Introducing EHDD’s Early Phase Carbon Assessment Tool

Author: Brad Jacobson

Published: Sept. 23, 2020

We recently introduced our vision and call to action for  Climate Positive design and advocacy. Today, I am pleased to describe a big step we are taking to execute this vision with the internal release of the EPIC tool. EPIC stands for “Early Phase Integrated Carbon assessment” and it fills a critical gap. It allows our designers — and eventually, our clients – to set carbon targets and identify the most impactful measures early in the project process. We see this as complementary to life-cycle assessment and product optimization tools like  Tally and  EC3, which are crucial later in design.

Why is the EPIC Tool so essential?

When designing for carbon neutrality, we need to keep two critical elements in mind:  first, the amount of potential savings we can achieve with each reduction measure, and second, the time frame of those savings.  Due to the urgency of climate change, we need to prioritize strategies that produce considerable savings fast. The EPIC tool brings together operational and embodied carbon impacts and potential sequestration measures, on a level playing field and measured over a project life cycle so we can see more clearly where we get the biggest, and most immediate, bang for the buck.

There is also urgency around when actionable information is available to designers and building owners. The carbon footprint trajectory is cast very early in the project timeline with a handful of critical decisions: how big is the project? How much of the program is in an existing structure? What is the structural system? Is it based on all-electric systems?

Whole building life cycle assessment (WBLCA) is essential for project accounting and fine-tuning, but the specificity it requires means it is typically completed towards the end of the schematic design phase. Usually, the decisions noted above have already been made at that point. The EPIC tool provides high level benchmarking and target-setting guidance at the earliest moments in project conceptualization to show designers and owners what is possible and guide critical decisions.

Two snapshots of the tool are shown. The first tab defines the project baseline using easily known parameters including project size, type, baseline structural system, and location. The second tab introduces a range of carbon reduction options, and graphically shows the resultant path to carbon neutrality. In any scenario, some amount of sequestration (shown in green below the line)  through the use of biogenic material (ex. wood), site planting, and/or net-positive energy is necessary to get there.

For example, for our UCSF Clinical Sciences Building renovation project, set to open later this year, the decision to reuse the existing historic structure proves to be the most impactful reduction when I entered the project data into the tool. But reuse was not the only option on the table initially. This tool would have  helped confirm the decision to renovate. It also puts into context the carbon benefit of energy efficiency and the PV installation. It also shows the impact of continued reliance on a mixed-fuel central plant instead of electrification.

The EPIC tool is currently in the BETA phase as we employ it on our current work at EHDD. We look forward to using it, breaking it, refining it, and sharing it more broadly with our community.

Interested in EPIC? Use the tool for free at epic.ehdd.com.

July 2020 Associate Promotions

Author: EHDD

Please join us in congratulating Heidi Hanzawa, Samantha Lautman, Jay Manzo, Jessica Sano, and Yew-Hoe Tan on their promotions to Associate at EHDD.

Heidi Hanzawa, NCIDQ has the longest tenure at EHDD among the Interiors Group. She began as an intern while completing the interior design program at the San Francisco Academy of Art, during which time she spearheaded a major overhaul of EHDD’s sample library. Heidi has a diverse portfolio of projects in every market sector, including the KQED Headquarters, Lick Wilmerding High School, CSU Sonoma Stevenson Hall, and the Pacific Visions Expansion at the Aquarium of the Pacific. Heidi is especially skilled at making a client’s vision come to life, and making interior spaces welcoming to all.

After earning her BFA degree from the California College of the Arts, Samantha Lautman, AIA spent years as an exhibiting artist and printmaker. This background informed Samantha’s knowledge of physical materials in her work as a construction administrator. Addressing both artistic challenges and technical demands have been a constant within Samantha’s career. Her passion for learning leads her to gain a deep understanding of a problem, and apply strategic thinking to come up with creative solutions. She also uses her artistic training to design feature elements in buildings, such as the glass block wall at the Toledo Aquarium. Samantha brings a unique perspective to the field and remains on the cutting edge of design.

When Jay Manzo, AIA, LEED^® AP^BD+C joined EHDD, he brought his New York mindset and curiosity for how buildings can best serve their communities. Most recently, Jay worked on the Nonprofits Insurance Alliance of California Headquarters project during the design phase and saw it through to its completion.  Additional projects include the UC Santa Cruz Science and Engineering Library Renovation and the Cupertino Library Expansion project. These projects were especially beloved to Jay; he spends his weekends exploring local libraries and opining on the value of books and libraries as the heart of their communities. He has been a great mentor to colleagues and has recently indoctrinated a new generation of young architects while hosting a summer camp event at the office.

Jessica Sano, AIA, LEED^® AP^BD+C NCARB has been an integral designer on several important EHDD projects, including the renovation of Giannini Hall at UC Berkeley, the design of KQED’s newly reimagined San Francisco Headquarters, and a conceptual design for a New Zealand National Aquarium in the City of Napier on the north islands east coast. Currently, Jessica is working on a new aquarium project for the Kansas City Zoo. Jessica’s contemporary design sensibility and strong technical knowledge inform her leadership on some of EHDD’s most complex and high-profile work.

Yew-Hoe Tan, AIA, LEED^® AP^BC+C has deep experience and expertise with large and complex buildings.  He has represented EHDD throughout construction administration on an extensive renovation of UC San Francisco’s Clinical Sciences Building — one of EHDD’s most technically challenging projects.  Yew-Hoe is a leader in the firm’s efforts to reimagine and restore historic buildings for their next life and is at the forefront of innovation in the field of architecture.

 

About EHDD
Founded in 1946, EHDD seeks to create built environments that enhance our culture, honor the natural environment, and respect and delight the people who use them. Headquartered in San Francisco, EHDD serves clients around the world in Aquariums, Museums, and Science Centers, Education, Corporate Office, Mixed-Use Development, and Government. EHDD is a Top 10 AIA COTE honoree, and featured in “The Habits of High-Performance Firms, Lessons from frequent winners of the AIA COTE Top Ten Award.”

Research Fellowship Program: Welcome Jack and Jerome

Author: EHDD

EHDD is thrilled to inaugurate a Research Fellowship Program this summer in lieu of our traditional student internships. This fellowship allows us to partner with students from outside the architectural profession to advance interdisciplinary research.

Jerome Wang brings a background in public health, experience with Berkeley Innovation (a student-run consulting group at UC Berkeley studying indoor public spaces) and UCSF Better Lab, and deep empathy for our research on how to design healthy campuses in a post-C19 world.  He is creating customized EHDD Wellness Assessment Guidelines for Higher Education Projects.

Jack Rusk is developing a customized EHDD carbon assessment tool for early-stage design. His background in environmental management and architecture is leveraged to build a parametric model that looks at both operational and embodied carbon emissions and their potential reductions on our projects.

These could not be more timely collaborations. Be on the lookout for upcoming blogs on these exciting tools.

Climate Positive: Design and Advocacy

Author: Brad Jacobson and Scott Shell

Some say it is too early to focus on anything but COVID-19. We say this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to refashion our work, and our lives, towards a vision of a better world. We will pick up the pieces: how we put them back together is up to us.

We are struck by the parallels between COVID-19 and our larger, slower-burning Climate Crisis, by the consequences of inaction in the face of science, of underfunding vital research, of insufficient and slow response. In light of the urgency for action commensurate with the scale of the climate change challenge, and the need for a clear vision for the built environment moving forward, EHDD is committing to advancing what we are calling Climate Positive design across our portfolio.

Debra Roberts, the IPCC Co-Chair, warns us that “the next few years are probably the most important in our history… Limiting global warming to 1.5°C require rapid, far-reaching, and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.” The challenge is one of speed and scale. A few exceptional buildings by elite firms will not get us there. We need strong policies, transformative innovations, and replicable approaches that lift all boats.

Our vision will be advanced in concert with our clients and collaborators towards the ultimate goal of a built environment that is genuinely Climate Positive by 2030. If EHDD’s portfolio can get there by 2030, we hope California can do so by 2040, and the rest of the US by 2050. To say this is ambitious is a grand understatement: it is the most significant transformation since the dawn of the industrial revolution.

Here is our opening salvo in five parts:

• No on-site fossil fuels
• Maximize efficiency and PV
• Design to use energy when it is clean

•  Reduce concrete and steel impacts
•  Design systems and landscape for carbon sequestration
•  Seek profound material innovation

•  Design transformation for existing buildings
•  Avoid new embodied emissions
•  Retrofit for high performance

• Recognize the risks of a changing climate
• Design robust, passive, localized systems
• Integrate battery-PV in microgrids

• Advocate for all-electric codes
•  Speed and scale are essential
•  Support advanced policy through a real-world perspective
•  Partner with allied organizations

To execute on this vision, here are three of the key actions we are taking right now:

Perform carbon assessments on all of our projects

As an industry, we are where we were roughly ten years ago on energy modeling. At that time, very few knew what an EUI was let alone if 25 or 250 kbtu/sf/yr were good targets for an office or lab building. Today we need to understand the actual carbon impacts of our buildings, no matter where the carbon originates. We need to build literacy around what big levers exist and how operating and embodied emissions compare. You can only manage what you measure.

Focus on radical reductions in structure-based emissions

We will continue our encouraging work on mass timber and ultra-low cement concrete while partnering to explore new structural solutions and breakthrough innovations that we sorely need. These up-front emissions are our most significant opportunity to take big leaps immediately when we need it most.

Advocate to advance all-electric codes

Over the past two+ years, we have spent many nights attending city council and planning commission hearings, explaining how our industry is ready today for ALL buildings to be run on clean electricity. Our local political leaders are looking to us for advice and guidance on how to reach decarbonization goals that are effective and equitable. We ask you to join us in publicly advocating for new codes and policies to quickly transform the built environment.

Join us in creating a better future. Let’s aim higher than simply a return to the way things were.

Image References

1. EHDD graphic
2. EHDD graphic from C40 Reinventing Cities Competition
3. UC Santa Cruz Coastal Biology Building photographed by Michael David Rose
4. Lick-Wilmerding High School photographed by DroneBase

Image Captions

1. EHDD is committed to a Carbon Positive future
2. EHDD reached carbon neutrality on its C40 Reinventing Cities competition entry through a life-cycle approach to both embodied and operating carbon. A stepping down from baseline to design case led to full carbon neutrality 15 years after occupancy.
3. A wood exterior at the LEED® Gold UC Santa Cruz Coastal Biology Building sequesters carbon while avoiding the use of energy-intensive cladding materials like aluminum or concrete.
4. Lick-Wilmerding High School is committed to net-zero energy use. The ultimate goal is for the special features of the project to educate the users and make them more aware of sustainability and equity issues beyond the building or campus itself.

The Design Evolution of Student Housing Beyond COVID-19

Author: Conor Dunn

I first heard the phrase “Alone Together” from a UC San Diego student last year on a panel at a Higher-Education-focused design conference, well-before any whispers of the forthcoming pandemic. She invoked the idea in response to a question we Architects ask clients on every project, “What do you want from your communal spaces?” The student spoke about “Alone together” within the context of design goals, describing students’ desires for flexible spaces where they could study or lounge, see, and be seen to feel connected while also being productive. Of course, #AloneTogether has recently evolved into a very different and unifying meaning for the entire world, but the trend of such flexible spaces is more relevant than ever. When students return to campuses, such spaces can help them feel connected in a new world of social distancing and offer administrators adaptability for future preparedness. As COVID-19 responses change the world around us, and institutions strategize how to embrace a new normal, we can consider several such recent Higher Education design trends that might also help students reclaim their campus community and student life.

 

Smaller and Virtual Classrooms

Institutions were already thinking about and planning for longer-term shifts to virtual instruction. Now, that timing has been dramatically accelerated. A recent Cornell study noted a switch to teaching large lecture courses online and teaching smaller seminars face-to-face “would not appreciably reduce the interconnectedness of students.” (1) Housing could easily adapt bedroom or study spaces into Zoom conference rooms, which could flexibly support several students taking the same virtual classes or forming study groups to boost the feeling of a learning community. Just as many of us are feeling exhausted by workdays packed with video meetings, students experience similar fatigue, and they’ll need to rely on each other through in-person networks for recovery and support (2).

 

Communal Kitchens in Student Housing

UC Berkeley Vice Chancellor and CFO Rosemarie Rae believe that “Communal kitchens are the plan for the future,” in part due to data collected last year showing students’ apartment-style kitchens were only being used 5% to 20% of the time (3). Communal kitchens might be re-sized for group-quarantine and pandemic recovery too. We can anticipate an aversion to mass-group dining halls to continue in the near future. Kitchens that can serve multiple students not only improve individuals’ sense of self-reliance and resilience but also strengthen their immediate network of roommates and neighbors when engaging in a family-style cooking experience.

 

Daylighting and Venting

In many post-occupancy studies about the attributes that contribute to preferred social and study environments, access to views, daylighting, and the outdoors consistently rise as the most important features. Access to both has long been favored by designers encouraging wellness in interior environments; now, during quarantine and for potential future sheltering, they are more critical than ever. Exterior air venting and circulation is not only a sustainable design strategy; it now helps to implement CDC recommendations that we better ventilate and significantly reduce the recycled air of our interior environments. (4)

 

Increased Unit Density

In response to our affordable-housing crisis, many housing renovations and new residential buildings have been boosting bed-density to drive down rental rates. In tandem, bathrooms and lounges are being broken-out to join the aforementioned communal-kitchens in larger group-living spaces that serve more units and students. Four-bedroom units are typically the first to be rented, and a recent project of mine saw five, six, and even seven-bed units. When these units flank the communal spaces to form ‘pods,’ they effectively create micro-neighborhoods, and such groups of 15-50 students are right-sized for what Dunbar referred to as “Sympathy Groups” and “Close Networks,” respectively (5). For this and potential future Shelter-in-Place directives, such layouts are ideal for students who choose to “quaranteam” — to band together and support each other in the face of pandemic trauma. (6)

President of Pomona College, Gabrielle Starr, astutely notes that “human connection is key to generating and testing knowledge, unleashing creativity, and fostering the emergence of a new generation of thinkers and problem solvers. Now we must reimagine what community looks like after fundamental disruption.” (7) These planning trends suggest that we were already on the right track in effectively redesigning student communities, likely because they originated with flexibility, affordability, sustainability and connectivity as some of their primary goals. We cannot let COVID-19 disrupt such intentions, as they are now more necessary than ever to foster student success.

 

Bibliography

1. https://osf.io/6kuet/
2. https://www.mindful.org/zoom-exhaustion-is-real-here-are-six-ways-to-find-balance-and-stay-connected/
3. Bisnow’s Bay Area Student Housing & Higher Ed Summit at Hotel Nikko in San Francisco, 2019
4. https://www.abbae.com/technical-learning/covid-19/
5. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191001-dunbars-number-why-we-can-only-maintain-150-relationships
6. https://us.cnn.com/2020/04/17/us/quaranteam-coronavirus-wellness-trnd/index.html
7. https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-Will-the-Pandemic-Change/248474?key=Q-8a5P7D5OHujVB3ZSRDR1GphAxyJHteTzvSQOkhcVQD5MtPBXKCPh-DWXbb-Sfhdms2YmlfdmpYbVhMdk8zdDI4aU9RVHF4ZG1Qbkhwa0dxMWZaMTA2VFBHcw

 

Image References

1. UC Berkeley Maximino Martinez Commons. Photo: Russell Abraham
2. https://zolostays.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Screenshot_20190731-182654__01-min.jpg
3. http://www.studenthousingguide.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/MG_44621.jpg
4. https://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2017/12/fabrica-coliving-apartment-space-scholarship-3.jpg.650x0_q70_crop-smart.jpg

Where Are We Going to Live?

Author: Miguel Nieto

“The top three priorities we are currently addressing, 1. Housing, 2. Housing, and 3. Housing,” said John Rahaim, San Francisco’s acting Planning Department Director, as he addressed a crowd of architects, developers, and construction industry insiders at this year’s Facades conference. Rahaim continued to outline the challenges which have plagued the housing market –  escalating construction costs, development fees, arduous and lengthy approvals, often among multiple jurisdictions, and the need to find low equity options for the region’s disadvantaged residents. He addressed the misconception that “if there isn’t housing, then more people won’t move here.” His office’s research and his own experience have led Rahaim to the conclusion that as long as there are jobs and other economic opportunities, people will continue flocking to the Bay Area, expecting housing to work itself out. As we have seen in recent years, this ever-expanding demand, combined with ballooning salaries of technological and financial professions, has stressed the market and created what many have been calling a housing “bubble” in the region, with eye-watering prices and no vacancies.

Bubble or not, it seems clear to most that if the region is to continue to prosper, more space needs to be made. This reality is evidenced in a 2018 report by the City of San Francisco Planning Department, which found, “63% of the Bay Area’s housing stock is single-family homes,” and “15% are 20+ units” (Rahaim & al, 2018). Although there is agreement the region’s housing market is in crisis, many efforts to address shortages have generated more controversy than consensus, with an array of different governmental and private sector groups fighting to see their ideal vision of growth enacted (Fang, T.).

Although a clear path forward has not yet been established, people tend to acknowledge that more housing is needed and quickly. Ideally, this new, repurposed and infill construction is an excellent opportunity to explore new forms of housing that provide a more diverse set of financial, social, and architectural possibilities–the refined versions of which will serve to make the region more resilient in the face of future pressures.

Our region is familiar with alternative housing models, and many different communities have emerged out of thoughtful collaborations between city governments, residents, designers, and planners. As a young resident of the Bay Area, I am familiar with many friends and colleagues who have pursued non-traditional housing options in order to live affordably, or as a way to create new networks, among other reasons. Listed below are three of the models which are most prevalent and successful in our area, although others exist:

Co-housing:

One of the typologies that have gained some traction in the Bay Area is the concept of Co-housing, a model where each resident has a private unit that is centered around a common space such as an outdoor patio, kitchen, or living room. The organization of the community is democratic and encourages residents to interact through shared meals, events, and other cooperative structures. Several successful projects in this vein exist throughout the Bay Area:

1. Swans Market, Oakland
2. Phoenix Commons, Oakland
3. Mountain View Co-Housing, Mountain View
4. Pleasant Hill Co-Housing, Pleasant Hill

This housing model seems to be the most normative in its financial model, with individuals still owning and controlling private property. However, it affords many progressive benefits such as the potential to dramatically increase density, perform more sustainably, and create strong social connections between residents.

Limited equity housing collectives (LEHC):

This model of housing is meant to make homeownership more affordable and is centered around a non-profit which owns the property and then sells its shares to prospective buyers. Owners of the shares have rights to the unit and to participate in the democratic operation of the community. When selling their shares, owners are typically not given any profits from the inflation of the price, if any, as this money goes back to sustain the organization. These organizations tend to be smaller and, in our area, typically don’t build their property but instead pool resources together to buy an existing structure. One of the successful projects of this type is the Parker Street Cooperative, a LEHC formed in Berkeley in 1988. The building has 24 units, a mix of studio and 1 BR, and the current share price for a 1 BR is $21,000. Although “Federal programs and cultural attitudes that helped launch a majority of the large limited-equity co-ops across the nation are long gone–this model of resident-controlled, long-term affordable housing may be experiencing new interest” (Ortiz, 2017).

Co-living:

This term is the loosest of these models but has recently become associated with a more contemporary notion of living arrangement, where residents rent out a small private space and share most of their other space with others. This trendy model is meant to appeal to a younger generation less interested in homeownership and more in shared experiences, flexible live/work environments, and other amenities that are provided by a parent organization.

Companies of this type have been popping up quickly around the Bay Area with Haas, HubHaus, OpenDoor, Roam, and Starcity, to name a few. The most prominent of these, Starcity, has recently received approval from the city of San Jose to build a 790 unit building, which will feature “65% bedrooms, and 20% of the building is dedicated to communal spaces and kitchens” (Brinklow, 2019). Although many have criticized these projects as glorified dorms lacking true solutions to affordability, their popularity clearly suggests Bay Area residents are willing to consider alternatives to traditional housing typologies in search of a different financial, social, or architectural reality.

The housing models listed above are just a few of the alternative typologies that exist in the Bay Area. No one model will solve our issues. Some of the models are best suited to older residents who are looking for community, while others are best when serving young professionals looking for an affordable place to live while starting their career. Generally, we need to be more flexible and understand all the possibilities at our disposal in order to make informed suggestions about what is best suited where. As stewards of our built environment and compassionate community members, the onus is on us architects and designers to explore the intricacies of these and other models. We must question how appropriate design can be an ally–building upon prospective housing models’ strengths while limiting risks and weaknesses, and helping to create a more diverse and, therefore, resilient market for housing in the region. As a young architect, I am tremendously motivated by this challenge. For me, it is an amazing opportunity to be a part of the coalition who will shape the future character and vibrancy of our home for the better.

Bibliography

Bowles, N. (2018, March 4). Dorm Living for Professionals Comes to San Francisco. Retrieved from New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/technology/dorm-living-grown-ups-san-francisco.html

Brinklow, A. (2019, February 27). San Jose approves co-living ‘dorms’ for downtown area. Retrieved from curbed:  https://sf.curbed.com/2019/2/27/18243252/san-jose-coliving-dorms-starcity-housing-crisis

COHOUSING IS…. (2019). Retrieved from McMant and Durrett Architects the co-housing company: http://www.cohousingco.com/cohousing

Fang, T. (2019, July 18). Over 8 In 10 Bay Area Residents Agree State In Housing Crisis, Poll Finds. Retrieved from CBS SF Bay Area: https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/07/18/housing-crisis-bay-area-california-quinnipiac-poll/

Kristy Wang, B. G. (2017, September 21). Retrieved from SPUR: https://www.spur.org/news/2017-09-21/could-germany-s-co-developed-urban-housing-be-model-bay-area#

Ortiz, L. (2017, April 15). Will Limited-Equity Cooperatives Make a Comeback? Retrieved from Shelterforce: https://shelterforce.org/2017/04/25/will-limited-equity-co-ops-make-comeback/

Rahaim, J., & al. (2018). San Francisco Housing Needs and Trends Report. San Francisco: San Francisco Planning Department.

Trust, B. A. (n.d.). Cohousing and Limited Equity Cooperatives: What’s the Connection. Retrieved from http://bayareaclt.org/docs/cohousing_and_limited_equity_co-ops.pdf

Wang, K., & Grant, B. (2017, September 21). Could Germany’s Co-Developed Urban Housing Be a Model for the Bay Area? Retrieved from SPUR: https://www.spur.org/news/2017-09-21/could-germany-s-co-developed-urban-housing-be-model-bay-area#

Image References

Image 1: Mountain View  Co-Housing Community http://mountainviewcohousing.org/

Image 2: Parker Street Cooperative (LEHC) http://parkerstcoop.org/

Image 3: The Guardian – https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/15/happy-together-lonely-baby-boomers-turn-to-co-housing

Image 4: PYATOK – http://www.pyatok.com/work/project/112/SWANS-MARKET

Images 5: Starcity co-living https://www.citylab.com/life/2019/06/cohousing-san-jose-room-for-rent-starcity-coliving-housing/590731/

EHDD Promotes Quyen Luong and Lynne Riesselman to Associate Principal

Author: EHDD

November 14, 2019

SAN FRANCISCO (CA, USA) – EHDD Architecture announces the promotion of Quyen Luong, AIA, and Lynne Riesselman, AIA, LEED® AP BD+C, to Associate Principal. “My partners and I are pleased to announce the promotions of Lynne Riesselman and Quyen Luong to Associate Principal because of their exceptional contributions to the firm. Both are demonstrated design leaders at EHDD and have led many of our highest-profile projects over the years. As we continue to grow, Lynne and Quyen will be instrumental in assuring EHDD’s legacy of design excellence,” stated Duncan Ballash, AIA, LEED® AP BD+C, Principal and President of EHDD.

Luong brings imagination and sensitivity to complex design, working on projects that range from aquariums to multi-use housing, schools, and libraries. She approaches design with the intent of transforming the everyday into the unexpected, translating concepts into places that embody an institution’s core mission. Recent projects include the Pacific Visions expansion at the Aquarium of the Pacific, UC Davis Tercero Student Housing, and the National Aquarium of New Zealand. Luong remarked, “The design process is an opportunity to give rigor to curiosity, and shape to meaning.” She received her Bachelor of Arts in Art History from Wesleyan University in 1999 and her Master of Architecture from Rice University in 2005. She has practiced architecture for fourteen years and is a member of the American Institute of Architects (AIA).

Riesselman approaches design with a desire for leveraging the interconnectedness of the natural and built environment. Over the last 14 years she has brought a rigorous design ethic to museums and cultural centers, aquariums, higher education and commercial projects. With recent work including the Kansas City Zoo Aquarium, the Marine Science Institute of Redwood City, and the Presidio Tunnel Tops Youth Campus, she is focused on creating spaces that engage, and inspire with a lasting impact on the greater public. Riesselman believes, “A truly successful design must speak to the ethos of its organization, rooted in the place it inhabits, and never hesitate to create its own identity.” Riesselman received her Bachelor of Architecture from Carnegie Mellon University in 2005. She is a member of the American Institute of Architects (AIA).

About EHDD
Founded in 1946, EHDD seeks to create built environments that enhance our culture, honor the natural environment, and respect and delight the people who use them. Headquartered in San Francisco, EHDD serves clients around the world in Aquariums, Museums and Science Centers, Education, Corporate Office, Mixed-Use Development, and Government. EHDD is a Top 10 AIA COTE honoree, and featured in “The Habits of High-Performance Firms, Lessons from frequent winners of the AIA COTE Top Ten Award.”

Architecture and Social Media’s Effects

Author: Harcoover Singh Bhatti

Unlock, Snap, and Post is all it takes to share images or content in today’s digital age. Three easy steps and the online world is at your disposal. Tagging people and places associates them with your digital footprint. This content is then readily available at your fingertips within seconds, whether it be a dog wearing a Pikachu outfit or global events that will define our moment in history.

But, what does all of this speed and access to information mean to the world of architecture? These new technologies and behaviors have made the consumption of architecture unlike ever before. Gone are the days when the architect dictated how and where the process of architecture happened. The role is evolving, and there is an ever-increasing control in the user’s hands. Take for instance pop-up architecture like the Museum of Ice Cream and the Color Factory, the ultimate destinations for any millennial. The attraction here for youth is the numerous possibilities to be able to take those memorable Instagram pics.

Architecture here is very much pulled apart; what one is consuming and distributing is based on the likelihood of an audience liking and sharing your photograph. And what this, in turn, allows is the increasing popularity of the physical site with a particular experience, one that is of smiles and bliss. Numerous landmarks have become associated with this phenomenon, where Instagrammable locations just become part of a tourist’s checklist like San Francisco’s Lombard Street.

How do we create architecture today, when structures are being consumed faster than they are being produced?  Do Instagrammable features need to be an increased part of architecture or are they the direct byproduct of producing architecture in the age of technology? We do have to acknowledge that this has flipped the grounds on the traditional publication and consumption of architecture, but then also does this mean that we are losing control over what we produce?

There is an increasing demand to produce buildings and spaces that invite this type of online popularity. These conditions give the Architect less agency; they are not able to fully design the spatial experience as they need. However, a direct result of this new trend has been that we can gain critical feedback on the go while exploring beyond traditional building typologies. This surplus of information can be used to engage with audiences unlike ever before. Social media allows individuals to express themselves without a filter – this brutal honesty from the community is less likely to be heard in a public forum or meeting. Such data can be used by designers to better understand what users demand. In this way, we can use the power of social media to our advantage and still address critical issues like climate change and sustainability, while also making “photogenic” architecture.

A few weeks ago, I stumbled upon the Japanese Instagram Page “Toilets-a-go-go” which shows images of public bathroom pavilions. Once you get past the funny and somewhat misleading name, this page brings something new and unique to light. In the west, public restrooms and facilities are often considered of minor importance and aren’t seen as the most desirable buildings to design. But what this page allows for is the power of architecture to improve a neglected, yet arguably important building type, while facilitating continued experimentation.

The power of social media is only increasing; every day millions of individuals are able to access an online world that was not available to them the day before. Architecture is quite literally “spreading” through social media. As a result, designers gain greater access to inspiring precedent images and essential insight into global trends. But does this mean that we need to partake in every single fad that follows, or will we be selective and critical of the buildings and experiences that we create?

 

Pacific Visions – A Story of Brand and Architecture as One

Author: Duncan Ballash, EHDD and Ron Elad, Buro Happold

For science-based, ecology-focused institutions like the Aquarium of the Pacific, their mission is their brand. In this case, the organization’s mission is to engage visitors in examining their relationship with our ocean planet, and to explore today’s most important environmental issues. They wanted their building’s façade to be an extension and articulation of that mission statement.

EHDD’s concept was to engage the original building as a marquee for Pacific Visions–it is a community and regional icon. For the new program’s wrapper, the development of form derives from the rich bio-diversity of the Pacific Ocean, referencing both microscopic and monumental sea creatures. In designing this new wing of the Aquarium, EHDD embraced the concept of fluidity–both in the biomorphic facade and in how visitors flow through the spaces–from the entrance, through the new galleries and the Honda Theater.

The qualitative approach to our material investigation focused on depth, variability, and luminosity. Materials needed to be opaque, without reflectivity, and bird-safe. This process involved over a year of research, experimentation, and testing. We couldn’t have realized the final effect without engaging fabricators early, as we needed to invent a unique glass assembly. The glass assembly thickness is aesthetic, and also has structural requirements. Digital mock-ups demonstrate the effect on a macro level – for example, rich color variation was depicted at different times of the day. This was further tested by creating a physical scale model to represent the desired visual effect. Getting the color correct was essential because it would become the aquarium’s brand. The color needed to be timeless, derived from nature.

BuroHappold’s task, as the technical design team, was to begin investigating the technical approach for the aquarium’s complex form. We started with developing computational tools that let us test different paneling strategies. We initially sought a single, or minimum number of panels that could be used in the final installation to achieve minimum variability while maintaining the curvature of the design. We tested many versions of this approach before identifying the right design.

Our first study concluded with almost 1900 panels, and the uniformity of panels was not what we, or the wider design team, had originally envisioned. The form lent itself to a scalable paneling, rather than a repetitive system. We then tried a strategy that would allow a more natural flow of panels that could accentuate the surface aesthetics on a macro level. The paneling consistency was a balancing act between the maximum feasible size of a panel, and the smallest one that allowed the form to achieve the intended architectural design.

In testing this for cost efficiency, we discovered that fabricating custom sizes of panels did not increase cost since all fabrication is CNC-controlled. Additionally, we learned that reducing the panel numbers by more than half resulted in decreasing the amount of connections, structure, and site work—yielding about 30% in overall savings. We then created a digital mockup of the new paneling system, which became the ‘backboard’ on which to interact with the design team and client. This strategy afforded us the possibility of not only refining the organic shape, but also allowed us to evolve it so we could emphasize the dynamic quality through the panelized system.

Simultaneously, we worked on developing a structure that supports the glass installation. The structural system is essentially an interface between the glass geometry and primary structure layout. The structure is a skeleton for the skin, following the natural shape and is supported by the primary structure behind.
When we designed the structure, we needed to follow four principal guidelines:

1. Support the glass panels in the most efficient way
2. Connect back to the existing structure where it has sufficient capacities
3. Minimize the amount of penetrations through the envelope
4. Account for seismic movements

The result was a structural skirt design. This allows the structure to hang from the top connection and to slide at the bottom. The system was designed with intentional open joints between panels. Since the structure or skirt would move under seismic events, there was a risk for a direct impact on the joints between the glass panels. This movement, and having the structure non-parallel in all areas, meant that we had to control the joints dimensionally. We created a script that simulated the seismic drifts on the system and visualized where the maximum joint sizes were needed. This analysis was done on the horizontal and vertical joints. Once we established the maximums, we were able to prescribe a single dimension for all of the joints. We then translated this to the actual fabrication model that was developed by glass specialists Sentech Architectural Systems. By enabling a digital process, we were able to confirm the numerical parameters for all of the geometrical conditions and design one adjustable detail.

The design and engineering relied on a holistic computational design process that included a data-centric model and automation. This enabled seamless coordination and exchange of models with the design team, manufacturer, and builder. The final confirmation of the design was tested on site utilizing a full-scale mock-up before authorizing the fabrication and installation of the building skin system. The result was a façade system that met all expectations of the client and design team. This success in developing such a unique façade system was due to a close collaboration between the design team, façade engineers, and subcontractors.

The new Pacific Visions wing will open at the Aquarium of the Pacific on May 24, 2019, visit http://www.aquariumofpacific.org/ for visitor information.

The Architecture of Productivity

Author: Cian Hrabi

When I first began researching the presentation that this article is adapted from, I stumbled upon a startling fact: the open office pre-dates the cubicle. In the early 1900s, Frederick Taylor set out to improve the productivity of white-collar workers by using techniques from factories–placing dedicated workstations in open rooms. In 1939, Frank Lloyd Wright designed the Johnson Wax Headquarters, a beautiful open office defined by thin white columns, deep red filing cabinets, and oval desks. For over 50 years, an entirely open workplace was a popular office type.

Robert Propst, working for Herman Miller, created the first office cubicle in 1964, called the Action Office. Invented to give workers more privacy and versatility in their workplace, they were a flop in practice due to a high price tag and limited market reach. Four years later came the second iteration (the Action Office 2!) which was cheaper and more modular, and these really took off – there were even tax breaks offered for companies that adopted them. The original Action Offices look and feel like products designed to benefit the common worker, but throughout the 1970s and ’80s companies used them to cram more people into smaller spaces. Hence, the grey sea that we associate with office cubicles today.

In response to that sickly feeling often evoked by rows upon rows of cubicles, tech start-ups in the 1990s began touting the fully open office again. However, they unwittingly believed this was an innovation, rather than revisiting an older idea. The trend came to the desk of Frank Gehry in 2010, when he received the brief for what I will call “The Bilbao of Open Offices” – Facebook’s 434,000 square foot office in Menlo Park. The giant, single-room facility is named Building 20, a nod to MIT’s famous building 20 of the mid-late 1900s nicknamed the “plywood palace.” MIT’s ramshackle warehouse became a hub for innovation during WW2 and beyond, a truly adaptable space that allowed researchers and professors to customize their offices however they saw fit. Gehry’s Facebook office, I would argue, doesn’t seem to carry the same character and organic development of its namesake.

This brings us to today, a time when the open office is not limited to Silicon Valley tech start-ups, far from it. As of 2017, 70% of US workers are working in a space with low or no partitions (Haynes 2008). And the research is unfortunately quite clear – the open office is not good for productivity. Open offices result in a 62% increase in sick days, and 54% of high-performance employees say they are too distracting (Sundstrom, Burt and Kamp 1980). On average, people are interrupted once every 3 minutes, and they are correlated with a 15% drop in productivity (Brennan, Chugh and Kline 2002). Additionally, an open office doesn’t even promote interaction between colleagues, because we prefer to speak with some privacy and without interrupting others. Surprisingly, we collaborate and speak face-to-face with co-workers more as our offices become more enclosed (Bernstein and Turban 2018 ).

If this is true, then you may ask–why are open offices so pervasive? There are a few reasons. First, they are positive in many other regards that contribute to the success of a business. They are great for marketing purposes, as they photograph well. They are 20% more cost-effective than closed offices (Rood 2017), and they are flexible, adapting well to changes in business size. These three points, you may note, are crucial to start-ups. Start-ups do not have a lot of liquid cash, they need an office fast, a flashy looking space to attract investors, and they don’t know if they will have 500 or zero employees next week.

Another reason for the layout’s popularity is a sensible but misguided assumption that a more “open” organization, where colleagues share ideas and resources, requires physical openness. Improving the openness of a business is less about the space, and is more about the removal of barriers that limit the flow of ideas and collaboration. Michael Brill, Professor of Architecture at NY State, makes an excellent point about open space in a company. “Tearing down the walls does not make the energy, it may just expose what is already there to view.” (Brill and Wiedeman 2001). (Brennan, Chugh and Kline 2002) The final benefit, and perhaps the best aspect of the open office, is the flat playing field they create. Executives and CEOs don’t have their own offices, which shows they’re part of the team, sitting side by side with everyone. This creates a sense of teamwork—that no matter where you stand, you’re chipping in. In recent years, companies have been researching how to adapt the open office plan in more productive ways. Gensler’s U.S. Workplace Survey 2019 provides action steps to optimize people’s performance, one of which advocates for a variety of spaces and types of enclosures to fulfill various working styles. (Gensler 2019)

Throughout the last decade, architecture Professor David Dewane has developed a possible solution to our open office problem – the Eudaimonia Machine. The machine is a theoretical concept of an optimal office. It is a long narrow structure, consisting of five sequential spaces – each can only be accessed by walking through the previous one, to not miss a step in the process. Each space is designed for a different aspect of our working lives. The idea was put into practice in 2018 at the STORY concept store in NYC and showed promising results. (Work/Space 2018)

Stage 1: The Gallery.
Meant to be a showcase of the work produced by people in the spaces, to inspire those that arrive and provide a healthy dose of peer pressure for employees.

Stage 2: The Salon.
This room contains a café, possibly a bar, and is furnished with couches and WiFi. The space is designed for conversation, the place where we go to relax, share, and debate. We work through ideas here.

Stage 3: The Library.
It contains records of the work produced and the references found within the machine, Dewane calls this the “hard drive” of the machine.

Stage 4: The Office.
Stage four is what we would see as a typical open office – though the intent is very different. It contains conference rooms and open desks or cubicles, but is made for “shallow work” only. Shallow work is talking with team members, attending meetings, answering email, all those things that are necessary, but tend to get in the way of our primary focus. This is so effective, because high-density environments make complex tasks more difficult, but have been shown to aid in the completion of simple tasks – possibly due to the “buzz” or “energy” that start-ups love to mention (Haynes 2008).

Stage 5: The Chamber.
Finally, we arrive at the chamber. These are small, entirely private office spaces, with soundproof walls. They are meant to have simple furniture, only a desk and a chair, ample natural light if possible, and no other distractions. Dewane imagines a worker spending ninety minutes inside, taking a ninety-minute break to work on more shallow tasks, and repeating this two or three times, at which point they will have achieved their limit of concentration for the day.

Dewane’s system takes its name from the Greek concept of eudaimonia, a state in which one is achieving their full human potential. He explains the goal of the machine “is to create a setting where the users can get into a state of deep human flourishing—creating work that’s at the absolute extent of their personal abilities.” (Newport 2016) The Eudaimonia machine gives a sense that there is real significance to the spaces where we work, and by treating them with care and respect, we, in turn, treat our work with respect. It sounds a little starry-eyed I know, but there is something special about having a truly beautiful workplace that makes us feel inspired and full of purpose every morning.

Of course, the Eudaimonia Machine is not the only way to improve the productivity of workers. A smaller scale solution is what I have taken to calling my “Peet’s Coffee Corner.” This is in reference to Peet’s in the San Francisco Ferry Building, and as far as I can tell, is the only spot in that building that allows me to sit outside the flow of traffic, looking into it, with my back against a wall. I tend to go over there to read in the last half hour of my lunch period, and it has become vital to my work day: the solitary break is like a midday nap. In fact, I have written and edited most of this story in that very chair. We need to give people in offices more Peet’s Coffee Corners–not necessarily a dedicated relaxation space like a break room, but more informal areas. Just as we have spontaneous interaction spaces, we also need spaces of spontaneous rejuvenation.

Architects and interior designers have immense power to shape the way people work, create, and invent every day of their lives. We have a responsibility to the people who live in the spaces that we design; because they are not just users, or clients, who “occupy” offices–they are people, and we must design their buildings in such a way that they have the opportunity to maximize productivity and realize their potential.

 

Bibliography
Bernstein, Ethan, and Stephen Turban. 2018. “The impact of the ‘open’ workspace on human collaboration.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 373.
Brennan, Aofie, Jasdeep Chugh, and Theresa Kline. 2002. “Traditional versus Open Office Design: A Longitudinal Field Study.” Environment and Behavior 279–299.
Brill, Michael, and Sue Wiedeman. 2001. Disproving widespread myths about workplace design. Jasper: Kimball International.
Gensler. 2019. “U.S. Workplace Survey 2019.” Gensler Research Institute 22-23.
Haynes, Barry. 2008. “The impact of office layout on productivity.” Journal of Facilities Management 189-201.
Newport, Cal. 2016. Deep Work. New York City: Grand Central Publishing.
Rood, Erik. 2017. Why offices are becoming more ‘open’. Data Analysis, Interview Q’s.
Salama, Ashraf M, and Leanne Courtney. 2013. “The Impact of the Spatial Qualities of the Workplace on Architects’ Job Satisfaction.” International Journal of Architectural Research 7 52-64.
Sundstrom, Eric, Robert Burt, and Douglas Kamp. 1980. “Privacy at Work: Architectural Correlates of Job Satisfaction and Job Performance.” Academy of Management Journal 101-117.
2018. Work/Space. March. https://thisisstory.com/our-new-story-is/.

Image References
1. SC Johnson https://www.scjohnson.com/en/a-family-company/architecture-and-tours/frank-lloyd-wright/designed-to-inspire-sc-johnsons-frank-lloyd-wright-designed-administration-building
2. George Nelson Foundation http://www.georgenelsonfoundation.org/george-nelson/works/action-office-1-a01-132.html
3. ALTKAT Photography, Elissa Stampa office in Istanbul by Slash Architects http://www.altkat.com/elissa-stampa
4. Mariko Reed Photography, VSCO Headquarters in Oakland http://marikoreed.com/project/vsco/
5. Shenliang Su via ArchDaily, Seashore Library by Vector Architects https://www.archdaily.com/638390/seashore-library-vector-architects/556d277fe58ece956600011d-seashore-library-vector-architects-photo
6. Woods Bagot Studio, Perth https://www.woodsbagot.com/projects/woods-bagot-perth-studio
7. STORY Workspace https://thisisstory.com/our-new-story-is/
8. EHDD office, photo: Cian Hrabi