Sustainable Building....... Waste Reduction

Of the 20,000 landfills located within the United States, more than 15,000 have reached
capacity and closed.9 Many more are following this pattern each year. Construction-related
waste constitutes more than 25 percent of landfill content and equals total municipal
garbage waste generated in the United States.1 0 As a result of this volume of waste, an
increasing number of landfills will not permit, or are charging extra for, the dumping of
construction-related waste. In response, recycling of such debris is increasing at the job
site. Materials such as gypsum, glass, carpet, aluminum, steel, brick, and disassembled
building components can be reused, or, if that is not feasible, recycled.

In addition to construction-waste recycling, the building industry is beginning to
achieve significant waste reductions through more building reuse and adaptation, as
opposed to demolition. In past decades, the trend has been to raze a building at the end
of its first life (assumed to be the “useful” life) and replace it with a new building. With
ingenuity, older structures can be successfully renovated into cost-effective and efficient
“new” structures. Adaptive reuse of older structures can result in financial savings to
both sellers and purchasers. One example is the National Audubon Society headquarters
building in New York, the product of a 1993 project that recycled a 100-year-old eight story
building. Conservation of the building’s shell and floors saved approximately 300
tons of steel, 9,000 tons of masonry, and 560 tons of concrete. Audubon estimates a savings
of approximately $8 million associated with restoration instead of demolition and
new construction

Sustainable building.....Water Efficiency

Water conservation and efficiency programs have begun to
lead to substantial decreases in the use of water within buildings.
Water-efficient appliances and fixtures, behavioral
changes, and changes in irrigation methods can reduce consumption
by up to 30 percent or more.7 Investment in such
measures can yield payback in one to three years. Some water
utilities offer fixture rebates and other incentives, as well as
complimentary water surveys, which can lead to even higher
returns.
As Figure 1 reveals, for a typical 100,000-square-foot office building, a 30 percent reduction
in water usage through the installation of efficiency measures can result in annual
savings of $4,393. The payback period is 2.5 years on the installed conservation and efficiency
measures. In addition to providing a 40 percent return on investment, the measures
result in annual conservation of 975,000 gallons of water.
As demand on water increases with urban growth, the economic impact of water conservation
and efficiency will increase proportionately. Water efficiency not only can lead to
substantial water savings, as shown in the above example, it also can reduce the requirement
for expansion of water treatment facilities. Non-residential water customers
account for a small percentage of the total number of water customers, but use approximately
35 percent or more of the total water.8 More information on water conservation
programs and incentives can be obtained from your local water utility, or by calling
Water Wiser, a national water-efficiency clearinghouse of the American Water Works
Association and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, at 800/559-9855.

WATER EFFICIENCY
in a Typical 100,000 sq. ft. Office Building
Water Usage
Number of Building Occupants 650
Water Use per Occupant per Day 20
Total Annual Building Water Use (gallons) 3,250,000
Total Annual Building Water Use (HCF*) 4,345
Water Cost
Water Cost per HCF $1.44
Sewer Cost per HCF $1.93
Total (water + sewer) Cost per HCF $3.37
Total (water + sewer) Annual Cost $14,643
Savings
Initial Cost of Water Measures** $10,983
Annual Water Conservation, at 30% Reduction (HCF) 1,304
Annual Water + Sewer Savings (1,304 HCF at $3.37) $4,394
Payback Period 2.5 years
*One hundred cubic feet (HCF) = 748 gallons
** Measures include efficient, low-flow appliances and fixtures
as well as control sensors.
Source: Figures based on communicat ions with Water
Department specialists in San Diego, Phoenix, and Sacramento.

Sustainable building ........Energy Efficiency

Approximately 50 percent of the energy use in buildings is devoted to producing an artificial
indoor climate through heating, cooling, ventilation, and lighting.4 A typical building’s
energy bill constitutes approximately 25 percent of the building’s total operating
costs. Estimates indicate that climate-sensitive design using available technologies could
cut heating and cooling energy consumption by 60 percent and lighting energy requirements
by at least 50 percent in U.S. buildings.5

Returns on investment for energy-efficiency measures can be
higher than rates of return on conventional and even high yielding
investments. Participants in the Green Lights program
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
have enjoyed annual rates of return of over 30 percent for
lighting retrofits. When participants complete all program related
improvements, Green Lights could save over 65 million
kilowatts of electricity, reducing the nation’s electric bill
by $16 billion annually.6
If the United States continues to retrofit its existing building
stock into energy-efficient structures and upgrade building
codes to require high energy efficiency in new buildings, it
will be able to greatly reduce the demand for energy resources.
This reduction, in turn, will lessen air pollution, contributions
to global warming, and dependency on fossil fuels.

The Economics of Green Buildings

Few realize that construction, including new construction and building renovation,
constitutes the nation’s largest manufacturing activity.1 Over 70 percent of this effort is
focused on residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional buildings; the remaining
30 percent on public works. Construction contributes $800 billion to the economy, or 13
percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and provides nearly 10 million professional
and trade jobs. More than 50 percent of the nation’s reproducible wealth is invested in
constructed facilities.2 Because of the building industry’s significant impact on the
national economy, even modest changes that promote resource efficiency in building
construction and operations can make major contributions to economic prosperity and
environmental improvement.
Several parties—including owners, tenants, and the general public—bear the cost of
building construction. The main direct cost expenditures fall within the categories of
building construction, renovation, operation, and building-related infrastructure.
Indirect cost expenditures stem from building-related occupant health and productivity
problems as well as external costs such as air and water pollution, waste generation, and
habitat destruction.
A building’s “life” spans its planning; its design, construction and operation; and its ultimate
reuse or demolition. Often, the entity responsible for design, construction, and
initial financing of a building is different from those operating the building, meeting its
operational expenses, and paying employees’ salaries and benefits. However, the decisions
made at the first phase of building design and construction can significantly affect
the costs and efficiencies of later phases.
Viewed over a 30-year period, initial building costs account for approximately just
two percent of the total, while operations and maintenance costs equal six percent,
and personnel costs equal 92 percent.3 Recent studies have shown that green building
measures taken during construction or renovation can result in significant building
o p e rational savings, as well as increases in employee productivity. Therefore, building related
costs are best revealed and understood when they are analyzed over the life
span of a building

Process sketch, Galician Center for Contemporary Art, Santiago de Compostela, Spain

Siza Vieira, Álvaro Joaquim Melo (1933)

The recipient of numerous awards, including the 1992 Pritzker Prize, this architect is known to the
world as Álvaro Siza. His architecture appears to reflect the white boxes of modernism, but upon further inspection, one can view how his buildings inspire through the conscious interplay of form and shadow.
Siza was born in Matosinhos, near Porto, Portugal. He studied at the School of Architecture,
University of Porto (1949–1955). Beginning a practice while still in school, he completed his first project in 1954. Many of his early buildings were designed in collaboration with the architect Fernando Távora (1955–1958). Siza’s practice, over the last fifty years, has specialized primarily in domestic projects, schools, and exhibition spaces. A few of these buildings include the Bouça Housing Project (1973–1977); a high school, Setúbal (1986–1994); Meteorological Centre in the Olympic Village,
Barcelona (1989–1992); Museum of the Serralves Foundation, Porto (1991–1999); and the Portuguese Pavilion for Expo 98, Lisbon (1997–1998). With honors too numerous to fully list, the Portuguese Architects Association gave him the National Prize of Architecture in 1993. Siza has also been awarded with the Praemium Imperiale by the Japan Art Association (1998), Premio Internazionale di Architettura Sacra by Fondazione Frate Sole in Pavia (2000), and the International Medal of Arts by Consejera de las Artes in Madrid (2002).28
This sketch for the Centro Galego Arte Contemporanea (CGAC – Galician Centre for
Contemporary Art) reflects Siza’s concern for the exterior massing and façade articulation of this
building. He writes that the project represents a study of volumes, materials and language. In this project he is concerned with the small site, and the various scales and si
Having viewed several of Siza’s design sketches, this sketch (Figure 8.23) conveys his typical process where he stacks numerous perspectives on one sheet. Several of the views show the building from a distance emphasizing how the building sits on the terrain. The variations on a theme overlap where a
new thought possessed him, ignoring the image beneath. Not necessarily the result of scarce availability of paper, the dense proximity of the sketches probably allowed Siza to constantly reference either the overall form of the building or the earlier alternative solutions.
The sketches appear to be thoughtful studies rather than first abstract impressions. This shows in the techniques of texture (drawing the separate pieces of granite on the façade) and light accentuating the surface materials. The low perspective angle of the sketch on the upper left demonstrates the monumentality of the bold forms. This study sketch appears to have been concerned with the joining of the volumes and the understanding of solid/void relationships, not necessarily the first organizational diagrams.
Each sketch has been thoroughly articulated as if he needed to participate with its construction.
This intense ability to see as part of a design process can be connected to understanding as Siza writes: 

gnificance of the surrounding structures. The program that designated exhibition space, auditorium, and cafeteria and service areas is shown in the separation of volumes by the various functional spaces.

‘There are two different words in Portuguese that mean “to look” and “to see and understand” (olhar and ver). The tool of an architect is to be able to see.’29 Less about an immediate impression the sketches contain a certain pondering that reveals their volumetric interaction.

Study sketch of column capitals, Uffizi, UFF 1806 A.v., Ink, wash and graphite

Scamozzi, Vincenzo (1552–1616)
Study sketch of column capitals, Uffizi, UFF 1806 A.v., Ink, wash and graphite

 
The most prominent architect in Venice at the turn of the century, and a final holdout for classicism,
Vincenzo Scamozzi represented the end of the Mannerist approach in northern Italy (Wittkower,
1980). At a time when aspects of the Baroque were starting to surface, his buildings constituted a
reworking of Palladio’s ideals, with strong theoretical basis in Pythagorean theory (Hersey, 1976). Born
in Vicenza, he was the son of the contractor/carpenter/surveyor Gian Domenico Scamozzi. His first
documented commissions were for a villa in Barbano for Girolamo Ferramosco (c. 1520) and Palazzo
Thiene-Bonin (1572–1593). He moved to Venice in 1581, and finished Palladio’s Villa Rotunda with
minor alterations and completed renovations for Teatro Olimpico from 1584 to 1585. Scamozzi was
widely traveled, visiting Paris, Prague, Salzburg, Rome, parts of Germany, and Venice, where he died
in 1616. With a prolific architectural career, his later projects included large buildings such as
Procuratie Nuove on the Piazza of San Marco and a commission for the Palazzo Contarini at San
Trovaso on the Grand Canal in Venice.
One of Scamozzi’s legacies includes his theoretical treatise, L’idea dell’Architettura Universale, 1615,
which many historians agree represents the final codification of the orders. Despite its publishing
date, the book clearly speaks to the previous century, as he finds both literary and historical evidence
from antiquity to support his assertions. In the tradition of Vitruvius, Alberti, Filarete, Serlio,
de Giorgio, and Lomazzo, the square was the essential element, and he illustrated his treatise with
‘Man the Beautiful procreates both square and circle’ (Hersey, 1976, p. 99).
This sketch (Figure 1.9) from the Uffizi Archives in Florence presents variations on column capitals
in both ink and graphite. Although a freehand sketch, the column capitals appear more complete.
The controlled crosshatch ink technique exhibits his great skill with pen and ink; rendered with
shadows, the page of sketches was a way to visualize and understand, possibly even to locate a particular
resolution. The attention to the ‘look’ of the images reveals his interest in presenting the capital’s
materiality and shape. This suggests that Scamozzi was rendering the proposals either to discover a
form yet unknown to him, or to match an image in his ‘mind’s eye’ (Gombrich, 1969; Gibson, 1979).
The very detailed and conventionally classical appearance of the capitals reveals his intention to carefully
work out the necessary details. The columns are not placed to investigate a structural composition;
instead they overlap, and others are inverted. This implies he needed to see them in proximity
for comparison. The method he used to draw alternatives questions how he employed the images to
formulate decisions. Viewing these variations in some semblance of three-dimensional realism may
have allowed him to compare visually the impression from his imagination.
To support this suggestion, Scamozzi began to sketch a capital, and at the point it became solidified,
he abandoned the sketch for another attempt. It may have been a method to test the threedimensional
volume, as he would do with a model. Perhaps he was employing the sketch to replace
a model, or as a precursor to the capital’s sculpted form. Reinforcing this proposition, a small elevation
presents the columns in context, referencing this comparison between detail and the larger
picture.
A sketch may imply the quick capturing of escaping ideas, but in this case Scamozzi may not have
been able to receive sufficient information from a brief sketch to answer his specific question. The
finished qualities provided the necessary information to visualize the form for decision-making.

The main principles of green building design:

The following general principles can be applied to environmentally friendly (Green)

architectural design:

1- The design of housing according to the general climate of the area.

2- Making use of local architecture: These buildings have been developed to be able to

deal with the local climate and conditions and have reached architectural solutions that

suit the local conditions.

3- Functional architectural design for various spaces.

4- Garden design and surrounding areas.

3.1 Choosing Green Building Materials:

1- The use of materials that conserve the environment or the use of materials that can be

reused or used as an agricultural material when disposed of.

2- Choosing building materials that conserve natural resources.

3- Building materials that are free of substances harmful to nature and humans.

4- Building materials that have little negative impact on their surroundings when used in

building.

5- Building materials that help directly and indirectly at saving energy.

6- Building materials that ensure public safety and health in the inner space.

7- Water conservation

3.2. The Environmental side of the Traditional House:

the traditional house in the OC has the reputation to it's

climate responsive, and has an Environmentally Friendly

concept.

The area’s climate in general is hot and dry;

known for strong sunshine which heats the dry winds

another cause of high temperatures.

This hot environment has driven life indoors;

whether it is in the home or the neighborhood

or in the city as a whole, the inner courtyard is

considered a successful architectural solution

emerging from the essence of oriental ideas and

an effective solution to the demands of this harsh climate.

This traditional architecture has the added

advantage that all houses have four aspects

so each room can be used for a purpose most suited to its aspect e.g. these houses have a summer sitting room facing north distinct from their

winter sitting room.

The courtyard functions to reduce extremes of variation of air temperature, providing fresh air for

the house and isolating the house from external noise.

The traditional Arabic house has thick, solid outer walls;

inner walls are also thick but are punctuated by openings

to the inner courtyard. The thickness of the walls limits

heat transfer and acts as natural insulation, so the room

temperature is warm in winter and cool in summer.

In the traditional house the proportional measurements

of the inner courtyard vary, ranging from 1:1, 2:1, 3:4,

in a horizontal section and 2:1 in the vertical section.