M.I.T. Bldg #20 – Post Mortem

In previous blog postings, I have extolled the virtues of the “Plywood Palace,” Bldg 20 of the MIT campus. Far outliving it’s temporary status as a temporary WWII structure, it was finally torn down in 1998 to make way for the equally famous Frank O. Gehry whimsy, “Strata.” Thank you to a reader for helping my put the two together.

M.I.T. held a commemoration for Bldg 20 before it was torn down. A commemoration. Not for the plywood, or the layers of wiring, or the asbestos… but for the soul, the spirit of the building. Since it was destined for the wrecking ball, no department claimed it – but it welcomed all. It had good strong “bones” which allowed for the interior to be chopped up, banged up, poked, prodded and shaped into whatever the “geeks” wanted. They even moved from buildings which offered them good heating and cooling, big windows, state-of-the art construction. For what? Freedom and ownership.

And this was what Frank Gehry was commissioned to recreate. “We were struggling to break through – they just wanted what they had,” Gehry said. “They loved Building 20 because they beat it up.”

The resulting building may not be able to be cut with a saw, but there was at least an effort to make it more hackable, and adaptable for all its technical occupants. There’s even a special little street for MITs infamous food trucks to peddle their wares of Chinese and Middle Eastern fare. It’s not the same soul as Bldg 20, but it may be welcoming enough to create its own spirit, its own catalytic brew of ideas.

And this folks, is the very alchemic gold of our A/E/C world. Lots of people can throw up bricks and mortar - but will there be a commemoration for it? Will it be patched and pieced together as long as possible because it is so well loved? Will it offer a value to the world beyond the basic structural needs.

How do you get value? You listen, you ask, you seek the greater goal. To realize that every building was built for a purpose, not just for the sake of existence. The goal of a university building? Think beyond the housing of classrooms, or offices. Think beyond the curriculum and a showpiece for investors. A university building’s goal is provide the environment for bright, young minds to gather, to churn ideas, to experiment, to make mistakes. And on an even bigger picture, the building should be a net benefit to the earth – provide more resources than it consumes. A building in the construction department can be a lab for new building techniques, an example and learning tool of better ways to build.

Think of our built environment as a drop within concentric rings. Each one reaches out to the next layer – of neighbors and the landscape, to the town, the region and to the world. And each one has it’s own value, its own soul.

Welcome to our World

Today’s blog is a shout-out to Dr. Joe Lstiburek, the infamous voice of the Building Science Corporation.  Though he may not know it, Joe was my “virtual” mentor back in the days when I was the Technical Director for the Insulating Concrete Form Association.  I read the entire contents of the www.buildingscience.com website and contrived to go to any and all conference which included building science presentations.   It took me awhile to adapt to his somewhat cavalier presentation style, but the humerous edge always won out.  Without an engineering background, and tasked with too many other issues,  I did my best to bring in the concerns of building science into the insulating concrete forms world.   Those who knew me then were well aware of my constant soapbox serenades:   “build holistically”  “employ energy modelers  to optimize your design”  “watch the air barrier details and the window flashing.” 

Last fall, I returned to school to pursue a Master / PhD in construction.  This semester, I finally have the opportunity to learn the nitty gritty of Building Science from another brilliant (and equally flippant) master, Dr. Georg Reichard.   And with this, the slow dawning of comprehension into the BS Bible written by Dr. John Straube, which until this point has been a very impressive paperweight.

I recite this not for any great insight into my own path, but to lend context to my respect for the level of knowledge held by Messrs.  Lstiburek and Straube.   And back in my days at the ICFA,  I tried on several occasions to get these gentlemen to embrace ICFs.  Each time, there were more challenges, more  questions.  Woefully, I was not equipped to address any of them in depth.

All this to explain why I read with delight the Building Science Corporation Newsletter Issue #28 – “High Rise Igloos.” , delivered today to my in-box.  I quote: 

“Canadians do live in igloos. Unlike the Inuit snow block version they're typically taller than 10 stories and they are made out of foam. Insulated Concrete Forms (ICF's) are beginning to come into their own in many locations, particularly Ontario. Think of large Lego blocks made from polystyrene insulation filled with concrete. 

The foam is a stay-in-place form for cast-in-place concrete. The "effective" thermal resistances of these assemblies range from R-16 to R-25 depending on the specific product and the floor details. That is usually 2 to 4 times the effective thermal performance of most typical assemblies. No fluffy stuff shoved into steel stud thermal bridges. No exposed slab edges. Just continuous, glorious thermal insulation. It takes your breath away.”

I’ll leave the rest of the story for you to read yourself.   At this point, I think we are on the same page.  ICFs are not perfect, no building material is.   But in the world we have created, where all buildings need to be cutting energy consumption by at least 50%, be built to withstand the elements for at least 100 years, and provide comfort/ clean air/ and safety for it’s inhabitants - all within the constraints of the current labor force -    ICFs rock!!! 

Welcome Joe, John to our world.

One Tree at a Time

The American Chestnut – once a mainstay of East Coast forests and an economic workhorse for Appalachian families, it was virtually decimated by a foreign blight.   But due to the resilience of a few trees discovered in remote locations combined with the  tenacity and patience that only tree lovers can have,  about 25,000 of the new chestnuts have been planted under the guidance of trained scientists and chestnut devotees.  “New” because after an initial cross with Chinese chestnuts to obtain genetic resistance to blight, volunteers have repeatedly "backcrossed" the offspring with other American chestnuts to produce a tree that is nearly 94 percent American chestnut.

This is not just an exercise in nostalgia, as these are fast-growing, hardy tree that thrive on rocky and acidic soil -  exactly the type of soil left by huge tracts of strip-mined Appalachia. Just imagine, one day being restored with lovely chestnut forests.   One tree at a time.

Can this lesson be applied to other stories of disappearing landscapes?   The Chestnut blight was a result of our ever “flatter” world, where the world shares technology, McDonalds Hamburgers, and the flu.  And so we are all impacted by the world shortage of fossil fuel, and the resulting CO2 impact on the environment.  Just as we have fled the inner city, so will we be driven back as soon as gas reaches over $5 / gallon.

And what will we find? I think of the inner city landscapes I witnessed from the windows of Amtrak, travelling from D.C. to NYC.  Yet another image crosses my mind of the factories and high rise dwellings in communist Russia.  They speak nothing of life, but of dumping grounds of waste. Worse yet is what we don’t see – the source of much of our purchased goods – the  “Manufactured Landscapes”  of China -  quarries, recycling yards, factories, mines and dams.  We humans leave a wide swath of destruction in exchange for our lifestyles, a huge blight on the natural environment.

And then there are the stories of the trees -  neighborhoods which have cleaned up empty lots and planted urban gardens,  old warehouse districts converted to dwellings, and perhaps even strip mines converted to chestnut forests.

This century will be for re-inventing ourselves.  Questioning the relative value of stuff vs. time, space vs. proximity, gardens vs. hardscapes.  Already we are bringing back chickens into our well-manicured urban yards. When will we add back the real “mud” rooms and utility rooms into our houses?  Or re-invent our factories and manufacturing to be places of community, with buildings which add to the cultural landscape.  Materials which are made to be durable, and craftsmen who can repair things.

We, too, can “cross-breed” our ideas, and then make them uniquely ours.  We can plant one tree at a time of solutions toward a future which leaves no trace.  A landscape which we enhance with our presence.  

To LEED or not to LEED?

So the lawsuits have begun.  Interestingly , it is not a specific case based performance issue, rather a class action lawsuit.   Filed on Oct 8 by Henry Gifford, owner of Gifford Fuel Saving, the allegations include an argument that USGBC is fraudulently misleading consumers and fraudulently misrepresenting energy performance of buildings certified under its LEED rating systems, and that LEED is harming the environment by leading consumers away from using proven energy-saving strategies.

Can’t say that we didn’t all see this coming at some point.  USGBC has hit the tipping point in public perception, where professionals or trades are now excluded from a bidding process if they don’t have a LEED accreditation and experience.  And, to further strengthen the bonds of this “club,”  as of LEED v3 in 2009, any candidate wishing to take the LEED AP exam must have previous experience with a LEED Registered Project.  

Is this the whine of sour grapes?  Nope, I picked up my AP back in 2004. Which I could have leveraged to be a seasoned “old-timer” by now.   But I just couldn’t fully support the system.  Why?   Because I also had one strong foot in the camp of the building scientists/energy efficiency crowd.  And I have all too often felt the tug between the “LEEDers” and the “EEBS’ers,”  running somewhat parallel but rarely intersecting. I don’t believe USGBC is intentionally misleading, nor intentionally misrepresenting, but I do think the USGBC does not weight the measures in a way which is representative of their life-cycle values.

 I finally had to make my own decision which path would most “save the earth, “ and I put my vote to the energy efficiency. Eliminating waste in the use of natural resources is #1.   This means reducing or eliminating the use of natural resources for building operations (ie Net Zero). That also goes for water.  It means choosing resources for construction that have the longest possible service life, which is the dominant variable in a life cycle analysis  (embodied energy divided by years of service). 

Simple yet the most challenging of goals. I will support any program with this primary agenda,  transparency, minimal program costs and the fewest layers of complexity.  In other words – programs whose goals are to change the masses – not provide an elite class of a few.   If there are to be a chosen few – have these be models of affordable net-zero, or net-positive generators of resources.    

So what about the rest of the criteria of sustainability?   All valid.  But the paradigm shift which needs to occur to design, build and perform at levels of net zero is the toughest to achieve, and a reliable platform which catalyses environmental responsibilities in other ways.   All this will and does follow.  And I believe that public does not have a clear differentiation between energy efficiency and sustainability.   So while I don’t support law suits as  means to an end, I do support a hard-hitting, focused approach to do the tough work of energy efficiency.  

If you can only afford to hire one professional in this area -  hire an energy modeler who will test and commission the work.   Put your money in energy/ water efficiency and durability. 

LEAD the country in real solutions for our very real global energy problems.    

Making ICF Construction Airtight

A recent blog by Fine Homebuilding asked the question: “Are Insulated Concrete Forms Airtight?” On clicking through to the full article – the title read: “ Should Insulated Concrete Forms be Air-Sealed?” Both are questions about the product, and for that – the answer is simple: the finished, installed Insulating Concrete Form product is airtight by nature. Concrete is airtight.

But that wasn’t really the question which was addressed in the article. The discussion was about whether or not to build houses airtight, and if this is necessary in ICF construction. Again, it seems both answers are straightforward. We long crossed over the decision to tighten houses (ie Build Tight, Ventilate Right). The question about air tightening to the level of Passive House standards is one of really that of choosing the best balance between the investment of materials/time/money into the initial construction of the house vs supplementing with materials/time/money in renewable energy sources. It’s a question of embodied energy and economics.

From my experience in the ICF world, the real question is about the air sealing of ICF construction. The advantage is that the air leaks are in concentrated more easily identifiable areas. There is no need to worry about leakage at the corners, the rim joists, or around every electrical receptacle, if the construction is continuous ICF from the footing to the top of the wall. That alone is one headache gone. But the rest of the leakage areas still remain.

The typical Achilles heel of any construction is the lack of continuous air sealing and insulation at the wall to ceiling/ roof. ICFs are no exception. The interior wall is the air seal, but the exterior layer of EPS foam needs to be continuous through the top cap. This can be a raised heel, or “energy” truss, a cathedral ceiling which carries forth the outside edge of insulation, or a myriad of other solutions. The key is in the detailing, and the sequencing of trades.

The other major point of leakage in all construction is the installation of the windows. The detailing of which falls into a no-man’s land, which Barry Hardeman was spearheading through an ASTM committee before his untimely death. Who designs the details and ensures an install which both provides for a drainage channel, continuous exterior barrier detailing, thermal breaks, and interior air sealing? Not the window companies, but not the ICFs. It is a matter of assumed liability. I would encourage ICF manufacturers to take up this ASTM work again as an industry, and provide the appropriate training to their builders.

It also makes sense to leverage the benefits of the materials of ICFs in choosing the material for the windows frames, the bucking material, and the trim work. Concrete and EPS foam have very low coefficients of expansion and contraction. This means they don’t shift around much when temperatures change. Unlike wood, they are stable, don’t shrink and aren’t affected materially by moisture. Fiberglass is the window frame material which has similar properties, which are essentially the same as the glass panes. This is important, since windows typically fail (ie become leaky) first at the seal of the glass to the frame, due to the different rates of expansion of materials such as vinyl, metal or even wood, compared to glass. The second point of failure is typically the connection of the window to the wall.

Face frame with EIFS seems the simplest to install and seal, but is a single layer of protection against both moisture and air leakage. Recessed windows are harder to install, but offer more opportunities to build in redundancy in air tightening through rope caulking (mechanical) covered by wood trim (structural), itself caulked and painted. Mechanical or structural approaches can withstand the test of time. Caulk will fail. Remember that air tightening is typically on the interior, and water protection on the outside.

So, YES, ICFs themselves are airtight. And YES, the ICF construction should pay attention to air-tightening at the points of connection to other materials. And YES, this is the same type of detailing which is necessary in all construction.

Ugly Buildings

I came across a reference to the” World’s Ugliest Buildings.”   In fact there are a few such lists,  the    Forbes List,  another put out by Travel + Leisure,  and yet another by the Virtual Tourist.   Even Wall Street Journal joins the expert critic bench with its list: When Buildings Try Too Hard.   

Ugly.  What does that really mean?  Displeasing to the eye;  unsightly. Repulsive or offensive; objectionable.   This must mark the low point in my discernable taste, as I was thoroughly entertained in reviewing the awardees of the ugly list.  In fact, I was downright surprised at what was nominated.  All buildings were distinctive in design,  noticeable.    Depends on whose eye is doing the looking.

Repulsive or offensive.  To me, that would be a big box structure which replaced a historic retail district.  I object to buildings which just fill up space, but didn’t add any value to the neighborhood architectureal space.  Personally, I don’t find odd shaped commercial buildings objectionable, they keep some humor in the conversation.  Artists are often not well accepted during their lifetime, but time casts a different shadow.

Some, however, never seem to gain in approval.  For example, #1 on the Virtual Tourist list is  Boston City Hall.    While it was pretty avant-garde at construction in the hippy 60’s, it is a bit of a dreary crate stuck in the middle of the very cultural sensitive, “genteel”  Bostonian cityscape.   It might have fit better in a more modern city, which actually commends its timelessness,  since it is actually 50 years old. Mid century goes modern.

And then I keep thinking back to MIT’s old building #20.  “The edifice is so ugly that it is impossible not to admire it, if that makes sense; it has ten times the righteous nerdly swagger of any other building on campus.”   Stewart Brand describes how it is much loved, almost an icon.   Does anyone out there know if it is still standing? 

The opposite of ugly is beauty.  I find beauty in any old building which has been lovingly tended, its life extended to harbor many a gathering.   Beauty is in good bones, lovely shapes, materials which last.  Beauty is in hearing the environment of the building, and making a statement which is appropriate – and yes, this could be a loud burst of “noise” in a neighborhood which welcomes a bit of a wake-up.

?  What about a list of the world’s 10 most beautiful buildings.  Any candidates?

Is Fly Ash Safe?

I consider myself a card-carrying member Environmentalist, once known as the Queen of Green. But I am also a realist, a pragmatist. Yet I flew into a rage when I read on BuildingGreen.com a quote by Russell Perry of Smithgroup, on whether to use fly ash as a replacement for portland cement: "The thought of enabling the coal industry hurts." What???
While in the land of Oz we will be living off of solar energy, and I am strong proponent of taking all measures to move us in this direction, boycotting fly ash is ridiculous. The United States—along with China and India—is expected to account for 88% of the projected net increase in coal consumption between 2006 and 2030. And coal combustion waste (CCW)continues to pile up at rate of about 131 million tons per year in the United States alone. That is reality.

The bad news is that this is waste, when landfilled in its raw form, is toxic and hazardous. However, in 2007, 43% of all CWW produced in the US was devoted to what is termed beneficial uses which binds the heavy metals. For example, fly-ash be used to displace some of the Portland cement powder in the mix ( up to 50% in some cases) for reasons of reduced cracking, binding with the alkali, and creating longer term strength and durability. Innovators have been able to create products depending solely on fly ash in the development of Bricks ( Calstar) and lightweight blocks (Cenocell).

Our photo is of Henry Liu, president of Freight Pipeline Company, holds his company’s Greenest Brick. Unlike conventional clay bricks, these fly ash bricks harden without baking. Testing so far indicates the bricks do not pose a human health threat through leaching or dermal contact.

And toxicity? There are several rigourous tests which have identified the fears of toxicity in fly-ash heavy metals leaching to be unfounded. An excellent article in Environmental Health Perspectives reviews the testing done on gypsumboard, roadfill, poured-in place concrete and fly-ash bricks. NONE identified a hazard to public health.

Yet it seems that Russell at the Smithgroup cannot get past the coal/ fly ash connection. Environmentalists are calling for the material to be deemed hazardous, which would put an end to the beneficial uses and lead to stockpiling. With that comes the potential of another devastating coal ash spill, like that caused when a TVA coal ash pond failed last December and dumped more than a billion gallons of toxic material on to a neighboring community. Will this precipitate a radical change from coal?

A more significant gesture by the Smithgroup or others might be if his entire firm weaned themselves from coal - ie purchase personal, office and jobsite electricity only from non-coal sources, and avoid any product in their specs which uses coal-based electricity in the manufacturing… NOT possible. But any move in that direction would send a louder message, and a more solution generated message than the banishing of fly-ash.