS

THE END

TOP HORIZONTAL MULLION WITH METAL COPING FINISH

FLY BY CURTAIN WALL PARAPET / GAURD RAIL

VERTICAL MULLION WITH INTERNAL STRUCTURAL REINFORCING POST

DEAD LOAD SHIM STACK

METAL COUNTER FLASHING

CONCRETE CURB

CAP SHEET MEMBRANE GRAVEL OR PAVERS

SOPRAFLOR GROWING MEDIUM METAL CURB VEGETATION (GRASS)

BASE SHEET MEMBRANE SOPRADRAIN ECO-5 MICROFAB MEMBRANE

SUPPORT PANEL SHEATHING

A.W.V. BARRIER ROOF MEMBRANE 5" RIGID INSULATION (EPS)

FIRE STOP INSULATION, SMOKE AND COMPARTMENTALIZATION SEAL

CURTAIN WALL MOUNTING ANCHOR

REINFORCED TWO WAY CONCRETE SLAB

SPANDREL PANEL SHADOW BOX WITH SEMI RIGID INSULATION

INTEGRATED MOUNTING JOINT IN VERTICAL MULLION

SUSPENDED WOOD CEILING PANELS

UNITIZED DOUBLE GLAZED CURTAIN WALL ASSEMBLY

HSS FLOOR TO FLOOR TRUSS (TOP) WITH FIRE RATED INTUMESCENT PAINT FINISH

VERTICAL ALUMINUM LOUVRES

0.30

0.50

VERTICAL MULLION

HSS FLOOR TO FLOOR TRUSS (BOTTOM) WITH FIRE RATED INTUMESCENT PAINT FINISH AND SEATING OPPORTUNITY 0.50

VERTICAL ALUMINUM LOUVRES

UNITIZED DOUBLE GLAZED CURTAIN WALL ASSEMBLY

INTEGRATED MOUNTING JOINT IN VERTICAL MULLION

INTERIOR CERAMIC TILE FLOOR FINISH

REINFORCED TWO WAY CONCRETE SLAB

FIRE STOP INSULATION, SMOKE AND COMPARTMENTALIZATION SEAL

STEEL FORMED L BRACKET

CURTAIN WALL MOUNTING ANCHOR SPANDREL PANEL SHADOW BOX WITH SEMI RIGID INSULATION

REINFORCED CANTINLEVERED CONCRETE BEAM

EIFS SUSPENSION TIES

FULLY ADHERED A.W.V. MEMBRANE

SUSPENDED EIFS PANEL WITH 5" RIGID INSULATION

WOOD LAMINA FINISH

SEALANT ON BACKER ROD

SEMI RIGID INSULATION

FORMED TERMINATION PANEL

INTERIOR CERAMIC TILE FLOOR FINISH

TEMPERED GLASS GUARD RAIL 1.10

REINFORCED TWO WAY CONCRETE SLAB

STEEL STAND OFF CONNECTION BOLTS FOR GUARD RAIL (X4 / PANE)

2"x4" STEEL STUDS BEAM FURRING 5/8" GWB DRYWALL WITH PAINT FINISH

REINFORCED CONCRETE CANTILEVERED BEAM

REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAM

FULLY ADHERED A.W.V. MEMBRANE

STEEL TOP PLATE RUNNER 2"x6" STEEL STUDS OFFSET 4" FROM COLUMN

REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMN IN DISTANCE ALIGNED TO BEAM ABOVE

SUSPENDED EIFS PANEL WITH 5" RIGID INSULATION + RECESSED EDGE FOR CONCEALED LIGHT FIXTURE

CONCEALED LINEAR LED STOFIX VERTICAL L RAIL STOFIX WALL NON CONDUCTIVE BRACKET

5" RIGID INSULATION (EPS)

CEMENT

WOOD LAMINA FINISH

REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMN IN DISTANCE ALIGNED TO BEAM ABOVE

2"x6" STEEL STUDS OFFSET 4" FROM COLUMN

STOFIX WALL NON CONDUCTIVE BRACKET

STOFIX VERTICAL L RAIL EQUITONE FIBER CEMENT PANEL

FLASHING SYSTEM DRIP EDGE (ABOVE GRADE)

STEEL BOTTOM PLATE RUNNER

5/8" GWB DRYWALL WITH PAINT FINISH

4" REINFORCED CONCRETE SLAB AT GRADE WITH POLISHED FINISH

5" RIGID INSULATION (EPS) A.W.V. MEMBRANE (POLY)

8" GRAVEL

CONCRETE BENCH WITH WOOD SEATING SURFACE

PVC UNDERDRAIN PIPE FOR RAIN WATER HARVESTING

GEOTEXTILE MATERIAL ON SUBGRADE MATERIAL SLOPED TO DRAIN

PERMEABLE BASE AGGREGATE PERMEABLE SUBBASE AGGREGATE

1.5" PERMEABLE SETTING BED AGGREGATE

PERMEABLE JOINT OPENING AGGREGATE

UNILOCK PERMEABLE PAVER

WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE 5" RIGID INSULATION (EPS)

REINFORCED FOUNDATION WALL 4' BELOW GRADE TO FROST LINE DEPTH

DATE

CIP CONCRETE FINISH

REINFORCED CONCRETE STRIP FOOTING (8"-16") WEEPING TILE AND GRANULAR BACKFILL

EQUITONE FIBER CEMENT PANEL

5/8" GWB DRYWALL WITH PAINT FINISH

2"x6" STEEL STUDS OFFSET 4" FROM COLUMN

5" RIGID INSULATION (EPS)

STOFIX VERTICAL L RAIL

STOFIX WALL NON CONDUCTIVE BRACKET

A.W.V. MEMBRANE SPLITS (WATER BARRIER OUTSIDE, AIR BARRIER INSIDE)

DRAINAGE PLANE LAPS OVER HEAD FLASHING BACK DAM

DRAINAGE PLANE LAPS OVER HEAD FLASHING BACK DAM

STEEL BOTTOM PLATE RUNNER FOR ROUGH WINDOW OPENING

2 LAYER 1/2" PLYWOOD BACKING

AIR SEAL FOR A.W.V. SPLIT AIR MEMBRANE

TRIPLE GLAZED ALUMICOR RAINBLADE 1900 SERIES WINDOW

AIR SEAL FOR SUB SILL FLASHING TO A.W.V. MEMBRANE

WOOD SILL

2 LAYER 1/2" PLYWOOD BACKING

STEEL TOP PLATE RUNNER FOR ROUGH WINDOW OPENING

A.W.V. MEMBRANE

RAIN SHEDDING FLASHING SILL

5" RIGID INSULATION (EPS)

5/8" GWB DRYWALL WITH PAINT FINISH

2"x6" STEEL STUDS OFFSET 4" FROM COLUMN

STOFIX WALL NON CONDUCTIVE BRACKET

STOFIX VERTICAL L RAIL

EQUITONE FIBER CEMENT PANEL

SYSTEMS

PASSIVE STRATEGIES

PASSIVE VENTILATION STRATEGY

TWO ANGLED SOLAR CHIMNEYS ARE LOCATED ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF THE BUILDING THAT CONNECT THE ATRIUM TO THE ROOF. THIS DESIGN ALLOWS FOR MAXIMUM SOLAR GAIN ALONG THE SOUTHERN AND EASTER FACADE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. AS THE SUN MAKE DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE SOLAR MASSES WITHIN THE CHIMNEY (HIGHLIGHTED IN RED), THE AIR WITHIN BEGINS TO HEAT UP AND CAUSE AN UP DRAFT. THIS STRATEGY IS THEN COMBINED WITH SENSOR CONTROLLED DAMPERS TO ALLOW FOR NATURAL CROSS VENTILATION.

SUMMER & WINTER STRATEGY

6 SENSOR-CONTROLLED DAMPERS ARE LOCATED THROUGH OUT THE BUILDING AND OPEN DEPENDING ON THE TEMPERATURE OUTSIDE. DAMPER A+B ARE LOCATED ON LEVEL 1 TO ALLOW FOR THE EAST/WEST WINDS TO ENTER. DAMPER C+D ARE BETWEEN THE ATRIUM SPACE AND SOLAR CHIMNEYS, AND DAMPER

DESCRIPTION: MINIMALLY CONDITIONED SPACES WITH LOW OCCUPANCY. (I.E. WASHROOMS, STORAGE, MECHANOCAL ROOM, ETC.)

RELATIVE HUMIDITY: 50% TO 55%

TEMPERATURE: 15oC - 25oC

DESCRIPTION: EVENLY CONDITIONED GATHERING SPACES WITH CONSISTENT MINOR OCCUPANCY. (I.E. OFFICES, CLASSROOMS, ETC.)

RELATIVE HUMIDITY: 20% TO 60%

TEMPERATURE: 20oC - 24oC

DESCRIPTION: EVENLY CONDITIONED GATHERING SPACES WITH PERIODS OF HIGH OCCUPANCY. (I.E. LIBRARY, SEMINAR ROOMS, WORKSHOPS, CAFE, ETC.)

RELATIVE HUMIDITY: 50% TO 55%

TEMPERATURE: 21oC - 22oC

DESCRIPTION: FOCUSED CONDITIONED SPACES WITH CONSTANT HIGH OCCUPANCY. (I.E. ATRIUM, HALLWAYS, ETC.)

RELATIVE HUMIDITY: 50% TO 55%

TEMPERATURE: 18oC - 20oC

DESCRIPTION: EVENLY CONDITIONED SELF CONTAINED SPACES CONTROLLED TO OCCUPANT’S NEEDS. (I.E. RESIDENTIAL DORMS, EXPERT RESIDENT SUITES, ETC.)

RELATIVE HUMIDITY: 40% TO 60%

TEMPERATURE: 18oC - 24oC

GROUND SOURCE HEAT PUMPED UP TO THIS LEVEL TO SUPPLY THE 2 CONDENSER UNITS. EACH CONDENSER GOES TO THEIR OWN BRANCH CONTROLLER, WHICH SUPPLY NUMEROUS FAN COIL UNITS ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF THE BULIDING. THE ELECTRIC BOILER ALSO IS PUMPED UP TO THIS LEVEL TO SUPPLY THE RADIANT FLOOR HEATING IN THE ATRIUM. ALL THIS EQUIPMENT IS HOUSED IN THE SECONDARY MECHANICAL ROOM, WHICH ALSO DOUBLES AS THE ELECTRICAL ROOM FOR PANEL DISTRIBUTION.

ACTIVE VENTILATION

FRESH OUTDOOR AIR WILL BE SUPPLIED FROM THE ROOF TOP ERV, DOWN THE MAIN MECHANICAL SHAFT, BRANCHED OFF TO EACH FAN COIL UNITS AND DISTRIBUTED TO VARIOUS DIFFUSERS THROUGHOUT THE SPACE. ALL ROOMS HAVE SUPPLY AIR EXCEPT THE WASHROOMS. TRANSFER GRILLS WILL BE PLACED ON THE WASHROOM DOORS TO ALLOW FOR INWARD AIR FLOW. AFTER THE SUPPLY AIR HAS CIRCULATED IN THE SPACE, THE STALE AIR TRAVELS THROUGH THE RETURN DUCTS, UP THE MAIN RETURN SHAFT AND BACK TO THE ROOF TOP ERV TO BE RECYCLED THROUGH THE ENTHOLPY WHEEL. A SEPARATE AND SMALLER ERV ROOF TOP UNIT WILL BE LOCATED ON THE ACCESSORY BULIDING.

THE ATRIUM WILL HAVE SPECIAL LINEAR DIFFUSERS ALONG THE WALL TO SUPPLY COOL AIR TO THE SPACE.

RADIANT FLOOR HEATING

THIS SYSTEM WAS SELECTED FOR THE ATRIUM BECAUSE OF IT’S ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN LARGE VOLUME SPACES. RATHER THAN INTRODUCING A TYPICAL FORCED AIR SYSTEM TO CONDITION THE ENTIRE SPACE, WE ONLY NEED TO FOCUS CONDITIONING THE SPACE CLOSEST TO THE GROUND WHERE OCCUPANCY OCCURS. HOT AIR WILL NATURALLY RISE TO BE CAPTURED IN THE RETURN IN TAKE AT THE TOP OF THE ATRIUM. PASSIVELY, THE SOLAR CHIMINEY STACK EFFECT WILL ASSIST IN THE BULIDING VENTILATION CIRCULATION.

RAIN WATER HARVESTING:

BLACK

CARBON REPORT

METHODOLOGY SUMMARY:

DUE TO THE SIMPLICITY OF THE EXCEL FILE, QUANTIFIABLE INPUTS WERE LIMITED IN THE PROCESS, THEREFORE IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT EXTRACTED VALUES ARE ROUGH ESTIMATES TO GET A BENCH MARK UNDERSTANDING OF THIS BUILDING DESIGN. ONLY THE MAIN MATERIALS THAT WERE EXPECTED TO HAVE THE BIGGEST IMPACT ON THE FINAL RESULTS WERE IMPLEMENTED IN THE REPORT (I.E. INSULATION, SHEATHING, STEEL, CONCRETE, ETC.) SITE LANDSCAPING WAS NOT AS INTEGRAL TO THE DESIGN AS THE STRUCTURE WAS, SO ALL SUPER STRUCTURE ELEMENTS WERE PLACED UNDER THE “GROUND MATERIAL” SECTION. THIS DECISION MAY HAVE SKEWED THE EMBODIED CARBON A LITTLE BIT, BUT THE CARBON FOOTPRINT SHOULD STILL BE ACCURATE.

REGARDING OPERATIONAL CARBON, NOT ONLY IS THE SITE ON AN ANGLE, BUT MY DESIGN INTRODUCED CURVES TO THE BUILDING THAT MADE IT A BIT CHALLENGING TO ACCURATELY ESTABLISH THE PERCENTAGE VALUE OF WALLS FACING EACH DIRECTION - ESTIMATES WERE MADE AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE. ALSO, NOT ONLY ARE THERE A LARGE QUANITITY OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS FACING DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS, THEY STAGGER BACK AS THE LEVELS INCREASE. IN ORDER TO WORK WITHIN THE LIMITED INPUT CONSTRAINTS, ALL UNITS WERE COMPILED IN 3 VOLUMES, WHERE AVERAGES AREAS FOR EACH FLOOR WERE CALCULATED. THIS ALLOWED FOR MORE SPACES IN THE BUILDING TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE CALCULATION.

ANALYSIS SUMMARY

AFTER COMPLETING THE FIRST CARBON REPORT, IT WAS NOTED THAT LOTS OF EMBODIED CABON WAS FOUND IN THE EXTERNAL WALLS AND “GROUND” (STRUCTURE). ALSO, THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF OPERATIONAL CARBON DEDICATED TO HEATING. UNDERSTANDING THE CAUSES OF THESE ENERGY SPIKES LEAD TO THE FOLLOWING 4 STRATEGIES TO REDUCE THE CARBON FOOT PRINT (AND COST). (1) HEIGHT REDUCTION, (2) AREA REDUCTION, (3) WINDOW OPENING REDUCTION, AND (4) SIMPLIFY STRUCTURAL MEMBERS.

IN THE END, IMPLEMENTING THESE 4 STRATEGIES LEAD TO THE ENERGY USE INTENSITY TO DECREASE FROM 125 KWH/ M2 TO 93 KWH/M2 AND CARBON FOOTPRINT FROM 3646 KGCO2E/M2 TO 3004 KGCO2E/M2

A | STRUCTURE SIMPLIFICATION

THE STEEL TRUSS SYSTEM ON THE PERIMETER OF THE 2ND FLOOR WAS REMOVED. AFTER CONSULTATION WITH STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE TRUSS SYSTEM WASN’T NECESSARY FOR THE CANTILEVER BUT WAS KEPT IN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN FOR AESTHETIC PURPOSES. THIS STRATEGY WAS IMPLEMENTED TO AVOID THE UNNECESSARY ADDITION OF STEEL IN THE DESIGN WHICH TYPICALLY HAS A LARGE AMOUNT OF EMBODIED CARBON.

B | AREA REDUCTION

THE RESIDENTIAL AREA ON LEVELS 4 TO 8 WERE THE FOCUS OF REDUCTION. AFTER REMOVING THE CENTRAL ROOMS, THERE WERE STILL 27 RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAT FACED NORTH AND WEST. THE ORIGINAL 44 UNITS WERE ADDITIONAL TO THE CLIENT’S REQUEST, THEREFORE THERE WAS REMOVING 17 UNITS WASN’T AN ISSUE. THIS STRATEGY ALSO REDUCES A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MATERIALS REQUIRED DURING CONSTRUCTION (ESPECIALLY STRUCTURE), WHICH THEORETICALLY REDUCED THE OVERALL EMBODIED CARBON.

C | HEIGHT REDUCTION

THE FIRST THREE LEVELS WERE REDUCED FROM 7M TO 6M AND THE REST OF THE LEVELS FROM 4M TO 3.5M. THIS RESULTED IN THE TOTAL HEIGHT DECREASING BY 13.3%. PART OF THE DESIGN INTENT WAS TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE HEIGHT FOR THE LABORATORIES AT THE TOP OF THE BUILDING TO HAVE A VISUAL CONNECTION TO LAKE ONTARIO. THIS STRATEGY REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF MATERIALS REQUIRED DURING CONSTRUCTION, WHICH THEORETICALLY REDUCED THE OVERALL EMBODIED CARBON.

D | WINDOW OPENING REDUCTION

THE WINDOW TO WALL RATIO ALONG THE NORTH AND WEST SIDES OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS WERE REDUCED BY 50%. THIS STRATEGY HELPS TO REDUCE THE OPERATIONAL CARBON FOR HEATING SINCE DIRECT SUN LIGHT IS EXTREMELY MINIAL ON BOTH THOSE SIDES - LESS WINDOW OPENINGS EQUATE TO LESS HEAT LOSS.

STRUCTURE

LEVEL 1 LEVEL 6

LEVEL 2 LEVEL 7

LEVEL 3 LEVEL 8

LEVEL 4 LEVEL 9

LEVEL 5 LEVEL ROOF

SPECIFICATION

SYSTEM: REINFORCED TWO WAY CONCRETE FLAT SLAB

NOTE: THICKNESS WAS DETERMINED BY L/30. DUE TO VARYING LENGTHS THROUGH OUT THE BUILDING, THE AVERAGE LENGTH WAS CALCULATED TO DETERMINE A 0.2M SLAB THICKENSS. REBAR REINFORCEMENT TO BE LINED UP IN DIRECTION OF BEAMS.

SPECIFICATION

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS | AXO SHEAR WALLS

LEVEL 1

LEVEL 6

LEVEL 2 LEVEL 7

LEVEL 3 LEVEL 8

LEVEL 4 LEVEL 9

LEVEL 5 LEVEL ROOF

SPECIFICATION

SYSTEM: REINFORCED CONCRETE SHEAR WALL

NOTE: SHEAR WALLS RANGE FROM 200MM TO 300MM WIDE DEPENDING ON WALL LENGTH. SHORTER LENGTH WALLS REQUIRE MORE THICKNESS (300MM) WHILE LONGER WALLS CAN BE AS THIN AS 200MM. THE SHEAR WALLS ON THE 4TH TO 9TH FLOOR ALSO ACT AS THE THERMAL MASS WITHIN THE SOLAR CHIMNEY.

SPECIFICATION

SYSTEM: REINFORCED CONCRETE SIMPLY SUPPORTED AND CANTILEVER

NOTE: BEAMS TREATED AS SIMPLY SUPPORTED HAD THEIR DEPTH CALCULATED BY L/16 WHILE CANTILEVERED BEAMS CALCULATED BY L/8. 5 TYPICAL BEAMS WERE ESTABLISHED BASED OF AVERAGE LENGTHS THROUGHOUT THE BUILDING. BEAM WIDTH WAS CALCULATED BY D/2 FOR SHORT SPANS AND D/3 FOR LONGERS SPANS.

STRUCTURAL SPINE DETAIL

LIFE CYCLE

COSTING

Name :Matthew Wong-Chun-Sen

Project Location:Toronto, ON

GFA (m2):5,465 Report Date:2022-11-16

Unit rateSub-TotalTotalSub-Total

Total 1590.83 126.97 350.00

5,465m2 8,693,253 58.0 693,835 4.6 0.152828m2 191.00158,138 28.94 0.0000m2 0.00 0 0.00 0.088478Sum1,120.00535,697 98.03 1,912,589 12.8 0.082447m2 63.8628,535 5.22 0.3031,657m2 1,133.871,878,380 343.74 0.01686m2 65.825,674 1.04 6,086,828 40.6 0.0000m2 0.00 0 0.00 1.89210,340m2 289.942,997,861 548.60 0.00525Lvs4,150.00103,750 18.99 0.4192,292m2 1,302.312,985,218 546.28 0.0000m2 0.00 0 0.00

1113.86

285.00 155.15 59.92

69.93

567.15 360.91

206.24

13 349 941 89.1 5,465m2 143,248 1.0 143,248 1.0 0.164895m2 91.6081,948 15.00 0.0001Sum40,000.0040,000 7.32 0.0001Sum21,300.0021,300 3.90

977

2442.98 26.21 26.21

2469.20 271.61 2740.81 411.12

Name :Matthew Wong-Chun-Sen

Project Location:Toronto, ON

GFA (m2):4,327 Report Date:2022-11-16

Unit rateSub-TotalTotalSub-Total 4,327m2 7,571,797 59.1 622,300 4.9 0.191828m2 191.00158,138 36.54 0.0000m2 0.00 0 0.00 0.096414Sum1,120.00464,162 107.26 1,658,597 12.9 0.090388m2 63.8624,749 5.72 0.3321,437m2 1,133.871,628,940 376.42 0.01775m2 65.824,908 1.13 5,290,900 41.3 0.0000m2 0.00 0 0.00 2.0728,965m2 289.942,599,259 600.65 0.00625Lvs4,150.00103,750 23.97 0.4591,987m2 1,302.312,587,892 598.02 0.0000m2 0.00 0 0.00

4,327m2 1,378,321 10.8 755,424 5.9 2.79012,073m2 49.91602,621 139.26 0.023101Lvs1,512.90152,803 35.31 284,924 2.2 0.6672,888m2 45.44131,226 30.32 0.6382,762m2 19.5053,859 12.45 1.7097,396m2 13.5099,839 23.07 337,973 2.6 0.0000m2 0.00 0 0.00 0.190823m2 350.00287,973 66.55 0.0002No25,000.0050,000 11.55 0.0000No 0.00 0 0.00 4,327m2 2,454,309 19.1 1,561,833 12.2 1.0004,327m2 122.17528,685 122.17 1.0004,327m2 26.69115,519 26.69 1.0004,327m2 212.05917,629 212.05 1.0004,327m2 0.00 0 0.00 892,476 7.0 1.0004,327m2 53.07229,640 53.07 1.0004,327m2 88.26381,957 88.26 1.0004,327 m 2 64.91280,878 64.91

11 404 427 89.0 4,327m2 143,248 1.1 143,248 1.1 0.207895m2 91.6081,948 18.94 0.0001Sum40,000.0040,000 9.24 0.0001Sum21,300.0021,300 4.92

COSTING ANALYSIS | CONCLUSION

LECTURE SUMMARY:

TYPICAL COSTING PHASES:

- CLASS D: END OF CONCEPT DESIGN

- CLASS C: END OF SCHEMATIC DESIGN

- CLASS B: END OF DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

- CLASS A: 75% COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS

CONSTRUCTION

BUDGET VS. PROJECT BUDGET

- HARD COST: ALL THE MEASUREABLE/QUANTIFIABLE COSTS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE PHYSICAL CONSTRUCTION OF A BULIDING (+HST)

- SOFT COST: FEES ASSOCIATED AROUND THE HARD COSTS (I.E. BUILDING PERMITS, CONSULTATION SERVICES, LEGAL, ETC.)

- ARCHITECTS MAINLY REFER TO HARD COSTS WHEN DISCUSSING “THE BUDGET”

- CLIENTS REFER TO SOFT COSTS + HARD COSTS WHEN DISCUSSING “THE BUDGET”

INITIAL COST REDUCTION STRATEGIES:

- RAW PROGRAMATIC AREA REDUCTION WITH EXPLANATION OF QUALITATIVE CHANGES/ADVANTAGES

- PLAN OUT PROJECT TO BE PHASED (COMPLETED OVER TIME)

- ARCHITECT CAN QUESTION IF CLIENT IS WILLING TO ADD BUDGET TO ACHIEVE GOALS

ANALYSIS SUMMARY

THE FOLLOWING 4 STRATEGIES WERE IMPLEMENTED IN ORDER TO REDUCE BOTH THE BULIDING COST AND CARBON FOOT PRINT. (1) HEIGHT REDUCTION, (2) AREA REDUCTION, (3) WINDOW OPENING REDUCTION, AND (4) SIMPLIFY STRUCTURAL MEMBERS.

HEIGHT REDUCTION: THE FIRST THREE LEVELS WERE REDUCED FROM 7M TO 6M AND THE REST OF THE LEVELS FROM 4M TO 3.5M. THIS RESULTED IN THE TOTAL HEIGHT DECREASING BY 13.3%. PART OF THE DESIGN INTENT WAS TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE HEIGHT FOR THE LABORATORIES AT THE TOP OF THE BUILDING TO HAVE A VISUAL CONNECTION TO LAKE ONTARIO. THIS HEIGHT REDUCTION PROVIDES THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF COST REDUCTION WHILE STILL ALLOWING FOR THE ORIGINAL VISUAL CONNECTION.

AREA REDUCTION: THE RESIDENTIAL AREA ON LEVELS 4 TO 8 WERE THE FOCUS OF REDUCTION. AFTER REMOVING THE CENTRAL ROOMS, THERE WERE STILL 27 RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAT FACED NORTH AND WEST. THE ORIGINAL 44 UNITS WERE ADDITIONAL TO THE CLIENT’S REQUEST, THEREFORE THERE WAS REMOVING 17 UNITS WASN’T AN ISSUE.

WINDOW OPENING REDUCTION: THE WINDOW TO WALL RATIO ALONG THE NORTH AND WEST SIDES OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS WERE REDUCED BY 50% NOT ONLY TO POSITIVELY REDUCE CARBON OPERATING EMISSIONS, BUT ALSO TO REDUCE COSTS SINCE UNIT RATES FOR CURTAIN WALL GLAZING FALL ON THE HIGHER END.

STRUCTURE SIMPLIFICATION: THE STEEL TRUSS SYSTEM ON THE PERIMETER OF THE 2ND FLOOR WAS REMOVED TO SAVE ON THE ENORMOUS COSTS ON STEEL. AFTER CONSULTATION WITH STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE TRUSS SYSTEM WASN’T NECESSARY FOR THE CANTILEVER BUT WAS KEPT IN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN FOR AESTHETIC PURPOSES.

UNIT COSTS WERE EXTRACTED FROM THE 2022 YARDSTICKS HANDBOOK WHICH LEAD TO FURTHER IN DEPTH BREAKDOWNS TO QUANTIFY AVERAGE UNIT COSTS BASED OFF MATERIAL PERCENTAGES THROUGHOUT THE BULIDING (REFER TO CHART ON THE RIGHT FOR MORE INFORMATION). INITIALLY, THE BASE BULIDING COSTED $19,463,183.00, BUT AFTER A 20.8% DECREASE IN BULIDING AREA AND 13.3% DECREASE IN OVERALL BULIDING HEIGHT, THE NEW COST BECAME $16,656,886.00. IT’S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE OVERALL SHELL PERCENTAGE (~60%) IS DOUBLED THE TYPICAL AMOUNT (~30%) DUE TO LARGE SPECIAL STRUCTURAL MEMBERS IN THE DESIGN. THE OVERALL PRICES FOR THE INTERIOR AND SERVICE SECTIONS ARE ON THE LOWER END.

A2 | STRUCTURE

15 A21 LOWEST FLOOR

($/m2) MATERIAL A

SHELL

85.311--

117.23--

Pre-Cast Concrete Column Rectangular Section (multi storey)T3 99.492--

Pre-Cast Concrete Column Rectangular Section (multi storey)T4 89.047--

Pre-Cast Concrete Column Rectangular Section (multi storey)T5 87.226--

CONSTRUCTION Cast-in-Place Concrete Column85.20.076.24656357 7.8 -32.76

15 Cast in place Concrete Wall77.60.4031.11259316 127.96 -179.15

15 Cast in place Concrete Beams (integrated with slab) 50.40.063.089443412 --27.39

15 Cast in place Concrete - Slab on Grade 50.40.4623.40825817 207.53 Concrete Slab thickness = 0.2m

15 A22 UPPER FLOOR

CONSTRUCTION Cast-in-Place Concrete Column85.20.108.553892588 --166.32

15 Cast in place Concrete Wall77.60.1814.00595191 54.994 -299

15 Cast in place Concrete Beams (integrated with slab) 50.40.073.314952825 --108.96

15, 19 Steel Truss (Wide Flange)7740.510.141082.524769 --231.68

15 Cast in place ConcreteSuspended Slabs (flat slabs) 49.60.5125.46902409 --850.65 Concrete Slab thickness = 0.2m

15A23 ROOF CONSTRUCTIONCast-in-Place Concrete Column85.20.1714.23240508 --14.4

15 Cast in place Concrete Wall77.60.3728.33217632 --31.47328

15 Cast in place Concrete Beams (integrated with slab) 50.40.063.274121356 --5.6

15 Cast in place ConcreteSuspended Slabs (flat slabs)49.60.4019.98309113 --34.73

A3 | EXTERIOR ENCLOSURE

1302.306596 |

446.83 63.86 REF. PG D | INTERIORS MATERIAL

A31 WALLS BELOW GRADE - -----Disregarded section due to no basement

25A32 WALLS ABOVE GRADE Thermal Insulation Polystyrene (2") + (2")+ (1") 139.20.2940.16619834 -2983.5378.9 20 Cold Formed Metal Framing Stud Wall (6" studs) 1230.1721.46645647 -1804.527.19 23 Sheathing Supply - Unsanded Fir Ply (1/2") 16.90.172.949472559 -1804.522.92

1120 478.3008 MATERIAL % UNIT COST ($/m2) AVG. UNIT COST ($/m2)

UNIT COST ($/m2) 1120 All (13) columns, shear walls and beams added up on level 1. Percentage of each member determined by volume proportions. % OF ASSEM BLY

1656.61 65.82 86.20328 Concrete Slab thickness = 0.2m 10339.55 EPS Insulation 5" thick (2"+2"+1" from Yardstick summed up) 289.941142 All (70) columns, shear walls and beams added up from level 2 to 9. Steel beam converted from 1 Tonne = $8770 to 1m3 = $7740.51. [1 tonne = 1.133 m3] UNIT COST ($/m2)

5 reinforced concrete spines. Total linear length (m) was calculated for T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5, which includes the vertical, horizontal and arched portions of the special structural members. QUANTITY QUANTITY TOTAL

NOTES