CENTRE FOR INTERACTIVE RESEARCH ON

SUSTAINABILITY

INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY

FINAL REPORT

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION

2 OVERVIEW OF IDP

3 CIRS PROJECT OVERVIEW

Project Vision Project Location and Timeline Project Stakeholders

4 DESIGN – COLLABORATION AND CONSULTATION

Overview Timelines Design Meetings and Participants Design Communications 2D to 3D Revit Protocols

5 HISTORIC OVERVIEW OF CHARETTE PROCESS FOR 2004-2006

Goal Setting

6 CURRENT CHARETTE PROCESS FOR CIRS 2008

7 LESSONS LEARNED

General Lessons Learned

Confirmation of Charette Purpose Number of Charette Participants Expert Facilitators Inclusion of Subject Matter Experts Development of Client Relationship Strong Industry Partner Agreement Assessment of Past Design Assumptions Development of Inter-Institutional Relationships Addition of Topic Specific Charettes

Design Principles Charette

Retest and Confirmation of Performance Goals Exceptional Client Representation Connection with the Broader Campus

Water Supply, Treatment and Reuse Charette

CIRS INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY – FINAL REPORT Page 1 of 25

Balancing the most Appropriate Technology with Educational Requirements Understanding Amenity Water Use Requirements Connecting with the Broader Campus

Daylighting and Solar Shading Charette

Applying Feedback from 2004-2006Daylighting Studies Balancing Daylight Penetration, Heat Load and Glare Balancing Human and Technical Based Solutions

Energy Modeling Charette

A Systems Thinking Approach to Energy Conservation A Need for a More Detailed Energy Reduction and Energy Cost Savings Calculations

8 OUTCOMES AND INSPIRATIONAL MOMENTS

9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE PROJECTS

10 APPENDICES

Appendix A: Integrated Design Process Roadmap

Appendix B: CIRS 2004 - 2006 Sustainability Design Goals and Strategies Matrix

Appendix C: CIRS 2008 Design Goals

CIRS INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY – FINAL REPORT Page 2 of 25

1 Introduction

The CIRS team was awarded funding from Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) in early 2008, to provide a summary report of the integrated design process (IDP) and charette process completed for the Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability Project located in Vancouver, BC. This report has been prepared by BusbyPerkins+Will and Stantec. The objectives of this report are to describe the CIRS IDP process and to highlight the following aspects of the charette process held during March 2008 – July 2008: ! The types of charettes held throughout schematic design ! The lessons learned from the charettes ! How the outcomes of each charette have influenced the design ! Inspirational moments for project team members

This report is intended to serve as a case study and teaching tool for practitioners who are undertaking an integrated design process for the first time on a project.

2 Overview of IDP

The integrated design process seeks to produce high performance buildings by involving the client and all design team members as early as possible. This process relies upon a multi-disciplinary and collaborative team, making decisions together based on a shared vision and holistic knowledge of the project. The process follows the design through its entire life cycle, from pre-design through to post- occupancy. In contrast, the conventional design is a linear process that brings consultants into the design sequentially – for example, the mechanical engineer might not see the design until after building massing and glazing has been set.

IDP fosters creativity, thinking outside the box, and a cross-disciplinary approach to design. It allows for the exploration of novel and innovative green design approaches. Instead of having the same old solutions applied to the projects, IDP provides solutions that are better tailored to the specifics of each project. It provides a chance to re-evaluate previous assumptions and to take advantage of each opportunity that presents itself as the project evolves. Practitioners should always keep in mind that the integrated design process is not a pre-determined approach and it will be unique for each project depending on the project size, budget, and number of stakeholders engaged in the project. The following tables1 compare and contrast the integrated design process with conventional design process and outline a core set of principles which are fundamental to the integrated design process.

1 The tables inserted are taken from the Roadmap for Integrated Design Process.

CIRS INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY – FINAL REPORT Page 3 of 25

CIRS INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY – FINAL REPORT Page 4 of 25

The Roadmap for the Integrated Design Process2 is a recommended resource for practitioners seeking more information on IDP, how to facilitate the process, team structure, and resources and references on the subject.

Appendix A includes some additional information from the Roadmap for the Integrated Design Process on IDP and how it differs from conventional design, key IDP principles and design team composition.

3 CIRS Project Overview

Project Vision

In response to the global challenge of building a more sustainable society, the Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS) has as its goal to be the most innovative and high performance building in North America. Demonstrating leading-edge green building design, CIRS will be a state-of- the-art 'living-lab' in which researchers from leading academic institutions can perform research on and assessment of, current and future building systems and technologies. Partners from private and public sectors will share the research facility, working with CIRS researchers to ensure that the work conducted there reflects the real world needs of the community, industry, and policy makers.

Project Location and Timeline

The site and design for CIRS have changed over time due to a number of factors. The project commenced originally in 2001 and schematic design was completed for a site on the UBC Vancouver campus.

In 2003, CIRS was relocated to the new Great Northern Way Campus (GNWC) on the former Finning Lands that was created for the University of British Columbia (UBC), Simon Fraser University (SFU), Emily Carr University of Art and Design (ECUAD), and BC Institute of Technology (BCIT).

The move to the Great Northern Way campus presented a new opportunity for CIRS to be located close to downtown Vancouver and develop richer partnerships with the four major local academic institutions. As such, a strategic partnership was formed with these institutions and the building was designed to house various research departments from each institution that supported the vision of the project.

A comprehensive feasibility report was prepared in 2003-2004 outlining the vision and goals of the project on Great Northern Way campus. Both schematic design and design development were completed for CIRS over the period from 2004 to 2006. Due to unprecedented construction cost escalation prevalent during that period of time, the project was put on hold in the summer of 2006.

2 The Roadmap for the Integrated Design Process is available online at http://www.greenbuildingsbc.com/Home/NewBuildings/MoreResources/OtherResources.aspx

CIRS INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY – FINAL REPORT Page 5 of 25

In January 2008, UBC decided to relocate CIRS back to the UBC Vancouver campus. With the advantage of a single institutional owner of building and land, combined with significant UBC staff resources, the project team has been able to make significant progress since restarting the project. With this move, the program for CIRS has expanded to include a 500-seat Auditorium and café that will serve the broader campus community. Design development is being finalized in the fall of 2008 and the building is intended to be completed by 2010.

For purposes of this report, the various design schemes and site locations for CIRS will be referenced as follows: CIRS 2001, CIRS 2004-2006, and CIRS 2008.

This report, therefore, documents the integrated design process moving forward for the CIRS 2008 project located on the UBC Vancouver campus.

Project Stakeholders

Stakeholders involved in the design process for CIRS include a number of representatives from UBC , the core design team, CIRS research cluster chairs from the four academic partners, and industry and community partners. This group represents a large stakeholder group that has been involved in some or all of the design charettes hosted for the project since 2003.

CIRS INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY – FINAL REPORT Page 6 of 25

A list of the core design team consulting firms, institutional and industry partners is provided below. For a complete list of charette participants, please refer to the “CIRS Charette Proceedings” document prepared by Stantec Consulting, September 2008.

CIRS Project Stakeholders

Core Design Team Expertise

Busby Perkins+Will Architectural team Stantec Consulting Mechanical and Electrical Engineering and Program Management Fast+Epp Structural Engineering team PWL Partnership Landscape LMDG Code Consultant Institutional Stakeholders Years of CIRS Involvement

University of British Columbia 2001, 2004-2006, 2008 Simon Fraser University 2004-2006, 2008 British Columbia Institute of Technology 2004-2006, 2008 Emily Carr University of Art and Design 2004-2006, 2008 UBC Properties Trust (Development Managers) 2004-2006, 2008 Industry Partners Expertise

BC Hydro Local electrical utility Corix Water and energy systems Haworth Architectural systems and components Honeywell System controls Telus IT and Communications SGI High performance computing equipment Visionwall Building integrated PVs Project Supporters Funding Provided for CFI Research infrastructure BCKDF Research infrastructure Western Economic Diversification Program development BC Ministry of the Environment Program development BC Ministry of Advanced Education Program development The Kresge Foundation Sustainable design and LEED certification NRCan Design charette and IDP process FCM Project feasibility study Metro Vancouver Project feasibility study BC Hydro HPBP Energy modeling

CIRS INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY – FINAL REPORT Page 7 of 25

4 Design – Collaboration and Consultation

Overview

As noted in this report, the integrated design process seeks to produce high performance buildings by involving the project sponsor, the users, building operator, the construction manager and all design team members as early as possible. This process relies upon a multi-disciplinary and collaborative team, making decisions together based on a shared vision and holistic knowledge of the project.

The chart below shows the CIRS Integrated Design Process participants as well as area of expertise that they bring to the CIRS design process.

A core group of representatives from this group participated in the initial design goals and strategies CIRS charette that formed the design vision of CIRS. Additionally, representatives from these organisations attended the three design charettes held during schematic design and the design consultants shown on this chart have been meeting weekly since early May 2008 in order to advance and refine the CIRS design concepts.

Timelines

Fundamental to the success of the CIRS IDP, has been the careful planning of the design activities and timelines. The visual representation on the next page clearly indicates that the knowledge and information gathered from each charette was timed so that it could be incorporated into the detailed design phases of the project.

CIRS INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY – FINAL REPORT Page 8 of 25

CIRS INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY – FINAL REPORT Page 9 of 25

In the case of the CIRS IDP, a preliminary conceptual design phase included a site analysis and confirmation of the CIRS functional program which preceded a sustainable design goals and strategies charette. The latter provided an overall vision for the CIRS design and a set of targets to be achieved throughout the design process.

Subsequent to this, the schematic design process was launched to provide a framework and reference point for sustainable design implementation strategies and to produce a design, building massing and orientation comparable to the design goals identified during the design charette.

Once the massing and general geometry of the building were sufficiently developed, three more in- depth design charettes would be organised to develop design concepts to meet energy, daylighting and water conservation targets.

These design charettes were held in parallel with the schematic design process to ensure that the concepts identified could be incorporated into the design process and drawings.

The following provides information on the various methods used on this project in order to successfully achieve collaboration between the different stakeholders participating in CIRS.

Design Meetings and Participants

Part of the collaborative design process for the CIRS project has been the creation of weekly design meetings. These meetings are held at the Project Architect’s (BusbyPerkins+Will) office, with representation from the Mechanical, Electrical and P&PM (Stantec), Civil (Core Group consultants), Structural (Fast+Epp) and Code (LMDG) consultants. Participation to these meetings also includes the development manager and owner representative (UBC Properties Trust) and Dr John Robinson, the prime investigator. These meetings provide an opportunity to both review and discuss issues associated with the design of the building. All meetings are filmed by a team of researchers from UBC Engineering.

An agenda for each design meeting is usually issued three to four days prior to the meeting in order to provide the participants with time to prepare for the meeting. Meeting minutes are produced by the Project Architect and issued within a day of the meeting.

Once produced, both the agenda and the resulting meeting minutes are uploaded onto the CIRS main communication tool, an electronic web-based site named Autodesk Buzzsaw (see below for further information on this software tool).

Design Communications

As briefly mentioned in the previous section, the main communication tool for the CIRS project is Autodesk Buzzsaw.

Buzzsaw is a web-based collaboration tool that allows project team members to share and access documents digitally, from a central storage location.

One of the main design objectives of CIRS has been the creation of a paperless design, whereby project materials such as drawings, reports, meeting minutes, etc can be made available to any team

CIRS INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY – FINAL REPORT Page 10 of 25 member, regardless of location, at the click of a button. Using Buzzsaw assists in the accomplishment of this goal and is a very efficient tool for document access and transfer.

On a general note and based on previous experience, by using Buzzsaw, a project save upto 50% in printing and courier costs, as well as reducing the amount of paper produced for a project.

2D to 3D Revit Protocols

UBC have lead the way in the 3D drawing protocol and requirements for the CIRS project. Part of UBC’s involvement has been the research into how project teams interact with emerging computer- based models and how information should be displayed to improve the efficiency with which this information is communicated. Also being investigated is collaborative technologies and the requirements for digital environments to facilitate the design coordination process.

Protocols prepared by UBC include:

! File naming convention ! Layout standard ! Exporting conventions

By following these and other protocols, CIRS can achieve the following:

! Reduction of error propagation ! Better coordination between architectural, structural, mechanical and electrical drawings ! Reduced printing costs

5 Historic Overview of Charette Process for CIRS 2004-2006

Throughout the CIRS 2004-2006 design process, five charettes were held with various CIRS team members, partners and other stakeholders. This section describes briefly the key charettes that took place during the initial planning stage in late 2004, schematic design, and design development.

A brief historical overview of the process is documented below.

Goal Setting

During the planning stage of the project in 2004, several design and visualization meetings were held with local sustainable design experts to review the proposed architectural, mechanical, and structural design and to establish a set of preliminary short and long-term performance goals for the Centre. The design team met with:

! Dr. John Robinson, Professor of Institute of Resources, Environment and Sustainability, and Department of Geography, University of British Columbia to gather feedback on the project’s vision, program, and sustainability goals.

CIRS INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY – FINAL REPORT Page 11 of 25

! Dr. Ray Cole from the UBC School of Architecture to gather feedback on the architectural and research elements of the building design; ! Blair McCarry from Stantec to provide expertise on alternative mechanical and electrical system and technology opportunities; and ! Paul Fast from Fast + Epp to provide expertise on various structural systems.

From these meetings, the design team identified 18 goals as well as a series of design strategies and sustainable building technologies required to meet them. These goals and strategies were further documented in the CIRS Feasibility Report completed in May 2004.

These Sustainable Design Goals and Strategies, were subsequently tested and examined in a series of focused charettes on daylighting and solar shading, energy performance and modeling, water systems, and IT framework with the entire design team and institutional partners. As a result of these charettes, the building design evolved and the goals matrix for CIRS expanded to encompass 22 design goals for the project that addressed the following key subject areas: ! Design Process ! Site ! Energy ! Water ! Resource Conservation ! Occupant Health ! Building Operations & Maintenance ! Outreach The complete set of the original 22 goals and strategies for the CIRS project can be found in Appendix B.

6 Current Charette Process for CIRS 2008

With the recommencement of the CIRS project in January 2008, the complete project team came together to kick-start the design process for the building on its new site located on the UBC Vancouver campus. Since the project had been on hold for 18 months and the site location had changed, the team felt it was necessary to re-launch the design process with a series of goal setting and design charettes.

Between March 28th and July 4th, 2008 the following four charettes were held on the project: 1. Design principles 2. Water supply, treatment and reuse strategies 3. Daylighting and solar shading approach 4. Energy modeling

CIRS INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY – FINAL REPORT Page 12 of 25

These four charettes afforded the design team and the project’s key stakeholders an opportunity to re- test the original vision set for the project; re-evaluate the project’s previous sustainability goals and design assumptions; and re-establish the project’s fundamental design principles and strategies required to meet the project’s vision.

Charette participants represented a broad range of stakeholders from the client team, design team, institutional and industry partners involved in the project. The number of participants that attended the four charettes ranged from 16 - 35 attendees.

A summary of the key participants who attended each charette, charette agendas and proceedings is presented in “CIRS Charette Proceedings March 28th – July 4, 2008” compiled by Stantec Consulting.

7 Lessons Learned

A number of lessons learned can be drawn from this series of four charettes hosted for the CIRS 2008 project that could be potentially applied to other projects in the future. This sections documents the following aspects of the charette process: ! The lessons learned from the charettes ! How the outcomes of each charette have influenced the design

Information presented in this section is based on responses gathered from surveys distributed to 20 participants who represent the design team, institutional and industry partners, and who attended some or all of the four charettes. Of the 20 surveys distributed, 10 were successfully completed.

The lessons learned are categorized as general lessons learned, and then specific lessons from each charette. A complete summary of the charette proceedings can be found in “CIRS Charette Proceedings March 28th – July 4, 2008” compiled by Stantec Consulting.

General Lessons Learned

A number of general lessons learned that can be extracted from the CIRS 2008 charette process include the: 1. Confirmation of charette purpose 2. Value in number of charette participants 3. Role facilitators play in the charette process 4. Inclusion of subject matter expert facilitators 5. Development of a strong client relationship 6. Development of strong industry engagement 7. Assessment of past design assumptions 8. Development of inter-institutional relationships

CIRS INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY – FINAL REPORT Page 13 of 25

9. Addition of topic specific charettes

Confirmation of charette purpose

Several of the charette participants found that the topic specific sessions (i.e. water, energy and daylighting) served more as a check point for reviewing the design and flushing out participant concerns rather than exploring new ideas that advanced the building design. For example, the daylighting charette could have engaged the industry partners more effectively in examining how their products could have contributed to the daylighting goals of the project. In some ways, this was a missed opportunity for the design team. Although the topic specific charettes were not as exploratory as initially expected; the charettes set milestones for the consultants to present the latest design options and seek confirmation of design direction. It is, therefore, important to confirm the purpose and function of the charette in advance so that charettes can be a constructive working and ideas sessions that advance the design process.

Number of charette participants

When planning charettes, it is important for the design team to carefully consider who and how many participants are invited in order for the charette to be effective at generating the best ideas that can advance the building design.

For the design principles charette, a total of 35 participants attended representing a broad cross section of client representatives, industry partners and design team members. This number and participant range was appropriate for the purposes of hosting a goal setting charette. However, many participants and design team members felt that the group size for the other charettes was too large and it impacted the effectiveness of these charettes. The charette size of the topic specific charettes ranged from 16 – 31 participants.

Expert facilitators

For projects that have a large number of stakeholders involved, such as CIRS, inviting an outside facilitator to chair charettes can be an effective way to strengthen the dialogue amongst participants. For smaller projects, appointing an individual team member to lead the sessions is often a suitable alternative to hiring an external consultant.

Different individuals chaired the various CIRS 2008 charettes. Dr. Ray Cole, Director of the School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture facilitated the design principles and daylighting charettes, and Blair McCarry, Principal of Stantec Consulting chaired the energy modeling charette and together with an outside water / waste water consultant who directed the water, wastewater and reuse charette. Several participants who attended the CIRS charettes indicated that facilitators were successful at: 1. Guiding the design conversation and decision-making process 2. Building consensus among the participants 3. Not letting professional biases influence final decisions made during the charettes

CIRS INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY – FINAL REPORT Page 14 of 25

4. Tapping into the expertise and experience of all the participants effectively 5. Helping make the results of the charettes greater than the sum on its intellectual participants

Inclusion of subject matter experts

Throughout the CIRS 2008 charette process, a number of subject experts were invited to present and provide technical expertise. For example, a water and wastewater expert and a daylighting consultant were invited to two of the charettes and contributed to the design discussions. In the instance of the water charette, the expert was able to help establish a technical baseline from which the design team and client were able to discuss key issues and options for water treatment.

However, in the daylighting charette, it was felt that the daylighting expert was not given enough of an opportunity to share his experience and expertise with the group. The expert was consulted minimally throughout the charette but not allocated a certain amount of time to present. When inviting such experts to attend charettes, it is therefore important to allocate time and provide a forum in which they can share their expertise.

Compared to the earlier design process for CIRS 2001 and 2004-2006, fewer subject experts were included in the design process for CIRS 2008. This is mostly likely a result of the design team taking the research and lessons learned from past design process and applying them to current design process.

In most cases the inclusion of subject matter experts adds value to the charette process. These experts help broaden the design discussion by bringing an outside perspective, technical expertise to the design table, and experience gained from working on other projects.

Development of client relationship

Over the seven-year history of the CIRS project, the design team’s relationship has strengthened with UBC, and in particular UBC Properties Trust, who is the main client representative.

Throughout the design stages for CIRS, the design team consulted regularly with a diversity of client stakeholder groups with different interests in the outcome of the project. These groups included: Research Cluster A: Building Design and Operation, Research Cluster B1: Development of Modeling & Simulation & Visualization Tools, Research Cluster B2: Research on User & Community Engagement Processes, Research Cluster C: Policy Analysis and Strategies.

These groups reflected a disparate range of interests from the four academic institutions (UBC, BCIT, ECUAD, and SFU) and had, at times, competing interests which, on occasion, slowed the design and decision-making process of the project. With coalescing roles and hierarchy of the various groups, the design team found it difficult to make and weight decisions based the various stakeholder group priorities. In hindsight, some team members felt the extensive stakeholder engagement process had little positive benefit to the project.

CIRS INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY – FINAL REPORT Page 15 of 25

Over time the design team’s relationship with UBC and in particular with UBC Properties Trust has become clearer and more direct, and the design team has had less interaction with the stakeholder groups identified above.

In many ways, this refined client relationship and streamlined stakeholder engagement process has enabled the design process to proceed more expeditiously. This expedited timeline also comes with tradeoffs as there is limited engagement from the other institutional partners which may be seen as rich with innovative ideas.

An overarching lesson learned from this project is that it is important to balance the number of stakeholders involved in the process such that the stakeholders do not slow down the design process.

Strong industry partner engagement

The CIRS project is unique in that it has actively engaged commercial industry partners as part of its vision to accelerate sustainability in the building industry. It is worth noting that during the initial design process in 2001 and then again in 2004-2006, organizations such as BC Hydro, Haworth, Corix, and Honeywell were not yet confirmed as official industry partners in the project. Whereas, when the project recommenced in early 2008, CIRS had confirmed these organizations as industry partners.

At the design principles charette, it was invaluable having representatives from the four industry partners attend the charette. They were able to communicate right from the outset their main areas of interested related to the design of CIRS and its research program. As well, it afforded them the opportunity to contribute to the development of the project’s new design and sustainability goals which they were not previously part of. Overall, representatives from the four industry partners demonstrated a deep knowledge and understanding of general and industry specific sustainability issues.

Furthermore, they were able to raise issues that required further investigation. For example, one of the design goals decided upon was to meet the Living Building Challenge, which mandates the elimination of PVC based products and other harmful contaminants from buildings. This material issue raised a number of questions regarding the products supplied by the various industry partners. Consequently it has spurred on research by the design team and CIRS partners to determine how they can work together to achieve this goal.

Assessment of past design assumptions

The design concept for CIRS originated in 2001 and over this seven year period a tremendous amount of research has been conducted by various team members on the most innovative design strategies and technologies available to meet the project’s design goals.

An overarching question raised through the interview and survey process for this study is how much does the project hold on to from the past design process? Although this question first emerged as a concern for many involved in the process, it soon became evident that all the background research on technologies, international best practices, and testing of original ideas had facilitated the design process for CIRS 2008.

CIRS INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY – FINAL REPORT Page 16 of 25

In most cases, key working principles and lessons learned from CIRS 2001 and 2004-2006 have been carried forward and been built upon for the new site context. For example, by already having a strong understanding of the vision, program and goals for the project as well as by applying previous research and lessons learned from 2001 and 2004-2006, the design team was able to implement an expedited design process for CIRS 2008.

Development of inter-institutional relationships

CIRS has been successful in bringing together four major academic institutions in Metro Vancouver, enabling the institutions to collaborate and partner on joint projects. For example, the emergence of the Solar Canopy project is one example of how UBC and BCIT have recently partnered to carry out research on solar technologies. This can be seen as a positive spin-off of the CIRS design process of bringing these institutions together and how CIRS has acted as catalyst for fostering stronger inter- institutional relationships.

Addition of topic specific charettes

The CIRS charette process included four charettes that set the overarching goals for the project and more specifically examined daylighting, water and wastewater, and energy strategies. These topics were chosen primarily to address the overarching sustainability goals of the project including, environmental performances exceed LEED ® Platinum requirements; 100% access to daylight for all occupied spaces during day hours; water self-sufficiency and net positive energy performances in a GHG-neutral way.

Other topic specific charettes could have been hosted but were not due to the project’s schedule and budget constraints. For example, it would have been interesting to host a materials charette since CIRS set a goal to pursue the Living Building Challenge which has rigorous material requirement of eliminating the use harmful contaminants typically found in building materials. A materials charette would have also provided opportunities for the design team to: ! Determine the client’s and industry partners priorities with respect to material choices ! Evaluate the design and material choices from a life cycle assessment (LCA) perspective ! Understand new research and product development being carried out by the industry partners

Design Principles Charette

On March 28th, 2008, the CIRS project was kick-started with a design principles charette with over thirty-five stakeholders. Given the elevated awareness of environmental issues such as climate change since the inception of CIRS, key members of the client and design team felt that it was pertinent to review the original 22 design goals and determine if they were still relevant and innovative. A complete summary of the charette proceedings can be found in “CIRS Charette Proceedings March 28th – July 4, 2008” compiled by Stantec Consulting.

CIRS INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY – FINAL REPORT Page 17 of 25

A number of lessons learned that can be extracted from this design principles charette include: 1. The confirmation of performance goals 2. Exceptional client representation 3. Connection with the broader campus

Retest and confirmation of performance goals

The design principles charette provided an opportunity to assess whether the original performance goals were still inspirational and innovative.

At the time of initial design, the LEED ® Green Building Rating System was the benchmark tool and the building design aspired to exceed the Platinum level in terms of building performance. More recently, the Living Building Challenge3 has emerged in the market place that pushes building designers to reach beyond LEED ® Platinum by requiring projects to achieve 16 mandatory prerequisites. At the charrette the design team compared and contrasted the original 22 goals with 16 Living Building Challenge prerequisites to determine if they were still leading edge and innovative. The architectural team identified four areas of the Living Building Challenge that the original design goals did not address completely and these include: 1. Limits to growth 2. Habitat exchange 3. Materials red list 4. Beauty and inspiration

Overall, this was a powerful exercise. The charettes discussions demonstrated that the original goals of the project were still relevant and forward looking. However, in some cases, the participants found that further embellishment and refinement of the goals was required, to reflect how far the industry has come since the inception of the project. It was concluded that the design goals should be re- organized into a new framework that reflected these new developments and was more integrative.

A draft document has been generated summarizing the refined and updated goals for CIRS. These goals are grouped into three overarching categories:

1. Green – goals focused on ecological health 2. Smart – goals focused on adaptive, responsive, effective and economical outcomes 3. Humane – goals focused on building inhabitants.

A summary of the project’s goals can be found in Appendix C.

3 The Living Building Challenge is a new rating system developed by the Cascadia Region Green Building Council, a cross border chapter of the Canada and US Green Building Councils. www.cascadiagbc.org/lbc

CIRS INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY – FINAL REPORT Page 18 of 25

Exceptional client representation

There was exceptional representation from the University of British Columbia at the design principles charette. Representatives participated from campus planning, facilities and operations, sustainability office and utility services.

In the past design iterations, these representatives were missing voices from the initial goal-setting process. However, by having these representatives at the first charette, the design team gained insights into potential synergies with neighbouring buildings, existing campus policies, infrastructure constraints, and future growth plans for the campus. These campus stakeholders also demonstrated UBC’s commitment and forward looking approach to sustainability which was made evident in its recent high ranking in the College Sustainability Report Card4. The report card examines colleges and universities, as institutions, through the lens of sustainability.

Connection with the broader campus

At the design principles charette, a realization was made that in order for the project to achieve many of its goals with respect to net positive energy and water, the design team would need to consider the project in the context of the broader campus community. Thinking of the building project not in isolation but more as intervention that could make the campus use energy, water and materials more effectively and efficiently was an important concept realized by many of the charette participants.

The design team has carried this insight forward in subsequent design charettes, particularly during the energy modeling charette where heat recovery opportunities were explored with neighbouring campus buildings. Water Supply, Treatment and Reuse Charette

On June 10, 2008 the water supply, treatment and reuse charette was held and sixteen participants attended. The purpose of the charette was to review the various water systems currently envisioned for CIRS and to examine ways in which, rainwater could be harvested and wastewater treated and reused in various applications in the building.

A complete summary of the charette proceedings can be found in “CIRS Charette Proceedings March 28th – July 4, 2008” compiled by Stantec Consulting.

A number of lessons learned that can be drawn from this charette which include: 1. Balancing the most appropriate technology with educational requirements 2. Understanding amenity water use requirements 3. Connecting with the broader campus

4 The College Sustainability Report Card http://www.greenreportcard.org/report-card-2009/

CIRS INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY – FINAL REPORT Page 19 of 25

Balancing the most appropriate technology with educational requirements

The water supply charette established the range of options for water treatment and helped make clear the tension in sustainable educational buildings between the approaches that are the most efficient and those which are the most pedagogically effective. In the case of water treatment, participants learned that a “biofilter” approach that uses plants is only marginally more efficient or effective than a “sealed-tank” approach, but it is much more compelling and inviting as a teaching tool.

Understanding amenity water use requirements

Through the charette presentations and discussions, participants learned that the additional program requirement of a 500-seat Auditorium and a full-service café would add significant challenges to the CIRS’s goal of water self-sufficiency. It would increase the daily per-person potable water needs from 6 to 20 litres. As a result of this realization, the design team has engaged other user groups, such as UBC Food Services and Plant Operations in the design process in order to design the right capacity for the water and wastewater system.

Connecting with the broader campus

The relocation of CIRS to the UBC campus has afforded the project more opportunities for on-site and neighbouring water / wastewater / storm-water strategies whereas the previous location had unfavourable ground conditions.

Through the charette process, participants learned that the project could potentially connect and coordinate its wastewater and storm-water approach with the existing infiltration wells and day-lit stream on the adjacent Sustainability Street. It was concluded that the use of the Point Grey peninsula aquifer as a reservoir of potable water and as a repository of treated effluent needs to be studied carefully as current tertiary treatment technologies can not eliminate endocrine-disruption substances and other toxic chemicals. Daylighting and Solar Shading Charette

On June 24, 2008 the daylighting and solar shading charette was held and eighteen participants attended. The purpose of the charette was to review the daylighting and solar shading strategies in the context of the revised design goals, particularly with respect to human centered goals such as the objective to design occupied spaces to be 100% daylit.

A complete summary of the charette proceedings can be found in “CIRS Charette Proceedings March 28th – July 4, 2008” compiled by Stantec Consulting.

A number of lessons learned that can be drawn from this charette include: 1. Applying feedback from 2003 daylighting studies

CIRS INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY – FINAL REPORT Page 20 of 25

2. Balancing daylight penetration, heat load and glare 3. Balancing human and technical based solutions 4. Balancing social issues with operational requirements 5. Challenging traditional lighting requirements

Applying feedback from 2004-2006 daylighting studies

The University of Washington daylighting lab performed a daylight analysis of the CIRS 2004-2006 design intended for the Great Northern Way campus. Results of this analysis were reviewed by the design team while determining the daylighting approach for CIRS 2008. The new design takes into consideration the following lessons learned from the previous daylighting study: ! A smaller office floor plate (i.e. a 10 metre wide office bar) and wider atrium allow for deeper penetration of daylight into office and classroom spaces ! Higher floor to ceiling heights allow for deeper daylight penetration. On the Great Northern Way campus this was not an option for the CIRS design team as there were height limitations imposed by the City of Vancouver

Balancing daylight penetration, heat load and glare

A key question discussed in the daylighting charette was how to manage the trade-offs between daylight penetration, heat load and glare in the way the windows are designed. Any two factors can be readily dealt with, but leaves the third factor as a major problem.

The final design reflects the conscious use of the windows to maximize daylight penetration and heat load, and uses multiple strategies to test and compare ways to address the glare problem. The charette discussion convinced the group that the glare problem is one facing the entire building industry, and that CIRS has a chance to use design innovation and occupant controls to develop solutions that can be used by the industry more broadly.

Balancing human and technical based solutions

Through the charette discussions on daylighting solutions, a shift in focus from a technical to human based solutions emerged. The group recognized that the design must carefully consider a solution that balances the goal of 100% daylit spaces with glare control strategies and human comfort. At the same time, the design solution must balance the project’s goal to monitor the building’s performance, and therefore, establish a hierarchy of control over shading devices (i.e. control via automatic vs. manual shading) to accommodate building occupants and different program uses throughout the buildings.

The daylighting charette also demonstrated that the project can achieve aggressive daylighting goals, but that some technologies bring with them greater social and operational issues than others. The

CIRS INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY – FINAL REPORT Page 21 of 25 technologies that achieve the highest daylighting levels at the least life cycle cost may not be the ones incorporated into the final design due to concerns about institutional and maintenance practices.

For many the main lesson learned from this charette was that the design process can no longer focus primarily on technical control solutions for daylighting and glare control. Evidence from post- occupancy studies suggest that the human occupant and how they interact with daylighting control strategies must be at the forefront of the design discussion in order optimize energy performance benefits attributed with a 100% daylighting goal. These qualitative aspects of light such as the psychological impacts of light on occupant health, wellbeing and productivity are currently being researched by the design team as part of the design process.

Some participants, however, felt that the daylighting charette could have explored further the consequences of various daylighting strategies and technologies on the building inhabitants, usability, and building monitoring, and how the industry partners’ product and systems would impact these daylighting strategies. Given the half-day nature of the charette, time did not allow for the design team explore these issues in greater depth. Energy Modeling Charette

The energy modeling charette was held on July 4, 2008 and thirty-one participants attended. The purpose of the charette was to review various proposed energy conservation strategies and explore possible heat recovery strategies with neighbouring buildings on campus to achieve net positive energy performance in a GHG neutral way.

A complete summary of the charette proceedings can be found in “CIRS Charette Proceedings March 28th – July 4, 2008” compiled by Stantec Consulting.

A number of lessons learned that can be drawn from this charette include: 1. A systems thinking approach to energy conservation 2. A need for more detailed energy reduction and energy cost savings calculations

A systems thinking approach to energy conservation

The energy modeling charette specifically helped the design team, client and other participants move beyond the notion of an autonomous building to a more systems thinking or industrial ecology approach for the project. For example, a major principle of industrial ecology is that what is thought of as waste can more fruitfully be considered food for another industrial process.

By applying this systems thinking approach, CIRS is able to become a net energy positive building by providing all its space heating needs from the recovery of waste heat from the Earth & Ocean Sciences building (currently vented into the atmosphere through the fume hood exhaust system), using the Campus high-pressure steam condensate return as back up. This approach plus a passive design, access to day-lighting, and the use of PVs and solar hot water will give CIRS the ability to return more heat back to the E&OS building than is consumed in heating and cooling the CIRS building and running the combined system, in essence becoming net energy positive.

CIRS INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY – FINAL REPORT Page 22 of 25

As a result, CIRS can realistically aspire to be one of the most energy-efficient buildings in the world. The expected energy use of about 65kWh/m2 compares favourably with the best case study the design team could document which has an energy footprint of 75 kWh/m2.

For many charette participants, the goal of CIRS becoming a net-positive energy building seemed like a formidable challenge; however, the charette showed that through creative thinking and looking outside traditional site boundaries a solution could be realized.

A need for more detailed energy reduction and energy cost savings calculations

In the 2003 design process, two energy modeling charettes were held: first to explore design ideas, and secondly, to test architectural, mechanical and electrical systems design and determine the predicted energy reduction and energy cost savings.

The second charette was particularly useful for the client and design team in completing a cost benefit analysis of using photovoltaic (PV) systems. This analysis showed that using photovoltaics was cost prohibitive given the amount of available solar radiation in the Vancouver climate and that the PV systems should only be used for demonstration purposes. This type of energy cost benefit analysis has not yet been completed for the current design process and would be a useful exercise for the entire team to undertake.

8 Outcomes and Inspirational Moments

The integrated design and charette process generated many inspirational moments for the stakeholders involved in the design process which have in turn influenced the building design in the following ways:

1. It completely changed the way the building interacts with its surrounding and the community it forms part of. CIRS has moved from an island to a design which can affect the entire campus 2. It completely changed the approach to energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) neutrality by seeking out heat recovery opportunities with the neighbouring Earth and Ocean Sciences building 3. It made the project part of a larger water / wastewater system able to provide tangible benefits to the UBC campus in terms of avoided capital investments 4. It made the daylighting design focus more on the human-based solutions that consider human comfort and engagement 5. It made the design consider the technical vs. pedagogical effectiveness of technologies which has influenced the final wastewater system design.

Additional inspirational moments include:

CIRS INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY – FINAL REPORT Page 23 of 25

1. The origin of ideas emerged from diversity of stakeholders at the design table, rather than the visionaries and traditional design consultants. For example, new ideas were put forth by UBC campus planning staff and industry partners that had not been considered in the past 2. The refinement and further embellishment of the original goals showed the depth of participants’ knowledge and how far the industry has come in over seven years since the inception of the project 3. It became evident that the real value of the charette process is realized when agreement is reached on a set of design goals for a project with a multitude of stakeholders 4. The notion that CIRS will become a “social condenser”. The expansion of public space in the new design, which includes a 500-seat Auditorium and café will play a vital role in engaging the entire campus community and dispersing the sustainability values of CIRS 5. A CIRS legacy is that it has created long-term and valuable relationships between stakeholders who were brought together as part of the design process 6. As a legacy and / or a tangent of CIRS, the design team has seen an evolution in the industry partners’ value systems. Over the course of the project, the industry partners have emerged as leaders in sustainability in their respective fields of business

9 Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Projects

Although the Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability is a unique project in the sense that its site location and design have evolved over a seven year period, a number of lessons learned can be extracted from the integrated design and charette process carried out to date.

Clients and practitioners often question whether or not the integrated design process adds value to the design process as it is typically a front-loaded process with a large stakeholder engagement component. Generally, the charette process helps breed trust, respect, and ownership amongst the project team for a project. Most importantly, a goal-setting charette can be used to establish a clear vision and roadmap for the project’s design team.

Whether a project is large or small in terms of program and / or stakeholders, charettes can be scaled to meet needs of the project. For projects such as CIRS that have a broad range of stakeholders, the charette process was fundamental to gaining consensus on a vision and set of goals that are used to guide the design process.

In summary, the following general insights have been gained from documenting the IDP and charette process for CIRS:

! It is important to build a competent team that can work together from project inception and identify overarching sustainable design goals

! It is important to establish a clear path forward by providing a reference for all project participants. This reference is a well thought out project schedule that indicates all critical design activities and charettes

CIRS INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY – FINAL REPORT Page 24 of 25

! It is important to confirm the purpose and function of the charette in advance so that charettes can be a constructive working and ideas sessions that advance the design process ! It is important to balance the number of participants invited to the charettes and design meetings so that competing interests do not hinder the design process ! It is worthwhile to invite an outside facilitator to chair charettes as they can be effective at facilitating interaction between participants; guiding the decision-making process; gaining group consensus; and managing competing interests within large groups

The charette process can also add value to a project by: ! Expediting the design timeline as decisions and consensus on design direction can be confirmed early on at all participant meetings ! Including subject matter experts and visionary thinkers help design team members and client representatives to think outside the box and explore ideas that may not have originally been considered, or to pursue synergies between design disciplines ! Providing a forum for seeking feedback from stakeholder groups such as facilities and maintenance staff, and future building inhabitants on strategies and technologies ! Providing a forum for testing the technical vs. pedagogical effectiveness of technologies being considered

For any project team undertaking an integrated design and charette process for a project, it is important for the team and client to revisit the original design goals and document how each goal will be manifested in the final project design. As CIRS reaches design completion, the design team will be called upon to defend how CIRS will meet its design goals.

10 Appendices

Appendix A: Integrated Design Process Roadmap Appendix B: CIRS 2004-2006 Sustainability Design and Strategies Matrix Appendix C: CIRS 2008 Design Goals

CIRS INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY – FINAL REPORT Page 25 of 25

Appendix A:

Integrated Design Process Roadmap

CIRS INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY – FINAL REPORT

IDP IS A METHOD FOR REALIZING HIGH PERFORMANCE BUILDINGS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES; IDP IS A PROCESS MORE THAN AN END RESULT; IDP IS NOT A SILO BASED PROCESS; IDP IS NOT A PREDETERMINED PROCESS; IDP IS TO IMPROVE THE ODDS OF SUCCESS IN DESIGNING HIGH PERFORMANCE/GREEN BUILDINGS; IDP PROCEEDS FROM WHOLE BUILDING SYSTEM STRATEGIES, WORKING THROUGH INCREASING LEVELS OF SPECIFICITY, TO REALIZE MORE OPTIMALLY INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS; IDP IS ABOUT LEARNING HOW TO RESPECT AND COMMUNICATE BETWEEN PARTICIPANTS; IDP SESSIONS HAVE ENERGY AND CREATE MAGIC; IDP IS ABOUT CREATING A TEAM FOCUSED ON THE SAME OBJECTIVES AND UNLEASHING CREATIVITY FROM DESIGN TEAM MEMBERS; IDP IS A VEHICLE THAT EDUCATES AND FOSTERS CREATIVITY

ROADMAP FOR THE INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS PART ONE: SUMMARY GUIDE

DEVELOPED FOR PREPARED BY BC GREEN BUILDING BUSBY PERKINS+WILL ROUNDTABLE STANTEC CONSULTING This document has been compiled by Busby Perkins+Will and Stantec Consulting for the BC Green Building Roundtable (BC Hydro, Canada Green Building Council, Canada Mortgage & Housing Corporation, Cascadia Region Green Building Council, City of Vancouver, Greater Vancouver Regional District, Lighthouse - Sustainable Building Centre, Natural Resources Canada, Terasen Gas, and Shared Services BC). This document is not intended to constitute or render engineering, architectural, legal or other professional services or advice. Nor is it a substitute for such services or advice from an experienced professional directed to the specific design situation. While the information in the Roadmap for the Integrated Design Process is believed to be accurate, the BC Green Building Roundtable shall not be liable for damages arising from errors or omissions in this document. The guide is not intended to endorse or recommend any particular product, material, or service. Users of the document are encouraged to use wise consumer and professional practices when implementing design strategies and selecting technologies. (c) Copyright 2007. This document is the intellectual property of the BC Green Building Roundtable. While the document is freely available for distribution in its entirety, any excerpt from the document should acknowledge its source and the BC Green Building Roundtable. TABLE OF CONTENTS ROADMAP FOR THE INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS PART ONE: SUMMARY GUIDE

Executive Summary ...... i Introduction ...... 1 What is an Integrated Design Process? ...... 5 The Integrated Design Team ...... 13 Tips for Effective Facilitation ...... 19 Summary of Seven Phases ...... 21 Summary of Part One ...... 29 Executive Summary Part One

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Roadmap to the Integrated Design Process has been developed for the BC Green Building Roundtable. The Roundtable shares the increasingly accepted view that an “Integrated Design Process” (IDP) is required in order to achieve high performance (sustainable) buildings while avoiding or minimizing incremental costs.

The Integrated Design Process provides a means to explore and implement sustainable design principles effectively on a project while staying within budgetary and scheduling constraints. It relies upon a multi-disciplinary and collaborative team whose members make decisions together based on a shared vision and a holistic understanding of the project. It follows the design through the entire project life, from pre-design through occupancy and into operation.

The Roadmap is divided into two distinct parts: Part One: Summary Guide; and Part Two: Reference Manual, catering to both the novice and advanced IDP practitioner. Part One can easily be read in one sitting to gain an overview and consulted thereafter as a quick reference. Part Two can be consulted periodically as a more comprehensive reference manual.

Part One: Summary Guide offers a concise but comprehensive overview of the Integrated Design Process as a concept. It examines the goals, principles, key features, and ideal team composition for an IDP, as well as providing a one-page summary for each of the seven design phases covered in more detail in Part Two.

Part Two: Reference Manual, takes the reader through the process for each design phase: Pre-design; Schematic Design; Design Development; Construction Documentation; Bidding, Construction, and Commissioning; Building Operation (start- up); and Post Occupancy (long-term operation). Each phase is explained using a consistent structure that covers process activities, output development, helpful tips, case studies, and resources.

Part Two also contains a detailed bibliography which directs the reader to additional resources that will aid them through various aspects of IDP. In addition, the appendices provide a series of useful summary tables and the complete case study credits.

ROADMAP FOR THE INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS: SUMMARY GUIDE i Introduction Part One

INTRODUCTION

WHY THIS ROADMAP WAS DEVELOPED The Roadmap to the Integrated Design Process has been developed for the BC Green Building Roundtable. The BC Green Building Roundtable comprises public sector and non-profit organizations collaborating to advance green building principles and practices within the building industry in British Columbia, Canada, and beyond. Roundtable members currently include: BC Hydro, Canada Green Building Council, Canada Mortgage & Housing Corporation, Cascadia Region Green Building Council, City of Vancouver, Greater Vancouver Regional District, Lighthouse - Sustainable Building Centre, Natural Resources Canada, Terasen Gas, and Shared Services BC. For the purposes of the Roadmap to the Integrated Design Process, the Roundtable also partnered with the City of Seattle. The Roundtable shares the increasingly accepted view that an “Integrated Design Process” (IDP), as defined below, is required in order to achieve high performance (sustainable) buildings while avoiding or minimizing incremental costs.

“The Integrated Design Process (IDP) is a method for realizing high performance buildings that contribute to sustainable communities. It is a collaborative process that focuses on the design, construction, operation and occupancy of a building over its complete life-cycle. The IDP is designed to allow the client and other stakeholders to develop and realize clearly defined and challenging functional, environmental and economic goals and objectives. The IDP requires a multi- disciplinary design team that includes or acquires the skills required to address all design issues flowing from the objectives. The IDP proceeds from whole building system strategies, working through increasing levels of specificity, to realize more optimally integrated solutions.”

Excerpt from “The Integrated Design Process: Report on a National Workshop held in Toronto in October 2001.” March 2002

This Roadmap was developed to overcome the barriers that the Roundtable sees as preventing IDP from being widely practiced. The guide is intended to do so by providing a comprehensive guide for IDP facilitators, as well as novice and seasoned participants. Simply stated, the guide outlines what the integrated design process is, how it works, and how to implement such a process.

ROADMAP FOR THE INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS: SUMMARY GUIDE 1 Introduction Part One

HOW THE ROADMAP WAS DEVELOPED The Roadmap was developed through an extensive literature review of existing best practices, an expert workshop, guidance from the Roundtable, and with input from professionals practicing IDP.

The guide went through much iteration in an attempt to distil the essence of IDP from the wealth of information gathered. The team was mindful of the distinction between IDP and high performance or sustainable building design. Over time the technologies and strategies employed in creating high performance buildings will change, but this will happen independently of the IDP concept. The Roadmap is therefore not intended to be an exhaustive reference for high performance building design strategies and technologies, but rather a concise and comprehensive guide to IDP, the process recognized as the most effective way to achieve such buildings.

The guide also went through much filtering in order to provide the core broadly- applicable themes while addressing some of the key variations on these themes that arise for different project types, sizes, delivery methods, etc. The reader’s judgment is required to recognize aspects that may not be applicable to his/her specific project and to seek additional guidance as needed.

HOW TO USE THIS ROADMAP The Roadmap has been divided into two sections: Part One: Summary Guide; and Part Two: Reference Manual.

Part One of the Roadmap gives a concise but comprehensive overview of the Integrated Design Process as a concept. It lays out the overall intent of employing an IDP and thus explains why a client, developer or design practitioner would choose to employ such a process. Part One examines the goals, principles, key features, and ideal team composition of IDP, as well as providing a one-page summary for each of the seven design phases covered in more detail in Part Two.

Part Two of the Roadmap outlines what an IDP can contribute to each phase in a building’s life and gives a more detailed overview of the steps to be taken. The typical building lifetime is divided into the following seven phases: Pre-design; Schematic Design; Design Development; Construction Documentation; Bidding, Construction, and Commissioning; Building Operation (start-up); and Post Occupancy (long-term operation). For the purpose of clarity, a consistent structure is applied to all phases, which addresses the following themes:

• How to coordinate a team; • How to establish a foundation; • What key meeting can take place; • Key outputs and process activities; • The connection between IDP and green building certification programs; • Helpful tips; • Case studies; and • Resources.

2 ROADMAP FOR THE INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS: SUMMARY GUIDE Introduction Part One

Part Two also contains a bibliography which directs the reader to more detailed resources and references that will aid them through various aspects of IDP.

The Leaf icon is used throughout the Roadmap to flag sections that have resources associated with them and/or are referenced in the bibliography and appendices.

In addition, the following appendices provide several summary tables as well as the complete case study credits:

• Appendix A is a one-page summary chart of the seven design phases and that can be used as a quick reference chart for novice and experienced IDP practitioners.

• Appendix B summarizes the different roles and responsibilities for various core and additional team members throughout the seven phase design process.

• Appendix C was developed in order to address one of the key variations: project type. This summary table offers scenario-based considerations for developer, institutional, owner/occupied and existing building project types for each phase of the design.

• Appendix D provides the full team credits for each case study.

The two-part structure evolved out of a desire to provide a concise and readable document accessible to both novice and seasoned participants while also covering the depth and breadth of information that was gathered through the literature review and from the experiences of expert IDP practitioners. Part One can easily be read in one sitting to gain an overview and consulted thereafter as a quick reference. Part Two can be consulted periodically as a more comprehensive reference manual.

ROADMAP FOR THE INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS: SUMMARY GUIDE 3

Page left blank

What is an IDP? Part One

WHAT IS AN INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS?

“The Integrated Design Process In general, the integrated design process is an approach to building design that seeks (IDP) is a method for realizing to achieve high performance on a wide variety of well-defined environmental and social high performance buildings goals while staying within budgetary and scheduling constraints. It relies upon a multi- that contribute to sustainable communities. It is a collaborative disciplinary and collaborative team whose members make decisions together based on a process that focuses on the shared vision and a holistic understanding of the project. It follows the design through the design, construction, operation entire project life, from pre-design through occupancy and into operation. and occupancy of a building over its complete life-cycle. The IDP is a term that is not exclusively associated with high-performance building design; IDP is designed to allow the client and other stakeholders to in principle it is a flexible approach that can be applied to almost any type of design or develop and realize clearly defined decision-making process. In this Roadmap, IDP is examined within the context of high and challenging functional, performance (sustainable) building design, and the specifics of the process are tailored to environmental and economic goals this context. and objectives.” (Larsson, 2002) The specific steps and strategies employed are directly related to the project’s design intent, which not only differ between projects but also continually change as the industry evolves. For example, new building developments increasingly go beyond consideration of their immediate site to emphasize integration with the surrounding social, ecological, and economic communities. The Roadmap presents IDP in a way that can be applied regardless of the specific design intent.

Generally, IDP is:

• an iterative process, not a linear or silo-based approach; • a flexible method, not a formula; • different each time, not pre-determined; and • an iterative process with ongoing learning and emergent features, not a preordained sequence of events.

IDP VS. CONVENTIONAL DESIGN There are as many variations on how to practice an IDP as there are IDP practitioners; each team has a slightly different methodology, and perhaps a different idea of the “right” method. There is, however, a broad consensus about how IDP differs from the conventional design process. Outlining these differences, as shown in the summary table below, helps highlight the salient aspects of IDP.

ROADMAP FOR THE INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS: SUMMARY GUIDE 5 What is an IDP? Part One

In conventional design, “the architect (or designer) Integrated Design Process Conventional Design Process and the client agree on a design concept consisting of Inclusive from the outset vs Involves team members only when a general massing scheme, essential orientation, fenestration, vs Less time, energy, and collaboration and the general exterior Front-loaded — time and energy invested early exhibited in early stages appearance of the building. Then the mechanical, Decisions influenced by broad team vs More decisions made by fewer people electrical and structural Iterative process vs Linear process engineers are asked to implement the design and to Whole-systems thinking vs Systems often considered in isolation suggest appropriate systems. Allows for full optimization vs Limited to constrained optimization The problem with conventional practice is that this design Seeks synergies vs Diminished opportunity for synergies process is too quick and Life-cycle costing vs Emphasis on up-front costs simple, often resulting in high operating costs, poor comfort Process continues through post-occupancy vs Typically finished when construction is performance and very few complete sustainable gestures that fall within the client’s restrained Figure 1 compares the design team’s level of involvement throughout a conventional budget.” (Pearl, 2004) design process with that for an integrated design process. The figure also relates this involvement to the diminishing opportunities to influence sustainability, depicting that the effort in an IDP is much more front-loaded, allowing the team to take best advantage of opportunities to influence sustainability.

" 


##!

! !
 
  Figure 1: Design" 


##!

! !
 Team Involvement 
 

            16)15-8)
,-+, 16)15-8)
,-+, -182/8)0)16 -182/8)0)16

)4-2(-'
,-+, )4-2(-'
,-+, -182/8)0)16-182/8)0)16

2()4%6)2()4%6) -182/8)0)16-182/8)0)16

)4-2(-'
/29)4-2(-'
/29 -182/8)0)16-182/8)0)16

324%(-'
24324%(-'
24 12
-182/8)0)1612
-182/8)0)16      74%6-21
02574%6-21
025

3324671-6-)5
62
-1*/7)1')
5756%-1%&-/-6:3324671-6-)5
62
-1*/7)1')
5756%-1%&-/-6: 218)16-21%/
4',-6)'6
1+-1))4
2164%'624218)16-21%/
4',-6)'6
1+-1))4
2164%'624 
4',-6)'6
1+-1))4
4',-6)'6
1+-1))4 0%+)
4)(-6
75&:
)4.-15$-//0%+)
4)(-6
75&:
)4.-15$-// 
2164%'624
2164%'624 %1(
%1(
6%16)' 6%16)'

6 ROADMAP FOR THE INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS: SUMMARY GUIDE What is an IDP? Part One

“IDP is about creating a IDP AS A MINDSET team focused on the same The integrated design process is as much a mindset as it is a process. Having the objectives and unleashing right mindset without the process is unlikely to lead to success, and following the creativity from design team members.” process without the right mindset is almost certain to fail. The importance of mindset - Freda Pagani is evident in a set of principles which underpin a successful integrated design University of British Columbia process.

Some of the principles outlined pertain to “soft” skills, such as those teambuilding, which a written document does not easily convey. To this end, other available training “You can’t just throw technologies at the building; and resources are noted where possible, but learning by doing is the best way to we need to change the way hone these skills. people look at green building design; we need to educate The following principles, in combination with the listed strategies, are vital to the and foster creativity…IDP is integrated design process. a vehicle or process to allow that. It is one of the next fundamental pieces needed if we want to move forward in a Mindset Principle Strategies meaningful way toward truly sustainable design”. • Inclusion and • Broad collaborative team • Careful team formation collaboration - Heather Tremain reSource Rethinking Building • Outcome oriented • Well-defined scope, vision, • Team building goals, and objectives

• Trust and transparency • Effective and open • Facilitation training for team communication • Expert facilitation • Open-mindedness and • Innovation and synthesis • Visioning charrettes (with creativity comprehensive preparation) • Brainstorming

• Rigour and attention to • Systematic decision • Goals and targets matrix detail making • Decision-making tools

• Continuous learning and • Iterative process with • Post-occupancy evaluation improvement feedback cycles • Comprehensive commissioning

IDP AS A SET OF PRINCIPLES The principles stated in the table above are applicable irrespective of the specific details of a particular project. These principles are examined more closely in this section.

BROAD COLLABORATIVE TEAM Perhaps the most important principle for a successful IDP relates to inclusiveness and collaboration which should translate into the establishment of a broad collaborative team.

Ideally, the team includes all relevant disciplines and stakeholders who remain involved from start to finish. A broad interdisciplinary team representing all necessary

ROADMAP FOR THE INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS: SUMMARY GUIDE 7 What is an IDP? Part One

“Collaborative process that skills, knowledge, and perspectives is essential to ensure all relevant knowledge and focuses on the design, resources are brought to the table. construction, operation and occupancy of a building over its complete life-cycle…The The team must also be cohesive; members must be willing and able to work in IDP requires a multi- collaboration. A project is more likely to be successful if its members trust each other disciplinary design team and are able to cooperate. There are many excellent resources available which offer that includes or acquires the techniques that foster teamwork and cooperation. See the bibliography in Part 2: skills required to address all Reference Manual for a detailed listing of resources. design issues flowing from the objectives. The IDP proceeds from whole building system The make-up of the core team is project-specific and will change through the strategies, working through process. For more information on team formation see the next section, The increasing levels of specificity, Integrated Design Team. to realize more optimally integrated solutions.” (Pope, 2004) WELL-DEFINED SCOPE, VISION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES An outcome-oriented mindset is characterized by a clear statement of vision, goals, and objectives. To define these three components it is necessary to question “Front-loaded design process underlying assumptions surrounding the scope of the project. For example, should a (not more time-intensive; new building be built at all, or would a major renovation be more appropriate? Failing time is distributed differently) to ask these sometimes difficult questions early can suppress the synergies hoped ... Extra time for charrettes for from interdisciplinary teamwork. To achieve effective outcomes, the team must offset by less back-and-forth with client later in process.” develop a shared vision of what they are trying to achieve; in other words, you have to (Malin, 2004) know where you’re going in order to plan how to get there.

Time should be invested at the start of the project to host a Visioning Charrette or Workshop, in order to develop a clear vision accompanied by well-defined goals and objectives. These elements can be translated into discrete measurable targets which will guide the entire process, keeping the team on track. Figure 2 illustrates how Pre- Design and Schematic Design are front-loaded with more charrettes and workshops.

EFFECTIVE AND OPEN COMMUNICATION Open and continuous lines of communication are essential throughout the process, both during and between meetings. Transparent methods of communication will build trust and give participants a greater sense of ownership over the process, reducing conflicts and allowing the project to benefit from each individual’s unique contribution. Key decisions should not be made without team input.

An expert facilitator involved at the beginning of the project can set the stage for effective communication throughout the design process by instilling effective communication skills within the group and fostering an atmosphere of lasting respect and trust. See section on Tips for Effective Facilitation at the end of Part 1.

INNOVATION AND SYNTHESIS A determination to foster open-mindedness and creativity is key to encouraging the level of innovation and synthesis required to meet the complex requirements of a high performance building. Synthesis is, by definition, the integration of separate elements to create a cohesive whole, and the term implies that the whole is greater than the sum of the individual parts. A design charrette can be used to foster an environment conducive to brainstorming, creating, and imagining exercises. Once participants have experienced true collaboration to produce innovative solutions, they will not want to go back to “business as usual”.

8 ROADMAP FOR THE INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS: SUMMARY GUIDE What is an IDP? Part One

SYSTEMATIC DECISION-MAKING Resources on life-cycle A desire for rigour and attention to detail leads to a clearly defined and understood analysis: decision-making process. “It is important for each individual to understand his/ US Department of Energy. her own roles and responsibilities and how decision-making will occur.” (National Federal Energy Management Charrette Institute (NCI) 2004). There are many tools that can facilitate effective Program (FEMP) Building Life decision-making including modeling programs, green building certification systems Cycle Cost (BLCC) Tool: like LEED and Go Green Plus, and life-cycle costing. www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/

Resources on rating systems:

Green Building Certification Programs LEED Canada There are many reasons why buildings are formally certified as green buildings. www.cagbc.org Standardization of language and performance, industry recognition, and third party US Green Building Council verification have all been cited as drivers for formal certification. Both formal certification www.usgbc.org and the informal reference to certification programs through the design process helps Green Globes guide teams by providing direction and resources. www.greenglobes.com

Numerous green building certification programs are available; some require third party BOMA Go Green www.bomagogreen.com verification, while others are self-certifying. Most address new buildings but some focus on existing building stock. Design teams wishing to pursue certification should consider Building Research some or all of the following factors when selecting a guideline: Establishment Environmental Assessment Method • stage in building’s in life-cycle (new, existing, retrofit) (BREEAM) • the type of space (tenant fit-out, core and shell space, etc.) www.breeam.org/ • the level of effort desired • the owner’s requirements Resources on multi-criteria evaluation: • any local design guidelines • funding requirements International Energy Agency (IEA), Task 23 Multi-Criteria Some of the more popular certification programs include: Decision Making Method (MCDM-23) • LEED® (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) is administered by the www.iea-shc.org/task23/ Canada and US Green Building Councils, and has a suite of products for certifying a range of project types including new buildings, existing buildings, commercial Resources on modeling tools: interiors, and core and shell projects. Ratings systems are also under development for other project types including Campuses and Multi-Building Sites. The LEED Office of Energy Efficiency rating system covers a wide range of performance criteria concerning site, water and Renewable Energy efficiency, energy efficiency, materials and resources, and indoor environmental (EERE). Building Energy quality. Information can be found at www.cagbc.org and www.usgbc.org. Software Tools Directory, U.S. Department of Energy. • BOMA Go Green and Go Green Plus are Canadian certification programs www.eere.energy.gov administered by the Building Owner’s and Manager’s Association. This program is for existing commercial buildings. Information can be found at www.bomagogreen. com.

• Green Globes is an on-line auditing tool that lets designers, property owners and managers: assess and rate existing buildings against best practices and standards; and integrate principles of green architecture at every phase of project delivery for retrofits and the design of new buildings (refer to www.greenglobes.com).

• Built Green – a program for new residential projects, Built Green is administered by the Canadian Home Builders Association in BC. Information can be found at www. chbabc.org.

ROADMAP FOR THE INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS: SUMMARY GUIDE 9 What is an IDP? Part One

Resources on occupancy ITERATIVE PROCESS WITH FEEDBACK LOOPS evaluations: A mindset of continuous learning and improvement is imperative for a successful IDP. Unlike a conventional linear design process in which decisions and assumptions The Usable Buildings Trust www.usablebuildings.co.uk made upstream are often left unchallenged, an integrated approach includes feedback mechanisms to evaluate all decisions. An iterative process ensures that The Centre for the Built decisions reflect the broader team’s collective knowledge, that interactions between Environment different elements are considered, and that solutions go through the steps needed for www.cbe.berkeley.edu/ optimization. Regular feedback loops can keep the team engaged and produce small Resources on Commissioning: successes, which reinforce the effectiveness of the process.

Oregon Office of Energy Feedback loops within a typical IDP include not only several design iterations Efficiency. 1997. but also commissioning and post-occupancy evaluation, which not only inform a Commissioning for Better building’s design but also its ongoing operation. IDP is oriented to learning and Buildings in Oregon www.oregon.gov/ improvement not only during the design process but also between projects. Lessons learned from the successes and failures of past projects are used to improve Lawrence Berkeley sustainable building practices for future endeavours. See Figure 2 for an illustration National Laboratory. 2005. of this iterative process. Cost Effectiveness of Commissioning. Figure 2 illustrates the form and methodology of a typical IDP as it progresses from a www.lbl.gov broad-scope concept to tangible reality through a series of iterative feedback loops. The figure shows how the process begins in an exploratory phase with a broad scope and loosely-defined constraints and moves toward increasing specificity through a series of iterative design loops punctuated by topic-specific meetings and all-team workshops. The occupancy and operation phases are characterized by broad team meetings that ensure proper handoff, education of operations staff and users, along with a periodic examination of the building performance through post-occupancy evaluation.

The mindsets described here may not at first be shared by team members who are new to IDP; however, participating in an integrated design process tends to foster them among team members. In other words, IDP participants tend to become the leaders and champions of future IDP endeavours.

10 ROADMAP FOR THE INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS: SUMMARY GUIDE 





Figure 2: Integrated Design Process

0.-2
-#  "*
-#

       "./$

     30 2(.-
,.1

0.)$"2
.-120 (-21  0$#$1(&-  (##(-&
.-1203"2(.-
.,,(11(.-(-&

6/+.0 2.07
$1(&-
0."$11  "'$, 2("
$1(&-  3(+#(-&
/$0 2(.-
12 02
3/

++
$ ,
.0*1'./  $1(&-
$4$+./,$-2  .12""3/ -"7
+.-&
2$0,

."31$#
$ ,
.0*1'./1
5 2$0
$-$0&7
, 2$0( +1
$2"  .-1203"2(.-
."3,$-21

2$0 2(4$
0."$11

##(2(.- +
2$0 2(.-1
1
-$"$11 07 , &$
0$#(2
(++
$$#
.%
-2$&0 2(4$
$1(&-
.++ !.0 2(4$ .3&
($0"$
.%
$0*(-1 (++
-#
31!7
$0*(-1 (++ What is an IDP? Part One

SUMMARY OF IDP BENEFITS There are a multitude of distinct positive outcomes that stem directly from employing the principles of an integrated approach. The following table summarizes some of these key benefits associated with each of the principles of IDP outlined in the previous section. The table also lists some of the culminating or net benefits that arise from a successful IDP.

IDP Principle Benefits of Successful IDP Net Benefits

Broad, collaborative team Early formation of a broad, interdisciplinary from outset team ensures necessary expertise is present Realization of when opportunities for impact are greatest. challenging goals and objectives Collaboration harnesses the team’s best effort and collective wisdom. Realization of Well-defined scope, vision, Investing time up front ensures common high-performance goals and objectives understanding and ‘buy-in’. (sustainable) buildings Effective and open Transparency builds trust and increases communication team’s sense of ownership. Realization of Respectful communication avoids disputes more optimally and harnesses a team’s best effort and integrated enthusiasm. solutions

Innovation and synthesis Fostering open-mindedness and creativity Maximized leads to innovation and synthesis, which benefits and allow the team to achieve the complex quality requirements of a high performance building. Minimized cost Systematic decision- A clearly defined and understood decision- making making process can lead to better choices. Good team Tools like life-cycle costing can foster the relationships type of holistic and long-term thinking that may result necessary for sustainable design. in lasting Iterative process with Providing opportunities for feedback along partnerships for feedback loops the way allows lessons to be learned from future projects start to finish.

12 ROADMAP FOR THE INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS: SUMMARY GUIDE The Integrated Design Team Part One

THE INTEGRATED DESIGN TEAM

From the outset of the project, formation of an appropriate design team is crucial for controlling budgets while meeting green targets and the owner’s goals. That is why establishing the team is one of the first steps in undertaking the integrated design process. The ideal IDP team is one in which:

• The client takes an active role throughout the design process. • A broad range of expertise and stakeholder perspectives is present. • A team leader is responsible for motivating the team and coordinating the project from pre-design through to occupancy. • An experienced facilitator is engaged to help guide the process. • The core group of team members remains intact for the duration of the project. • Team members collaborate well.

The design team’s composition, structure, and member roles will naturally be adapted to every project, with its unique context, specific constraints and opportunities, delivery methods, and client type and values. Identify the core team described below:

CORE PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS • Client or owner’s representative (i.e., with expertise in facilities and operations management) • Project manager • Architect • IDP facilitator • Champion (optional) (alternatively, could be a member of the design team) • Structural engineer • Mechanical engineer with expertise in: • Simulation: energy modeling, thermal comfort analysis, and/ or CFD simulations. • Energy analysis: an energy engineer and/or bioclimatic engineer may be required in order to cover the necessary areas of expertise, such as: passive solar design, renewable energy technologies, and hybrid–tech strategies.

ROADMAP FOR THE INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS: SUMMARY GUIDE 13 The Integrated Design Team Part One

“The key to achieving a • Electrical engineer sustainable building is to • Green design specialist assemble a project team • Civil engineer with expertise in: stormwater, groundwater, rainwater, and/or with both the experience and the desire to employ a wastewater systems systematic, integrated design. • Facilities manager/Building operator (maintenance and operations) It is important to take a team- • Cost consultant (with experience in life-cycle costing) oriented, multi-disciplinary • Landscape architect approach in which all • General contractor or construction manager. members of the project team recognize and commit to the steps and actions necessary The core team should be responsible for identifying and bringing in additional to achieve the project vision.” members as required depending on the project type, expertise of the core team, and (Whole Building Design 2002) client preferences.

ADDITIONAL MEMBERS Additional members, who may be brought in for the duration of the project or only for a few workshops, include some or all of those outlined below.

• Ecologist • Occupants’ or users’ representatives • Building program representative, if appropriate for the building type • Planning/regulatory/code approvals agencies representatives • Interior designer/materials consultant • Lighting or daylighting specialist • Soils or geotechnical engineer • Commissioning agent • Marketing expert • Surveyor • Valuation/appraisal professional • Controls specialist • Other experts as required (e.g., natural ventilation, thermal storage, acoustic) • Academics and/or students with knowledge of a relevant subject • Members of the community who are affected by the project.

Appendix B (provided in Part 2) provides a detailed table illustrating the roles of these team members as the project proceeds from start to finish.

An IDP continually challenges assumptions. In doing so it reveals the subjectivity of many design aspects sometimes considered fixed, such as some engineering norms. Sometimes, additional perspectives can be gained by having more than one specialist in a particular field. Openness to hearing “second opinions” can be an important attribute of an effective team.

An expert may only be brought in for a brief time and still make an invaluable contribution. Some design teams have credited their overall success on a project to a single meeting with a particular specialist. A meeting with an outside specialist can inspired a team to reach further, making them want to build a better project.

In addition to being technically competent, team members must be effective communicators, have a cooperative attitude, and be open-minded. Two additional

14 ROADMAP FOR THE INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS: SUMMARY GUIDE The Integrated Design Team Part One

roles, the IDP Facilitator and the Champion, are designed to help develop and “Having a facilitator guiding maintain the right mindset. These roles may be filled by existing team members and managing the process or by others hired specifically for the task. allows team members to focus on the tasks and goals, while at the same time fostering FACILITATOR teamwork and collaboration.” The Facilitator manages the Integrated Design Process. The Facilitator and (Clark 2003) the Champion may be the same person. This role might also be filled by the coordinating professional or project manager, or by another professional entirely. The facilitator ideally has the following characteristics:

• Is the steward of the goals and targets, which are set during the charrettes and/or workshops and updated throughout the process. • Is skilled in the art of facilitation and group dynamics. • Has knowledge of green design principles but need not be an expert. • Ensures the participation of all team members and draws out the assembled expertise. • Will ensure a proper flow of information during the charrettes and potentially for all green design matters. • Can be the one responsible for keeping the team on time and on target for specific events like charrettes or more broadly for green building certification or the whole project. • Has a good level of knowledge of both the integrated design process and green building certification (if pursued).

CHAMPION The Champion is someone who is motivated and able to lead the team in the direction of sustainability. The following are characteristics of a good IDP project champion:

• Will champion the vision of the project and empower the team. • Must be able to think laterally and challenge others to think that way. • Must be able to challenge the client as well and therefore must have the ear of the client. • Should help deal with the “political” issues and barriers when required to move the process forward. • Does not need to be at all the meetings but should be at those where the project vision and goals are set or updated. • Should be able to speak the same language as the design or ownership team and understand how projects of the type under consideration work. • Can help align the team to a common vision while challenging members to push themselves to the highest level of performance possible for the project. • Can be the catalyst to help the team reach further.

One person does not necessarily have all of these qualities; therefore there can be more than one champion on a project. Sometimes a champion is obvious from the start and is brought onto the project in that role; other times the champion rises to the challenge through the course of the design process. Either way, the impact that the right champion can have is often the difference between getting a project built and achieving design excellence.

ROADMAP FOR THE INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS: SUMMARY GUIDE 15 The Integrated Design Team Part One

Figure 3: Conventional  

 
   Design Team Organization

*'#,1

/!&'1#!1 -,1/ !1-/

#!& ,'! *
*#!1/'! * 1/2!12/ * '3'*  ,"0! .# .#!' *'010 ,%',##/
,%',##/ ,%',##/ ,%',##/ /!&'1#!1

.#!' *'010 .#!' *'010 .#!' *'010 .#!' *'010 .#!' *'010 .#!' *'010 '#
%#-1&#/+ *
'#
!-,1/-*0
-/
'#
0#'0+'! '#
01-/+4 1#/
'#
#!-*-%'010 '#
!-201'!0
0'+2* 1'-, 1#!&,-*-%6
#5.#/10 + , %#+#,1 " 6*'%&1',%

Figure 4: Integrated 

 
   Design Team Organization

'1#
"#0'%,
0.#!' *'010
/-%/ +
0#/
/-2.0
0-'*0
%#-0!'#,1'010
#+.*-6##0
012"#,10
#!-*-%'010 /#0'"#,10 /##,
2'*"',%
 1',%
601#+
5.#/1
'#

5.#/1 -++2,'16
"3'0-/6
 ,#*

/'+#
-,02*1 ,1
# + 2'*"',%
#0'%,

! "#+'!
5.#/10 '+2* 1'-,
.#!' *'010
#!& ,'! *
*#!1/'! *
!-201'!0
1&#/+ *
1/2!12/ *
'3'*
,%',##/0
!-+$-/1
" 6*'%&1',%
/!&'1#!1  ,"0! .#
/!&'1#!1

-01
-,02*1 ,1 
& +.'-, /-(#!1
 , %#/ 
 !'*'1 1-/ #%2* 1-/6
21&-/'1'#0
 *2 1'-,

%-3#/,+#,1
%#,!'#0
../ '0 *
5.#/1 .* ,,#/0
!-"#
-$$'!' *0 # *
01 1#
5.#/1

-,1/ !1-/ *'#,1  /)#1',%

601#+0
.#!' *'010
!-++'00'-,',%
%#,1
!-,1/-*
0601#+
,"
2 1/ "#0
/-"2!1
0#!2/'16
#5.#/10 2..*'#/0
,"
2'*"',%
.#/ 1-/
 ,2$ !12/#/0 1'*'1'#0
,"
 ',1#, ,!#
1 $$

+ %#
/#"'1
20 6
#/)',0'**

Figure 3 shows a typical organizational chart for a conventional design process in which the client’s primary contact is the architect, who coordinates with other team members in a hierarchical structure.

By contrast Figure 4 shows an organizational chart for a typical IDP in which the core team is expanded to include a contractor, IDP Champion/facilitator, and cost consultant. The core team is more closely interlinked with support from specialists as needed.

16 ROADMAP FOR THE INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS: SUMMARY GUIDE The Integrated Design Team Part One

Once the team’s membership is established, a number of important issues have to “An integrated design is a be resolved immediately so the team can begin to operate effectively: design in which all major components of the building are considered and designed • Clear allocation of responsibilities among the team. as a totality. Components • Contracting and reporting relationships between the various participants. are not designed in isolation • Fee structure to compensate for additional services such as charrettes or energy of their effects on other modeling. components and systems.” • Risk tolerance and risk management strategies for the owner and project team (Coutu, 2003) members. “While it is more than • Level of authority required to confirm design decisions that may fall outside of possible to achieve green typical technologies or systems. design without using IDP, it • Team values or “code of conduct” (e.g. respect, open-mindedness, is very likely going to cost transparency). more and the performance is unlikely to be as high. The • Communication channels. reason is that a good process • Decision making process. captures synergies and thereby improves performance and Fee structures are an important issue. Figure



 5: Capital Cost Tradeoffs reduces costs. Traditional Team members should not be linear design processes financially penalized for suggesting  rarely capture synergies.” (Zimmerman, 2004) new or innovative technologies or systems that may bring greater value  +$"' ,(" * to the owner. For example, traditional mechanical fee structures are based  +$"' ,(" * on a percentage of the mechanical budget; this practice discourages  innovative strategies like natural ventilation and passive solar design  that can reduce the size and/or cost of mechanical equipment and hence, the  ."'(0$"01. * ."'(0$"01. * related fees.  Figure 5, Capital Cost Tradeoffs, $*$"0.(" * $*$"0.(" * demonstrates how capital costs can  be redistributed in order to achieve a green building without incremental  cost. For example, the higher cost of a combination of high-performance  glazing, higher insulation levels, and operable windows can be offset by the /0.1"01. * /0.1"01. *  related reduction in or elimination of -,2$,0(-, * (&'
$.%-.+ ,"$
 some mechanical components due to 1(*#(,& .$$,
1(*#(,& reduced heating and cooling loads. + &$
.$#(0
0 ,0$" ,#
1/!3
$.)(,/ (**

ROADMAP FOR THE INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS: SUMMARY GUIDE 17

Page left blank

Tips on Facilitation Part One

TIPS FOR EFFECTIVE FACILITATION

Effective facilitation can often be the difference between a dynamic, synergistic and effective IDP session and one that falls flat with no real conclusions drawn. The following table summarizes some effective tips and tools for facilitating charrettes, meetings, and workshops. This table was generated from a number of resources including a facilitation workshop led by Charles Holmes of the Wray Group.

Tip / Tool Description Purpose

Check-ins Participants introduce themselves, Personalize setting, get on same give personal anecdote, or state page, break ice, and set context goal for meeting Check-outs Participants comment on their Chance to express concluding experiences remarks and achieve sense of closure

Ice-breakers Game or activity Introductions, ease people into group setting, and stimulate discussion

Team values or Establish team’s ground rules with Create common understanding, Code of Conduct input from all participants promote a respectful environment, and provide a means to prevent or resolve disputes

Brainstorming Technique for generating ideas in Generate new ideas, stimulate low-risk environment creative and lateral thinking, get input from everyone

Parking lot List to track issues that arise but are Keeps discussion focused without off-topic forgetting important issues Mirroring Facilitator repeats what a participant Ensures that people are heard, builds has said verbatim trust, can speed up brainstorming

Paraphrasing Facilitator repeats what a participant Ensures that people feel heard and has said in his/her own words understood, can clarify meaning

ROADMAP FOR THE INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS: SUMMARY GUIDE 19 Tips on Facilitation Part One

Resources on Team Building: Tip / Tool Description Purpose Biech, Elaine, ed., 2001. The Pfeiffer Book of Successful Multi-modal Use of different styles of learning Reflects participants’ different Team-Building Tools. San learning and participation, including visual, learning styles, maximizing Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass auditory, and written learning and input Pfeiffer Positions Facilitator may be able to draw Highlights common ground Pfeiffer, J. William (Editor), versus out underlying motives beneath between positions that appear 1981. A Handbook of interests a participant’s position (iceberg conflicting or polarized Structured Experiences for analogy) Human Relations Training, Volume 1. San Francisco, CA: Go-around Technique of ‘going around the room’ Ensures that everyone has a chance Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. or table one-by-one to hear from to speak, and prevents domination everyone. Can continue until everyone of discussion; participants can has passed, indicating that they have listen effectively knowing that they Resources on Facilitation and nothing more to add will have a turn to speak Charrettes: Negative poll Ask for a show of hands to determine Can allow for fast decision-making ICA Associates Inc. (Group who disagrees with a statement and consensus-building Facilitation Training) www.ica-associates.ca Open-ended Broad questions typically beginning Encourages participants to share questions with “how”, “what”, or “why” their perspectives The National Charrette Institute. www. Probing Questions or statements such as “Can Encourages participants to provide charetteinstitute.org questions you give an example?” or “Could you more information elaborate on that?” International Association of Facilitators (http://iaf-world. Thumb- Ask for thumbs up, down, or sideways Quick way to get feedback from org) o-meter1 to indicate levels of agreement participants IAF Handbook of Group Facilitation: Best Practices Hot dots A method of prioritizing using Used to get a sense of the group’s from the Leading Organization adhesive dots: participants are given collective priorities without making in Facilitation. International a certain number of dots to place a final selection or decision Association of Facilitators. The beside a certain number of choices Institute of Cultural Affairs (www.ica-associates.ca)

Resources on brainstorming and meetings: 1. Source: Alex Wray of Wray Group

Mind Tools “Brainstorming: Generating many radical and useful ideas” www.mindtools.com Effective Meetings.com www.effectivemeetings.com

20 ROADMAP FOR THE INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS: SUMMARY GUIDE Summary of Phases Part One

SUMMARY OF SEVEN PHASES OF IDP

This section provides a brief summary of what an IDP can contribute to each phase in a building’s life-cycle: Pre-design; Schematic Design; Design Development; Construction Documentation; Bidding, Construction, and Commissioning; Building Operation (start- up); and Post Occupancy (long-term operation). For more detailed information on each design phase, consult Part 2: Reference Manual and Appendix A.

PHASE 1 - PRE-DESIGN The integrated design process differs from conventional design right from the outset of a project by placing a priority on establishing the goals, core objectives and direction of the project through a visioning session. Pre-design explores the relationships between the project and its surrounding environment to help reveal the optimum choices for the site, the users, and the owner. Site options or site specifics may be analyzed in light of project requirements to uncover opportunities and synergies. Sustainability targets may be set covering a full range of economic, environmental, and social performance criteria. This ambitious beginning requires many experts to be members of the design team at the outset.

Process Coordinate the team: • Bring together a diverse and knowledgeable team • Select an IDP Facilitator or Champion

Establish a foundation: • Set fees to provide appropriate incentives to the design team

Plan key meetings: • Charrette preparation • Host visioning charrette or workshop • Programming meeting • Facilities management meeting • Partnership meetings

ROADMAP FOR THE INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS: SUMMARY GUIDE 21 Summary of Phases Part One

IDP • Visions statement, goals and targets matrix Outputs • Pre-design report including charrette synopsis • Preliminary budget including cost of IDP activities such as energy modeling • Established communication pathways

Case Study: IDP Team • Engage and motivate team City of White Rock Modus • Team building is a fundamental part of kick-off and a priority Operations Building Operandi throughout the process “This facility, or any facility • Foster creativity and inter-disciplinary thinking for that matter, that wishes to be efficient can not be Key Team • Core team: Client, architect, mechanical, structural, and designed without the use of Members electrical engineer, and landscape architect an integrated design process. • Additional team members and stakeholders, including: Whether you choose to go • Contractor (depending on project delivery type) green or not, this process can save both capital and • Representative of occupant’s perspective operating dollars by it very • Building operators (if possible) nature of being, which in itself • Additional specialists (i.e. ecologist, energy engineer, etc) results in the direction of sustainability.”

- Greg Scott Former Client Representative

22 ROADMAP FOR THE INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS: SUMMARY GUIDE Summary of Phases Part One

PHASE 2 - SCHEMATIC DESIGN Schematic Design builds upon the vision developed in Pre-design. It is the phase for thinking “outside the box,” for exploring innovative technologies, new ideas, and fresh application methods in working towards the broad goals and objectives set out in Pre-design. Schematic Design allows experts from all disciplines to analyze the unique opportunities and constraints of the building site and to collectively explore synergies between disciplines and with neighbouring sites.

While it is important to keep the scope of investigation broad, goals and objectives must be firmed up. Schematic Design alternatives should be developed based on a synthesis of the entire team’s skills and knowledge. By evaluating them on multiple Case Study: criteria, the preferred design concept can be chosen. Dockside Green

“The absence of objections Coordinate the team: during the approvals processes Process for this project is unprecedented • Enhance team cohesiveness and confirm team values due to several factors, namely • Encourage a team mindset supporting creativity and systems- efforts to inform, consult thinking with, and include all local stakeholders including the Community Association, Establish a foundation: neighboring businesses, and • Keep the project’s vision and goals at hand environmental organizations. • Have clear understanding of site challenges and opportunities Local First Nations groups were also consulted during the • Ensure the functional program requirements and its planning process. This improved implications for all disciplines are understood communication and consultation process, virtually eliminating the Plan key meetings: typically high cost of approvals, highlights the importance of • Host design charrettes and workshops to brainstorm ideas, involving stakeholder groups develop concepts, evaluate strategies, and refine options early, and continuing the • Evaluate feasibility and energy impact of technologies / dialogue with these groups strategies throughout the development of the project.” • Report on opportunities - Carola Bloedorn IDP • Goals and targets matrix Windmill Developments Outputs • Preliminary energy analysis • Preliminary financial estimate • Schematic Design report • Roles and responsibilities matrix

IDP Team • Ensure coordination and collaboration between disciplines Modus • Develop a clear understanding of synergies and tradeoffs Operandi between strategies and systems proposed • Foster whole-system and life-cycle design and thinking

Key Team • Core team from previous phase Members • Additional team members, including: • Energy specialist • Cost consultant • Certification coordinator • Commissioning agent • Valuation professional

ROADMAP FOR THE INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS: SUMMARY GUIDE 23 Summary of Phases Part One

PHASE 3 - DESIGN DEVELOPMENT Design Development is a time to firm up and validate choices, resulting in a schematic design concept being selected and approved by the client. All architectural, mechanical and electrical systems are assessed for their expected performance and impact on all other systems as well as on the goals and targets.

Process Coordinate the team: • Engage new specialists (e.g. commissioning agent, outside experts) • Promote collaboration amongst team members

Establish a foundation: • Assess feasibility and viability of green building strategies and technologies • Use tools to simulate (e.g. energy model) technologies and strategies and assess building performance (e.g. thermal comfort, daylighting, acoustics) Case Study: Jameson Tower Plan key meetings: “It was felt that the Integrated • Design optimization loops maximize synergies between design Design Process had the disciplines most impact on the Design • Smaller, focused meetings for specific issues Development phase. There was a greater efficiency in IDP • Design Development report including IDP issues such as the overall design because all energy simulation results consultant parties’ work was Outputs integrated. With an integrated • Detailed financial report using life-cycle costing if possible design approach the • Outline specification with embedded performance criteria architects have even more of a • Preliminary commissioning report coordination role than normal • Updated roles and responsibilities matrix and this has helped their • Updated goals matrix understanding of the building as a whole.” • Ensure coordination and collaboration between disciplines – Lee Hallman, IDP Team • Develop a clear understanding of synergies and tradeoffs Foster + Partners Modus between strategies and systems proposed Operandi • Foster whole-system and life-cycle design and thinking

• Team from previous phase Key Team • Additional team members, including: Members • Contractor (sooner if possible) • Operation and maintenance staff • Materials expert • Acoustician • Client’s marketing representative (if appropriate) • Industry and academic experts

24 ROADMAP FOR THE INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS: SUMMARY GUIDE Summary of Phases Part One

PHASE 4 - CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTATION The construction documents (CDs) are prepared based on approved Design Development documents as well as final calculations and specifications. If the project is to be successful, the integration that has been achieved throughout earlier phases must be maintained during this phase despite the high pressure of impending deadlines.

Process Coordinate the team: • Coordinate CDs between disciplines Case Study: City of Vancouver Establish a foundation: National Avenue Works • Review performance criteria Yard • Integrate green aspects into CDs “The project architects Plan key meetings: and mechanical engineers • Host regular meetings to ensure that the impacts of all developed a solution where changes are evaluated the radiant panels would be attached to the inside face of the horizontal mullion at IDP • Project specifications with embedded performance criteria approximately 2.2 m above the Outputs • Material substitution policy adjacent floor level. There is • Tender documents with clear explanation of innovative aspects, a strip of vision glazing above contractor responsibilities for green building documentation, this mullion which provides additional daylighting to the training and supervision of trades / subcontractors space. The solution included • Commissioning plan the addition of a sheet of • Updated roles and responsibilities matrix foil-faced insulation to the • Updated goals matrix top of the radiant panel which permitted the panel not only • Keep open lines of communication to perform its primary function IDP Team (mitigation of heat transfer) Modus • Ensure coordination of activities between disciplines but also to act as a light Operandi • Ensure each team member understands his/her responsibilities shelf, dramatically improving daylight penetration into the Key Team • Team from previous phase space.” Members • Additional team members, including: • Specification writer - Kevin Hanvey Omicron • Contractor (sooner if possible) • Commissioning authority

ROADMAP FOR THE INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS: SUMMARY GUIDE 25 Summary of Phases Part One

PHASE 5 - BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, AND COMMISSIONING In this phase, the main design plans are realized. Many factors must be considered to ensure that the goals of the project are carried through to completion. Qualified contractors are chosen, communication procedures are set in place, and the expanded team works to transform the abstract into actuality.

Special attention is paid to the design intent in working through the inevitable construction-phase changes and adjustments. This work is facilitated through effective interface between disciplines, partial commissioning of systems during construction, final commissioning, and testing and validation. By the end of this phase the team will have achieved a finished, fully functional, and well- commissioned building, ready for occupancy.

Case Study: Process Coordinate the team: BC Cancer Agency • Transition from design to construction team Research Centre • Orient and train maintenance, operations staff and occupants

“We used rigorous methods of Establish a foundation: risk management. We involved • Update design intent not only Ledcor, but also • Include specific performance criteria in contract documents sub-trades and occupants in • Develop commissioning plan brainstorming to stay ahead of problems during construction. We had some spectacular Plan key meetings: cases of preventing or • Have pre-tender award meeting to discuss green design intent mitigating change orders. • Host a green building information session for contractor and These efforts reduced some trades change orders that might have cost 2 or 3 million dollars to • Plan regular site meetings to review design approach half a million. We had all the key players at table throughout IDP • Record drawings of the built project including architect, engineers, Outputs • Commissioning reports researchers, and the builder. • Operation and maintenance manuals including on-going Having the buildability commissioning activities perspective was an important part of the design process.” IDP Team • Engage core team with contractor and sub-contractors – Michael Kennedy Modus • Streamline communication procedures Stantec Operandi

Key Team • Team from previous phase Members • Additional team members, including: • Project manager • Contractor (sooner if possible) • Commissioning authority

26 ROADMAP FOR THE INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS: SUMMARY GUIDE Summary of Phases Part One

PHASE 6 - BUILDING OPERATION (START UP) This is a key transition phase during which the design team must ensure responsibility for and knowledge of the building is properly transferred to the building’s new stewards: the owner, occupants, and operations staff. This phase is dependent upon completion and documentation of the commissioning that took place at the end of construction. Case Study: Process Coordinate the team: University of Victoria • Ensure proper transfer of knowledge between the design team, Engineering / Computer commissioning agent, building operator, and occupants Science Building

Establish a foundation: “Because this building was • Provide owner with complete building documentation including considered from day one to commissioning report be a ‘green’ building with • Develop tools for ongoing monitoring to uphold performance the intention of making it an extremely energy efficient structure, and Plan key meetings: using an integrated design • Host a debriefing session to share lessons learned team approach and an • Educate staff and occupants on the building’s performance independent commissioning and green features consultant, decisions were made knowingly to • Host a project celebration to transfer project to new stewards downsize heating and cooling ventilation systems in IDP • Training and education materials favour of high-performance Outputs • Measurement and verification data windows. Elemental costs • Completed commissioning documentation were traded within the total of the project budget. More expensive windows resulted IDP Team • Celebrate success in less expensive mechanical Modus • Acknowledge the whole team systems, waterless urinals and Operandi • Engage operation and maintenance staff and building dual flush toilets have resulted occupants in lower plumbing costs and lower water consumption. The ongoing operating costs Key Team • Team from previous phase for this building will be Members • Additional team members, including: substantially lower than a • Building operators conventional building at a • Building occupants conventional construction • Commissioning agent cost. And the IDP played a major role in making this happen.”

- Terence Williams Busby Perkins+Will (formerly Terence Williams Architect)

ROADMAP FOR THE INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS: SUMMARY GUIDE 27 Summary of Phases Part One

PHASE 7 - POST-OCCUPANCY (LONG-TERM BUILDING OPERATION) Integrated design does not end when construction is complete and occupants have moved in. The IDP seeks to enhance the entire life of the building through effective maintenance and operation, measurement and verification, re-commissioning, and building performance evaluation. The post construction portions of the process provide feedback loops, which facilitate continuous optimization of the building’s performance. In addition, lessons learned from this feedback can trigger small-scale improvements in operation that can bring significant benefits to the occupants and Case Study: owners alike. Lessons learned can also inform future projects. UBC Life Sciences Building Process Coordinate the team: “For the Life Sciences Building, it was felt that an • Create a building performance evaluation (BPE) team integrated design process was most important. There were Establish a foundation: two main things: it shifted • Allocate budget for building performance evaluation the dynamic of the team to • Ensure monitoring equipment is in place focus on sustainability and it also shaped the building. We had a huge issue with a Plan key meetings: large building program and a • BPE setup and coordination meetings relatively small site. Because we were thinking of it in IDP • Updated building documentation integrated terms, we looked Outputs • Building performance evaluation results at ‘how can we get daylight in, how can we optimize • Continuous monitoring solar gain, how can we create • Re-commissioning plan collaborative spaces, how can • Environmental management program we integrate landscaping?’ We came up with a number • Engage staff and building occupants of building schemes – ‘E,’ ‘O,’ and ‘C’ shapes. We were IDP Team • Foster stewardship basically trying to get blocks Modus • Ongoing communication of building with spaces Operandi • Celebrate and share success between them for daylighting. Intuitively we felt ‘E’ was the • Team from previous phase best shape. Through energy Key Team • Additional team members, including: modeling, thermal comfort modeling, and daylight Members • Acoustician modeling we confirmed that • Thermal comfort specialist it was the best shape. The • Commissioning agent building would have looked totally different without IDP.”

- Teresa Coady Bunting Coady Architects

28 ROADMAP FOR THE INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS: SUMMARY GUIDE Summary Part One

SUMMARY OF PART ONE

Part One of the Roadmap for Integrated Design Process: Summary Guide has provided a concise but comprehensive overview of IDP as a concept and a summary of the key aspects of IDP at each phase of the building life-cycle. The Summary Guide has hopefully oriented IDP newcomers and helped more experienced participants frame their knowledge more clearly. Part One is intended to be a catalyst to encourage broader adoption of this process that is widely accepted as the best way to achieve high performance (sustainable) buildings while avoiding or minimizing incremental costs.

Part Two takes the reader through the process for each design phase: Pre-design; Schematic Design; Design Development; Construction Documentation; Bidding, Construction, and Commissioning; Building Operation (start-up); and Post Occupancy (long-term operation). Each phase is explained using a consistent structure that covers process activities, output development, helpful tips, case studies, and resources. Part Two also contains a detailed bibliography which directs the reader to additional resources that will aid them through various aspects of IDP. In addition, the appendices provide a series of useful summary tables and the complete case study credits.

The novice IDP practitioner may wish to read Part Two: Reference Manual in full as a more detailed introduction to IDP, while the seasoned practitioner may prefer to consult Part Two periodically as a reference. In either case, it is recommended that the reader refer to the Summary Table in Appendix A as a useful quick reference tool. Keeping in mind that Part One is only an overview, the reader may find it helpful to access the Bibliography at the end of Part Two for useful resources addressing particular aspects of IDP and high performance (sustainable) building design in more detail.

ROADMAP FOR THE INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS: SUMMARY GUIDE 29

Appendix B:

CIRS 2004-2006 Sustainable Design Goals and Strategies Matrix

CIRS INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY – FINAL REPORT

SUSTAINABLE DESIGN MATRIX

FOCUS AREAS GOALS STRATEGIES

DESIGN PROCESS 1 - DIGITAL & PAPERLESS. 1.1 - Use tools such as AutoDesk Technology to facilitate 3D virtual design and digital tender. The building will be designed using 3D virtual 1.2 - Promote a paperless tender process. design technologies. 2.1 - Use tools such as the Athena Sustainable Materials Environmental Impact Estimator and other tools to assess the full life cycle environmental and costs impacts of the 2 - LCA. CIRS' building design. A life cycle assessment will be conducted on the 2.2 - Conduct a life cycle assessment of all building assemblies and products. whole building design.

SITE DESIGN 3 - NET IMPACT. 3.1 - Native landscaping. Neutralize ecological impact on site by 3.2 - Installation of green roofs. increasing the net positive biomass and oxygen provided on-site, and eliminating runoff from the site. 3.3 - Permeable pavement. 3.4 - Constructed wetland. 3.5 - Community gardens and orchard. 3.6 - Regenerate ecosystems to attract local fauna (birds, bees, herons, & butterflies). 3.7 - Internal biomass oxygenation C02 = Oxygen, People = total Plant mass offsite. 3.8 - No stormwater connection to municipal infrastructure. 3.9 - Restore and re-daylight China Creek. 3.10 - Biofilter on-site. 3.11 - Engage a biologist to provide expertise on opportunities to bring back the native ecosystem. 4 - POSITIVE COMMUNITY IMPACT. 4.1 - Create plaza and green space for community interaction. Maximize sustainable contributions to the local 4.2- Use landscape features to affect the energy profile of the Centre. community. 4.3 - Program for external use of space by building occupants and the neighbouring community. 4.4 - Reorient public aspects (future Commercial Retail Units) of the building to Great Northern Way.

ENERGY 5 - SUPPLY SYSTEMS. 5.1 - Minimize energy needs for building operation. 5.2 - Install PVs for 30% of building operation requirements. CIRS will supply all building energy requirements from on-site sustainable and renewable energy sources, become a net annual power generator, and will be Greenhouse Gas neutral. 5.3 - Install wind turbine. 5.4 - Ground source heat pumps. 5.5 - Use solar hot water tubes to preheat water supplies. 5.6 - Test on a demonstration basis a biomass co-generation system (BMA Lab). 5.7 - Test on a demonstration basis different fuel cell technologies (BMA Lab). 5.8 - Match quality of energy with usage (sensible energy use). 5.9 - Orient the building to maximize passive solar strategies. 5.10 - Use exterior and interior solar control strategies specific to each façade in order to minimize solar heat gain in interior spaces and to offset cooling loads. For south facing facades use exterior louvered sunshades. 5.11 - Select high performance glazing systems specific for each façade. Use minimal glazing on North façade. 5.12 - Utilize thermal mass to moderate indoor temperature. 5.13 - Maximize natural ventilation through the use of operable windows, trickle vents, and air ducts. 5.14 - Maximize daylighting opportunities through building orientation and selection of appropriate glazing. 5.15 - Capture waste heat from greywater supplies. 5.16 - Employ control systems such as daylight and occupancy sensors to control electrical lighting loads in office spaces, washrooms, stairwells, storage rooms, and parking garage. 6 - REDUCTION (HVAC). 6.1 - Design a high performance building envelope (average R20 (3.5 RSI)). CIRS will be designed to be as passive and 6.2 - Orient the building to maximize passive solar strategies. simple as possible, and demonstrate that all strategies to have the lowest possible energy requirements. 6.3 - South façade to have a double ventilated cavity. West façade to have 100% shaading co-efficient. North façade to have high performance glazing. East façade to allow for winter passive solar gain and to have 100% shading co-efficient for summer months. 6.4 - Use exterior and interior solar control strategies specific to each façade in order to minimize solar heat gain in interior spaces and to offset cooling loads. For south facing facades use exterior louvered sunshades. 6.5 - Select high performance glazing systems specific for each façade. Use minimal glazing on North façade. 6.6 - Cladding to be interchangeable, allowing for ongoing testing and upgrading of functions. 6.7 - Under floor displacement ventilation to be a part of raised floor system. 6.8 - Use in slab radiant heating and cooling. 6.9 - Design atriums for storage and stack effect. 6.10 - Utilize thermal mass to moderate indoor temperature (12 hour cycle). 6.11 - Incorporate biomass as part of the evaporative cooling system and oxygenation and filtration system. 6.12 - Ensure the building works by itself and that it responds actively and autonomously to environmental stimulus. 6.13 - Eliminate reliance on mechanical systems for air conditioning. 6.14 - Use natural ventilation strategies for cooling indoor environments through the use of operable windows. 6.15 - Specify high albedo Energy Star Rated roofing membrane to reduce mechanical cooling loads for the building envelope and minimize the urban heat island effect.

6.16 - Install green roofing system to reduce mechanical cooling loads and minimize the urban heat island effect. 6.17 - Install controls and monitoring systems to minimize total building energy consumption. Gather data from annual systems reports and use feedback to improve overall building performance. 6.18 - Software lab - test the benefits of thermal mass and natural ventilation. 6.19 - Create partnerships with industry - up & downstream reports, certification. 7 - ENERGY REDUCTION LIGHTING. 7.1 - Orient and design the building to maximize daylighting opportunities (perimeter & atriums). 7.2 - Select glazing appropriate for each façade, optimising daylighting opportunities. CIRS will integrate daylight systems that provide 100% of the illumination required through the building during the day to minimize lighting power consumption at other times. 7.3 - Use light shelves to penetrate daylight deep into the building interior. 7.4 - Employ daylit sensors to control the use of interior lighting. 7.5 - Integrate solar reflectors, mesooptic technology, light tubes, and light shelves to maximize daylight penetration. 7.6 - Use high efficiency lighting such as LED lights, T5 etc. 7.7 - Test daylighting strategies in the solar and daylighting lab.

Page 1 of 3 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN MATRIX

FOCUS AREAS GOALS STRATEGIES

WATER 8 - RAINWATER COLLECTION AND USE. 8.1 - 100% of potable water collected from rainwater. 100% of potable water requirements will be met 8.2 - Capture and filter stormwater for reuse in landscape irrigation and building process loads (flushing of toilets etc.). with on-site collected rainwater. 8.3 - Reuse greywater for mechanical system loads. 8.4 - Install water efficient appliances that are Energy Star Rated. 8.5 - Install water efficient fixtures (dual flush toilets & waterless urinals). 8.6 - Install dry fixtures (composting toilets and waterless urinals). 8.7 - Establish partnerships with Health Canada, CSA, and GVRD to test quality of on-site collected potable water and effectiveness of technologies. 8.8 - Develop user (building occupants/public) education program (display screen systems). 9 - WASTEWATER COLLECTION, 9.1 - Design a wastewater treatment system using Living Machine or Solar Aquatic technologies to treat liquid waste onsite. TREATMENT & REUSE. All wastewater will be collected and treated on- 9.2 - Use composting toilets to eliminate wastewater volumes. site or within the 'sustainability precinct'. 9.3 - Explore constructing a wetland to treat wastewater from CIRS and neighbouring buildings. 9.4 - Treat greywater to be reused for flushing toilets. 9.5 - Establish partnerships with Health Canada, CSA, and GVRD to test quality of on-site collected potable water and effectiveness of technologies. 9.6 - Develop user (building occupants/public) education program (display screen systems). 10 - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. 10.1 - Capture and store stormwater on site. Filter and reuse stormwater for landscape irrigation and mechanical process loads. 100% of stormwater will be controlled, disposed 10.2 - Install a green roofing system to reduce the rate and quantity of stormwater runoff from roofscapes. of, reused and discharges on-site. 10.3 - Increase pervious surfaces on the site to encourage the infiltration of stormwater. 10.4 - Integrate landscaped bioswails and buffers to control site stormwater runoff.

RESOURCE 11 - RESOURCE EFFICIENT BUILDING. 11.1 - Select building materials with the lowest ecological footprint and GHG impact. CONSERVATION Minimize resource consumption and GHG 11.2 - Maximize use of wood and natural materials. impact of building construction by maximizing the life, flexibility and recycling potential of the building. Target 50% of typical building ecological footprint & GHG profile of construction. 11.3 - Minimize manufacturing and transportation energy inputs. 11.4 - Perform LCA study on building materials assembly systems to assess life cycle impacts. 11.5 - Design building for long term use and flexibility. 11.6 - Test office, lab, research labs, and retail spaces for layout and use requirements. 11.7 - Compare shear wall vs. structure flexibility. 11.8 - All elements to be fully demountable / recyclable. 11.9 - Design for durability. 11.10 - Minimize use of construction finishes. 11.11 - Design construction assemblies to have a 100-year life span and for deconstruction instead for demolition. 11.12 - Select materials from sustainably harvested sources. 11.13 - Design the building for disassembly (I.e., use bolted connections). 11.14 - Explore opportunities to recover waste materials into new building materials (I.e., recycle glass into cladding material). 11.15 - Explore opportunities to use "rediscovered" supplies of wood such as wood damaged by pine Beetles. 11.16 - Select materials with low embodied energy such as those from local, sustainably harvested, and salvaged sources. 11.17 - Construct the building from locally and sustainably harvested wood. 11.18 - Select materials that contain a high percentage of recycled content such as recycled aggregate in concrete. 12 - WASTE ELIMINATION. 12.1 - Develop an overall building composting program for food waste. 12.2 - Establish a contract with a recycling and composting service provider such as with Superior Disposal. Eliminate solid and food waste leaving the site. 12.3 - Develop an overall occupant recycling program for office materials such as paper, cans, bottles, cardboard etc. 12.4 - Develop "green leasing" policies for building tenants to reduce waste streams. 12.5 - Establish take back programs with material suppliers (I.e., take back program for packaging). 12.6 - Divert a minimum of 95% of construction waste from local landfills. 12.7 - Develop eco-industrial networks with community organizations. 13 - BUILDING UTILIZATION. 13.1 - Maximize the hours of operation and use of the building zone services) . Maximize hours of operations and density of 13.2 - Design the building to be adaptable to future program uses, and for service and communications updates. use. 13.3 - Ensure share spaces are flexible, allowing for a variety of uses. 13.4 - Design for compact occupancies (partnership opportunities). 13.5 - Building design and layout to accommodate hotelling stations for those building occupants that tele-commute.

OCCUPANT HEALTH 14 - DAYLIGHTING. 14.1 - Maximize access to external views from workspaces. CIRS workspaces will be 100% daylit. 14.2 - Design the floor plates to maximize daylight opportunities. 14.3 - Maximize daylight penetration through the use of light shelves, skylights, clerestories, and glazed atriums. 14.4 - Use light tubes to penetrate daylight into the underground parking and washrooms. 14.5 - Design interior work spaces to be 100% daylit by harnessing daylight from perimeter windows, clerestories, skylights, and light wells. 15 - AIR QUALITY AND COMFORT. 15.1 - Design a living / breathing wall to filter air pollutants and oxygenate interior working environments. The building will provide the purest possible 15.2 - Provide fitness centre for building occupants. indoor air quality, and where needed, provide for user control over comfort conditions. 15.3 - Select construction finishes that emit low or zero emissions, minimizing interior contaminants and poor IAQ. 15.4 - Select low emitting furniture systems. 15.5 - Integrate a breathing/living wall to oxygenate the indoor air. 15.6 - Ensure there is effective air changing and mixing, providing all regularly occupied areas with adequate air quality. 15.7 - Filter air in order to provide more than adequate indoor air quality for building occupants. 15.8 - Install CO2 monitoring devices to gauge the level and adequacy of indoor air. 15.9 - Design the building to meet minimum thermal comfort requirements. 15.10 - Provide individual controls from temperature, lighting, and air flow. 16 - OXYGENATION. 16.1 - Increase exterior planting to filter air borne contaminants. The building will oxygenate indoor and exterior 16.2 - Design a living / breathing wall to filter air pollutants and oxygenate interior working environments. environments 02 ! CO2 on an annual basis. 16.3 - Design oxygenation system as part of the HVAC system. 17 - MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH IN 17.1 - Design to include personal spatial needs. THE WORKPLACE. Provide for healthy bodies and mind in design of 17.2 - Include a fitness & health centre for building occupants and public. workspace. 17.3 - Create social and peer learning spaces. 17.4 - Maximize daylighting opportunities and occupant access to views. 17.5 - Democratise planning. 17.6 - Encourage stairs over elevators and daylight stairs. 17.7 - Examine acoustic qualities of designed workspaces. 17.8 - Install ergonomically sound office furniture. 17.9 - Design the building to accommodate movement of occupants, encouraging interaction and socialization between building occupants. 17.10 - Create a variety of spaces and terraces for interaction of building occupants.

Page 2 of 3 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN MATRIX

FOCUS AREAS GOALS STRATEGIES

BUILDING 18 - SEAMLESS DESIGN AND OPERATION. 18.1 - Consult the developers' operations staff early on in the design phase to ensure a minimal level of understand of the systems and technologies proposed. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE The building will seamlessly integrate the design 18.2 - Create training and aware program for staff to ensure the building is operated and maintained at an optimal level. and ongoing operations. 18.3 - Conduct regular commissioning of all mechanical & electrical systems to ensure systems are operating in accordance with the design intent. 18.4 - Employ systems for ongoing measurement and verification of building and systems performance. 18.5 - Conduct post occupancy evaluations and annual reports on building performance. 18.6 - Conduct pre- and post- tenancy evaluations to gather feedback from tenants.

CIRS OUTREACH 19 - BMA LAB. 19.1 - Test grid and research U/S, D/S for building materials, and equipment manufacturers. (to confirm with Peter). 19.2 - Test building materials in labs for durability and other performance qualities. Utilize the building and resources in partnership with manufactures and authorities to advance knowledge of sustainable design strategies. 19.3 - Develop partnerships with Health Canada, GVRD, CSA and others to test products and development of new products. 19.4 - Develop partnerships with organizations to test the water, rainwater, greywater and on-site treatment system. 20 - SOFTWARE LAB. 20.1 - Building design to include a building simulation lab. CIRS will have be a living lab for building 20.2 - 1001 points of monitoring. researchers and software companies to test predictive software for : thermal mass, ventilation models, IAQ and daylighting effectiveness. 20.3 - Building design to include a solar lab. 21.1 - Establish a comprehensive alternative transportation plan for building occupants to include: 21 - COMMUNITY AND EXTERNAL IMPACTS. Reduce on-site parking requirements, provision of only 100 parking stalls. Minimize external and community environmental impacts of CIRS's staff and visitors. Provide hybrid, fuel cell and electric vehicles for building occupants. Provide "clean fuel" mall (i.e., recharging or refuelling stations) alternative fuel vehicles. Designate preferred parking for alternative fuel vehicles. Establish a car and van-pool program for building occupants and designate preferred parking stalls. Provide over 200 secure bicycle stalls, showers and changing facilities for cyclist commuters. Encourage the use of transit by providing transit passes for employees. Develop a "pedestrian first policy" and safe linkages to existing transportation networks. Conduct tenant transportation assessment as part of lease agreement. Educate building occupants and community on alternative transportation plans. 21.2 - Collect biomass from local parks department for biomass co-gen system. 21.3 - Provide community gardens for neighbouring residents. 21.4 - Establish a procurement policy with a mandate of purchasing products and services from local sources. 21.5 - Procure local materials, construction services, building maintenance and services contracts. 21.6 - Encourage community use of the facility. 21.7 - Track and monitor the number of jobs created as a result of the creation of the CIRS project. 21.8 - Encourage the development of spin off sustainable jobs and businesses. 21.9 - Assess the productivity gains of the tenant occupants during their residence in the CIRS building. 21.10 - Conduct and document post-occupancy evaluations 1 per 5 years. 22 - PUBLIC EDUCATION. 22.1 - Information will be disseminated to the public and building visitors through the following communication outlets: CIRS will disseminate sustainable design Circulation spine and tours practices, knowledge and experience as widely as possible. "Try it out" multiple technologies Monitoring lab and display screens Quest terminals Exhibition spaces Group decision environment theatre Website Virtual tours to minimize visits 22.2 - Information will be transferred and shared by professionals and researchers through the following mechanisms: Website Policy lab "Partners" workspaces Publications of measurement, verification and annual building assessments "100" lectures series Partnerships Undergraduate & graduate inter-institutional programs Training and certification 22.3 - Information will be distributed to the wider public via: Partnerships with Science World. Link the CIRS building monitoring system to a live display in Science World, allowing visitors at Science World learn about the elements being measured and tracked in the CIRS building. Website Media links - generated $5,000,000 "free" publicity Develop a documentary on the design process of the CIRS project. 22.4 - Facilitate business opportunities by creating: Partnerships with industry, academic institutions and government Research capabilities Incubator space Research availability

Page 3 of 3

Appendix C:

CIRS 2008 Design Goals

CIRS INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY – FINAL REPORT

CIRS Goals Summary Draft 15 October 2008

Z Smith, John Robinson, Ray Cole, Kathy Wardle, Martin Nielsen, Alberto Cayuela

The Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS) will be a regenerative building process, functioning as a living laboratory to explore how the ways we construct and inhabit buildings can support a sustainable future. Its goal will be to accelerate sustainability in the region and beyond by contributing knowledge, practices, lessons and models that can be used by others in fostering sustainable design and practice in the marketplace.

Over the five-year history of the project, a rich set of ideas have been developed for the design of the CIRS building process. Going into the most recent design charette on March 28, 2008, some 22 goals and 205 strategies had been identified (appended). The charette added another 19 potential project goals (appended) based in part on a review of best practices in buildings and standards elsewhere. This document is an attempt to synthesize and condense these sustainable design goals into a manageable, clear summary.

What are buildings for?

We construct buildings to provide us with shelter from the elements and to organize and foster human activity. We have come to realize that the conventional means of constructing and operating these buildings can be destructive to the world ‘outside’ and unhealthy to the occupants ‘inside.’ A regenerative building process seeks to provide a healthy social and biophysical environment for human activity that is adaptable to changing use over time while having a positive, rather than negative, environmental impact on its surroundings and the world. If these goals are to be met in ways that are replicable, we need to be smart about how we allocate resources (i.e. cost-effective), and provide mechanisms for feedback and interaction between people and the building systems. In these ways, CIRS seeks to be “green, humane and smart.”

Green: Look outward from the building to the health of ecological systems. What we build can be constructed, operated, adapted, and disassembled in ways that persist without using up non-renewable resources, impairing biodiversity, or burdening future generations with wastes. Moving beyond “less bad,” CIRS goals are to have a positive impact on both the local and global environment, while living within, and contributing to, the biophysical flows available on its own site.

Humane: The reason we construct a building is to provide a healthy environment in which its inhabitants can thrive. CIRS aims to provide a socially and biophysically healthy environment for human habitation which adapts to changing needs and uses over time, and which contributes to a continuous improvement in the health, productivity and happiness of building inhabitants.

Smart: The CIRS building process will apply human design intelligence augmented with monitoring and feedback to engage building inhabitants to get the most out of the available energy and material flows afforded by the site and its surroundings. We seek to integrate building performance and the performance of building inhabitants in an ongoing dance intended to improve the green and humane features of CIRS over time. Feedback is key to ensuring that the system of the building and its inhabitants performs

CIRS INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY – FINAL REPORT

well. CIRS will also develop approaches towards constructing, operating and maintaining the building, and meeting human needs, at the lowest life-cycle costs, providing solutions that can be economically replicated and adapted into buildings worldwide.

Time scale:

Not every goal for CIRS may be achievable with present technologies at reasonable cost on opening day. But the CIRS facility is not ‘finished’ the day it opens; it is designed for change over time, adopting and adapting new technologies. The overall goal is continuous improvement over time in human and environmental conditions.

CIRS goals in outline form

1. Green—Goals focused on ecological health a. Design with time in mind i. Climate Change: Heating, cooling and water systems are designed to adapt to anticipated changes in climate over the next 100 years ii. Life Cycle Analysis: Building structure and systems are to be evaluated and designed over a time frame of 100 years b. The goal of materials use should be for zero waste i. Design for assembly, modification, and disassembly ii. Avoid toxic materials [Target: preclude materials on the Living Building ‘Red List’] iii. Materials choices informed by life-cycle analysis of environmental impact, including embodied energy and greenhouse gas emissions—minimize CO2 emissions associated with construction iv. Design a materials-handling strategy for supplies and components entering the building over their life that seeks to eliminate solid waste going to landfills v. Process all liquid ‘waste’ into pure water and useful feedstocks c. Energy use should have a net positive impact on ecological health i. The effect of opening the CIRS facility is that the energy use of UBC should go down, not up. (This may be accomplished through a combination of onsite renewable energy generation, the sharing of waste heat with surrounding buildings, and other measures that take advantage of the site and surrounding conditions.) ii. Direct energy consumption target: significantly below the best achieved to date for comparable uses (75 kWh/m2/yr overall, 15kWh/m2/yr for heating) iii. Building operation should be greenhouse gas neutral iv. Efforts will be made to balance the quality of the energy with that required for the task—match scale and quality to the task v. All energy used in the building should come from clean and renewable energy sources. d. Water use should have a net positive impact on ecological health i. The facility should be able to live on the budget of the rain falling on its site. ii. Efforts will be made to balance the quality of the water with that required for the task (e.g., don’t use potable water to flush toilets) iii. Water leaving the site should be as good or better quality than it arrived

CIRS INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY – FINAL REPORT

e. Site design should provide a net positive impact to the ecological health of the surroundings i. net increase of biomass on site [Existing site: 44% grass & shrubs] ii. zero net runoff from site 2. Smart: Adaptive, Responsive, Effective, Economical a. Provide instrumentation and controls to allow feedback and learning i. the building should learn from its inhabitants 1. Deliver comfort where and when it’s needed ii. the inhabitants can learn from the building 1. Provide feedback to building operations staff for catching systems performing poorly 2. Provide feedback to individual building inhabitants as to how their behaviour affects energy, water, and material use b. Produce a core building that exemplifies replicable, economical solutions i. Make design and operation choices based with the lowest life-cycle costs ii. Allow for experimentation with approaches that may not yet be cost-effective 3. Humane a. On an ongoing basis, assess the interaction between the environment provided by the building and the health, productivity, and happiness of those who work and visit it b. Provide a comfortable, healthy environment for inhabitants, under local control to adapt to individual differences and differing activities i. temperature ii. air that meets or exceeds outdoor air quality iii. light levels and quality appropriate to tasks, with the option of relying on natural light whenever available and appropriate to the task [Target: 100% regularly occupied spaces daylit 9am-5pm] iv. sound: provide for acoustic separation and privacy v. food & water: 1. provide areas for the preparation and sharing of food 2. provide water for drinking and washing 3. provide washrooms facilities 4. deal with food waste and human waste in ways that recognize them as an environmental opportunity c. Provide opportunities for humans to connect with each other and the world i. Connect to the natural world: views to living things, breezes ii. Connect to others in the facility: promote collisions & interaction iii. Connect to the campus and world: be permeable to campus pathways, facilities that invite the campus and public to pass through parts of the facility and share food and ideas 1. on site café (emphasizing 100-mile diet options when available) 2. conference, teaching centre, walk-through portion iv. The building’s appearance should be inviting, not forbidding. Beauty matters.

CIRS goals in numbered form

The preceding outline form can be summarized in the following numerical list: 1. Design with time in mind— anticipate climate change, design for a 100 year life cycle, build to last but allow for change

CIRS INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY – FINAL REPORT

2. Materials should be used with the goal of zero waste—design for modification and disassembly, use no toxic materials. Convert ongoing ‘waste’ streams to useful flows 3. Energy use should have a net positive impact on ecological health—minimize onsite consumption, and provide it from renewable sources, or by harnessing waste heat from adjacent buildings, or balance it by displacing energy that was being used by adjacent buildings. 4. Water use should have a net positive impact on ecological health; live on the water flows available to the site. 5. Site design should produce a net positive impact on ecological health—provide more habitat than the existing site use 6. Provide instrumentation and controls to allow feedback and learning 7. Produce a core building that exemplifies replicable, economical solutions 8. Provide a comfortable, healthy environment for inhabitants, including natural daylight to 100% of spaces, and temperature and ventilation under local or individual control. On an ongoing basis, assess the interaction between the environment provided by the building and the health, productivity, and happiness of those who work and visit it 9. Provide opportunities for inhabitants to connect with each other and the world with a facility that is both functional and beautiful

CIRS INTEGRATED DESIGN PROCESS CASE STUDY – FINAL REPORT