Vision as a Catalyst for Sustainability By Michael Casey and Aaron Trahan
photos courtesy: Architerra
“Although not the least expensive option, the school was very attached to the ecologically sustainable feel of composting toilets and therefore decided to move forward with that option.�
Abstract A critical step that is missing from the architectural process is to step back from the end product of a building, and evaluate that process as a learning tool for the future success of the building industry. The relationships between clients, architects, designers, contractors and builders are often unexplained, and subsequently unevaluated, although they play the largest role in the success of a project. This case study aims to respond to the need for continued reflection and education, by starting a dialogue that analyzes the role of ‘vision’ within a project. Rooting out how an architect creates a building that is part of the ensemble of a school; this case study analyzes a series of programmatic and sustainability goals, in a building that needs to be “the most popular hang out place on campus.”
Vision as a Catalyst for Sustainability
1
Table of Contents Abstract 1 Preface 3 Learning Objectives 4 Introduction 5 Project Team 8 Perspectives 9 Timeline 10 Project Team Information 11 Architect Selection + Vision 12 Economics
16
Sustainability, Innovation + Performance 21 Project Narative 25 Challenges 27 Conclusions 29 About the Authors 30
Vision as a Catalyst for Sustainability
2
Preface In helping us uncover the role that vision played in this project, we would like to thank Ellen Watts, Principal of Architerra Inc., as well as Diane Garthwaite, and Cary Hewitt, who were critical members of the Building Committee, for taking the time to reflect on the project process. Their attitude and excitement towards education was a key factor in the success of developing this case study.
Vision as a Catalyst for Sustainability
3
Learning Objectives This case study seeks to uncover the role of vision in Center for Science and Art by analyzing: - How the Center for Science and Art fit into the Cambridge School’s campus strategy and sustainability plan. - How the architect’s vision and expertise influence the Cambridge School’s design requirements for a new facility. - The motivations of education as a part of the vision for the project. - What shared ideologies led to the selection of Architerra for this project.
Vision as a Catalyst for Sustainability
4
Introduction Because the role of the architect encompasses aspects of project coordination and design, it is important to step back from the end product of the architectural process, and evaluate that process as a learning tool for the future success of the building industry. Within the industry, the formation of relationships between clients, architects, designers, contractors and builders are often unexplained, and subsequently unevaluated. This case study aims to respond to the need for continued reflection and education, by starting a dialogue that helps define the role of ‘vision’ within a project, and how the architect, client, and other parties involved contribute to that vision. By looking beyond the metric and aesthetic information that dominates architectural discourse, this case study presents a non-biased analysis of the Garthwaite Center for Science and Art at the Cambridge School of Weston, a private K-12 institution in Weston, Massachusetts. This project represents a unique place in the timeline of the Cambridge School, as well as the architects, physically completing the campus quadrangle while metaphorically defining the school’s views towards education and sustainability. Through a series of interviews with the client, architect, and building committee members, this case study seeks to build off of existing published information by the American Institute of Architects Committee on the Environment, and expose the process that brought the architect and client to a mutual understanding of the vision for this project. Issues of project importance, criteria, architect selection, relationship building, sustainability, cost, and fundraising are the dominant forces of this definition of ‘vision’.
Project Data Garthwaite Center for Science and Art, Cambridge School of Weston Project Size: 22,000SF Climate Region: 5A, Cool – Humid Building Type: Assembly, K-12 education, Laboratory Construction Type: New construction Setting: Suburban Program: - Science Display Atrium - Bathrooms - Small Gallery - Faculty Office Suite - Integrated Studies Classroom - Independend Studies Classroom - Community Meeting/ Large Gallery - Physics Lab - Biology Labs - Campus Data Center - Gallery Storage - Chemistry Lab - Installation Room - Multi-story Atrium - Campus Data Center
Vision as a Catalyst for Sustainability
5
image courtesy: Architerra
Vision as a Catalyst for Sustainability
6
image courtesy: Architerra
Vision as a Catalyst for Sustainability
7
Project Team Diagram This diagram represents the team-centric aproach to the Center for Science and Art. Each piece, representing a major voice in the project process, is arranged in a way that shows their main connections within the team. The point where each person’s edge meets another’s represents an important relationship and heirarchy of vision within the project. This diagram is meant to be read from the center outward, starting with the Cambridge School of Weston, represented here by Jane Moulding, the Head of School.
Client Building Committee Consultant Architects Sub Contractors
STUDENT 2
BLDG COMMITTEE
STUDENT 1
BLDG COMMITTEE
DIANE GARTHWAITE
JOSE ALMINANA
TOM EVANS
BLDG COMMITTEE
MARILYN DEL DONNO
CARY HEWITT
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
DAN ARONS
GENESIS
PAUL CAREY
ARCHITECT
ENERGY CONSULTANT
GREEN BUILDING CONSULTANT
TERRY LOUDBACKER
CLIENT
MARC ROSENBAUM
CONTRACTOR
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
ARCHITECT
JANE MOULDING
BLDG COMMITTEE
MARK HALEY
DAN BERNSTEIN
BLDG COMMITTEE
ANTHONY CONSIGLI
LANDSCAPE ARCHTIECT
BLDG COMMITTEE
WASTE MGMT
PETER RICHARDSON
ELLEN WATTS ARCHITECT
CIVIL ENGINEER
EDWARD ALLEN MEP ENGINEER
Vision as a Catalyst for Sustainability
8
Project Team Perspectives
JANE MOULDING CLIENT
After being appointed to the position of Head of School in 2002, Jane Moulding played an integral role in laying the foundation for the success of this project, along with fellow staff members Tom Evan and Marilyn Del Donno. Ms. Moulding’s unique approach to establishing a bulding committee was the beginning of many decisions to actively involve students in the project both before, during and after constructuon. She required that the building committee be cmprised of two board of directors members, two faculty members, one boarding student and one day student. Ms. Moulding was remembered by the architect’s of the project as having expressed one single goal to make this a successful project, if they could meet it, which was that this Center for Science and Art needs to be the most popular hang out spot on campus. Even though it sits atop a hill, she said that it needs to have a “toe on the quad”, and be part of the ensamble of the school.
TOM EVANS
BLDG COMMITTEE
MARILYN DEL DONNO
BLDG COMMITTEE
CARY HEWITT
BLDG COMMITTEE
DIANE GARTHWAITE
BLDG COMMITTEE
MARC ROSENBAUM ENERGY CONSULTANT
ELLEN WATTS ARCHITECT
DAN ARONS ARCHITECT
DAN BERNSTEIN ARCHITECT
Tom Evans and Marilyn Del Donno are both respected faculty members at the Cambridge School of Weston, teaching in the Art and Science Departments. After co-teaching a number of inter-department classes together, such as History of Time, they collaborated with Jane Moulding on creating a showcase of science and art focused on sustainability. Mr. Evans, is an accomplished art mentor and Dean of Faculty for Academic & Visual Art, and Ms. Del Donno is a faculty science teacher with extensive interest and knowledge in sustainability, and is also married to an architect. Their combined knowledge base helped form the project and sustainability goals for what would become branded as the Center for Science and Art. In Spring of 2003, Cary Hewitt was tapped as part of the building committee for this project, before ever talking to any architects about the design requirements. It was the responsibility of Ms. Hewitt, to compose a building committee, and work with building consultants at Genesis to help write the school’s program. Along with her on the committee was Diane Garthwaite, a fellow member of the Board of Directors, and initial donor of the project, which is named after the Garthwaite Family. They also brought on the expertise of Marc Rosenbaum, a building energy consultant, before Ms. Hewitt contacted interested architects and gave them tours of the site. Ms. Garthwaite also played an integral role in developing the program, while simultaneously generating excitment about the project to potential donors. Marc Rosenbaum’s environmental building expertise was essential in the process that the Cambridge School took to set goals and measurable objectives for the performance of their new building, while also working with the design team at Architerra to achieve those goals. Energysmiths performed air tightness testing during construction to assure performance, and continues to help monitor performance after the building opened in 2007. Mr. Rosenbaum is a 2009 NESEA Distinguished Service Award winner, and founding board member of Passivehouse Institute of the U.S. After a leading successful workshop for the Building Committee in the Fall of 2004, Architerra was selected as the project architect for the Center for Science and Art. The principals felt that the school had a very clear an ambitious set of goals for the project, and that they needed someone to edit them into something feasible. In giving their goals physical form, Architerra proposed making it possible for students and faculty to tract light and energy levels, and to become active in ongoing performance monitoring. This value of education also emerged in a design decision that left many of the buildings mechanical and structural systems exposed, something that Architerra felt would allow the building to serve as a unique learning tool within the campus. One of the major philosphies that the architects brought to the project was to treat the building goals and sustainability goals as one, and the place equal emphasis on qualitative and quantitative goals. This building served as one of the founding projects of Architerra, which officially came together in 2004. Ellen Watts is a member of the Zero Net Energy Building Task Force, former member of the Wellsley Historic District Committion in Massachusetts, and presented at the Dartmouth Sustainable Design Symposium. Dan Arons is a member of the Green Roundtable in Boston, as well as a graduate technology teacher at MIT, and former co-chair of the BSA Committee on the Environment. Daniel Bernstein has presented at conferences such as Build Boston, on research in The State of Sustainability in Higher Education, and frequently leads Earth Expeditions.
Vision as a Catalyst for Sustainability
9
Timeline Throughout the five year project timeline, it is important to identify when the visions of the parties involved came in, in order to better understand the role that their vision played in creating the Center for Science and Art. Each important event within this timeline is color-coordinated to the Project Team Diagram, to identify the team member who can be most credited with each step.
2002
New head of school was appointed by the Board of Trustees.
2003
Tom Evans and Marilyn Del Donno collaborate with Cambridge School on idea for new project.
2003
Board announces capital campaign for a new building project.
2003
Cary Hewitt brought onto building committee.
2003
Genesis hired as building consultant to develop program.
2003
School and town community meetings held.
2003
Final program created.
2003
Potential architects, builders and consultants chosen.
2004
Architerra founded.
2004
Final 3 architects present three-hour workshops.
2004
Architerra holds community meeting.
2006
Construction begins
2007
Project Completed.
Vision as a Catalyst for Sustainability
10
Project Team Information Jane Moulding Cambridge School of Weston Weston, MA www.csw.org/ Ellen Watts Dan Bernstein Architerra, Inc. Architects Boston, MA www.architerra-inc.com/ Paul Carey Wastewater Alternatives Waste Management Consultant Plymouth, MA www.wastewateralternatives.com Peter Richardson Green International Affiliates Civil Engineer Westford, MA www.greenintl.com Jose Alminana Andropogon Associates Landscape Architect Philadelphia, PA www.andropogon.com Mark Haley Haley & Aldrich, Inc. Geotechnical Engineer Boston, MA www.haleyaldrich.com Marc Rosenbaum, P.E. Energysmiths Environmental Building Consultant Meriden, NH www.energysmiths.com Anthony Consigli Consigli Construction Co., Inc. Contractor Milford, MA www.consigli.com Terry Louderback Souza, True & Partners Structural Engineer Watertown, MA Edward Allen van Zelm Heywood & Shaford MEP Engineer Farmington, CT www.vanzelm.com
Architect Selection + Vision The Cambridge School of Weston utilized a unique approach in the selection of the architect for this project. After developing detailed goals for the vision of the project with members of the building committee, and sustainability goals with environmental building consultant Mark Rosenbaum, it was up to the architects to edit them into something that was technically, aesthetically and financially feasible. Once the Building Committee narrowed their selection down to three firms (MHFH, Architerra, and Bill McKay), they focused their decision around the ability of the architects to lead a “green” workshop for the building committee, taking the place of a traditional interview. The pre-design process was orchestrated to include input from students from the outset of the project, epitomized by the unique interview process. This was achieved by including two student representatives on the Building Committee, as well as student participation in building studies and construction events. During the architect selection process, Diane Garthwaite and Cary Hewitt noted that HMFH had a more “traditional” presentation, compiled primarily with their known science building expertise. Architerra, they said, “had a hands on approach to their presentation”. This allowed them to engage students by allowing everyone to arrange colored blocks through a series of massing exercises. This approach, Architerra said, is traditional to their design-phase meetings, never having been utilized for an interview where they were presenting as if they had already been given the commission. Ms. Watts says that a typical exercise they use is to analyze site through a map with visible site contours, climate information, and sun angles. This was done by inviting the building committee members to place markers on different points within the campus such as buildings, view angles, or other alignments that they thought were important.
image courtesy: Architerra
Furthermore, they created a series of blocks to represent approximate volumes of different program elements, and asked attendees to compose them on the site, working in pairs to develop a program strategy. The pairs were made up of 2 students, 2 trustees and 2 faculty members. In addition to arranging smaller program-scaled blocks, pairs were challenged to configure larger building-scale blocks in an exercise focused on the massing strategy of the new building. This dynamic workshop format ultimately played a key role in making Architerra stand out amongst the two other firms.
Vision as a Catalyst for Sustainability
12
Architect Selection + Vision In the final presentation by Bill McKay, Ms. Garthwaite and Ms. Hewitt noted that he seemed “distracted” by having just come off a project in Bermuda, and it seemed that his “head [was] not there.” After Architerra was selected as the architect, Genesis Building Consultants was let go from the project due to management conflicts with Architerra. They were resistant to project management outside of their office, and felt they could manage the project internally. Ellen Watts, a founding principal of Architerra, believes that their role as a firm was to give the school’s goals a physical mode within space, light, form and concrete. To begin the Design Development process, the architects were often seen throughout the site during school days, observing people’s behaviors and the characteristics of the site. This process of observation, they felt, was crucial to understanding the main quad of campus, and how this project would fit into that dynamic. Shortly after the initial planning stages, Architerra held a community design meeting, using a colored dot system to gauge people’s interests in “appealing visual elements” for the site and building. Following this meeting, the architects typically presented three different drawings and ideas to choose from at each design phase meeting. Architerra’s approach to the design process also included frequent, open design meetings to students, faculty, staff, parents and board members. Most of the major decisions were made collectively and unanimously. One of the major goals of the design and construction process was to minimize the number of trees removed for the project, and to allow frequent inspections of the building process that students were encouraged to attend.
site plan courtesy: Architerra
Vision as a Catalyst for Sustainability
13
Architect Selection + Vision In considering the performance of the building itself, the design team’s environmental goals included integrating with the rocky topography of the site, utilizing stormwater management, reducing heating and cooling loads, and managing solar heat gain. These topics are further elaborated on in the Sustainability, Innovation & Performance section of this case study. For the school, one of the most important aspects of the design was the architect’s decision to leave most of the building’s systems exposed. This small but significant design detail allows the continuation of the school and the architect’s interest in education and hands on learning. Throughout the building, students have the opportunity to observe the processes of an enthalpy heat wheel, a wood pellet boiler, and composting toilet system. This design decision has even been integrated into the school’s curriculum, allowing students to measure light levels and analyze metric performance data of the building. Ms. Watts feels that this aspect of the design approach epitomizes their vision for the Center for Science and Art, as a building that would be “beautiful in a way that would inspire artists.”
atrium photo courtesy: Architerra
Vision as a Catalyst for Sustainability
14
Architect Selection + Vision
sun study diagrams courtesy: Architerra
ANALYSIS Including building occupants in the design and building process ensures that project goals are focused to their needs. Allowing architects extended time to “interview” for a project allows a client to make a fully informed decision of the archtiect’s commitment and abilities to perform. An understanding of building systems and performance goals is key for a client to select the appropriate architect to meet those goals.
Vision as a Catalyst for Sustainability
15
Economics After appointing a new Head of School in 2002, the Cambridge School of Weston announced plans for a new capital campaign to fund a building project, which came to be branded as the Center for Science and Art. This initiative relied on both private and public donation for the projected $7 million, new construction project. Throughout the course of the project, enthusiasm for the sustainable vision of the building resulted in a significant increase in funding, through ongoing involvement of students and the community, which will be discussed throughout this case study. This campaign was secured with the help of Diane Garthwaite, whose role in the project began with a personal donation, as well as generating excitement in the community for the project. Although fundraising outpaced projections, some budget sacrifices, which will be discussed throughout this section, were still made to maintain priority on costs. This excitement about green building enabled the Cambridge School to raise more than three times any previous capital campaign target, with a major contribution coming from the Garthwaite family, for whom the building is named. A total of $19 million was raised for construction, the architect’s fee, and future building operations. This financing was managed through the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Health and Education Finance Agency. The Cambridge School promoted most of their fundraising through print and online campaign materials as well as construction-related activities, such as a website set up with streaming video of the construction process. During the pre-design phase, Architerra came up with cost-estimates for four different conceptual alternatives, which were assessed on cost and long-term energy performance. An independent cost estimator allowed non-biased figures at the conclusion of schematic design and design development, in addition to estimates prepared by three different construction managers. Overall, the project cost remained close to the school’s budget, however the cost of the related sitework added nearly an additional $1 million to the original $7 million projection. This resulted in significant value engineering within the building, reducing the cost by nearly $800,000. During this process, the school remained committed to the sustainable features of the project, including LED gallery lights, sustainability feature signage, heavy timber framing and a green roof. photo courtesy: Architerra
Vision as a Catalyst for Sustainability
16
Economics
LED gallery lights - Cost $30,000 more than conventional halogen lights. - Expected to last for 17 years. - Produce significantly less heat than the halogen alternative, saving money on maintenance and cooling costs.
Fundraising
photo courtesy: Architerra
$7 million initial cost estimate $15 million project total, including architect’s fee. $19 million capital campaign, including operations and maintanance reserve.
photo courtesy: Architerra
Vision as a Catalyst for Sustainability
17
Economics Signage - Used throughout the building to provide educational information on systems that were left exposed.
Green roof
image courtesy: Architerra
- Cost $16,000 more than a conventional roof. - Extends the life of the roof membrane, while reducing heating and cooling loads.
Heavy Timber Framing
drawing courtesy: Architerra
- Used throughout the building. - Includes a sun-shading canopy. - Supports a green roof over the gallery and integrated studies classroom.
Vision as a Catalyst for Sustainability
18
In addition to these cost justifications, the Cambridge School also placed significant value on the educational opportunities inherent in efficient lighting, heating/cooling efficiency, rainwater mitigation, and wildlife habitat preservation. They were able to minimize other costs in order to budget for sustainable features in multiple ways, including fiberglass windows, site crushed gravel, and exposed structural slabs as finished floors. Fiberglass windows - High R-value at a lower cost than triple-glazed windows due to standardized sizes.
Gravel
detail courtesy: Architerra
- Utilizing excavated rocks resulted in savings by crushing them into gravel on site rather than paying for removal.
photo courtesy: Architerra
Vision as a Catalyst for Sustainability
19
Finished floors - Polishing the structural concrete slabs was less expensive than installing a finished floor or comparable durability - Provides a high Solar Reflective Index to maximize interior daylighting and reduce need for electric lighting.
photo courtesy: Architerra
ANALYSIS Investments in long-term goals, such as energy systems can have higher upfront costs, but save money in operational costs in the long-term. “Value” doesn’t always have to represent a dollar-value. Educational and environmental value should be reguarded equally with cost value. Involving project donors in the project process can generate more excitement for a capital campaign, resulting in increases in funding. Projecting funding goals beyond cost estimates helps mitigate unforseen costs during the project.
Vision as a Catalyst for Sustainability
20
Sustainability, Innovation + Performance The Garthwaite Arts & Sciences Center at Cambridge School of Weston has been well publicized for its sustainability features,receiving LEED Platinum certification. From the project outset, both the client and Architerra were focused on a rigorous environmental agenda for the project, which resulted in a diversity of technological and logistical solutions, including: Green Roof: A portion of the gently sloped roof surface is vegetated with sedge and sedum in a shallow soil mix, slowing stormwater runoff, reducing the roof plane’s heat absorption and extending its longevity. Radiant Heating: the center is partially heated by a radiant floor system which consists heated fluid running through a closed loop system of (pex) tubing, which is embedded within the concrete slab. The water that runs through the system is heated by a wood pellet burning furnace and pumped through the floors with minimal effort.
photo courtesy: Architerra
image courtesy: Architerra
Vision as a Catalyst for Sustainability
21
Sustainability, Innovation + Performance Lighting: Clerestory windows, ample southern exposure, and reflective ceiling colors all act to maximize natural daylighting within atriums and gallery spaces, in addition to deep set mullions along western exposures to mitigate undesirable heat gain. Though they allow for generous daylighting in certain spaces, overall glazing is limited to just 32% of the total exterior wall area to avoid excessive heat gain and loss. Highly efficient fluorescent and LED lighting is used within the more insular lab and support spaces, with motion sensors that respond to a room’s occupancy, reducing the building’s overall electricity consumption.
image courtesy: Architerra
Siting: The new Arts & Sciences center occupies a previously developed site that slopes gently downhill. The building’s tiered floors minimized the need for cutting and filling of the shallow surface soil, while rock that was pulverized to accommodate the foundation was retained as an under slab strata.
existing context image courtesy: Architerra
Vision as a Catalyst for Sustainability
22
Sustainability, Innovation + Performance Thermal Envelope: A tight thermal envelope was achieved through strict attention to the gaps between different building components - foundation, walls, doors, windows, and roof were all designed as a continuously insulated enclosure system. For durability, a peel-and-stick air barrier membrane covers the exterior sheathing, while a continuous moisture barrier and drainage layer covers the rigid insulation, allowing the shingle cladding to breath and drain. Many of the structural elements were left unfinished to cut down on VOC off gassing and mold growth on moisture-prone gypsum surfaces. The structural supports for the cantilevered roof of the outdoor porch is separated from the building’s primary roof structure to further minimize thermal transfer and condensation in the building interior.
envelope detail courtesy: Architerra
Vision as a Catalyst for Sustainability
23
Sustainability, Innovation + Performance Materials: Laminated timber (LVL) was chosen for the building structure and sourced regionally, while fiberglass window frames and polished concrete floors were chosen for their durability and simplicity. Ventilation: with the exception of three rooms that are locally air conditioned, the entire building relies on natural cross-ventilation through operable windows.
Energy Systems: the building’s mechanical heating systems rely on a wood pellet burner located on-site. This system, left visible on the exterior, utilizes renewable wood fuel sources that can be harnessed locally.
Vision as a Catalyst for Sustainability
24
Project Narrative In 2002 a new head of school, Jane Moulding, was appointed by the Cambridge School of Weston Board of Trustees. Soon thereafter, the board and Moulding announced a the start of a capital campaign to fund a new arts and sciences center to be built on the school’s campus. A building committee was formed that consisted of a wide variety of constituents: members of the board, school staff, faculty, groundskeepers, and two students. The initial idea in the school community to make the new building a benchmark for sustainable performance came primarily from Marilyn DelD¬onno, head of the science department, and Tom Evans, dean of faculty. According to project architect Ellen Watts, both Deldonno and Evans wanted the building to be a “showcase of science and art focused on sustainability”. Both teachers play influential roles in the CSW community, with DelDonno being an accomplished science teacher and (partially due to her marriage to an architect) well-educated on green building technologies and matters of ecological sensitivity. Evans, in addition to serving as faculty dean, also acts as an art mentor and art school college counselor for the student body. In such a small and progressive educational environment, Deldonno and Evans’ seemingly disparate realms of expertise are often combined into non-traditional courses like “History of Time”, meaning there was an established groundwork of collaboration between the two even before the Art & Science building project ever came along. In 2003 the school brought Genesis, a building project consulting firm, on board to help in the selection of architects, contractors, and environmental consultants. The school conducted a series of “green roundtables” with a number of different environmental experts, ultimately selecting Marc Rosenbaum as their main environmental performance consultant. Although they took any interested architect on a campus tour, it was with the help of Genesis that the school eventually winnowed down its list of potential architects from six to three: with HMFH, Architerra, and Bill McKay ultimately making the cut. Among these contenders, Architerra was the youngest and least-established, but approached the potential project with the most innovative means of the three. In the fall of 2004, the Cambridge School hosted all three architecture firms to give their final two hour pitch for the building project, and instead of giving a one-sided project proposal to the school board and community, they instead held an open, interactive session in which anyone present was invited to give their input on appealing design elements and participate in a preliminary massing exercise with simple colored blocks. Compared to the more straightforward presentation given by HMFH and the reportedly absent-minded proposal of a distracted Bill McKay, Architerra’s pitch stood out and ultimately lead to their selection as the project architect within a week’s time. By the start of 2005, Architerra had initiated their design development for the Art & Science Center in earnest. While the Cambridge School of Weston building committee already had well developed sustainability aspirations for the project at this point, the expertise of Architerra was necessary to edit them into a technically, aesthetically, and financially feasible design. Head of school Jane Moulding expressed her goals for the building to the architects in a preliminary design meeting, stating that she wanted the new center to be the “most popular hang out spot on campus”, and to have a presence
Vision as a Catalyst for Sustainability
25
Project Narrative on the main quad, even though the site is primarily situated on an adjacent hill. Throughout the remainder of 2005, the architects spent a substantial amount of time meeting with the school’s trustees and building committee to advance the project, but also conducted their own quiet observations of student and faculty activities around campus on typical school days to further inform their design considerations. Groundbreaking was in June of 2006, with construction lasting throughout the following school year and summer. It was a primary goal for all involved parties to make the Art & Science center project an ongoing teaching tool. This was facilitated during the building process by a webcam that was trained directly at the construction site and linked to a web page that members of the school community could access in order to track and observe progress from afar. Although the architects took pains to respect the existing landscape master plan by Carol Johnson & Associates, it became necessary to remove some trees and excavate a layer of the underlying granite from below the shallowly soiled hillside site in order to accommodate the building’s tiered foundations. With construction proceeding on schedule and within the proposed budget, the building was completed over the summer of 2007 and in September was officially opened for the new academic year. Within its first full year of operation, the Garthwaite Art & Science Center had already garnered attention from a variety of publications, including Architectural Record, for its environmental performance features. After being submitted by Architerra for consideration, the project was named by the American Institute of Architects’ (AIA) Committee on the Environment as a “Top Ten Green Project” of 2008. Many of the engineers and environmental consultants that worked with Architerra and the Cambridge School of Weston have been eager to attach their names to the project in the wake of this publicity, strengthening the building’s stature as a benchmark for sustainability and further legitimizing the actions of architect and client alike throughout the project.
ANALYSIS Fostering hands on participation and two way dialogue with potential clients is a useful means of building trust and winning projects. While architects do bring a certain expertise to building projects, the overarching vision for design should ultimately spring from the client side of the table. Transparent and frequent collaboration between a diversity of involved parties has an indirect but intrinsic effect on a building project’s cost and energy efficiency.
Vision as a Catalyst for Sustainability
26
Challenges Architectural design development typically begins with a preliminary exploration of client goals and programmatic requirements. For this particular building project, Architerra had to flesh out the initial massing and programmatic ideas before they were even officially given the design commission. Over the course of a three hour interview held with the Cambridge School of Weston, Architerra had to use a hands-on meeting format usually reserved for design development, addressing major issues such as view angles and building alignments in a very preliminary project phase. This early exploration of massing and programming for an un-guaranteed building commission represented a digression from the accepted norm for project development and a minor challenge for the architects to overcome. Although the Garthwaite Arts & Science Center was completed on time and within its budget, there were several minor conflicts of interest that arose between the different parties involved with the building project. Given Architerra’s impressive demonstration of their sustainability expertise and collaborative design skills during the selection process, it was evident to the school that Genesis’ input would no longer be necessary. About a week after Architerra was selected as the project architect, Genesis was let go as they proved to conflict with the architects, namely Ellen Watts, who was resistant to project management outside of their practice. Once the architects had been officially selected and given full ownership of the design, it is no surprise that conflicts of interest would immediately arise with the company whose job it was to judge and compare potential project participants. If an architect seeks to pursue a comprehensive environmental performance agenda for a building project, close interaction between designers and contractors is necessary for successful implementation of these “green goals”. While Architerra is an office whose founding mission has a definitive bent towards sustainability, their expertise on matters of energy performance is still dependent upon interaction with a variety of outside engineers, scientists and consultants. Marc Rosenbaum, who had been acting as the client’s primary sustainability consultant from the beginning, retained his consultation role even after Architerra was given the building commission. Along with teachers Marilyn Deldonno and Tom Evans, Rosenbaum was instrumental in drawing up a series of “building goals” and “sustainability goals” for the project in its earliest phases. Once Architerra had been selected as the project architects, they successfully advocated that these separate sets of goals be merged into an overall vision for the new building. Consolidating the similar but inherently personal goals of Rosenbaum, the school building committee, and Architerra was a hurdle that each individual party had to overcome in order for the project to move forward successfully. It was important for both Architerra and the school to maintain a high level of transparency between each other and to be able to ask questions regarding the various sustainable technologies envisioned for the Art & Science Center. Familiarizing the school board and community with these green features and conveying their long-term value was a necessary obstacle that Architerra worked to overcome as a means of guaranteeing that their
Vision as a Catalyst for Sustainability
27
Challenges environmental performance agenda would not be weakened by short-sighted value engineering as the project progressed from vision to reality. To this end, Architerra pushed for leaving the building’s mechanical and structural systems exposed in the finished product, in order for students, faculty, and visitors alike to be able to readily comprehend the building’s diverse energy performance portfolio. More effective than a LEED placard conspicuously mounted in the lobby, the deliberate exposure of the center’s mechanical and structural systems becomes a way for the building’s users to clearly trace back how the well-known “green features” actually work in situ. As with any building project, there was a need to synthesize the disparate intentions and goals of different parties in order to arrive at successful solutions, in the form of a deliverable project. One example was a discussion among the CSW board of trustees and building committee over what to call the newest addition to the school’s campus, with some parties favoring “center” while others wanted to stick with “building”. In the end, the project ended up being officially titled the Garthwaite Center for Science and Art, bearing the name of the project’s main fundraiser and largest single donor, Diane Garthwaite. Soon after the building’s completion, it became apparent that at least one aspect of Architerra’s design was in need of revision. Gutters were not installed at the roof edges, with the architects justifying this omission by citing the greater runoff absorption levels afforded by the green roof. However, the green roof did not provide nearly adequate enough absorption to prevent substantial rainwater runoff from the roof to the ground, and the school brought the main contractor Consigli back to install gutters after the center had already opened. The fact that a major feature of Architerra’s sustainability portfolio was not capable of fully performing on the finished product underscores the fact that the best design intentions are not always capable of overcoming the performance obstacles that arise after a building’s tectonic realization.
ANALYSIS Introductory planning for a building project can stretch over a time scale of years when taking the views of multiple interests into consideration. Architects must recognize the inherently collaborative nature of their profession in order to gain insight from associated engineers, consultants, and craftsmen to broaden their own understanding of how building systems actually work. Even after a project reaches completion, clients may have to deal with shortcomings of the project’s vision and revisit building features with a third party.
Vision as a Catalyst for Sustainability
28
Conclusions The story of how the Garthwaite Art & Science Center at came to be demonstrates the positive outcomes that result from a building project in which all parties operate with a high degree of transparent collaboration. Before any correspondence with Architerra and the Cambridge School of Weston began, our ideas and impressions about the Art & Science Center project were formed entirely by the school and architect’s websites and praiseworthy building industry press. Through our investigations and interviews with key players, it became apparent that there was an unusually high level of expertise on sustainable building practices in both the designer and client teams. This knowledge, coupled with a true adherence to open participation throughout the process, resulted in an addition to the Cambridge School’s campus that fosters ongoing sustainability education and merges the qualities of both science and art.
Vision as a Catalyst for Sustainability
29
About the Authors Michael Casey is a Master of Architecture graduate from Northeastern and previously earned a Bachelor of Science in Architecture degree, with a minor in environmental studies. In addition to his education, he has completed co-ops with Jonathan Levi Architects in Boston, David Easton Inc. in New York City, and Payne/Bouchier Carpentry in Boston, and has previous construction experience. His thesis project involves transforming a vacant big box store into transit-oriented housing, emphasizing the embodied energy of the existing building form. Aaron Trahan is a Master of Architecture graduate from Northeastern University, where he previously earned a Bachelor of Science in Architecture degree. In conjunction with his architectural education, he has completed co-op internships at Kyu Sung Woo Architects in Cambridge, Elkus Manfredi Architects in Boston, and Housing Nantucket in Nantucket, where he worked alongside professional architects and affordable housing developers on a variety of sustainability focused projects. His graduate thesis project is a redevelopment of the Charlestown Public Housing project with a focus on urban redevelopment through community agriculture, and building renovation strategies for improved energy performance.
Vision as a Catalyst for Sustainability
30