Raze-or-Retrofi t: Evaluation of Seattle’s Commercial Building Stock for Energy Effi ciency Sean Shannon Engle A thesis submitted in partial fulfi llment of the requirements for the degree of: Master of Architecture University of Washington 2012 Joel Loveland, Chair Kathryn Merlino Program Authorized to Off er Degree: Department of Architecture University of Washington Abstract Raze-or-Retrofi t: Evaluation of Seattle’s Commercial Building Stock for Energy Effi ciency Sean Shannon Engle Chair of Supervisory Committee: Professor Joel Loveland Department of Architecture Both my Architecture (M.Arch) and Planning (MUP) theses work around the rubric of the Archi- tecture 2030 Challenge and the eff orts of the Seattle 2030 District to meet it (2030DC - see http:// www.2030district.org/seattle/ ). In taking up this challenge, the City of Seattle and the 2030DC have teamed up with major property owners, property managers, developers, architects and the Integrat- ed Design Lab at UW to target and benchmark existing opportunities in Seattle’s commercial building stock for potential deep retrofi ts and redesign. The goal of both theses is to provide the 2030DC with tools and intelligence that will assist in targeting its program and outreach eff orts. Both the M.Arch and MUP theses examine the behavior of commercial property owners and their pro- pensity to either retrofi t their buildings for energy effi ciency or raze them in favor of redevelopment. To determine this, in the M.Arch thesis I developed a scoring system that utilizes various algorithms to process publicly available data combined with other data developed locally to derive a score that permits an apples-to-apples comparison of that propensity. The M.Arch thesis reviews these condi- tions at the building level; cites several case studies, and presents in-depth analysis of a selected com- mercial building in the Pike-Pine corridor, serving as an example of a typical Seattle property. The MUP thesis scales the building owner propensity up to the neighborhood and district levels, and investigates the potential impact of development in Major Institutional Overlay (MIO) districts upon properties immediately adjacent to those districts. It applies the scoring system developed in the M.Arch thesis to demonstrate a correlation between proximity to an MIO district and the pres- ence of predictive indicators of redevelopment. Thus, the scoring system can be used to indicate the likelihood of redevelopment in districts adjacent to an MIO district. The MUP thesis concludes with suggested policy changes to MIO districts to reduce the abrupt spatial transitions that are currently evident. Table of Contents Section .I - Introduction & Background 01 The Basis of Concern: Climate Change Buildings as a Major CO2 Source Other Paths: Rating, Monitoring & Reducing The Seattle 2030 District Summary & Application to Individual Buildings Section .II - Common Green Building Considerations 06 The Highly Effi cient Building: Retrofi ts & New HEB - New Construction HEB - Retrofi ts Motivations & Inhibitions in Green Construction Long Term Investment Uncertain Economy Simple Income Changes in Regulations Short Term Increase Value of Property Are High Effi ciency Buildings Worth More? Cost Approach Sales Approach Income Capitalization Approach Common Components & Principles of the HEB Section .IIIa - Research Methodology 10 Study Model Used In Analysis The Question Research Methodology Preliminary Analysis: Existing Building Stocks Secondary Analysis: Choosing a Sample Seattle District Primary Analysis: Building Criteria Used in Analysis Section .IIIb - Model & Methodology of Research 12 The Raze-Retrofi t Continuum Three Spheres of Infl uence The Raze-Retrofi t Continuum - Defi ned Four Conditions on the RRC - Described Four Cases on the Continuum - Displayed i Section .IV - Analysis 22 Preliminary Analysis History of Development - Seattle’s Commercial Building Stock State of Seattle’s Commercial Building Stocks Distribution of Building Heights Distribution of Const. Methods (materials) Predominate Uses Physical Plant & Heating Methods Summary - Which Building is “Representative”? Secondary Analysis District Profi les First Hill District Similarities to Seattle Distribution of Const. Methods (materials) Choosing the Study Area Primary Analysis Four Case Studies on the Continuum 1310 Minor Avenue (multi-family) 1001 Broadway (medical offi ce building) 1110 Harvard Avenue (outpatient clinic addition) 1224 Madison Street (retail bank branch) Section .V - 400 East Pine Street - Case Study 52 Preliminary Discussion Adaptive Reuse of Buildings About the Neighborhood About the Property Existing Ratings Three Deep Retrofi t Options & More Choices Common Retrofi t Elements Option A: Deep Energy Retrofi t Only Option B: Deep Retrofi t + Rooftop Addition Option C: Deep Retrofi t + Addition + Notch Conculsions Section .VI - Conclusion & Discussion of Findings 77 Discussion of Findings - Statement of Findings from Analysis The Continuum and Its Elements Likely Outcomes for Existing Stocks: Moving Forward: Recommendations Beyond the Low Hanging Fruit: ii Bibliography 79 Appendix 1.0 : Mans Aff air With Fossil Fuels 92 A Long History Mans Aff air With Fossil Fuels = Global Warming Appendix 2.0 - Anatomy of Need: The Revitalization of Broadway 95 Appendix 3.0 : Use Sensitivity & RRC Scoring Assignments 99 Appendix 4.0 - Energy Monitoring Programs 106 Other Paths: Rating, Monitoring & Reducing European and Australian Effi ciency Eff orts: Rating, Labeling & Disclosing American Effi ciency Eff orts: Rating, Labeling and Disclosing Energy Star LEED Architecture 2030 Clinton Climate Initiative Chicago DeCarbonization Plan Better Buildings Initiative Benchmarking and Disclosure Laws: Washington State, the City of Seattle Appendix 5.0 - Green Building Considerations 116 Elements & Principles of the HEB Site & Local Environmental Conditions Building Elements of the HEB Other Elements Building Principles of the HEB Appendix 6.0 - Glazing Ratios at 400 East Pine Street 124 iii List of Figures Figure 1.1 – US Energy Consumption by Sector Source: Architecture 2030 . 01 Figure 1.2 – US C02 Emissions by Sector Source: Architecture 2030 . 01 Figure 1.3 – Seattle 2030 Districts. Source: Seattle 2030 District . 02 Figure 1.4 – Seattle Steam service map. Source: Seattle Steam . 03 Figure 3.1 – Three Spheres of Infl uence Source: Author . 12 Figure 3.2 – Raze or Retrofi t Continuum. Source: Author . 18 Figure 3.3 – First Hill in context to downtown Seattle and the study area. Source: Author . 20 Figure 3.4 – Existing Commercial Dev. Source: SDOT. 21 Figure 3.5 – Capacity for Additional Commercial Dev. Source: SDOT. 21 Figure 4.1 – Area Map and Image of 1310 Minor Avenue. Source: Author . 26 Figure 4.2 – Floorplan of 1310 Minor Street, fi fth fl oor. Source: Author . 27 Figure 4.3 – Plan perspective of 1310 Minor Street. Source: Author. 27 Figure 4.4 – RAD luminance analysis of a fi fth level apt. at 1310 Minor Avenue. Source: Author . 29 Figure 4.5 – Wall section of 1310 Minor Ave. Source: RAS Architecture . 30 Figure 4.6 – Wall section at roof of 1310 Minor Ave. Source: RAS Architecture . 30 Figure 4.7 – Wall section of 1310 Minor Ave. Source: RAS Architecture . 30 Figure 4.8 – Revit model of 1310 Minor Avenue. Source: Author . 32 Figure 4.9 – Area map and image of 1001 Broadway. Source: Author . 33 Figure 4.10 – Floor plan of fi rst level. Source: Revit drawing by Sean Engle; from construction drawings. 34 Figure 4.11 – Building section at north end. Source: Seattle DPD. 35 Figure 4.12 – Roof section showing composition. Source: Seattle DPD. 36 Figure 4.14 – Revit model of 1001 Broadway. Source: Author . 37 Figure 4.13 – Ecotect analysis of 1001 Broadway, third fl oor. Source: Ecotect analysis by Sean Engle. 37 Figure 4.15 – Revit persective plan of second level. Source: Author . 40 Figure 4.16 – Floor plan of fi rst level. Source: Author . 40 Figure 4.17 – Ecotect RAD luminance analysis of 1110 Havard Ave, second level. Source: Author . 42 Figure 4.18 – Revit model 1110 Harvard Avenue. Source: Author . 43 iv Figure 4.19 – Building section of 1110 Harvard Avenue, cut E/W, looking north. Source: RAS Architecture. 44 Figure 4.20 – Curtain wall section, 1110 Harvard Avenue. Source: RAS Architecture. 45 Figure 4.21 – Area map and image of 1224 Madison Street. Source: Author. 47 Figure 4.22 – Floor plan, 1224 Madison Street. Source: Author . 48 Figure 4.23 – Plan perspective of 1224 Madison Street. Source: Author . 48 Figure 4.25 – Revit model of 1224 Madison Street. Source: Author . 49 Figure 4.24 – Building section of 1224 Madison Street, cut E/W along longitudnally along north wing. Source: DPD Seattle . 49 Figure 4.26 – RAD Luminance analysis 1224 Madison St. Source: Author . 50 Figure 4.27 – Wall section of 1224 Madison Street; shows wall, parapet and roof. Source: Seattle DPD . 50 Figure 4.28 – 1200 Madison Street under construction (Nov 2011). Source: Author . 51 Figure 5.1 – 400 East Pine Street Site Analysis Poster. Source: Author . 53 Figure 5.2 – Map of the Pike-Pine Corridor Overlay District. Source: City of Seattle . 54 Figure 5.3 – Plan of Level 1 - Existing Building Scale: 1”= 40’-0” Source: Author . 57 Figure 5.4 – Plan of Level 1m - Existing Building Scale: 1”= 40’-0” Source: Author . 57 Figure 5.5 – Plan of Level 2 - Existing Building Scale: 1”= 40’-0” Source: Author . 58 Figure 5.6 – Plan of Level 3 - Existing Building Scale: 1”= 40’-0” Source: Author . 58 Figure 5.7 – Axonometric View - Existing Building No Scale. Source: Author . 59 Figure 5.8 – Axnometric Structural View - Existing Building. No Scale. Source: Author . 59 Figure 5.9 – Plan of Level 1 - Option A or B. Scale: 1”= 40’-0” Source: Author . 60 Figure 5.10 – Plan of Level 1m - Option A or B. Scale: 1”= 40’-0” Source: Author. 60 Figure 5.11 – Plan of Level 2 - Option A or B. Scale: 1”= 40’-0” Source: Author . 61 Figure 5.12 – Plan of Level 3 - Option A or B. Scale: 1”= 40’-0” Source: Author . 61 Figure 5.13 – Plan of Level P1 - Option C.