The Frick Environmental Center

Project Details

Project Description

This project is a winner in the 2019 AIA COTE Top 10 Awards. It is the recipient of the Top Ten Plus Award.

From AIA:

The Frick Environmental Center is a living learning center for experiential environmental education. The building and its four-acre site act as a gateway to Pittsburgh’s wooded 644-acre Frick Park and embody the neighborhood-to-nature ideal that served as inspiration for the park’s formation more than 90 years ago. The center exemplifies principles of equity, experiential learning, and public engagement and is welcoming and inclusive for all. A joint venture between the city of Pittsburgh and the Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy, the center is LEED Platinum and Living Building certified, municipally owned, and has free admission. The center demonstrates the conservancy’s mission to restore the city’s deteriorating parks and reestablish a cycle of stewardship. Intensive community outreach and engagement took place during all phases of planning, design, and construction and continues well into operation to maintain the pride of ownership that builds long-term sustainability. As the main classroom for Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy’s educational programming, the building and surrounding site are educational ecosystems for both immersive outdoor education and hands-on lessons in sustainability. Biophilic design strategies used throughout the project both beckon and shelter, gently nudging park visitors from the adjacent neighborhoods toward the heart of the wooded park beyond. The three-story building is nestled into an existing slope and sheltered by a simple roof resting on slender columns. A service barn, outdoor amphitheater, and restored historic stone gatehouses and fountain complete the site. The center’s beauty and sustainable story inspire new visitors while simultaneously encouraging them to grapple with the impact of our humanity in a dynamic natural ecosystem—one that we are part of, yet inherently distanced from. The center provides the stage for public discourse about this delicate balance.

Metrics Snapshot

Community engagement: A partnership was formed with stakeholders to share in the decision-making process including development of alternatives and identification of the preferred solution.

Walk score: 70

Estimated occupants who commute via alternative transportation (biking, walking, mass transit): 45 percent

Estimated annual carbon emissions associated with the transportation of those coming to or returning from the building: 11.46 metric tons

Percentage of the site area designed to support vegetation: 65 percent; The inherent desire to promote natural vegetated areas within the public parkland was prioritized over fabricated vegetated areas (i.e. green roof). The decreased percentage of vegetative area was in part a result of added previous paving, although that paving maintains the site's ecological water flow.

Percentage of site area supporting vegetation before project began: 70 percent

Percentage of landscaped areas covered by native or climate appropriate plants supporting native or migratory animals: 100 percent

Predicted annual consumption of potable water for all uses, excluding process water:29,870 gallons; 0.37 gallons per visitor annually (75,000 annual visitors); 40 percent reduction compared with EPA guidelines.

Is potable water used for irrigation? no

Predicted peak month consumption of potable water for outdoor (irrigation) purposes:n/a

Actual annual consumption of process water (e.g. cooling towers): 0.6 gallons per visitor annually (44,685 total gallons divided by 75,000 visitors annually)

What percentage of water consumed onsite comes from rainwater capture? 76 percent; The project uses rainwater harvested for all non-potable water usage. The center collects rainwater at 2.1x the water demand, more than enough to account for all potable and non-potable water needs including: irrigation of the edible garden, showers, fountain, lavatory, and water closet. The center’s rainwater collection and storage infrastructure are sized to fully offset city-supplied potable water use, making the facility fully net-zero water should regulatory authorities in Western Pennsylvania allow harvested rainwater for potable water purposes.

Is greywater or blackwater captured for re-use? no

Percent of rainwater that can be managed on site: 100 percent

Water quality for any stormwater leaving the site: 80 percent of TSS removed from stormwater runoff based on the TSS removal percentages from the PA Stormwater BMP Manual located in Chapters 5 and 6.

Cost per square foot: $363

Estimated annual operating cost reduction (identify baseline): With renewable (PV array) taken into account, the project achieves 108.32 percent energy cost savings compared to ASHRAE 90.1-2007

Life Cycle Analysis of the costs associated with measures taken to improve performance: During early design phases, a number of strategies were studied in depth to determine the effectiveness in reducing energy as well as investment or simple payback. For example, our analysis showed that the earth duct and energy recovery unit were both very effective and capable of essentially eliminating the ventilation air heating load; however, implementing both components to work in combination would not produce any additional energy savings, and potentially can negatively impact each other during parts of the year unless they are properly controlled. Therefore, the decision was made based on low to no payback as well as the competing benefits of both systems, to no longer include the earth duct in the project’s passive system design. Similarly, we studied the use of Phase Change Materials (PCM) to reduce the need for conditioning and maintaining thermal comfort for longer periods. We discovered that the application of PCMs in the initial energy model, showed little, and occasionally inconsistent, impact on annual energy savings. We continued to study how these could work in smaller meeting spaces and even requested the manufacturer to conduct a parallel study for comparison. In conclusion, the amount of savings between the two studies were within 1-2 percent of each and illustrated, with this application of the product, it would not provide significant energy saving per annum.

Predicted consumed energy use intensity (EUI): 30 kBtu/sq ft/yr

Predicted Net EUI: 2 kBtu/sq ft/yr

Predicted Net carbon emissions: 6 lb/sq ft/yr

Net carbon emissions refers to net purchased energy use (total energy use, less any energy generated on-site from renewable resources).

Predicted reduction from national average EUI for building type: 60 percent

Predicted lighting power density: 0.7 W/sq ft

Actual Consumed Energy Use Intensity (Site EUI): 23 kBtu/sq ft/yr

Actual net EUI: -0.7 kBtu/sq ft/yr

Actual net carbon emissions: -0.18 lb/sq ft/yr

Actual reduction from national average EUI for building type: 101

Percentage of floor area or percentage of occupant work stations with direct views of the outdoors: 99.8 percent

Percentage of floor area or percentage of occupant work stations within 30 feet of operable windows: 100 percent

Percentage of floor area or percentage of occupant work stations achieving adequate light levels without the use of artificial lighting: 77 percent >300 lux at 3pm March 21

Is this project a workplace? yes

How many occupants per thermal zone or thermostat: 20

Percentage of occupants who can control their own light levels: 100 percent

Peak measured CO₂ levels during full occupancy: heating season max CO₂ 788 ppm (average 465 ppm); cooling season max CO₂ 756 ppm (average 401 ppm)

Peak measured VOC levels during full occupancy: heating season max 130 ppb (average 39 ppb); cooling season 168 ppb (average 86 ppb)

Percentage of materials, by value, incorporating health criteria such as HPD or Red List compliances: 100 percent

Annual daylighting performance: 100 percent of regularly occupied area achieving at least 300 lux at least 50 percent of the annual occupied hours.

CO₂ intensity: 0.09 lbs/ sq ft

Estimated carbon emissions associated with building construction: 155 lbs/ sq ft

LCA: Were other life-cycle assessments (LCAs) conducted? no

EPD: Were environmental product declarations (EPDs) collected? no

Percentage (by weight) of construction waste diverted from landfill: 99.74 percent

Did you calculate the percentage of materials reused from existing buildings or other local sources by weight? no

Did you calculate the percentage of materials reused from existing buildings or other local sources by volume? no

Did you calculate the percentage of materials reused from existing buildings or other local sources by cost? no

Percentage (by cost) of materials with comprehensive third party certifications (Declare, Cradle-to-Cradle, etc.): 5 percent; During the design phase of the project, third party certifications including the Living Building Challenge Declare list, Health Product Declarations, and Cradle-to-Cradle were in their infancy, thereby limiting the percentage of potential third party certified materials.

Percentage of project floor area, if any, that represents adapting existing buildings: 1 percent

Anticipated number of days the project can maintain function without utility power: 1 day; The building does not rely on mechanical conditioning and lighting as a primary means of operation, and therefore can operate without power. However, as a public facility it requires power for operation as a safety precaution.

Percentage of power needs supportable by onsite power generation: 100