Sponsor Spotlight: Columbia Construction Company

By Grey Lee


Columbia Construction Company and their employees have been long-standing supporters of green buildings. We welcome them as a bronze-level sponsor. 

Columbia is known for providing leadership, quality, creativity, innovation, passion, and unparalleled client service, and is a respected leader in the A/E/C industry. With 90 years of construction expertise, they provide clients with quality construction services that produce exceptional results.


As one of the foremost Construction Managers in the Northeast, Columbia goes beyond on time and on budget, and adds value by:

  • understanding clients' business in order to achieve their project goals
  • asking a lot of questions and listening…very carefully
  • being positive and building rapport
  • providing creative solutions

Columbia's services include preconstruction services, construction services, design-build, lean practices, virtual construction, extranet, and of course- sustainable construction!  They are a leader in Green Building Construction Management. They are expert administrators of LEED projects. Their dedicated in-house Sustainability Director, along with a team of LEED Accredited Professionals, facilitate throughout LEED certification. This includes proactively finding cost-effective sustainable solutions to keep projects within budget. Columbia is a committed partner with clients in meeting the shared goal of environmental stewardship and social responsibility. 

Read more about Columbia on its website!

Photos taken from Columbia's website

Access to Quality Transit credit? Prove it!

By Adrian Charest, PE LEED AP BD+C

By Adrian Charest, PE, LEED AP BD+C

RSMeans from The Gordian Group

Access to Quality Transit credit?  Prove it!

The intent behind USGBC’s Access to Quality Transit is to encourage development in areas that are connected by public transportation systems to reduce car usage…but do people want to live in areas that are highly connected to public transportation?  In other words, could the effect that multiple modes of transportation have on where people live be displayed?  Using a geographic information system and publicly available data, this article explores these questions and gets to, “Yes”.
 
The public transportation network in Boston is expansive and goes far beyond the city limits.  The system is comprised of four modes of transportation; subways, commuter rails, buses, and ferries, each with entry points consisting of stations, stops, or docks.  The systems operate independently from one another, but are complementary in that together they provide greater access to larger areas of the City.
 
The area around the entry points needs to be determined in order to develop answers to the posed questions.  Working with each system separately, a 1-mile buffer zone was created and merged together around each of the entry points for each respective system creating images as displayed in Figure 1 below.
 
Figure 1
                    Subway                                                                                                                  Commuter Rail  
                                                                          
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Bus                                                                                                                             Ferry
 

 

 

 

 
Overlaying these buffers with the Year 2000 U.S. Census Data provides an understanding of each system’s influence on attracting people.  Using the buffers’ areas and the population captured by them enabled calculation of the population density around the entry points.  These results can be seen in Table 1 below which is ranked from greatest population density to least.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1

 

Mode
Sq. Miles
Population
Pop / mi2
Subway
95
995,552
10,479
Commuter Rail
353
1,742,280
4,936
Bus
488
2,228,490
4,567
Ferry
75
261,307
3,484

 

 

 

However, what about the effects of multiple modes of transportation?  Overlaying the individual mode-buffers described above creates areas where there are 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-modes of transportation available.  For instance, areas where there is only a subway or commuter rail station, a bus stop, or a ferry dock is ranked as 1-mode, not distinguishing between the mode types.  Areas where all four mode buffers overlapped are ranked as 4-mode, and any combination of 2 and 3 different mode types are ranked as 2- and 3-mode areas.  A graphic displaying the results of these combinations can be seen if Figure 2 below.

 

 
Figure 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overlaying these new buffers with the census data shows the impact that multiple modes of transportation have on where people want to live.  These outputs can be seen in Table 2 below where the influence can be clearly seen.; as the number of available modes increase, so does the number of people living in those areas.

 

 

 

Table 2

 

Area
Sq. Miles
Population
Pop / mi2
1 Mode
507
1,493,635
2,946
2 Mode
175
1,172,938
6,703
3 Mode
45
572,605
12,725
4 Mode
5
64,969
12,994

 

 

 

So what does this all mean?  That the Access to Quality Transit credit is in the right direction, people want to live in areas that are highly connected to public transportation systems.

 

Sponsor Spotlight: SMMA

By Grey Lee

Over the past few months, SMMA | Symmes Maini and McKee Associates is honored to have participated in several green building events around the Commonwealth as well as helping to elevate and promote current best design and building practices.

A few of the more notable happenings include joining forces with the USGBC MA Chapter to become Education Partners responsible for helping create national education content. As part of this strategic partnership, SMMA was asked to provide an in-depth overture of their LEED v4 for Schools presentation at the NESEA Building Energy 15 conference. The content of this presentation will soon turn into a national webinar for the Education Partner Program and will be available on-demand through the USGBC Education website. 

Additionally, SMMA has recently submitted one of the firm’s more prominent K-12 public school projects, Winchester High School, into the LEED design review. The school showcases an array of sustainability features and has benefited from the guidance of both SMMA and the Town of Winchester’s Sustainability Sub-Committee.

 

 

Zero Net Energy Buildings Re-Cap

By Grey Lee

So what are they again?
Zero Net Energy Buildings (or ZNEBs) are most commonly defined as buildings that produce as much energy as they consume on an annual basis (this energy must be renewable).

However, there are actually a few different ways for buildings to achieve Zero-Net Energy status: the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) offers four definitions of ZNEBs in their report titled Getting to Net Zero. The first builds on the common definition (above), but is specifically tied to the project site: a building that produces at least as much renewable energy as it uses in a year, when accounted for at the site. The second version looks at the source of the energy, so a building that produces, and/or purchases as much renewable energy as it uses in a year. The third definition focuses on energy costs, which means the amount of money the utility pays the building owner for exporting renewable energy to the grid is at least equal to the amount the owner pays the utility for the energy services it uses over the year. The fourth way of defining ZNEBs concentrates on emissions; so the building must produce and/or purchase enough emissions-free renewable energy to offset emissions from all energy used in the building annually.

While these definitions may seem convoluted, they are in direct response to the complex environment of regulations, market forces, and financial incentives that affect different building owners and building types in a variety of ways. The variation between the definitions is an attempt to accommodate the diversity of our built environment so that all parties may participate in the ZNEB market.

These definitions also come into play when you consider recent planning initiatives for Eco-Districts and Zero Net Energy Neighborhoods. Again, there’s more than one way to get to Net-Zero and it won’t play out the same way in every building or every community. While ZNEBs are technically ‘just buildings’ they are actually part of a broader toolkit for transforming the built environment. It’s up to us to assess the potential ways that ZNEBs might be integrated into broader planning initiatives in order to achieve the maximum impact for our communities and the environment.

Investing in ZNEBs not only ensures positive environmental impact, but also offers potential for significant cost savings through more efficient and holistic design strategies, as well as insulation from swings in non-renewable energy costs.

How do we get more of them?

ZNEBs are becoming more ubiquitous, and Massachusetts has already made significant headway in supporting innovation in the market. The Department of Energy and Resources (DOER) announced 25 projects selected for the Pathways to Zero Net Energy Program, which is a $3.5 million initiative designed to facilitate the transition to the next generation of high-performance buildings. 

 
 
The next step is to pass Senate Bill 1578: An Act Promoting Zero Net Energy Buildings in the Commonwealth, which is based on recommendations from Governor Patrick’s Zero Net Energy Buildings Task Force, and was sponsored in the 2013-2014 session by Senator Jamie Eldridge. The bill was discharged to the committee on Senate Ethics and Rules in March of 2014, but no further action was taken. This year Senator Eldridge is sponsoring the bill again, under petition of Representatives Chris Walsh, Denise Provost, Marjorie Decker and David Rogers.
The bill seeks to change line “o” of the Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 143, Section 94, and add a line “s” after line “r” in the same section. You can read the specifics available through the advocacy resources section of the USGBC MA website, but there are several key changes to take note of.

In line “o” the bill seeks to establish a Zero Net Energy Building standard for new residential and commercial construction by 2020 and 2030 respectively. Also, the bill would implement regulations as part of the state building code, along with more stringent energy efficiency provisions requiring incremental improvements, starting with a 30% increase in efficiency over the International Energy Conservation Code.

In line “s” the bill calls for public input and consultation with the DOER to establish separate definitions for Zero Net Energy Buildings in both residential and commercial sectors by 2017 and 2018 respectively. The bill calls for the definitions to take into account zero net energy building definitions established in other places, as well as the current and anticipated climate of Massachusetts.

In support of the bill, and in anticipation of the public process that will unfold to produce appropriate definitions for ZNEBs in Massachusetts, the USGBC MA chapter will provide further blog posts on ZNEB practices, policies and projects in other states as well as right here in Massachusetts.

We also want to invite you to the next Green Breakfast, Thursday, March 19th at our Headquarters in downtown Boston. In addition to providing additional information on ZNEBs, we will also have presentations on Property Assessed Clean Energy financing (PACE) and Net-Metering.

 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

EMD Serono Team Attains LEED Platinum for Project Bridgeway

By Grey Lee

Congratulations to the EMD Serono team which attained LEED Platinum for their “Project Bridgeway” at their campus in Billerica, Mass. Many excellent companies came together on the project team to make this a success. Special recognition goes to Chapter Sponsor, The Green Engineer, for their work to facilitate the LEED project.

USGBC Chairman Rick Fedrizzi had this to say: “On behalf of the US Green Building Council, I congratulate you on achieving LEED certification for Project Bridgeway. Your project has achieved LEED Platinum certification under the LEED for Commercial Interiors Rating System with a score of 81 points. This is a showcase example of sustainable design and demonstrates your leadership in transforming the building industry.”

Chapter members Chris Schaffner and Erik Ruoff (of The Green Engineer) and Chapter Board Chair Jim Newman (of Linnean Solutions) were on hand to support the LEED plaque ceremony.




Nice work, everyone!

Check out the LEED Scorecard of Project Bridgeway on USGBC's Website.

 

From the website of Ellenzweig, an architectural firm involved with Project Bridgeway:

The EMD Serono Research Institute in Billerica, Massachusetts, will serve as one of the four hubs for the company’s global research and development organization, fosters enhanced collaboration and synergies to discover and develop innovative therapies with a focus on the therapeutic areas of oncology, neurodegenerative diseases and infertility. The state of the art Billerica facility is now home to approximately 200 scientists with expertise in cancer biology; cancer immunotherapy; oncogene signaling; manufacturing cell lines; medicinal chemistry; molecular modeling; protein engineering; and therapeutic antibodies.

Image credit: Ellenzweig.com     Check out more images of Project Bridgeway on Ellenzweig's website.
 

Re-Post: The All-Glass Building – Is Energy Efficiency Possible

By Andrea Love, Chapter Board Member

One of our wonderful volunteers wrote extensively about glass facade buildings and the challenge these present to proponents of energy efficiency. Take a look at her recent blog entry at NESEA. Thanks for explaining this for us, Andrea!

 

Glazed towers dominate the skylines of our cities. However, most have been designed with little thought as to the climate in which they are located or the environmental impact they might have. According to the Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) in 2003, 70 percent of energy use in commercial buildings is from the lighting and HVAC systems. The performance of both of these systems is directly related to the design and performance of the building envelope. Sealed, glazed façades, now so ubiquitous, lead to higher heating and cooling loads as well as glare and thermal comfort challenges.

Despite these challenges, many design teams pursuing sustainability continue to use all-glass façades because of their ability to connect interior and exterior environments. The market continues to demand, and architects to deliver, high glazing percentages for the daylight, views, and marketing potential they provide in green buildings. Such designs are difficult to make energy efficient, but many argue that fully glazed buildings, when designed correctly don't increase a building's energy usage.  

The question remains: is an all-glass building a sustainable building?

Daylight

The principal benefit of glass façades is their ability to allow natural light into living and working spaces. Daylight provides high-quality illumination with less radiation than most artificial light sources, including fluorescents. When coupled with a high-performance glazing system, natural daylighting can reduce the heat load that comes from artificial light fixtures. A lighting control system that responds to changes in daylight can yield a dramatic reduction in the building's lighting energy use.

In addition to the energy benefits from daylighting, studies have found numerous psychological benefits. A 1999 study by the Heschong Mahone Group found that students in classrooms with more natural light scored up to 25 percent higher on standardized tests than other students in the same school district. Studies looking at the effect of natural light on productivity date back to the 1920s, when they were conducted on silk weavers; even then, daylight was shown to increase productivity. Numerous subsequent studies have shown improved performance and increased attention and alertness in occupants of daylit buildings.

Exposure to daylight has also been shown increase sales in retail establishments such as Walmart and Whole Foods. Walmart installed a daylighting system in one of its Kansas stores in the 1990s and had store employees rotate goods for sale under the natural light source; items sold better when under daylight.

Daylight has many benefits, but few studies have investigated how much glazing is needed to achieve good quality natural lighting. Most buildings do not need to be completely glazed to benefit from daylighting. For example, the glazed area below a work surface in an all-glass building has minimal impact on the daylight in a space.

Daylight has many benefits, but few studies have investigated how much glazing is needed to achieve good quality natural lighting. Most buildings do not need to be completely glazed to benefit from daylighting.

The rule of thumb in the industry (recommended by organizations such as Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) is that only 30 percent glazing is needed for optimum daylighting performance. Our findings atPayette corroborate this figure. Our computer simulations on the impact of the amount of glazing on daylighting have found in multiple projects that the Useful Daylight Illuminance (UDI) does not increase at all beyond 50 percent glazing. UDI looks at how much light a space receives above a specified target but below the threshold of lighting levels that will cause glare and discomfort. For example, a recent investigation for an east-facing office concluded that 40 percent glazing provided no any more useful daylight than 25 percent.

Energy

A well-designed daylighting strategy can decrease a building's light energy use and associated cooling load. However, as lighting power densities decrease with more efficient lighting technologies like LEDs, lighting represents an ever smaller portion of a building's total energy use. Glazing's biggest impact on building energy consumption comes from its impact on a space's heating and cooling loads. The solar heat gain from the sun increases proportionally with the amount of glass on a façade, which in turn increases the energy needed to cool the building.

A number of strategies exist to mitigate solar radiation, from external sun shading to frits and coatings on the glass. A well-designed shading system can significantly decrease but not block all heat gain, particularly on east- and west- facing façades, where low sun angles are particularly challenging. 

In a cold climate like New England, the increase in heat loss in the winter as a result of high glazing percentages can significantly impact energy use. The current code requirement for maximum U-values for glazing is seven times higher than that of an opaque wall. Even with code-compliant glazing to high-performance triple glazing, the U-value is still three to four times greater than the maximum allowable for an opaque wall assembly. As a result, fully glazed buildings always have a much higher heating load than more moderately glazed buildings.

Double-skin façades have grown in popularity in recent years as a way to improve the energy performance of all-glass buildings. They work by capturing heat between the two glass walls to reduce winter heat loss and ventilating the same cavity in the summer to minimize heat gain. An integrated sun shading system between the two glass walls can further improve performance in the summer. While the double-skin façade can typically decrease a building's energy consumption in relation to a conventional, fully glazed façade, it still does not perform as well as an opaque wall with glazed openings.

Because lighting energy loads are decreasing and HVAC energy loads are increasing as the amount of glazing increases, an energy model is often the best method to determine the optimal amount of glazing.

While there is some variability based on the building type and climate, we have consistently observed buildings with a moderate amount (around 20 to 30 percent) of glazing use less energy than a fully glazed façade or one having little to no glass. 

Comfort

Creating comfortable environments for building occupants in all-glass buildings can be a challenge. Direct solar radiation, particularly in the summer, can create localized hot spots in the building. If the thermostat is not in the sun and is therefore not experiencing the raised temperatures, it will not adjust the HVAC system to make the space comfortable for those in the sun. If the control is in the sun, the HVAC system can overcool occupants that are not directly in the sun, especially in open office spaces. A well-designed solar control strategy, using interior blinds or exterior sun shades, can mitigate this discomfort.

Winter conditions can also pose thermal comfort challenges in all-glass buildings. Because glass does not insulate well, it has a lower interior surface temperature than an opaque wall assembly. This increases the radiant heat transfer that happens between an occupant and the façade, and can make occupants feel cold even at a comfortable air temperature. The colder surface can also create a downdraft along tall vertical pieces of glass. Downdrafts occur as warm interior air hits the cold surface of the glass and falls, creating cold convective currents with temperatures and air speeds that can cause discomfort. 

To combat this discomfort in fully glazed buildings, perimeter radiant heating is often added. Using a high-performance assembly, such as triple glazing, will raise the interior surface temperature, decreasing the radiant heat transfer and reducing the downdraft which can often create a thermally comfortable environment without the need for perimeter radiant heating. However, because comfort is determined by both glazing area and the U-value of the assembly, there is a limit to how low the U-value can be without needing mechanical means to create a comfortable environment. For the Boston climate, we have found that full-height glazing (60 to 70 percent glazed or higher) to be the comfort limit with a good triple-glazed window.

Visual discomfort can also be a challenge to control in fully glazed buildings. While increased glazing increases the amount of daylight in a space, you can have too much of a good thing, resulting in overlit spaces at the perimeter that create glare problems. A well-designed exterior shading system or fritted glass can help mitigate glare, but low sun angles in the morning and evening can still pose a challenge. Interior blinds are the most common glare-control strategy. Unless they are automated, however, they frequently are lowered during a brief period of glare and are not raised again. While this controls glare, it erases all of the benefits of daylighting and exterior views that you can get from glass.

Views

Visual connection to the exterior environment and nature is one of the biggest benefits of all-glass buildings. Views to the external environment have been shown to benefit the health and productivity of occupants because of the biophilic connection between humans and other living systems. The most famous of these is the seminal study by Roger Ulrich in 1981 that found that medical center rooms with views improved patient recovery rates by eight percent. As with the daylight studies, the percentage of glazing needed to achieve quality views is unclear. Some argue that punched windows common in buildings with limited glazing act much like a picture frame, allowing access to views while maintaining the thermal integrity of the building envelope.

Aesthetics

Because large panes of glass weren't commonly available until the mid-twentieth century, fully glazed buildings are associated with modernism. Both designers and building owners demand highly glazed buildings to give the image of transparency and modernity. But in an age where we must think about the environmental impact of the built environment, many argue that it is time to end our collective passion for all-glass buildings. Fully glazed buildings have become so ubiquitous that we as designers should embrace the challenge of creating a new image for what it means to be modern in this age. Design is about embracing constraints to create a new and beautiful building, and working with materials other than glass should be embraced as part of our design challenge. 

Advocacy Update

By Grey Lee

Greetings Green Building Advocates!
 
Here is an update on our key advocacy issues for 2015, Property Assessed Clean Energy Financing (PACE), Net Zero Building Code, and Net Metering.
 
Our PACE stakeholder focus group—made up of around 12 organizations and trade groups, primarily with environmental, labor, and economic development interests—is gaining momentum and working towards strengthening support for this year’s legislation. We are working with Senator Joyce’s office to bring in other co-sponsors up until the bill is brought out of committee. We are also collaborating with the Climate Action Business Group (CABA) to have a public forum around PACE financing and its relationship to resiliency planning.
 
Net Zero
The current version of the Act promoting zero net-energy buildings in the Commonwealth by Senator Eldridge is gaining more co-sponsors, and is targeting a more stringent path to Net Zero Building Codes. The advocacy team is continuing to expand our network of support around this issue.

Net Metering
Our advocacy team is following the progress of the Department of Energy Resources (DOER) Task Force on Net Metering. Among the issues the task force is examining are the potential impacts of a minimum bill for Massachusetts ratepayers and its impact on reaching the statewide goal of 1,600MW of solar. The task force has outlined 5 primary tasks to accomplish which you can see in detail here:consulting team status update and task presentation; the task force also provides a Table of policy options and a draft of the task 1 report

 
 
Mark those calendars now, the next Green Breakfast will be held on Thursday March 19th and we will have presentations to describe each issue, and how you can help build momentum to pass this years legislation!
 
 
 
 
 
 

The Green Engineer Spotlight

By Grey Lee

Cambridge Center Expansion
Biogen Idec

 

When Biogen Idec decided to locate their 204,000 sf expansion in Kendall Square, they also decided to work with an all-star cast of design, construction and real estate professionals. The project was developed by Boston Properties, designed by Elkus Manfredi, and built by Lee Kennedy Co. The Green Engineer helped to ensure the building attained LEED Gold certification for Core + Shell. The new office and lab space is linked to the existing Biogen building by a two-level connector structure, and is also powered by an existing steam plant.

 

The project earned 63 points, reducing indoor water use by 30%, potable water use in irrigation by 50%, achieving a 16% improvement in baseline building performance, using recycled building materials, and specifying FSC-certified wood products. For more details on the energy-saving features of the project check out the LEED scorecard here.

 

  

 

 

Massachusetts ranks fifth in 2014’s Top 10 States for LEED

By Stephen Muzzy, Programs Manager

Massachusetts earned fifth place in our annual Top 10 list.
The results are in! All of the states that make up our Top 10 list have done an extraordinary job promoting LEED and making sustainable solutions a priority.  

View the list »

“The USGBC Massachusetts Chapter is proud to represent the high-achieving professionals of the green building industry who have worked hard to make Massachusetts a leader in the creation of LEED-certified space,” said Grey Lee, executive director USGBC Massachusetts Chapter.
Massachusetts certified 99 projects representing 14,662,950 square feet of real estate, or 2.2 square feet per resident, in 2014.
A sample of notable projects that certified in Massachusetts in 2014 includes:

Unitarian Universalist Association new Headquarters in Boston, LEED Platinum
Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s 130 Brookline Street in Cambridge, LEED Gold
Athol Public Library in Athol, LEED Platinum
Harvard Law School Gannett House in Boston, LEED Gold

Take a second to congratulate yourself, your colleagues, your legislators, and your friends on a job well done! Want to share the good news? Use the hashtag #Top10LEED on Twitter and Facebook.

Boston Properties Spotlight

By Grey Lee

Boston Properties:
LEED Gold, Class A Office Spaces 
 

Boston Properties certified two Class A, LEED Gold office buildings in 2014: 230 CityPoint and Reservoir Place, both along the 128 Corridor in Waltham. 230 CityPoint is part of a larger development which already includes another LEED Gold Certified building, 77 CityPoint. The two 6-story buildings provide over 500,000 sf of multi-tenant Class A office space, including a cafe, fitness center and conference center. 230 CityPoint earned 61 points to achieve its Gold certification, reducing indoor water consumption by 25%, using recycled materials and achieving an 87 Energy Star Performance Rating. The 25-acre CityPoint site features several additional parcels currently under development, 10 CityPoint and 99 Third Avenue Retail. See the LEED Scorecard here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

230 CityPoint
 
77 CityPoint

 

 

10 CityPoint (Under Development)
 
99 Third Avenue Retail (Under Development)

The second LEED Gold building certified by Boston Properties in 2014 is Reservoir Place, a 527,000 sf Class A office building on the northern edge of the Cambridge Reservoir. In addition to being the largest multi-tenant office building on Route 128, Reservoir Place features a cafe, fitness center, several shops and even tennis courts. Reservoir Place was constructed in 1955 and renovated in 1983, and not acquired by Boston Properties until 1998. The decision by Boston Properties to bring the project up to LEED Gold standards for Building Operations + Maintenance, represents their commitment to investing in energy-efficiency for both new and existing construction. See how Boston Properties was able to transform an existing building into a LEED Gold project by checking out the Scorecard here.

 

 

 

Reservoir Place
 
Reservoir Place