NEWS Environmental Building News (January 2009) Features What's Happening Product News & Reviews BackPage Primers Opinion GreenSource Magazine EBN Archives

Oberlin College’s Lewis Center

The Adam Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental Studies at Oberlin College in Ohio opened its doors in January 2000. Designed by William McDonough + Partners with Kevin Burke as project architect and a dream team of consultants, the project was guided by uncompromising goals that emerged from courses and public meetings led by Professor David Orr:

• Power a building on current sunlight in a temperate climate (Northern Ohio).

• Treat a building’s wastewater on-site and reuse that water.

• Create a building without compromising human and environmental health somewhere else or at some later time.

Now over two years old, the 13,600 ft² (1,260 m²) building has met and exceeded many of those original goals, is still evolving in pursuit of others, and has been strongly criticized for claims that were made regarding one goal it has not yet achieved—that of producing more energy than it consumes.

Partly in response to that criticism, the building has been intensively monitored since March of 2001 by researchers from the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL). This monitoring is helping the owners understand how the building works, where it falls short of its goals, and what changes can be made to improve its energy performance. The goal of becoming a net energy producer is made all the more challenging by the client’s unwillingness to compromise on other issues, including aesthetics, indoor air quality, low-impact materials, no exported wastewater, and educational utility. We’ll pick up the energy story after discussing these aspects of the project.

Air Quality

Fresh air is ensured through carbon dioxide monitoring. Ventilation to each room is activated to 50% of maximum airflow by an occupancy sensor, and increased to 100% if CO ₂ levels exceed 800 ppm. Paints, adhesives, carpeting, and fabrics were chosen for their minimal offgassing of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Oberlin student James McConaghie (’03), who has multiple chemical sensitivity disorder (MCS), testifies to the importance and effectiveness of the design: “For people with MCS, new buildings tend to be hostile places,” he told EBN. McConaghie often arranges Internet conferencing for classes and cannot remain in the one-year-old Science Library for more than 30 minutes. In contrast, McConaghie calls the Lewis Center “an oasis, or a sanctuary,” because he felt healthy in it from the first day it opened.

Materials

All new wood used in the building is certified to Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) standards. The Douglas fir glue-laminated beams and the Hemlock auditorium stage are from the Collins Pine Company’s Almanor Forest in northern California, and the interior trim and auditorium seats are maple from Kane Hardwood (division of Collins) in the Allegheny Mountains of northern Pennsylvania. The resource room computer table served a previous life as an Oberlin College bowling lane.

Materials were sourced locally when feasible to diminish environmental and social costs resulting from transportation. The auditorium seating is covered with biodegradable Climatex Lifecycle fabric by DesignTex. Materials were also preferred for their recycled content and recyclability. Structural steel, brick, the aluminum curtain-wall frame, ceramic tile, plastics, and fabrics all contain recycled material.

Not only are the carpets and the access floor recycled, they are also products of service. Oberlin does not own these materials but has instead purchased the services they provide. Interface Flooring owns the easily replaceable carpet tiles as well as the access-floor system, retaining responsibility for replacement and eventual disposal. Potential financial savings encourage material reuse and recycling while discouraging the use of toxic chemicals that may carry liability.

Landscaping

The Lewis Center site serves three broad ecological functions: natural habitat, food production, and water management. Landscaping includes several mini-ecosystems native to north-central Ohio. Native tree species represent a deciduous forest typical of the area. All grassy areas surrounding the building consist of species that require only infrequent mowing (by an electric mower) and are not reliant on chemical inputs.

Permaculture vegetable and flower gardens; perennial strawberries, blueberries, and raspberries; and an apple and pear orchard demonstrate how urban land can effectively produce food without sacrificing aesthetics. A constructed wetland and connected 7,500-gallon (28,000 l) storage cistern collect and retain rainwater on-site, lowering demands on the city’s often-overwhelmed stormwater and sewage system.

The John Lyle Sun Plaza, named for the building’s landscape architect who passed away prior to the building’s completion, functions not only as a gathering space and outdoor classroom, but also as a seasonal clock: the tall gnomon’s shadow marks proximity to solstices and equinoxes.

Wastewater

In a greenhouse abutting the atrium, a “Living Machine” (see EBN Vol. 5, No. 4) collects and treats all wastewater from the restrooms and kitchen. This system combines conventional wastewater treatment technology with purification processes of a natural wetland ecosystem to remove organic wastes, nutrients, and pathogens from wastewater. The resulting graywater then returns to the toilets and urinals for reuse.

The Living Machine is designed to process up to 2,000 gallons (7,600 l) of wastewater per day—far more than the building currently generates. It may eventually serve additional buildings, but its main value is as an educational resource, according to Orr. “As a laboratory it has been fantastic,” he notes. The system uses a significant amount of energy, however, averaging 1,400 watts continuously, not including energy used to condition the space.

Dr. John Petersen, another professor in Oberlin’s Environmental Studies Program, acknowledges that the energy use is an issue: “I don’t think the Living Machine is justifiable appropriate technology for this building outside the context of education. You’re never going to justify it on an energetic basis.” Pedagogically, however, he concurs with Orr’s assessment: “I think it’s the building’s greatest asset in terms of education.”

Operating on Current Sunlight

An original goal for the building was that it be a net energy exporter, operating only on “current sunlight,” as opposed to sunlight stored in the form of coal or oil. Meeting this goal requires very low energy use and significant on-site conversion of sunlight to usable energy. The harvesting and conversion of solar energy is achieved through extensive daylighting, passive solar design, and a 60 kW photovoltaic array that covers the entire 4,700 ft² (440 m²) main roof of the building.

The monocrystalline PV panels on the curved roof surface face primarily upward, with some tilting towards the south and a few angled slightly north. When the PV panels produce more energy than is needed by the Lewis Center, excess power is fed into the local utility grid, supplanting some coal-fired power production. Ohio has no net-metering law, so the college is not compensated for this contribution.

Getting the energy use down to the point where, on an annual basis, it is less than the output of the PV array is still a work-in-progress and has been hampered by flaws in the mechanical system and a take-it-slow attitude on the part of the college administration to making changes.

The Controversy

William McDonough + Partners’ final schematic design would have met the net-energy-producer goal, according to energy modeling done by Adrian Tuluca of Steven Winter Associates. But that design was way over budget and underwent numerous changes. The architects continued to describe the building as a net energy producer long after they had made design changes that severely compromised this goal, according to Oberlin College physics professor John Scofield, the project’s most vocal and persistent critic: “Even after changed plans went into construction, McDonough and others were using 1997 modeling data in their claims about the project. It won awards based on those claims!”

Burke notes that the goal of net energy production was never abandoned but acknowledges that his firm may not have been clear enough about the project’s current status: “We have all learned lessons about what it means to have a highly visible project out there with claims that are in the present tense about its performance.” William McDonough acknowledges that it is a work-in-progress: “We still have a lot of thrashing about to do on the energy side,” he says. He is not as conciliatory about the criticism, however: “I think it’s irrelevant. Design is a signal of intention. My attitude is wait until we’re finished, then we’ll talk.”

Orr calls Scofield’s criticisms unfair and mean-spirited. “He was determined to show the world that this was a waste of money and time, a misconceived enterprise.” Especially with innovative buildings, Orr argues, one must allow time for commissioning and fine-tuning before expecting high performance. “John began to collect data from a meter outside the building when it was still a construction site. He put that data on a Web site.”

While Orr feels that Scofield has sabotaged efforts to improve the building by attacking the project so publicly, others acknowledge that his prodding also has its value: “One of the goals was for the building to be pedagogy,” notes Ron Perkins of Supersymmetry USA, who was a consultant early in the design process and has been brought back in to help direct the improvements. “The conflict, which drives people nuts at Oberlin, is quite useful. It’s a serve-and-volley kind of thing. In response to his challenges you go and seek data,” Perkins adds. “I think that we’ll find that there are some things Scofield says that are correct. We’ll find some leaks, and if we patch those leaks, we’ll get to a good building.”

Mechanical Design Flaws

“There were really some major flaws in the mechanical system design,” says Oberlin’s facilities planner Leo Evans. The final design specified ARI 320 heat pumps, which require tempered water, linked to ground loops that deliver cold water. To compensate for the inappropriate heat pumps, electric boilers and electric ventilation air heaters were installed, resulting in a building that was primarily heated by electric resistance! In addition, an oversized fan continuously moves conditioned air from the atrium into the Living Machine’s greenhouse. This fan, along with other direct-exhaust fans, ensures that only about half the exhaust air is available to the energy recovery ventilator to precondition the incoming air.

How these flaws came about is subject to much interpretation, but a number of factors contributed. The long and difficult design process didn’t help—the design went through many iterations over a three-year period beginning in February 1996, with changes that continued well after design development was ostensibly completed in September 1997 and even after construction began in September 1998. During this time, frequent changes in personnel on the design team resulted in a loss of continuity from stage to stage. Structural, mechanical, electrical, and civil engineers all changed during the course of design. In addition, in the midst of the process the college decided to outsource its facilities procurement and maintenance. The new player, Facilities Resource Management, Inc., did not come in with the history and commitment to sustainable design that the other parties had.

Pursuit of the products-of-service concept, which was successful in the case of carpet and access floors, became a liability for the mechanical systems. Rick Fedrizzi and others at Carrier Corporation were interested in leasing heat pumps to the project, but the company got a new CEO in the midst of the process and the deal ultimately fell through. Carrier strung the designers along long enough, however, to leave them little time to specify appropriate equipment.

There was also significant uncertainty throughout the project about the primary source of heating energy. During design development, the intent was to use ground-source heat pumps with backup heat from the campus’ coal-fired steam network. Later the steam pipes became the primary heat source. Just before construction began, the ground loops were eliminated entirely as a cost-saving measure, based on initial estimates that the ground loops would cost $380,000. Orr was determined that the building not use fossil fuels, however, and managed to convince the college to restore the ground loops and avoid connecting to the steam. As it turned out, the early estimates were far too high, and the ground loops “ultimately came in at about $90,000,” according to Evans.

Throughout the process, the design team planned around a number of scenarios without knowing when and how they might be implemented. Up until construction began, for example, “we didn’t know that we would even have PVs on the building,” notes project architect Kevin Burke. As a result, the roof was designed and specified to accommodate PVs but also to work without them. Fuel cells have also been part of the plan, but these have yet to be incorporated.

The overall impression is of a process that started, stopped, and changed directions so many times over the three years that aspects of the design simply got out of control. “The design team got tired,” admits Burke. Of all the parties, Orr singles out the mechanical engineers—Lev Zetlin Associates, now known as The Thornton-Tomasetti Group—for criticism: “Lev Zetlin did not give us good engineering,” he says.

Energy Data: Getting to Zero

The result of these flaws was a building that was mediocre in terms of energy use and sometimes uncomfortable during its first year. With some commissioning, air-sealing, and fine-tuning, it is improving on both counts and becoming quite respectable. NREL data for the most recent 12 months (June 2001 through May 2002) show a total energy use of 105,750 kWh or 26,530 Btu/ft ²·yr (300 MJ/m ²·yr), while the PV system produced 58,060 kWh, offsetting 55% of the electricity used. By way of comparison, the Vermont Law School’s Oakes Hall (see EBN Vol. 9, No. 5), believed to be the country’s most energy-efficient higher-education classroom building in a cold climate, uses about 32,000 Btu/ft²·yr (360 MJ/m²·yr) in a climate with 30% more heating degree days. (In addition, Oakes Hall is heated with oil, which introduces an efficiency penalty that the electrically heated Lewis Center doesn’t have.) Real-time energy data, including a comparison of PV energy production to energy use, can be viewed on the college’s Web site.

To avoid exceeding the current output of its PVs, the building will have to cut its energy use nearly in half, to less than 15,000 Btu/ft²·yr (170 MJ/m²·yr), which is no mean feat. “What McDonough has to learn is that a piece of glass is not like an insulated wall,” says Perkins. “You can’t have both. To get a net energy producer, you have to have a very efficient envelope and an efficient building.”

Perkins thinks that the building can get to within range of this goal. “I’m confident that they can get in the neighborhood, plus or minus 10%, of 20,000 Btus (21 MJ),” says Perkins. If his projection is accurate, it will take more energy generation to reach the net energy producer target. “I want to put a canopy on the front over the door, with some more PVs on it,” says McDonough. “Whatever we need to get it over the top.” New technologies and efficiency improvements in PVs over time are also a possibility. “I was assuming all along that it would be 10 or 12 or 15 years before we crossed the line into being a net energy exporter,” says Orr.

To achieve its potential in terms of efficiency, according to Perkins, the electric boilers and electric water heater will have to be replaced entirely with heat pumps (the larger one is slated for replacement this summer), and the ventilation system will have to be redesigned to provide demand-controlled ventilation with variable speed fans. Perkins is omitting from his estimate the process energy used by the Living Machine, because most other buildings are not held responsible for the energy used to process their own wastewater. For the past year, this process energy (included in the totals noted above) amounted to 12,440 kWh, or 11.8% of the total building usage.

The careful monitoring of the Lewis Center reveals other information that designers don’t often think about. The hydraulic elevator, for example, is rarely used yet it consumed 2,220 kWh during the year, or 2% of the building’s energy use. Dr. Paul Torcellini of NREL attributes this load to the heater that runs continuously to keep the hydraulic fluid at a constant temperature. In typical buildings, loads of this sort are not noticed, but in an efficient building they can become significant. Similarly, a 500 vA transformer converts the utility-supplied high-voltage power to 220 volts for use in the building. This transformer draws an average of 800 watts continuously, and as much as 6 to 8 kilowatts sporadically! This approximately 7,000 kWh, or 1,760 Btu/ft² (19 MJ/m²) of annual consumption is not included in the total building energy use figures above.

The building is already outstanding in terms of lighting, according to Perkins. “I don’t think you could daylight that space better than it is now.” With a connected lighting load of 0.9 W/ft² (9.7 W/m²), “the lighting load during the day is less than 0.3 W/ft² (3.2 W/m²),” he estimates. The building envelope includes R-30 (RSI-5.3) in the roof and R-21 (RSI-3.7) in the walls, with an earth berm on the north. The atrium windows are triple-paned, argon-filled, and coated with a low-e glazing, resulting in an R-value of 7.1 (RSI-1.3).

Benefits—and Costs

“The real success of this building, which is totally overshadowed by the energy debate, is the environment they’ve created for learning,” says Perkins. “The building is one of the best ones I’ve ever been in. The lighting is really great—uniform, with low background levels, so it’s not oppressive. The building is quiet. It has a warmness about it—it just feels good.” Others apparently agree. “It’s the most popular space on campus for weddings, conferences, and public events,” notes Orr. “I’m really delighted with what we’ve been able to accomplish,” says William McDonough, adding: “I’m also delighted with what we have ahead of us as we work to finish it.”

A total of $7.2 million was raised for the project, of which $6.4 million was spent during design and construction, and the rest retained as an endowment for the facility. About $1.2 million went to the designers for design, research, and student projects; about $400,000 was spent on other soft costs; and $4.8 million, or about $353/ft² ($3,800/m²) was spent on construction. Separating out the Living Machine and PV system, each of which cost about $400,000, and a handful of other special items, Orr estimates the base building construction cost at $258/ft² ($2,800/m²). “I did not set out to hold the cost down,” he says, noting that raising money for the project was not difficult.

Money to cover all these costs was raised by Orr, with the support of William McDonough + Partners, working under a stipulation from the administration that it come only from sources “not otherwise likely to donate to the college.” In spite of having plenty of money available, the project suffered from a number of cost-cutting exercises on the part of the college. “The college was nervous about money all along,” Orr notes. “Two previous projects had gone badly over budget.” He continues, “I think the college missed an opportunity to do it right. They took out features that would have made it an elegant building.”

A Work-in-Progress

Implementing improvements to the building is an ongoing source of friction between Orr and the designers, on one hand, and the college on the other. Perkins is anxious to get the energy systems improved: “It’s frustrating to me because usually it goes a lot faster. They move at glacial speed,” he says. Facilities planner Leo Evans concurs: “It’s sort of like pulling teeth now with the institution,” he says. Burke is anxious to get the trellises installed and plants growing: “The fact that there is still no shading on the south side has left us exposed not just for performance reasons but also for aesthetic reasons.”

Hopefully this attitude will change, however, because as an academic facility that is also a living laboratory, the Lewis Center is an ideal candidate for ongoing changes. “I think that it is appropriate to switch out technologies as we understand the building, to show people how to improve and do things right in the future,” says Torcellini, adding: “An example of this would be to replace the PVs when the efficiencies increase.” Making such changes wouldn’t be practical outside of the academic setting, he notes, making the Lewis Center especially valuable as “an excellent test-bed for low-energy buildings.”

Beyond the Building

The Lewis Center was designed to be a building that teaches. Not only students but also faculty, community members, design professionals, and visitors (over 300 each month) have reaped the educational benefits of this teaching tool. The Cleveland Green Building Coalition, an organic farm, and a local design consulting group have all been created by students involved with the project. “The building has had the effect of revitalizing the environmental studies curriculum around the theme of ecological design,” says Orr.

A yearly Ecological Design course now explores further applications for ideas embodied in the Lewis Center. Fall 2001 saw the first Practicum in Green Building Technology and Education, focused explicitly on the Lewis Center. Student work has played a critical role in understanding the building’s performance. Independent study projects, some lasting several years, enable students to gain familiarity with various building components and systems. A dozen students are hired each semester to monitor and operate the Living Machine. Recent graduate Alexander Maly, who spent three years developing the data collection and display system, is one of several graduates inspired to pursue a career in some aspect of ecological design. “This experience has allowed me to get my hands dirty and work on projects that have real-world results,” Maly told EBN. “It has impressed upon me both the difficulty and necessity of putting our ideals into practice.”

– Nadav Malin & Jessica Boehland

For more information:

Kevin Burke, AIA
William McDonough + Partners
410 E. Water Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434/979-1111, 434/979-1112 (fax)
www.mcdonoughpartners.com

Cheryl Wolfe-Cragin
Facilities Manager
Adam Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental Studies
122 Elm Street
Oberlin, OH 44074
440/775-8747 x3
www.oberlin.edu/~envs/ajlc/

---

There are no comments for this page yet.

Log in to add comments - Help with comments

---

	Alternative Water Sources: Supply-Side Solutions for Green Buildings EBN: Feature - May 2008		Design on the Edge: The Making of a High-Performance Building EBN: From the Library - March 2007
	Getting to Zero: The Frontier of Low-Energy Buildings EBN: Feature - October 2005		The Elevator Revolution EBN: Feature - August 2004
	No Disrespect Intended EBN: Letters - October 2002		Vermont Law School's Oakes Hall: Green Building on a Budget EBN: Projects - May 2000

---

Living Machine Systems Worrell Water Technologies Natural Wastewater Treatment John Todd Ecological Design, Inc.
[ top of page ]

---

Books
	The Nature of Design : Ecology, Culture, and Human Intention by David W. Orr (2002)

---

---

IMAGE CREDITS:
1.
2.
3. Photo: © Barney Taxel, 2001
4.
5. (no credit)
6. Photo: © Barney Taxel, 2001

ARTICLE CONTENTS Air Quality Materials Landscaping Wastewater Operating on Current Sunlight The Controversy Mechanical Design Flaws Energy Data: Getting to Zero Benefits—and Costs A Work-in-Progress Beyond the Building More Information DISCUSSIONS There are no comments for this page yet. Log in to add comments RELATED ARTICLES Alternative Water Sources: Supply-Side Solutions for Green Buildings EBN: Feature - May 2008 More related articles RELATED PRODUCTS Living Machine Systems More related products RELATED BIBLIOGRAPHY The Nature of Design : Ecology, Culture, and Human Intention by David W. Orr (2002) RELATED LEED CREDITS Fundamental Building Systems Commissioning EA Prerequisite 1 More related LEED credits RELATED GREEN DESIGN Landscape Plantings More related green design RELATED CSI LISTINGS Natural Fiber Fabrics CSI Section 12 05 14 More related CSI listings