Building Resilience: A Framework to Quantify + Assess Resilience by University of Minnesota College of Design

Building Resilience

A Framework to Quantify + Assess Resilience

Perkins + Will | UMN | Fall 2014

Perkins + Will

Rick Hintz, Meredith Hayes, Russell Philstrom, Doug Pierce

University of Minnesota Jim Lutz, Fiona Wholey with

Mortenson

Clark Taylor, Brant Dillon

Table of Contents Introduction 1.1 Framing Resilience Engineering Ecological Evolutionary 1.2 Existing Literature 2.1 Issues for Resilience Climate Change Disaster Mitigation Sustainability Role in the Community 2.2 Assessment Framework 2.3 Scope of Study Midwest Building Scale Design Strategies | Safe + Resilient Checklist 3.1 Findings + Conclusion References

Graphic Toolkit Resilience Framework Hazards + Design Strategies Design Strategies: Costs + Benefits

Introduction Recent disasters, such as Hurricane Sandy, have illustrated the increasing vulnerability of the built environment to a changing climate in addition to the higher risks that are faced from a rising urban population with more assets located in vulnerable areas.1 The growing costs of disasters and risk are creating more pressure to design buildings that are shock resistant, that are adaptable while also being sustainable and creating healthy environments. A key challenge to the implementation of resilient design is financial viability and how to incorporate and communicate the longer term benefits into the equation. This is a project between the UMN Consortium and Perkins + Will along with Mortenson that aims to identify the issues that resilient design addresses along with resilient design strategies and their associated costs and benefits. From this information, to develop a graphic that can be used to begin a conversation with a client about the costs and benefits. This research builds upon the existing

literature within the field and also the fields of sustainability, disaster mitigation and climate change to identify the key issues influencing resilience. The design strategies are developed from the Safe + Resilient Design Strategy Checklist from Perkins + Will. A set of 28 strategies were selected that help to mitigate hazards, both acute and chronic, in the Midwest. From this narrowed scope, the costs and benefits were identified for each strategy and applied to two baseline buildings, a hospital and office. This forms a key element of the research, in beginning to identify strategies that are low cost + high benefit or high benefit + high cost and how that influences the capital cost of a project. While the costs are known, the benefits are much more difficult to quantify and, in many cases, have only recently begun to be studied. This research is bringing together the findings of existing studies and developing a graphic way to represent those costs and benefits so that strategies can be more easily compared to one another. It is creating a booklet to begin the conversation about the potential costs and benefits of resilient design.

Engineering

Resilient Design pursues Buildings and Communities that are shock resistant, healthy, adaptable and regenerative through a combination of diversity, foresight and the capacity for self-organization and learning. - Doug Pierce, Perkins + Will 1.1 Framing resilience

Ecological

Resilience is a malleable term with many different meanings and interpretations. How it is defined influences the hazards that are designed for and the design strategies chosen. In relation to the built environment, there are two predominant approaches to resilience, ecological and engineering, in addition to an emerging concept of evolutionary resilience.

Evolutionary

Often these approaches are separated however increasingly, and in this research, resilience is being viewed as a combination of all of these. It is about the acute hazards (the engineering focus), chronic hazards, the interconnectivity between systems and scales (the ecological approach), and the influence of climate change creating fundamental changes in how we live (evolutionary focus). In each situation, depending on the program, context or the risks faced a different

Images from: “Netherlands to study impact of waves on dikes”, (2012) Dutch Delta Works Davies, R., “Sand Engines in the Netherlands”, (2015) Floodlist

approach might be needed or a combination of them. Instead of narrowing design strategies that only respond to one framing, it is about design that thoughtfully responds to the risks and the context in which the building is located. Engineering Resilience Engineering resilience is a focus on stability and constancy within the system ensuring the protection of physical or human assets.2 FEMA’s disaster mitigation guidance 3 and the Fortified for Safer Business Program4 predominately focus on this type of approach and designing stronger buildings or mitigating risk. The challenge with a sole focus on engineering resilience is that it results in catastrophic failure when it does fail and can disconnect the building from its area with unintended consequences. Hurricane Katrina is a well-known instance of catastrophic failure. The flooding in Europe in 2013 of the

Danube River is one instance of successful resilient design with unintended consequences further downstream. Flood mitigation measures installed in response to earlier floods in Dresden allowed that city to remain unscathed, however, it made the situation worse in other areas.5 Ecological Resilience Ecological resilience is a systems based approach focusing on “the magnitude of disturbance that can be absorbed before the system changes its structure”.6 It is about preserving the functionality of the system as a whole. Design strategies for ecological resilience focus on those that build in adaptability, redundancy and diversity into the system allowing for small failures while minimizing the chance of catastrophic failure. Examples of these strategies can be seen in the USGBC Building Resilience Taskforce7 such as incorporating renewable energy supplies to mitigate the consequences of power outages and diversify the energy supply chain. This approach to resilience heavily incorporates green design and sustainability. It looks at the longer term and the relationships between different systems and scales. Evolutionary Resilience Evolutionary resilience is a more recent approach that questions if previous behavior of a system is a good indicator of future behavior. This approach emphasizes that a system

transforms when exposed to stressors and can fundamentally change the behavior of the system requiring new ways to adapt to it.8 For example, it views climate change as an element that is introducing a number of new stressors that will transform how we live. This can already be seen in new programs in the West Coast (such as San Francisco’s Non-potable Water Program) that are responding to drought conditions encouraging a new approach to how water is managed.

PROGRESS REPORT First Two Years

The City of New York Mayor Bill de Blasio

O U R C I T Y. O U R F U T U R E .

1.2 Existing Literature Resilience is a broad topic that draws on numerous areas from sustainability to climate change adaptation and disaster mitigation. In state blueprints, such as PlanNYC, or climate change mitigation plans it is often an aspect looked at in addition to sustainabilty. While looking at the building scale, the focus is on resilience of the city and how the building influences that. The 100 Resilient Cities Initiative, from the Rockefeller Foundation, also focuses on the city scale. It has developed a framework to assess resilience and is a network of cities learning from each other. Other publications, such as Urban Green’s Building Resiliency Task Force, examine it in relation to the building scale however focus on how codes can be used or should be changed to create more resilient buildings.

This research is building upon this existing literature however is looking more at the business side of resilient design at the building scale and what are the potential costs or benefits.

2.1 Issues For resilience

Disaster Mitigation

Climate Change

Disaster mitigation and designing for acute hazards is a well-developed area and is the dominant issue most people associate with resilience. The focus is on lessening the impact from an acute disaster, such as flooding or an earthquake. Design strategies are those such as “FEMA 577, Design Guide for Improving Hospital Safety in Earthquakes, Floods, and High Winds.”11

Climate change is an issue that will significantly influence the ability of a building or city to be resilient and will influence the hazards that need to be designed for. In recent months, addressing climate change has gained momentum with the U.S. and China deal to reduce emissions and the UN Climate Change Conference in Lima. While there are slight variability’s in the models, they all come to the same conclusions that it is happening and greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced to ensure that the temperature rise stays below 2O C. Below that threshold, there is still the need to design for a changing climate however after that the disasters will significantly increase in their variability and extremes.9 Fundamental to this is reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As the building sector consumes more energy and produces more CO2 than any other sector, it offers a large opportunity to influence climate change.10 Resources for the latest information include the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Climate Assessment (NCA) from the U.S. Global Change Research program. The NCA provides information on expected acute and chronic hazards for each U.S. region will be experiencing.

To assess resilience to an acute disaster, key questions asked are what is the failure probability, what is the time to recovery, and what are the consequences from failure if a disaster occurs.12 As the disaster mitigation literature has well-developed frameworks and methods for quantifying resilience, this project is building it’s framework off of an existing disaster mitigation framework - that of Bruneau’s “Analytical Quantification of Disaster Resilience”.13 Sustainability There is a strong interplay between sustainablity and resilience with cities, such as NYC with the PlanNYC, recognizing that to be sustainable, a place also to be resilient. Within this study, sustainability indicators (based on LEED categories) are used to identify the benefits of resilient design especially as many green design strategies build resilience. Stormwater management strategies, such as green roofs, also help to

mitigate flood risk and the hazard of poor air quality. There is already a broad knowledge base to draw on the costs and benefits of these strategies. However the challenge is in comparing the benefits. Often the measurements are based on different variables from improved productivity to improved air quality and some benefits have to be evaluated through proxy units. The benefits of biophilia, for example, are measured indirectly through absenteeism or similar variables. Due to the difficulties of direct comparison, the final study emphasizes relationships between potential benefits rather than an exact quantification. Role in the Community Lastly, the buildings role in the community is an important issue to consider. A hospital or critical care facility is essential to supporting a community during (or immediately after) an acute disaster. Cases of recent hospital failure in Hurricane Sandy and Cedar Falls, Iowa illustrate the costs of failure when these facilities fail both economic costs and in supporting the community. Depending on the role of the building in the community, this will vary to what extent it needs to be shock resistant to an acute hazard and how strong to design for.

Assessment Framework Building Evaluation Baseline building Acute and chronic hazards Climate Change

Adaptation +Modification Design Strategies [Benefits + Costs]

Resilience Assessment Cost Modeling Capital Operational Disaster Indicators Failure Probability Time to Recover Consequences from failure Sustainability Indicators Energy + CO2 Emissions Water Air Quality, Resources

2.2 Assessment Framework These issues of disaster mitigation, climate change, sustainability and the role of the building in the community were incorporated into Bruneau’s “Analytical Quantification of Disaster Resilience” broadening it to include different scales and timeframes. Rather than a series of steps, it is a process of looking at the context and risks (building evaluation), using the indicators to assess how resilient the building is and then adapting or modifying until it is an acceptable level of risk.

2.3 Scope of Study The Midwest The focus is on the Midwest and is looking at the common acute hazards including flooding, tornadoes, hail and high winds in addition to the long term risks faced by climate change. Data from the National Climate Assessment was used to identify these hazards and the chronic hazards in the Midwest of drought, air quality and extreme heat. Building Program: Office + Hospital

Community Role

Two buildings, an office and hospital, were chosen to study as two separate scenarios. The hospital was selected due to its importance for a community during and after a disaster.

Equity

Acceptable Risk?

115’

174’

70’

Baseline Hospital 94’

250’

30’

Health + Wellbeing Critical Facility

Baseline Office

The second scenario of the office was

18’

210’

selected to broaden the applicability of the study particularly as a hospital will have different financial implications then most buildings. In addition, the cost of recovery for a city is influenced by how quickly the community can return to functioning and activity. Assumptions made throughout this process were to focus on building specific strategies particularly where there are implications for site or more context is needed to evaluate whether the strategy is applicable, then those were discounted. The research is balancing the need for context with generalizing to broaden the reach of the research.

Tornadoes, High Winds, Hail

Safe + Resilient Checklist Design Strategies

Material Specification

The development of the design strategies was based on the Safe + Resilient Checklist by Perkins + Will. 28 design strategies were selected that mitigate the Midwest hazards.

Tornado Safe Room

3.1 Findings

Envelope Strengthening Impact Resistant Roof

Midwest Hazards + Design Strategies

Air Quality + CO2 Increased Ventilation Low Emitting VOC Materials De-Couple Systems (DOAS)

Hazard Preparedness

Heat Recovery Renewable Energy

Backup Power (16 + 96 hrs) Building Form

Drought

Exterior Shading Devices

Graywater Treatment

High Performance Envelope

Rainwater Catchment

On-Site Storage

Reduce Indoor Water Use

Operable Windows

Reduce Landscape Water Use

Water and Power Outages

Flooding

High Temperatures

Above 500 yr Flood Plain

Green Roofs

Permeable Paving

Increase Trees + Vegetation

Raise Critical Equipment Reduce Soil Compaction Safeguard Toxic Materials Sewage Backflow Valve *Design strategies based upon Safe + Resilient Checklist (Perkins + Will) **Prerequisite strategies for a minimum of disaster resilience are in blue.

The graphic toolkit is a primary element of the research bringing together the costs and benefits of the design strategies for each hazard. Many of the design strategies, particularly green design, mitigate more than one hazard and provide a number of benefits. While the toolkit contains more detailed information on how the design strategies help to mitigate each hazard, below are some of the key findings for each hazard. Hazard Preparedness This is about providing a minimum level of safety during a hazard and the time frame to design for depends on the role of the building in the community. For a hospital, it is ensuring shelter in place and that it can function on itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own for 96 hours including storage, access to water or sewage, backup power and thermal safety. Thermal safety is a key element for hazard preparedness using passive design strategies to retain heat in the winter and prevent overheating in the summer. Passive design strategies can also reduce the energy use of a building, greenhouse gas emissions, and help to mitigate climate change.

Flooding In the Midwest, there will be an increase in heavy precipitation and existing flood plain data does not always reflect this change in risk as it relies on previous climate data that does not yet incorporate future predications of risk from climate change. Soft design strategies to flooding, such as green roofs, provide a range and number of long term benefits from reducing energy use to increased property value. Even in areas that have a low flood risk, these soft strategies can provide a number of additional benefits while mitigating flood risk in other areas by allowing the water to infiltrate on site. While soft design strategies can help to mitigate the risk of flooding, a hard engineering approach can provide increased protection of critical functions during a flood. Selecting design approaches to mitigate flooding is about using a combination of soft and hard approaches to respond to that site’s risks, context, and program. Tornadoes, Strong Winds, Hail While the science is inconclusive on how these events will be impacted by climate change, they already can have high costs. Design strategies in this study to help mitigate these events had either low costs (specifying materials that have performed well in tornadoes) or high costs (envelope strengthening). The costs from a tornado however can be significant and there are benefits in

investing in mitigating the effects of a tornado. Mercy Hospital in Joplin Missouri has been recently rebuilt to be ‘virtually’ tornado proof following the destruction of its previous building in the 2011 EF5 tornado. The consequences from the tornado included direct financial costs (loss of building) however also loss in revenue, staff retention costs, temporary work space in addition to intangible costs. Mercy Hospital’s design strategies to harden the new hospital are 3% of the total capital cost.14 Air Quality Improved air quality refers to both indoor and outdoor air quality. The focus on indoor air quality is to improve health, particularly ensuring increased air ventilation and low voc’s in the air. For improving the outdoor air quality, a key element of it is in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change and warming temperatures will lead to an increase in poor air quality. The focus for improving outdoor air quality were design strategies that reduced the use of energy and an increase in vegetation to filter and improve the air quality. Drought While drought will not impact the Midwest as much as other areas,15 such as the West Coast, there is expected to be an increase in days without precipitation. Strategies to mitigate drought and use water resources efficiently (including reducing water use and rainwater catchment) have a number of other

benefits particularly in reducing energy use. Through reducing use of municipal water supplies, this reduces the energy needed to treat and transport it and the greenhouse gas emissions. Through more efficient use of water, this can help to mitigate climate change. Extreme Heat Summers in the Midwest will be warmer and the area will experience periods of prolonged high temperatures increasing the demand for cooling.16 Passive design strategies can decrease the need for cooling and reduce peak demand during hot days. Cities, such as Chicago and Toronto, have introduced programs to mitigate this issue and reduce the heat island effect. Both cities have encouraged the incorporation of green roofs and trees to mitigate the heat island effect. Integrated Design A challenge and limitation for this research was the broad scope. Even though the scope was narrowed to focus on the Midwest and design strategies to respond to those hazards this was still too large to fully understand the costs and benefits of resilient design on a project. All of the design strategies influence each other and, as the benefits showed, influence other systems. Without a specific site, it was difficult to be able to allow for the interplay that would occur between the strategies and building. Many of the design strategies would reduce energy use however this was not reflected

fully in the sizing of the mechanical systems. Resilient design requires an integrated design approach that reflects the complexities and relationships between the different systems, strategies and hazards. Building Added Cost This research found that, if all the resilient design strategies were implemented (excluding grey water), an office would have an added cost of 18% and a hospital would be a 15%. However, these high costs are due to the limitations of the study as it was difficult to incorporate the benefits of an integrated design approach. More realistic examples of the added cost of resilient design are Mercy Hospital in Joplin and a research study by the University of Washington’s Integrated Design Lab “Targeting 100!”. Mercy Hospital in Joplin was recently rebuilt after a tornado in 2011. It has been built to be ‘virtually’ tornado proof. The design strategies used are similar to this study however are even more resilient to tornadoes with specially designed glass and three backup generators. Tornado hardening for the project only added a 3% cost increase.17

would only have a 3% added capital cost.

Conclusions While the study is inconclusive about the total added costs to a project, this research found that there are a number of benefits of designing for resilience, many of which have only recently begun to be evaluated. While more research is needed to fully understand all the benefits, research on a number of design strategies, such as green roofs, have already been shown that they offer a return on investment. The costs we know yet the benefits we are only starting to know. No one design strategy offers a silver bullet to design for resilience rather what is needed is an integrated design approach that looks at the key issues –the context, the acute and chronic hazards, the impact of climate change, sustainability and the role of the building in the community. Resilience is a continual process of risk analysis, adaptation and is an on-going conversation about acceptable risk. The way in which we respond to climate change will greatly influence this process and the risks that we have to design for.

Research Findings

Office* 18% Added Cost

Hospital* 15% Added Cost

Disaster Mitigation Rebuild Mercy Hospital, Joplin

3% Added Cost

1.43% Added Cost Laminated Glass

Energy Efficiency Hospital Study “Targeting 100!”

“Targeting 100!” is an energy study performed by the University of Washington that examined how hospitals could meet the goals of the 2030 Challenge and the additional capital cost.18 The “Targeting 100!” study found that a hospital could reduce it’s energy use by 62%, have a 11% ROI and

3% Added Cost 9% ROI

62% Reduction in Energy Use

References Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2012) “Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation,” IPCC

C. S. Holling., (1996) “Engineering Resilience Versus Ecological Resilience.” In Engineering Within Ecological Constraints. National Academies Press

FEMA, “Plan, Prepare & Mitigate.” 2014. Accessed November 29.https://www.fema. gov/plan-prepare-mitigate.

Insurance Industry for Business and Home Safety, (2014), “DisasterSafety - FORTIFIED for Safer Living® - New Construction.” Accessed 11/2014 from https://www.disastersafety.org/fortified/safer_living/

Munich RE,. (2014) “Overall picture of natural catastrophes in 2013 dominated by weather extremes in Europe and Supertyphoon Haiyan” Press Release, Retrieved on 11/2014 from http://www.munichre.com/en/media-relations/publications/ press-releases/2014/2014-01-07-pressrelease/index.html

C. S. Holling., (1996) “Engineering Resilience Versus Ecological Resilience.” In Engineering Within Ecological Constraints. National Academies Press

Urban Green Council, (2013) “Building Resiliency Task Force.” Report, Retrieved on 11/2014 from http://urbangreencouncil.org/content/projects/ 7

building-resilency-task-force Davoudi, S., (2012) “Resilience: A Bridging Concept or a Dead End?”, Planning Theory & Practice 13 (2): 299–306

Stockholm, F., (2014), “IPCC Climate Report: Human Impact Is ‘Unequivocal.’” The Guardian. Accessed 11/2014 from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/27/ ipcc-climate-report-un-secretary-general

Architecture 2030, (2011) “Architecture 2030 will change the way you look at buildings”, Architecture 2030. Accessed 12/2014 from http://architecture2030.org/ the_problem/buildings_problem_why

FEMA 577, Design Guide for Improving Hospital Safety in Earthquakes, Floods, and High Winds: Providing Protection to People and Buildings (2007)”, 11

Cimellaro, G., Andrei M. Reinhorn, and Michel Bruneau., (2010) “Framework for Analytical Quantification of Disaster Resilience.”, Engineering Structures Vol. 32, No. 11: pp. 3639–49 12

Cimellaro, G., Andrei M. Reinhorn, and Michel Bruneau., (2010) “Framework for Analytical Quantification of Disaster Resilience.”, Engineering Structures Vol. 32, No. 11: pp. 3639–49

Katz, Andrew, “The (Virtually) TornadoProof Hospital: What Moore Can Learn From 14

References Joplin.” (2014) Time Magazine, Accessed 12/14 National Climate Assessment (NCA), ”Climate Change Impacts in the US”, (2014), U.S. Global Change Research Program 15

National Climate Assessment (NCA), ”Climate Change Impacts in the US”, (2014), U.S. Global Change Research Program 16

Katz, Andrew, “The (Virtually) TornadoProof Hospital: What Moore Can Learn From Joplin.” (2014) Time Magazine, Accessed 12/14 17

Integrated Design Lab, “Targeting 100!”, (2012) University of Washington 18

Graphic Toolkit

The Graphic Toolkit consists of three parts - the Resilience Assessment Framework, Hazards + Design Strategies, and Design Strategies Costs + Benefits. The Resilience Framework outlines the key issues to consider when designing for resilience. It is a process of evaluation and modification â&#x20AC;&#x201C; looking at the context, assessing how the building will respond to those risks, and modifying the design to mitigate those risks to develop a more resilient building. The second part of the toolkit is the Hazards + Design Strategies section. Each Midwest hazard contains a page of the design strategies that help to mitigate it and can be used

as a quick visual to begin to identify strategies and potential benefits, costs or incentives. It is intended as a broad overview and comparison. The Design Strategies Costs + Benefits provides more details about the potential benefits and costs of each design strategy. The Design Strategies Costs + Benefits goes further into depth describing what the potential benefits are, costs and study assumptions, resources and publications, incentives and/or case studies. This acts as a resource for additional information and the references the research that formed the basis for determining the benefits.

Resilience framework Building Evaluation

Baseline building Acute and chronic hazards Climate Change + Emissions Scenarios

Resilience Assessment Cost Modeling • Capital • Operational

Disaster Indicators • Failure Probability • Time to Recover • Consequences from failure

Adaptation + Modification

Design Strategies [Benefits + Costs]

Sustainability Indicators • Energy + CO2 Emissions • Water • Air Quality, Resources • Health + Wellbeing Community Role • Critical Facility • Equity

Acceptable Risk? Developed from: Cimellaro, Gian Paolo, Andrei M. Reinhorn, and Michel Bruneau. “Framework for Analytical Quantification of Disaster Resilience.” (2010), Engineering Structures Vol. 32 Issue 11

Key

Tangible Benefits

Intangible Benefits

High private benefit.

High public benefit.

High private benefit.

High public benefit.

Low private benefit.

Low public benefit.

Low private benefit.

Low public benefit.

Acute Hazards Disaster Preparedness Flooding Hail High Winds Tornadoes

Chronic Hazards Air Quality Drought High Temperatures

Costs (% of total capital cost) 0% Less than 1% Between 1% and 2% Greater than 2%

Key Descriptions • Orange symbols identify the hazards both acute and chronic. • Grey dots are the cost of the design strategy as a % of the total capital cost of the baseline buildings. The more dots, the more expensive the strategy.

• Each bar represents a benefit with three variables described: (who benefits denoted by color, amount of potential benefit denoted by size of bar, how the benefit is measured denoted by fill or outlined bar).

HAzard Preparedness Design Strategy

Hazards

Cost

Incentives Benefits

Backup Power Building Form On-Site Storage Operable Windows Water and Power Outages

Heat Retention High Performance Envelope

Passive Cooling* Exterior Shading Devices Green Roof

Increase Trees + Vegetation

Complementary Renewable Energy

+ *Passive cooling strategies include Shading, Green Roof, Trees + Vegetation

Flooding Design Strategy

Hazards

Cost

Incentives Benefits

Above 500 yr Flood Plain Permeable Paving

Raise Critical Equipment Reduce Soil Compaction

Safeguard Toxic Materials Sewage Backflow Valve

Complementary Green Roof

Increase Trees + Vegetation Rainwater Catchment

Tornado,Hail,High Wind Design Strategy

Hazards

Cost

Incentives Benefits

Envelope Strengthening Impact Resistant Roof Material Specification Tornado Safe Room

air quality Design Strategy

Hazards

Cost

Incentives Benefits

Interior Air Quality Increased Ventilation Low Emitting Materials

Exterior Air Quality De-Couple Systems (DOAS) Heat Recovery Renewable Energy

Complementary Green Roof Increase Trees + Vegetation

Extreme HEat Design Strategy

Hazards

Cost

Incentives Benefits

Exterior Shading devices Green Roof Increase Trees + Vegetation

Complementary De-Couple Systems (DOAS) Form for Daylighting Heat Recovery Operable Windows + Natural Ventilation

Drought Design Strategy

Hazards

Cost

Incentives Benefits

Graywater Treatment Rainwater Catchment Reduce Indoor Water Use Reduce Landscape Water Use

Complementary Reduce Soil Compaction

Design Strategies

The Design Strategies Costs + Benefits goes further into depth describing what the potential benefits are, costs and study assumptions, resources and publications, incentives and/or case studies for each of the 28 resilient design strategies. This acts as a resource for additional information and the references the research that formed the basis for determining the benefits.

Resilience Prerequisites Design Strategies Prerequisites Sites of Avoidance + Repair: Flood Plain, Storm Surge + Sea Rise • Above 500 yr Flood Plain

Fundamental Back-up Power + Operations • Sewage Backflow Valve • Backup Power (16 hrs or 96hrs for a hospital) • Water and Power Outages

Fundamental Thermal Safety During Emergencies • Operable Windows • High Performance Envelope

Safe + Resilient Checklist (Perkins + Will)

• E xterior Shading Devices

Prerequisites for a minimum level of resilience:* Added cost for an office: $581,738 (2.5%)

Minimum Water Efficiency + Resilient Water and Landscapes • Reduce Indoor Water Use

Added cost for a Hospital: $1,526,426 (2.5%)*

• Reduce Landscape Water Use

* These costs do not accurately reflect the true costs in a project as an integrated design would offset the costs with savings in other

Minimum IAQ + Views to the Exterior

areas, such as the high performance envelope with mechanical system size.

• Low Emitting VOC Materials

Office Design Strategies Low Cost | HIgh Benefit Strategies

High Cost | HIgh Benefit Strategies

Passive Thermal Safety, Thermal Comfort + Lighting

Water, Energy + On-site food production

• Building Form

Energy Efficiency + On-Site and / or Renewable Energy • Renewable Energy

Human HDP: Expanded IAQ, Daylight + Views, Fresh Air • Increase Trees + Vegetation

Safer Design for Extreme Weather, Wildfire, Fire + Seismic Events • Material Specification • Tornado Safe Room

Adaptive Design for Flooding, Sea Rise, Storm Surge • Permeable Paving + Reduce Soil Compaction

Advanced Emergency Operations • Raise Critical Equipment

Adaptive Design for Flooding, Sea Rise, Storm Surge • Green Roof

• Rainwater Catchment

Minimum Energy Efficiency • De-Couple Systems (DOAS) • Heat Recovery

Human HDP: Expanded IAQ, Daylight + Views, Fresh Air • Increased Ventilation

Safer Design for Extreme Weather, Wildfire, Fire + Seismic • Impact Resistant Roof

Hospital Design Strategies Low Cost | HIgh Benefit Strategies

High Cost | HIgh Benefit Strategies

Passive Thermal Safety, Thermal Comfort + Lighting

Minimum Energy Efficiency

• Building Form

Human HDP: Expanded IAQ, Daylight + Views, Fresh Air • Increase Trees + Vegetation

Safer Design for Extreme Weather, Wildfire, Fire + Seismic Events • Material Specification • Tornado Safe Room

Adaptive Design for Flooding, Sea Rise, Storm Surge • Permeable Paving + Reduce Soil Compaction

Advanced Emergency Operations • Raise Critical Equipment • Safeguard Toxic Materials • On-Site Storage

Adaptive Design for Flooding, Sea Rise, Storm Surge • Green Roof

• De-Couple Systems (DOAS) • Heat Recovery

Safer Design for Extreme Weather, Wildfire • Envelope Strengthening • Impact Resistant Roof

Human HDP: Expanded IAQ, Daylight + Views, Fresh Air • Increased Ventilation

Energy Efficiency + On-Site and / or Renewable Energy • Renewable Energy

Above 500yr Flood Plain Disaster Case Study | Cedar Falls 2008 Floods Cedar Falls, Iowa has adopted the 500 yr flood plain as the locally regulated floodplain instead of FEMA’s mandated 100yr. This is due to the 2008 flooding that neared the 500yr mark and as 25% of the city is within those limits. Design Standards Reduced risk from flooding and consequent loss of functionality or financial investment. Maintaining functionality is particularly key for critical facilities. 1, 2

• ASCE, “Flood Resistant Design and Construction SEI/ASCE 24-98”, (2005), ASCE • FEMA, “FEMA 534: Design Guide for improving Critical Facility Safety from Floods and High Winds”, (2007), FEMA

References + Research 1

FEMA, “National Flood Insurance Program for a Critical Facility”, (2014), FEMA

Heavy precipitation events have increased by 30% in the Midwest, Northwest and Great Plains resulting in a significant increase in risk and flooding events. 4

FEMA, “FEMA 534: Design Guide for improving Critical Facility Safety from Floods and High Winds”, (2007), FEMA 3

Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety “Fortified for Safer Business Standards, Volume 1”, (2014), Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 4

National Climate Assessment (NCA), ”Climate Change Impacts in the US”, (2014), U.S. Global Change Research Program

Z. Kundzewicz, S. Kanae, S. Seneviratne, J. Handmer, N. Nicholls, P. Peduzzi, R. Mechler, et al., “Flood Risk and Climate Change: Global and Regional Perspectives.” (2014) Hydrological Sciences Journal 59 (1): 1–28. 6

Musiol, E., Ryan, M., “Cedar Falls Iowa Case Study” (2014), American Planning Association Trends in Flood Magnitude, NCA

Above 500yr Flood Plain Office

Hospital

Area: 100,050 sf

Area: 129,450 sf

Capital Cost: $22,876,882

Capital Cost: $59,434,341

Cost/GSF: $229 / sf

Cost/GSF: $459 / sf

Additional Capital Cost

Site location and building above the 500yr flood plain (taking into account climate change and new flood maps)

Additional Cost: $0

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): 0%

Building above the 500 yr flood plain is a low cost way to protect the building from flooding however it might not enhance the resilience of the community1 Spaulding Hospital in Boston decided to build along the waterfront in a brownfield site (with the increase in cost to respond to flood risk) due to their role in the community and the benefits of waterfront access to their patients.2 The resilience benefits to the community was balanced with design strategies to improve the resilience of the hospital responding to being in an area of flood risk.

Gregor, A., “Building for the Flood: Boston’s Spaulding Rehabilitation Center designed with resilience rising sea levels in mind”, (2013), USGBC+

Backup power Sufficient power to operate the critical functions including water, egress and life safety for at least 16 hours (or 96hrs for a hospital).

Maintain key functionality and operation during a power outage1 Design Strategy: Provision of a backup generator running on diesel or natural gas providing sufficient fuel for 16hrs (office) or 96hrs (hospital)4.

Case Study While backup power helps to ensure functionality during a power outage, it is also susceptible to failure. During Hurricane Sandy, many backup generators worked for the hospitals. In New Jersey 30 hospitals were running on backup power the morning after the storm. However, two notable failures with the backup systems were the Bellevue Hospital and NYU Langone Medical Center. References + Research 1

Urban Green Council, “Building Resilience Task Force, (2013) USGBC

Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety “Fortified for Safer Business Standards, Volume 1”, (2014), Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety 3

Evans, M., Carlson, J., “Left in the dark: Seven years after Katrina, Sandy is teaching hospitals more lessons on how to survive nature’s fury”, (2012) Modern Healthcare 4

FEMA, “FEMA 577: Design Guide for Improving Hospital Safety in Earthquakes, Floods and High Winds”, (2007) FEMA

* Backup power and switching equipment is placed above 500 yr flood plain. Within this study, it was located on a penthouse on the roof to protect it from floods and high winds. 2

Backup power Office

Hospital

Area: 100,050 sf

Area: 129,450 sf

Capital Cost: $22,876,882

Capital Cost: $59,434,341

Cost/GSF: $229 / sf

Cost/GSF: $459 / sf

Additional Capital Cost

Backup power generator (diesel or natural gas) providing 16 hours of power.

Backup power generator (diesel or natural gas) providing 96 hours of power.

Additional Cost: $10,000

Additional Cost: $260,000

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): < 1%

Additional backup power sources can be considered providing greater operational benefits, such as renewable energy, solar or co-generation1

Urban Green Council, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Building Resilience Task Force, (2013) USGBC

De-couple Systems (DOAS) In a hospital, re-heat is one of the largest uses of energy accounting for approximately 40% of total energy use1

Reduce energy and the overcooling and reheat loads for a building1, 2

Reduce energy consumption and subsequent CO2 emissions.

Improved air quality and reduced levels of air contaminants.3 Potential for reduction in floor-to-floor height by shifting from all air systems to a hybrid of air and water based1 Design Strategies: De-couple the thermal conditioning of the building (heating and cooling systems) from ventilation systems installing a DIAS unit, ductwork and controls for ventilation.

Studies are showing that de-coupling the ventilation and thermal conditioning systems can have significant energy savings,4 particularly in a hospital. While more widely adopted in European countries, there are few studies examining the performance of DOAS in actual buildings in the U.S.3 Case Studies Hospitals are energy intensive and research by the Integrated Design Lab,1 has found that hospitals in the U.S. hospitals tend to use significantly more energy than those in Scandinavian countries. A common strategy within Scandinavian hospitals is to de-couple the thermal and ventilation systems to reduce re-heat using radiators and radiant cooling panels for thermal control1 This is integrated with other approaches to balance the thermal and ventilation needs of the building with the architectural strategies, building mechanical and plant strategies. References + Research 1 Integrated Design Lab, “Targeting 100!”, (2012) University of Washington 2

LEED BD+C Core and Shell | v4 , (2013), LEED

Emmerich, S., McDowell, T., “Initial Evaluation of Displacement Ventilation and Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems for U.S. Commerical Buildings”, (2005) National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce

Jeong, J., Mumma, S., Bahnfleth, W., “Energy Conservation Benefits of a Dedicated Outdoor Air System with Parallel Sensible Cooling by Ceiling Radiant Panels”, (2003), ASHRAE

De-couple Systems (DOAS) Office

Hospital

Area: 100,050 sf

Area: 129,450 sf

Capital Cost: $22,876,882

Capital Cost: $59,434,341

Cost/GSF: $229 / sf

Cost/GSF: $459 / sf

Additional Capital Cost

Decouple ventilation and thermal conditioning systems adding a DOAS unit, additional ductwork and controls for ventilation

Additional Cost: $337,500

Additional Cost: $685,000

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): 1.4%

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): 1%

Envelope Strengthening Minimizes the consequences from tornados and high winds protecting the building envelope and the interior from water damage due to failure of the building envelope. For a hospital, costs from failure can be significant and include lack of medical care, costs for temporary premises, repairing the damage in addition to the social and financial costs from disruption of operations1

“In those instances where there is little or no warning of an impending tornado strike, maintaining building envelope integrity is crucial to providing protection to patients and staff, and in minimizing disruption of services.” 1

• Laminated glass window assemblies designed for missile resistance (ASTM E 1886)

Case Study In 2011, an EF5 tornado directly hit the Mercy Hospital in Joplin, Missouri killing 6 people. The new hospital is designed to be stronger and tornado resistant. Each floor has a windowless safe zone and extensive strengthening of the envelope. There is a waterproof membrane and concrete slab on the roof to ensure the roof remains intact. In addition to strengthening the windows, those in the intensive critical care units are designed to withstand 90 mph winds. While $6.45 million was spent on the windows, it is only 1.43% of the reconstruction budget.3

• Doors and windows designed to comply with wind testing loads (ASTM E 1233)

References + Research

Design Strategies include: • Roof Systems designed to resist uplift (ASCE 7, safety factor of 2)

FEMA, “FEMA 577: Design Guide for Improving Hospital Safety in Earthquakes, Floods and High Winds”, (2007), FEMA

FEMA, “FEMA 361: Design and Construction Guidance for Community Safe Rooms”, (2008) FEMA 3

Katz, Andrew, “The (Virtually) Tornado-Proof Hospital: What Moore Can Learn From Joplin.” (2014) Time Magazine, Accessed 12/14

* This level of strengthening is not enough to act in place of a safe room and costs can vary widely depending on strength of tornado designed for.

Envelope Strengthening Office

Hospital

Area: 100,050 sf

Area: 129,450 sf

Capital Cost: $22,876,882

Capital Cost: $59,434,341

Cost/GSF: $229 / sf

Cost/GSF: $459 / sf

Exterior Enclosure Area: 42,483 sf

Exterior Enclosure Area: 41,533 sf

Exterior Enclosure Cost: $2,548,980

Exterior Enclosure Cost: $3,115,000

Additional Capital Cost

1. Roof systems designed to resist uplift (ASCE 7)

Additional Cost: $100,050

Additional Cost: $255,000

2. Laminated glass window assemblies for missile and wind resistance (ASTM E 1886)

Additional Cost: $1,043,382

Additional Cost: $994,872

3. Doors and windows designed to comply with wind load testing (ASTM E 1233)

Additional Cost: $60,000

Additional Cost: $70,000

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): 5%

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): 2%

While the windows have the largest impact on cost, they also have high benefits from operational savings to health. For a hospital, access to windows is shown to improve recovery times and Mercy Hospital balanced that with the risk from tornadoes by installing specially designed windows to ensure patient safety. 1

Katz, Andrew, â&#x20AC;&#x153;The (Virtually) Tornado-Proof Hospital: What Moore Can Learn From Joplin.â&#x20AC;? (2014) Time Magazine, Accessed 12/14

Exterior Shading Devices Decrease cooling loads and energy bills in the summer. Mitigate heat gain and prevent glare.

Thermal safety and minimizing the consequences when the power is out preventing overheating.

Reduction in peak energy demand.

“Properly designed exterior solar shades can decrease air conditioning loads 30%-60%, can lower room temperatures as much as 25 degrees and have the greatest impact at times of peak energy demand, like a midday in summer.”3

Reduction in CO2 produced due to smaller cooling loads. Reduced loads influence the size needed for mechanical systems. Design Strategy Applied shading devices to the south and west sides of the building.

Exterior shading devices, if designed responding to the site conditions, can decrease the heat gain in the summer while allowing heat gain during the winter to warm the building1 In both situations, it can reduce the amount of energy being used and peak demand on municipal systems. In addition to the benefits of reduced energy use, it provides thermal safety during a power outage as glass causes the building to heat up more quickly. 4 With climate change and warming temperatures, strategies to mitigate heat gain will become increasingly important. References Research + Studies 2030 Palette, “Form for Daylight”, “Form for heating”, “Form for cooling”, (2014) Architecture 2030

LEED BD+C Core and Shell | v4 , “Daylight”, (2013), LEED

Urban Green Council, “NYC Green Codes Task Force, (2010), USGBC

Urban Green Council, “Baby it’s cold inside”, (2013) USGBC

Exterior Shading Devices Office

Hospital

Area: 100,050 sf

Area: 129,450 sf

Capital Cost: $22,876,882

Capital Cost: $59,434,341

Cost/GSF: $229 / sf

Cost/GSF: $459 / sf

Additional Capital Cost

Exterior shading devices on the south and west elevations.

Additional Cost: $170,625

Additional Cost: $99,875

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): < 1%

Form for daylighting “Daylighting and energy benefits are minimal if windows take up more than 60 percent of wall area.” 5 Case Study Reduced energy use for lighting fixtures.

2, 4

Improved health by maintaining circadian rhythm and influencing sleep patterns1, 2, 4

There is increasing interest in how to incorporate daylight in a hospital with it’s deep floor plans and the operational needs. “Targeting 100!” presents case studies of Scandinavian hospitals that use less energy and incorporate higher levels of daylight throughout the buildings. 6 Tools

Daylighting and views out can improve productivity and accuracy1, 2

• Daylighting Pattern Guide, Advanced Buildings

References + Research 1

World Green Building Council, “Health, Wellbeing, & Productivity in Offices”, (2014), World Green Building Council

In hospitals, improves healing times from surgeries.2 Colors can be seen more accurately in daylight spaces

Improved employee satisfaction.4 Reduction in CO2 emissions from reduced energy use. Design Strategies: Changing the form of the building to increase daylighting using a narrow floorplate to maximise exterior wall area. Also incorporated daylight sensors to ensure energy savings and lights are turned off when possible. *In this study, a 30% glazing area of the envelope was used. The office building form was changed from a 2:3 ratio to a 1:3 ratio .

LEED BD+C Core and Shell | v4 , “Quality Views” and“Daylight”, (2013) LEED 3

2030 Palette, “Form for Daylight”, “Form for heating”, “Form for cooling”, (2014) Architecture 2030

Wymelenberg, K., “The Benefits of Natural Light”, (2014), Architectural Lighting 5 6

Urban Green Council, “Baby it’s cold inside”, (2013) USGBC

Integrated Design Lab, “Targeting 100!”, (2012) University of Washington

Form for daylighting Office

Hospital

Area: 100,050 sf

Area: 129,450 sf

Capital Cost: $22,876,882

Capital Cost: $59,434,341

Cost/GSF: $229 / sf

Cost/GSF: $459 / sf

Exterior Enclosure Area: 42,483 sf

Exterior Enclosure Area: 41,533 sf

Exterior Enclosure Area Cost/GSF: $25.48

Exterior Enclosure Area Cost/GSF: $24.06

Additional Capital Cost

Daylight Sensors

Additional Cost: $100,050

Additional Cost: $339,000

Change in exterior envelope and assumes a 15% increase in exterior enclosure area square footage

Additional Cost: $162,370

Additional Cost: $149,892

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): 1%

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): < 1%

Additional costs vary based on strategies chosen to design for daylight. This study focused on the incorporation of daylight sensors to ensure lights are turned off when there is sufficient daylight and in a 15% increase in the buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s envelope to reduce floorplate depths.

Gray water treatment Graywater treatment is one way to reduce indoor water use through using it for flushing needs or landscape irrigation1 This strategy responds to drought conditions with the efficient re-use of water in addition to reducing the amount of energy needed to treat it. Decrease potable water use and water bills.2

Reduce energy and chemicals needed to treat wastewater.2 Design Strategies: Use of gray water for irrigation or flushing needs.

The use of graywater on site varies based on local codes. Areas with drought conditions, such as San Francisco, are increasingly viewing graywater as a way to diversify the city’s water portfolio and build in water resilience.2 In Minnesota, where water is more abundant, gray water treatment is not currently addressed in the Minnesota Plumbing Code however references the International Green Construction Code for information.3 Initiatives • San Francisco Non-Potable Water System Projects, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission References + Research LEED BD+C Core and Shell | v4 , (2013), LEED

San Francisco Water Power Sewer, “San Francisco’s Non-potable Water System Projects”, (2014), San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

City of Minneapolis, “Gray Water: Green Building Ideas for Existing Commercial Buildings”, (2012) City of Minneapolis, Accessed 1/15

Gray water treatment Office

Hospital

Area: 100,050 sf

Area: 129,450 sf

Capital Cost: $22,876,882

Capital Cost: $59,434,341

Cost/GSF: $229 / sf

Cost/GSF: $459 / sf

Additional Capital Cost

Gray water treatment

Due to health and safety reasons, this was not considered for a hospital however further research is needed for hospital contexts that gray water use would work well.

Additional Cost: $275,113 Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): 1%

Green Roofs Reduces building energy use with evapotranspiration in the summer, decreased solar radiation, and insulating in the winter1,2

Stormwater retention rates of extensive green roofs range from 40 - 50% in winter to 60-100% in summer, depending on climatic conditions and design. 3 Tools + Calculators • “Green Roof Energy Calculator”, Green Building Research Laboratory, Portland State University

Improves water quality + reduces stormwater runoff.2, 3 Passive cooling and reduction in peak loads with a potential to reduce mechanical equipment size. Improves air quality through pollution uptake, sequestering carbon and reducing CO2 produced from cooling.2, 3 Reduces urban heat island with the increase in plants and evapotranspiration1

Incentives • Listing of “Green Roof Incentives”, Vegetal i.D. • State or city stormwater credits, e.g.: “Minneapolis Stormwater Credit Program”, City of Minneapolis • “Great Lakes Shoreline Cities Green Infrastructure Grants”, (2014) EPA

References + Research 1

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Green Roofs”, (2013) EPA

Increases habitat and biodiversity.3 Increase property values and marketability.3 3

Biophilia and improved health benefits.

Potential for reducing flood risk in urban areas.3, 4 Improved thermal safety during power outages. * Location dependent strategy. Reduction in building energy use varies between climates and this analysis assumes that no (or limited) irrigation is needed for the green roof. Regular irrigation and reliance on municipal water might offset the benefits and raise operational costs for treating and transporting the municipal water.

Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT), “The Value of Green Infrastructure”, (2010), CNT

Banting, D., Doshi, H., Li, J., Missios, P., ”Report on the Benefits and Costs of Green Roof Technology for the City of Toronto”, (2005) Ryerson University 4

VanWoerta, N., Rowe, B., Andresen, J., Rugh, C., Fernandez, T., and Xiao, L., “Green Roof Stormwater Retention”, (2005), Journal of Environmental Quality (34): 1036–44

Green Roofs Office

Hospital

Area: 100,050 sf

Area: 129,450 sf

Capital Cost: $22,876,882

Capital Cost: $59,434,341

Cost/GSF: $229 / sf

Cost/GSF: $459 / sf

Roof Area: 20,010 sf

Roof Area: 51,000 sf

Roof Cost: $320,160

Roof Cost: $1,122,000

Additional Capital Cost

Extensive Green Roof

Additional Cost: $200,010

Additional Cost: $510,00

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): < 1%

Costs of green roofs range from:

• $10 / ft2 extensive

• $25 / ft2 intensive

Maintenance Costs

Annual Costs range between:1 $.75 - 1.50 / ft2

Annual Costs range between:

$.75 - 1.50 / ft2

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Green Roofs”, (2013) EPA

Heat Recovery Heat or energy recovery ventilators can reduce the energy needed for mechanical systems pretreating outside ventilation air1 These systems are becoming more common in order to meet energy codes and standards such as ASHRAE or LEED which require improved energy efficiency and air quality.3 References + Research Dieckmann, J., “Improving Humidity Control with Energy Recovery Ventilation.” (2008) ASHRAE Journal. 50, no. 8

Reduce heating and cooling loads1

Minnesota Department of Commerce, ”Improving Effectiveness of Commercial Energy Recovery Ventilation”, (2014), Minnesota Department of Commerce, Accessed 01/15

Harvey, D., “Reducing energy use in the buildings sector: measures, costs and examples”, (2009), Energy Efficiency 2; 139-163

Reduce peak loads allowing for the downsizing of the mechanical heating and cooling systems1

Reduce energy consumption and subsequent CO2 emissions. Design Strategies: Install a heat recovery system to recover and reuse waste heat.

Hoger, R.“ERV is the word: Use of energy recovery ventilators continues to grow” (2009), EcoBuilding Pulse, Accessed 01/15

ANSI/ASHRAE/IES, “ASHRAE Standard 901 Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-rise Residential”, (2010), ASHRAE

LEED BD+C Core and Shell | v4 , (2013), LEED

Heat Recovery Office

Hospital

Area: 100,050 sf

Area: 129,450 sf

Capital Cost: $22,876,882

Capital Cost: $59,434,341

Cost/GSF: $229 / sf

Cost/GSF: $459 / sf

Additional Capital Cost

Installation of heat recovery ventilation system

Additional Cost: $240,000

Additional Cost: $800,000

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): 1%

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): 1.3%

Heat retention Ensuring thermal safety of a building during a power outage and that a building can maintain a temperature above 450F (550Ffor a hospital) in winter for a period of 4 days through heat retention and/or backup power systems. Due to the long term energy benefits of heat retention strategies, a high performance building was used. A high performance building envelope with increased insulation, high performance windows, less than 60% glazing area, air sealing and sunshades can maintain the thermal safety of a building for a week, depending on climate. 2 Reduces energy needed to heat the building in winter.

Minimize consequences when the power is out ensuring the building maintains a level of thermal safety.2 Financial benefits and buildings that meet an efficiency standard show an increase in rent and valuation.3

The use of glass greatly influences the energy efficiency of the building and thermal safety as even high performance glass still conducts heat more than a typical insulated wall.5 In buildings that are all glass, about 59% of the view is obstructed by blinds or shades minimizing the benefits of the glass while raising the energy costs of the building. 5 References + Research 1

Urban Green Council, “Building Resilience Task Force, (2013) USGBC

Urban Green Council, “Baby it’s cold inside”, (2013) USGBC

Reduction in CO2 emissions due to decreased energy use. Design Strategy: Applied a high performance envelope with:* • Wall R value of 25

McKinsey & Company, “Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy”, (2009) Deutsche Bank Americas Foundation 4

Urban Green Council, “90 by 50: NYC Can Reduce its Carbon Footprint 90% by 2050”, (2013) USGBC 5

Urban Green Council, “Seduced by the View”, (2014) USGBC

• Roof R value of 50 • Window R value of 4.5 Using a 30% window glazing area.

* Based on the Urban Green Council “90 by 50: NYC Can Reduce its Carbon Footprint 90% by 2050” R values.

Heat retention Office

Hospital

Area: 100,050 sf

Area: 129,450 sf

Capital Cost: $22,876,882

Capital Cost: $59,434,341

Cost/GSF: $229 / sf

Cost/GSF: $459 / sf

Exterior Enclosure Area: 42,483 sf

Exterior Enclosure Area: 41,533 sf

Exterior Enclosure Cost: $2,548,980

Exterior Enclosure Cost: $3,115,000

Additional Capital Cost

Applied a high performance envelope with: Wall R value of 25, Roof R value of 50, Window R value of 4.5 using a 30% window glazing area.*

Additional Cost: $284,885

Additional Cost: $393,801

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): < 1.2%

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): < 1%

*Load reduction can influence the size of mechanical systems needed reducing the upfront costs of applying these strategies. A 5% reduction in system load was assumed and applied to the mechanical systems.

Increased Ventilation Improved health and reduction in sick days for employees1

Improved productivity with potential gains of 11%1

Benefits from natural ventilation or mixed-mode conditioning can result in productivity gains of 3 -18%, health cost savings of .8 - 1.3% and HVAC energy savings from 47 - 79%. 1 References + Research 1 Health, Wellbeing, & Productivity in Offices (2014) World Green Building Council LEED BD+C Core and Shell | v4 , â&#x20AC;&#x153;Enhanced indoor air quality strategiesâ&#x20AC;?, (2013) LEED

Design Strategies: Enhanced air quality by increasing the breathing zone outdoor air ventilation rates to occupied spaces by 30% above the minimum rates. 2*

* Between 20 and 30 litres/second is the optimum ventilation rate with potential benefits slowing down after 30 litres/second. 1

Increased Ventilation Office

Hospital

Area: 100,050 sf

Area: 129,450 sf

Capital Cost: $22,876,882

Capital Cost: $59,434,341

Cost/GSF: $229 / sf

Cost/GSF: $459 / sf

Additional Capital Cost

Increase the breathing zone outdoor ventilation rates to occupied spaces by 30% above minimum code rates.

Additional Cost: $162,500

Additional Cost: $292,500

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): < 1%

Impact Resistant Roof Reduces damage caused by hail or high winds. If insured, the insurance carrier receives the primary benefit from reduced damages. Design Strategy: Roof cover meeting UL 2218, Class 4

Approximately 3,000 hailstorms occur in the US per year with insured losses averaging $1.6 billion1 Roofs in hail-prone areas must be replaced more frequently from every 20 yrs to every 7-10 yrs.3 Damage caused by hail is dependent on the slope of the roof and materials. Lower slope commercial roofs are not typically damaged by hail less than 1.25 in in diameter whereas steeper asphalt shingles can be damaged by hail less than 1in1 Skylights and rooftop equipment are particularly vulnerable to hail damage1 Rating Systems

• UL 2218 Underwriters Laboratory Rating System1 • FM 4473, FM Global Group

Incentives • Based on insurance carrier and reduced rates | such as State Farm’s

References + Resources 1

Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety “Fortified for Safer Business Standards, Volume 1”, (2014), Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety

Highest hail risk states: Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Wyoming2 Hail Prone Counties

NOAA Severe Storm Database

Thunder/Hail Weather Resilience and Protection, MunichRE (2014)

Impact Resistant Roof Office

Hospital

Area: 100,050 sf

Area: 129,450 sf

Capital Cost: $22,876,882

Capital Cost: $59,434,341

Cost/GSF: $229 / sf

Cost/GSF: $459 / sf

Roof Area: 20,010 sf

Roof Area: 51,000 sf

Roof Cost: $320,160

Roof Cost: $1,122,000

Additional Capital Cost

Roof cover meeting UL 2218, Class 4 (90 mil EPDM adhered over hail guard composite insulation)

Additional Cost: $100,050

Additional Cost: $255,000

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): < 1%

Low emitting Materials Improved health and reduction in sick days for employees1

Use low and zero emitting VOC (volatile organic compound) materials to reduce exposure to chemical contaminants in the air and improve the health and productivity of occupants. VOC’s are found in many building materials including: carpets, finishes, cleaning products, office equipment and traffic1 References + Research 1

Health, Wellbeing, & Productivity in Offices (2014) World Green Building Council

Improved productivity1 Design Strategies: Select materials with low or zero emitting VOC’s.2

LEED BD+C Core and Shell | v4 , “Enhanced indoor air quality strategies”, LEED

Low emitting Materials Office

Hospital

Area: 100,050 sf

Area: 129,450 sf

Capital Cost: $22,876,882

Capital Cost: $59,434,341

Cost/GSF: $229 / sf

Cost/GSF: $459 / sf

Additional Capital Cost

Use of materials that have low or zero emitting VOCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s.

Additional Cost: $0

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): 0%

Material specification Reduces risk of failure of the building envelope1

Roof aggregate ballast can be blown off, damaging other buildings, vehicles or pedestrians in the vicinity1 Design Strategies: Avoid specifying materials with that are frequently blown off in areas with high wind areas:* 1

The performance of materials in high winds or tornadoes is influenced by the design, detailing and quality control. For brick veneer, the common failure is due to installation including failure to embed ties into the mortar, poor bonding between ties and mortar, tie corrosion or poor quality mortar. Careful detailing and quality control can help to improve the performance of these materials during high winds. 1 Materials that generally have excellent performance during high winds are precast wall panels attached to steel or concrete framed buidings1 References + Research 1

FEMA , “FEMA 577, Design Guide for Improving Hospital Safety in Earthquakes, Floods and High Winds”, (2007) FEMA

International Building Code, “Wind Design Standard for Ballasted SinglePly Roofing Systems, Standard RP-4”, (2002) International Building code

• Brick Veneer is blown off walls and allows wind-driven water to enter the building1 • Stucco, metal wall panels, aluminum and vinyl siding, and exterior insulation finish systems often exhibit poor wind performance1 • Aggregate roof surfaces are a common issue not only causing potential damage to the building however also can become missiles during a tornado breaking the windows.** • During strong tornadoes, roof pavers, slate and tile cannot be effectively anchored and these materials can become missiles posing a damage risk to pedestrians or the building1

* These material specifications are from FEMA and are based on their observations of common failures. To minimize failure, the specifications of these materials can be avoided or attention paid to the detailing and design to improve performance. ** Aggregate becoming wind-born and acting as missiles depends on a number of factors including the diameter of the aggregate, type and the parapet height. The IBC has additional research, code requirements and specifications for it. Aggregate should comply with RP-4 requirements. 2

Material specification Office

Hospital

Area: 100,050 sf

Area: 129,450 sf

Capital Cost: $22,876,882

Capital Cost: $59,434,341

Cost/GSF: $229 / sf

Cost/GSF: $459 / sf

Additional Capital Cost

Use materials that exhibit a high performance during high winds and avoid specifying those with high failure rates such as brick veneer and aggregate roof surfaces.

Additional Cost: $0

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): 0%

International Building Code, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Wind Design Standard for Ballasted SinglePly Roofing Systems, Standard RP-4â&#x20AC;?, (2002) International Building code

Passive Cooling Ensuring thermal safety of a building during a power outage in the summer and that a building can maintain a temperature below 850F (80 0F for a hospital) for a period of 4 days through passive cooling strategies and/or backup power. Using the high performance building, the strategies examined impact the building with shading devices and operable windows in addition to strategies that lower surrounding temperatures including a green roof and increased trees and vegetation. Reduces energy needed to cool the building in summer.*1, 2

Minimize consequences when the power is out ensuring the building maintains a level of thermal safety. 4 Financial benefits and buildings that meet an efficiency standard show an increase in rent and valuation.5 Reduction in CO2 emissions due to decreased energy use. Design Strategies: Applied a range of site and building strategies:* • Exterior shading devices (applied to south and west elevations) 2 • Operable windows + natural ventilation • Green Roof

• Increased plants and vegetation1 * Load reduction can influence the size of mechanical systems needed reducing the upfront costs of applying these strategies.

Case Study In many areas, climate change will increase the summer temperatures bringing longer lasting and more frequent heat waves.5 Trees and vegetation are one way to reduce surrounding temperatures with a 10% increase in canopy cover reducing the mid-day air temperature by 1.80F. 1 Chicago 5 and Toronto 6 are responding to an increase in temperature and have developed incentives to encourage the planting of trees and green roofs. References + Research 2030 Palette, “Heat Island Mitigation”, (2014) Architecture 2030

1 2

2030 Palette, “Shading Devices”, (2014), Architecture 2030

2030 Palette, “Green Roofs”, (2014), Architecture 2030

Urban Green Council, “Building Resilience Task Force, (2013) USGBC

Urban Green Council, “90 by 50: NYC Can Reduce its Carbon Footprint 90% by 2050”, (2014) USGBC

Chicago Climate Task Force, “Chicago Climate Action Plan: Adaptation” (2008) City of Chicago

Toronto Energy Efficiency Office, “Climate Change, Clean Air and Sustainable energy action plan” (2007) Toronto Environment Office

Passive Cooling Office

Hospital

Area: 100,050 sf

Area: 129,450 sf

Capital Cost: $22,876,882

Capital Cost: $59,434,341

Cost/GSF: $229 / sf

Cost/GSF: $459 / sf

Additional Capital Cost

Exterior shading devices applied to south and west elevations, operable windows, green roof, increase in plants and vegetation with 30% glazing area.

Roof cover meeting UL 2218, Class 4 (90 mil EPDM adhered over hail guard composite insulation)

Additional Cost: Above strategies are individually evaluated in the study. The cost of applying all of them is: $522,046 Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): 2%

Additional Cost: Above strategies are individually evaluated in the study. The cost of applying all of them is: $877,225 Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): 1.5%

Permeable Paving “best implemented and most effective in the context of integrated watershed planning efforts that involve public agencies working with private property owners.3” Reduced stormwater runoff1 Incentives + Programs • Managing Wet Weather with Green Infrastructure Municipal Handbook: Incentive Mechanisms, (2009) EPA

Improved groundwater quality and watershed recharge rates1, 2 Reduction in stormwater infrastructure systems needed. 1, 3

• Green Allweyways Program, Chicago • Stormwater Fee Discount, Clean River Rewards Program, Portland

References + Research 1

Reduce urban heat island effect.

Lebens, M., “Porous Asphalt Pavement Performance in Cold Regions”, (2012), Minnesota Department of Transportation.

In Cold Climates

Reduced salt required for winter maintenance

Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT), “The Value of Green Infrastructure”, (2010), CNT 3

Warms faster and ice melts more quickly in winter1 Design Strategy: Pavement consists of 50% pervious pavement.*

* There is increased maintenance and a shorter life span however this varies depending on if permeable or porous pavement is used, installation and type.

Montalto, F., Behr, C., Alfredo, K., Wolf, M., Arye, M., and Walsh, M., “Rapid Assessment of the Cost-Effectiveness of Low Impact Development for CSO Control.” (2007) Landscape and Urban Planning 82 (3): 117–31 4

Ferguson, B., “Porous Pavements Q&A: Answers from the Man Who Wrote the Book on the Subject”, (2010) Water Conservation Newsletter, Winter

Permeable Paving Office

Hospital

Area: 100,050 sf

Area: 129,450 sf

Capital Cost: $22,876,882

Capital Cost: $59,434,341

Cost/GSF: $229 / sf

Cost/GSF: $459 / sf

Additional Capital Cost

50% Permeable Paving (and soil amendment)

Additional Cost: $176,028

Additional Cost: $578,446

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): < 1%

Raise Critical Equipment A building outside a mapped flood hazard area can still experience flooding and one-third of flooding disaster assistance is outside high risk flood areas.5

Protection of essential building functions during a flood event.

Design Strategies include:

Disaster Case Study During Hurricane Sandy, four NY hospitals experienced failure of the backup systems and had to be evacuated. 3 For Bellevue Hospital, flooding of the basements was a major issue resulting in failure of elevators and loss of critical equipment however the generators continued to work, as they were on the 13th floor. Fuel had to be carried up to continue operation and eventually evacuation took place.2

• Raise the critical equipment out of the basement (or above the 500 year flood mark) and encase electrical servers in concrete

Many buildings lost power however at the Goldman Sachs offices the backup power and protection of equipment worked decreasing the time to recovery.4

• Raise the mechanical systems to the roof (adding a mechanical penthouse to protect the systems from other hazards)*

Design Standards • ASCE, “Flood Resistant Design and Construction SEI/ASCE 24-98”, (2005), ASCE • FEMA, “FEMA 534: Design Guide for improving Critical Facility Safety from Floods and High Winds”, (2007), FEMA

References + Research 1

Urban Green Council, “Building Resilience Task Force, (2013) USGBC

FEMA External Affairs, “New York’s Bellevue Hospital takes mitigation steps after Hurricane Sandy, (2013) FEMA, Accessed 12/14 3

* If equipment is raised to the roof, FEMA recommends to secure it in a mechanical penthouse, particularly for the critical facilities in areas of high wind, tornadoes or hurricanes (FEMA 534).

R. Phelps, “Lessons Learned from Hurricane Sandy”, (2014) Disaster Resource Guide 4

W. Alden “Around Goldman’s Headquarters, an Oasis of Electricity”, (2014), DealBook, NYTimes, Accessed 12/14 5

FEMA, “Reducing Flood Effects in Critical Facilities” (2013), FEMA

Raise Critical Equipment Office

Hospital

Area: 100,050 sf

Area: 129,450 sf

Capital Cost: $22,876,882

Capital Cost: $59,434,341

Cost/GSF: $229 / sf

Cost/GSF: $459 / sf

Additional Capital Cost

1. Basement and mechanical equipment moved above the 500 year flood plain.

Additional Cost: $30,000

Additional Cost: $127,200

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): < 1%

2. Rooftop Penthouse to house mechanical equipment

Additional Cost: $189,900

Additional Cost: $273,000

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): < 1%

Protection of the system and ensuring mechanical systems are protected in addition to the ancillary systems. Including the associated electrical systems, mechanical, conveyance (elevators), fuel systems (fuel lines, pumps or tanks), data systems, communication, specialized equipment or life-safety equipment. In addition to the ancillary systems that they rely on to function1 1

FEMA, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Reducing Flood Effects in Critical Facilitiesâ&#x20AC;? (2013), FEMA

Rainwater Catchment Reduces flooding risk by reducing peak runoff during a storm1, 3 Minimize consequences during disasters ensuring water is available.2 Collection of water for use during drought conditions reducing demand on potable water sources.

Reduces municipal potable water usage1 and resulting CO2 emissions.

Lower water bills depending on use. Design Strategies: Storage tanks and a circulation pump were added assuming collection of rainwater from the roof.

“Storage tank capacity (gallons) = water catchment area (ft2) x rainfall (inches) x 0.46; Where rainfall = peak monthly average.”1 The benefits of rainwater catchment will likely increase as climate change places more stress on the water infrastructure system with an increase in intense precipitation events and drought conditions. A number of states, particularly the western states, are offering incentives and rebates to encourage rainwater catchment and reduce demand on municipal water supplies.4 Currently, there is a perception that rainwater catchment does not compensate for the up-front costs. This is partially due to the accessibility of low cost municipal water prices that do not necessarily reflect the full life-cycle costs.4 Further research is needed in this area.4 References + Research 1

2030 Palette, “Water Catchment and Storage”, (2014) Architecture 2030 2

Urban Green Council, “Building Resilience Task Force, (2013) USGBC

San Francisco Water Power Sewer, “Rainwater Harvesting”, (2013) San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 4

Solloway, C., “Rainwater Harvesting”, (2013), EPA

Rainwater Catchment Office

Hospital

Area: 100,050 sf

Area: 129,450 sf

Capital Cost: $22,876,882

Capital Cost: $59,434,341

Cost/GSF: $229 / sf

Cost/GSF: $459 / sf

Roof Area: 20,010 sf

Roof Area: 51,000 sf

Roof Cost: $320,160

Roof Cost: $1,122,000

Additional Capital Cost

Storage tank were added to provide rainwater harvesting storage for 96 hrs.

Additional Cost: $175,625

Additional Cost: $1,417,000

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): < 1%

Sizing of the tanks was based on supplying enough water to cover operations during a disaster, assuming appropriate filtering for potable water. Greater benefits occur if used for other areas, such as used for landscaping or flushing toilets. The availability of water and sizing of the tanks varies by location depending on seasonal rainfall and water usage.

Reduce Indoor water use Reduced water use and lower water bills.

Reduction in CO2 emissions as less energy is needed to treat and clean water. 2, 3 Helps to reduce demand on water resources, such as groundwater and aquifers. 3

Reduces demand placed on sewage systems. Design Strategies: Indoor water use reduction of 25% to 50%. Use of interior fixtures that are Water Sense labelled. 1

“A faucet that runs for five minutes uses about as much energy as a 60-watt light bulb for 14 hours. Pumping, distributing and heating water takes energy and produces emissions”2 Water use and energy are closely related. Use of high performance water efficient fixtures reduces demand on the water and sewer systems however also reduces energy use and CO2 emissions.3 Rating systems + Information • Energy Star, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) • Water Sense, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Incentives • Water Sense Rebate Finder, EPA Partnership Program • Water Efficiency for Business, “Capacity Buy Back Program”, (2014), City of Toronto References + Research 1 LEED BD+C Core and Shell | v4, “Indoor Water Use Reduction”, (2013), LEED Chicago Climate Task Force, “Chicago Climate Action Plan: Adaptation” (2008) City of Chicago

WaterSense, “Why water efficiency?”, (2014) EPA

Reduce Indoor water use Office

Hospital

Area: 100,050 sf

Area: 129,450 sf

Capital Cost: $22,876,882

Capital Cost: $59,434,341

Cost/GSF: $229 / sf

Cost/GSF: $459 / sf

Additional Capital Cost

Use interior fixtures that are Water Sense labelled reducing indoor water use between 25% to 50%.

Additional Cost: $25,013

Additional Cost: $423,750

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): < 1%

Renewable energy Reduce energy use and operational savings1

Reduce air pollution and CO2 emissions.

Design Strategies: Renewable energy (using solar panels) that makes up 5% of the total building energy.

Renewable energy offers operational benefits and can also function as a backup system when the grid power is un-available. During acute disasters that last longer (such as 96 hrs), the use of solar power during the day can supplement or help preserve the fuel of the backup generator. However, the supply of energy through solar generation can be variable.2 Incentives • Made in Minnesota Solar Energy Production Incentive, Minnesota Department of Commerce • Solar Production Incentive, Excel Energy • Listing of state, local, utility and federal incentives for Renewables + Efficiency, DSIRE Solar (U.S. Department of Energy and North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center) References + Research 1 LEED BD+C Core and Shell | v4 , (2013), LEED Arvizu, D, Balaya, P.,”Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation: Chapter 3 Direct Solar Energy” (2011) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Renewable energy Office

Hospital

Area: 100,050 sf

Area: 129,450 sf

Capital Cost: $22,876,882

Capital Cost: $59,434,341

Cost/GSF: $229 / sf

Cost/GSF: $459 / sf

Additional Capital Cost

Install solar panels to meet 5% of the energy needs of the building (as described in LEED)

Additional Cost: $175,00

Additional Cost: $1,186,500

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): < 1%

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): 2%

Reduce Soil Compaction Helps to restore and reduce soil compaction, reducing runoff, improving infiltration and groundwater recharge.2, 4

Restores soil water and air retention rates improving the health of vegetation and trees1, 3 Reduction in stormwater basins needed to manage stormwater.

Studies have shown that the benefits of improved plant health and reduced maintenance needs can pay for the cost of soil amendment in the first few years1, Compaction of soil during construction influences the health of the soil and its structure removing the spaces available for the water to absorb water or retain air.2 Amended soils contribute to the survival rate of plants, disease resistance, improved growth rates in addition to improving water infiltration rates reducing the need to irrigate in the summer. Initiatives + Programs • Soils for Salmon Initiative, Seattle

References + Research 1

Soils for Salmon Initiative, Seattle

Sustainable Sites, “Soil + Vegetation”, (2014) Sustainable Sites Initiative

Design Strategies include: Techniques for restoring soil from compaction, listed in order of highest to lowest success rates for decreasing soil density: • Prevent compaction: setting limits of disturbance for construction activity on the site • Time and Reforestation • Compost or soil amendment • Specialized soil loosening, selective grading ,or tillling of soil

Kozlowski, T.T. “Soil Compaction and Growth of Woody Plants”, (1999), Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 14: 596-619 4

Chollak, T. and Rosenfeld, R., “Guidelines for Landscaping with Compostamended Soils” (1998) City of Redmond Public Works 5

Schueler, T. “Can Urban Soil Compaction be Reversed?: The Practice of Watershed Protection”, (2013) Center for Watershed Protection, pg. 215-218

Reduce Soil Compaction Office

Hospital

Area: 100,050 sf

Area: 129,450 sf

Capital Cost: $22,876,882

Capital Cost: $59,434,341

Cost/GSF: $229 / sf

Cost/GSF: $459 / sf

Additional Capital Cost

Site soil amendment (and 50% permeable paving)

Additional Cost: $176,028

Additional Cost: $578,446

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): < 1%

The most effective methods to reduce soil compaction are to set limits of disturbance or take time. Compost and soil amendment is a quicker way to improve the soils even though it is not as effective as preventing compaction. 1

Schueler, T. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Can Urban Soil Compaction be Reversed?: The Practice of Watershed Protectionâ&#x20AC;?, (2013) Center for Watershed Protection, pg. 215-218

Safeguard Toxic materials Reduced consequences from heavy rains and preventing floodwaters from becoming a ‘toxic soup’1

Disaster Case Studies During the Mississippi Floods of 1993, the release of toxic materials led to environmental contamination and was a serious public health concern. Floodwaters were found to have ten times higher than acceptable levels of contamination causing short term concerns for the health of those in direct contact with it, such as the rescue workers, in addition to longer term environmental issues.3 New York City implemented new legislation in 2013 requiring the protection of toxic chemicals stored within the 100 year flood plain. In addition, the 100 year flood plain was updated to more accurately reflect the risks and changes expected from climate change. 1, 2 References + Research 1

Urban Green Council, “Building Resilience Task Force, (2013) USGBC

City of New York, “Plan NYC, A Stronger More Resilient New York”, (2013), The City of New York 3

To prevent floodwaters from becoming a toxic soup, hazardous materials need to be protected and sewage prevented from flowing back up into buildings1

Urban Green Council, “NYC Green Codes Task Force”, (2010), USGBC

Safeguard toxic materials Office

Hospital

Area: 100,050 sf

Area: 129,450 sf

Capital Cost: $22,876,882

Capital Cost: $59,434,341

Cost/GSF: $229 / sf

Cost/GSF: $459 / sf

Additional Capital Cost

Ensure toxic materials are stored above 500 year flood plain.

Additional Cost: $0

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): 0%

Sewage Backflow Valve The requirements and code for sewage backflow check valves varies by place, often depending on the elevation of the drainage piping in relation to the main sewer. Climate change is influencing the frequency and intensity of flood events placing greater pressure on the sewage system.5 Floodwaters and storm surges can force untreated sewage to backup into the building and install of a sewage backflow valve in floodprone areas can help to prevent it. 1, 2, 3 Minimizing consequences from heavy rains reducing the risk of sewage backflow into the basement and subsequent cleanup costs.3

Disaster Case Studies During the Cedar Rapids Floods of 2008, the Mercy Medical Center, located within the 500 yr flood plain, experienced a sewage backup into the building caused by increased pressure from the floods.4 After Hurricane Sandy, the NYC Construction Codes are amending the codes within the 100yr flood plain to require backflow preventers for all new construction to seal points of entry from floodwaters.2 References + Research 1

Urban Green Council, “Building Resilience Task Force, (2013) USGBC

City of New York, “Plan NYC, A Stronger More Resilient New York”, (2013), The City of New York 3

FEMA, “FEMA 534: Design Guide for improving Critical Facility Safety from Floods and High Winds”, (2007), FEMA 4

Sewer backup into a building poses a health hazard, particularly for hospitals, and when the waters recede many of the exposed building components must be removed.3

Thomas, W., “Code Grey: Protecting Hospitals from Severe Weather”, (2014), Earthzine, Accessed December 17. 5

National Climate Assessment (NCA), ”Climate Change Impacts in the US”, (2014), U.S. Global Change Research Program

Sewage Backflow Valve Office

Hospital

Area: 100,050 sf

Area: 129,450 sf

Capital Cost: $22,876,882

Capital Cost: $59,434,341

Cost/GSF: $229 / sf

Cost/GSF: $459 / sf

Additional Capital Cost

Sewage backflow valve installed

Additional Cost: $5,000

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): < 1%

Trees + Vegetation “Each 10% increase in canopy cover reduces maximum mid-day air temperature about 1oC (1.8oF).5 ” Energy savings through shading, evapotranspiration and windspeed reduction. 2

Environmental benefits alone, such as energy savings, stormwater runoff reduction, and reduced air-pollutant uptake, were three to five times the tree care costs for small, medium, and large trees. 2 Net Yearly Benefits from trees:2 • $3 to $15 for a small tree

Reduced stormwter runoff and increased groundwater recharge1,2 Reduces urban heat island effect1

• $58 to $76 for a large tree Tools + Calculators • National Tree Benefits Calculator, CaseyTrees Washington D.C.

Increased property values .2

References + Research Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT), “The Value of Green Infrastructure”, (2010), CNT

1, 2

Improved air quality

Health and aesthetic benefits (biophilia).

• $4 to $34 for a medium tree

E. McPherson, J. Gregory, P. Peper, S. Gardner, K. Vargas, S. Maco, and Q. Xiao. “Midwest Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs and Strategic Planting PSW-GTR-199”, (2006) USDA Forest Service

2 1, 2

Reduces CO2 emissions by reducing need for cooling Design Strategies: Increase the amount of trees and vegetation on the site.

Ulrich, R.S. “Human responses to vegetation and landscapes.” (1985) Landscape and Urban Planning. 13: 29–44.

Pacific Southwest Research Service, “Urban Ecosystems and Social Dynamics Program.” 2014. US Forest Service.

* Climate change is influencing the hardiness zone and is shifting habitat ranges. The benefits of trees can be offset depending on placement in areas of high winds or tornadoes where they can damage the building.

2030 Palette, “Heat Island Mitigation”, (2014) Architecture 2030

Trees + Vegetation Office

Hospital

Area: 100,050 sf

Area: 129,450 sf

Capital Cost: $22,876,882

Capital Cost: $59,434,341

Cost/GSF: $229 / sf

Cost/GSF: $459 / sf

Site Improvements Area: 280,140 sf

Site Improvements Area: 499,000 sf

Additional Capital Cost

Increase of trees and vegetation on site - it was assumed this would result in an increase of $0.50/sf over the site area

Additional Cost: $140,070

Additional Cost: $249,500

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): < 1%

Benefit Costs

yearly

= =

E Net annual energy savings

Annualized

Cost of tree + planting

+ T Tree Pruning

AQ Air Quality Improvement

2 Carbon Dioxide Reductions

I + TreeR removal +Pest +Ddisease+Irrigation + Annualized

+ disposal

control 1

+ Cl

Stormwater Reduction

A Aesthetic + other benefits

L + + Litigation +

Litter + Repair storm cleanup infrastructure

settlements

Program Administration

E. McPherson, J. Gregory, P. Peper, S. Gardner, K. Vargas, S. Maco, and Q. Xiao. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Midwest Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs and Strategic Planting PSW-GTR-199â&#x20AC;?, (2006) USDA Forest Service

Tornado Safe Room In recent years, the average number of deaths per year from tornados is 621

Protection of human lives from tornados. Design Strategy: Incorporation of a tornado safe room based on FEMA 361 recommendations

Provision of a safe room is highly dependent on context. Factors influencing the decision are program and whether it is a critical facility, probability of occurrence and severity, vulnerability of nearby buildings, population at risk, probable annual event casualties, and zoning ordinances. 1 The FFSB guidelines recommend a safe room for protection from tornadoes however does not require it. Design Guidance on Safe Rooms • Design and Construction Guidance for Communtiy Safe Room Rooms, FEMA 361 • ICC-500 Storm Shelter Standard (International Code Council)

Incentives • Mitigation funds and Federal Assistance Funding , FEMA

References + Resources 1

FEMA, “FEMA 361: Design and Construction Guidance for Community Safe Rooms”, (2008) FEMA 2

International Council Code, “ICC/NSSA Standard for the Design and Construction of Storm Shelters: ICC-500”, (2013), ICC 3

Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety “Fortified for Safer Business Standards, Volume 1”, (2014), Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety

Tornado Safe Room Office

Hospital

Area: 100,050 sf

Area: 129,450 sf

Capital Cost: $22,876,882

Capital Cost: $59,434,341

Cost/GSF: $229 / sf

Cost/GSF: $459 / sf

Additional Capital Cost

Incorporation of one 50 ft x 50ft safe room per floor (building gross square footage not increased). Assumed additional hardened walls and doors required along with two bays of windows meeting the tornado rating.

Incorporation of one corridor on each floor being hardened with reinforced doors.

Additional Cost: $461,750

Additional Cost: $1,075,500 Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): 1.8%

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): 2%

The average cost of a safe room is between $150-$240 per square foot with the least expensive being single purpose spaces with short spans1 Retrofitting buildings to include safe rooms have a 10-15% higher construction costs then new construction.

FEMA, â&#x20AC;&#x153;FEMA 361: Design and Construction Guidance for Community Safe Roomsâ&#x20AC;?, (2008) FEMA

On-Site storage Minimize the consequences from a disaster and ensure functionality of a hospital when access is blocked1 Design Strategy: For a hospital, provide on-site storage for 96 hours of essential food, supplies and materials above the 500yr flood plain.*

During a disaster, roads and access to the hospital may be blocked. As hospitals are reducing their on-site storage, this can influence the ability of a hospital to function when they can not replenish supplies and contributes to the need to evacuate a facility1 On-site provision should be made to ensure a hospital can function on its own for 96 hours (4 days)1 This includes essential food, critical supplies such as medical gases, fuel for the emergency power, water supply and waste water storage. References + Research

FEMA, â&#x20AC;&#x153;FEMA 577: Design Guide for Improving Hospital Safety in Earthquakes, Floods and High Windsâ&#x20AC;?, (2007) FEMA

On-Site storage Office

Hospital

Area: 100,050 sf

Area: 129,450 sf

Capital Cost: $22,876,882

Capital Cost: $59,434,341

Cost/GSF: $229 / sf

Cost/GSF: $459 / sf

Additional Capital Cost

Dependent on role of in community if on-site storage is needed for an office building.

On-site storage for essential food and critical supplies for 96 hours.* Additional Cost: $0 Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): 0%

* As the fuel and water storage were included in the study of other strategies, it was assumed that an integrated design approach for on-site storage would result in minimal additional requirements if incorporated at the outset.

Operable windows Minimizes the consequences when cooling systems are inoperable and improves the passive thermal safety of the building1 If implemented as part of the building’s cooling strategies

Reduces energy and the subsequent CO2 emissions needed for cooling.* Naturally ventilated buildings broaden the adaptive comfort range of occupants further influencing cooling demands.3, 5 When implemented as part of the overall cooling strategies, improves occupant satisfaction.2

Operable windows improve the thermal safety of a building allowing natural ventilation when the power is out. If natural ventilation is incorporated as part of the buildings strategies, they provide seasonal opportunities for air conditioning reducing the loads on mechanical systems. Case Studies During Hurricane Katrina, the temperatures in buildings and hospitals rapidly rose to above 100oF as the ventilation systems were down. Inoperable windows prevented natural ventilation resulting in furniture being thrown through the windows to help cool down the building.5 Within hospitals security of patients can be a concern with operable windows. Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital in Boston by Perkins + Will incorporated a number of resilience measures into the building including operable windows. For patient rooms the operable windows are key operated to address those concerns and natural ventilation is used in the social and gymnasium spaces.5 References + Research 1

Urban Green Council, “Building Resilience Task Force, (2013) USGBC

World Green Building Council, “Health, Wellbeing, & Productivity in Offices”, (2014), World Green Building Council 3

Bragerm G., de Dear, R., “A Standard for Natural Ventilation”, (2000), ASHRAE Journal, October 4 5

*Potential benefits vary based on location however climate change will influence opportunities for natural ventilation.

LEED, “BD+ C Core and Shell, v.4”, (2013), USGBC

Gregor, A., “Building for the Flood: Boston’s Spaulding Rehabilitation Center designed with resilience rising sea levels in mind”, (2013), USGBC+

Operable windows Office

Hospital

Area: 100,050 sf

Area: 129,450 sf

Capital Cost: $22,876,882

Capital Cost: $59,434,341

Cost/GSF: $229 / sf

Cost/GSF: $459 / sf

Additional Capital Cost

Incorporation of operable windows (assumes one operable pane per window)

Additional Cost: $11,250

Additional Cost: $17,850

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): < 1%

Water and Power Outages Minimize consequences during power outages ensuring potable water is available and minimizing the sanitation risk from inoperable toilets or sinks. 2 Design Strategy: Ensure that drinking water is available and that the toilets and sinks work during power outages. This could be achieved in a number of ways however the approach used in this study was adding a storage tank to the roof to ensure enough water pressure and providing essential water for 96hrs.

During disasters or power outages, the municipal utility services will often be unavailable and access to water on site (storage tanks or groundwater) ensures that essential water will be available1 For hospitals, it is recommended that they have an independent water supply with enough to last for 96hrs1 The Department of Veterans Affairs recommends 100 gallons of potable water per patient per day is available (this includes water needed for cooling towers)1 Resources Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and American Water Works Association. Emergency Water Supply Planning Guide for Hospitals and Health Care Facilities. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2012)

References + Research 1

FEMA, “FEMA 577: Design Guide for Improving Hospital Safety in Earthquakes, Floods and High Winds”, (2007) FEMA

2 3

Urban Green Council, “Building Resilience Task Force, (2013) USGBC

Wilson, A., Hendrickson, G., “Sustainabilty Guidelines for Gulf Coast Reconstruction, Creating a Disaster-Resilient and Sustainable American Gulf Coast”, (2006) USGBC

Water and Power Outages Office

Hospital

Area: 100,050 sf

Area: 129,450 sf

Capital Cost: $22,876,882

Capital Cost: $59,434,341

Cost/GSF: $229 / sf

Cost/GSF: $459 / sf

Additional Capital Cost

Storage tank added to roof for system to work without power.

Additional Cost: $150,000

Additional Cost: $450,000

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): < 1%

Due to the importance of water quality for protecting patients health, it was assumed that the water storage tank would utilize municipal water rather than rainwater. For offices, rainwater harvesting could be used providing the additional benefits of reducing stormwater runoff and potable water consumption if filtered1 1

Wilson, A., Hendrickson, G., â&#x20AC;&#x153;Sustainabilty Guidelines for Gulf Coast Reconstruction, Creating a Disaster-Resilient and Sustainable American Gulf Coastâ&#x20AC;?, (2006) USGBC

Landscape water use Reduced water use and lower water bills.

The use of native plants or those adapted to the area are one way of reducing water use with minimal capital costs. However the existing native ecosystems and plant hardiness zones are shifting due to climate change and will influence the choice of plants. Chicago’s hardiness zone has changed to that of Central Illinois and by the end of the century could resemble that of southern Missouri or Alabama.5

Reduced stormwater runoff and helps to restore the groundwater.2, 4 Reduction in CO2 emissions as less energy is needed to treat and clean water. 2 Long root systems, such as prairie plants, help to stabilize the soil and restore its health. 4 Design Strategies: 1

Reduce the landscape water usage by 50% and 100%.* This study focused on the use of native plants for reducing water requirements however other methods could include rainwater collection or graywater use.

The health of the soil influences the water needed in the landscape with compacted soils absorbing less water and having less space for air .3 Preventing soil compaction, adding soil amendments or including permeable pavement influences the health of the plants.3 Incentives Are tied to stormwater incentives and areas of high drought offer more incentives for decreasing landscape water use. • Santa Clara, Landscape Conversion Rebate Program • San Diego County Water Authority, “Turf Replacement Incentives”, (2014), San Diego References + Research 1 LEED BD+C Core and Shell | v4, (2013), LEED EPA Water Sense Program, “Water Sense Landscapes” (2013), EPA

Chollak, T. and Rosenfeld, R. “Guidelines for Landscaping with Compost-amended Soils”, (1998), City of Redmond Public Works

Chicago’s Water Agenda, “A guide to stormwater best management practices”, (2003) City of Chicago

* Benefits are based on using vegetation rather than hardscaping to reduce water use.

Chicago Climate Task Force, “Chicago Climate Action Plan: Adaptation” (2008), City of Chicago

Landscape water use Office

Hospital

Area: 100,050 sf

Area: 129,450 sf

Capital Cost: $22,876,882

Capital Cost: $59,434,341

Cost/GSF: $229 / sf

Cost/GSF: $459 / sf

Site Area: 280,140 sf

Site Area: 499,000 sf

Additional Capital Cost

Use of native plants to reduce the landscape water use.

Additional Cost (50% reduction in use): + $35,018

Additional Cost (50% reduction in use): + $62,375

Additional Cost (100% reduction in use): + $70,035

Additional Cost (100% reduction in use): + $124,750

Proposal Increase (% of total capital cost): + <1%