The Project Team

Owner

Northland College

Design Architect

Hammel Green Abrahamson, Inc.

Architect of Record

LHB Engineers & Architects

Environmental Design

LHB Engineers & Architects

Engineers

Hammel Green Abrahamson, Inc.

Energy Analysis

The Weidt Group

Contractor

Frank Tomlinson Co.

Renewable Energy

Great Northern Solar/Solutions

More than three years ago, Northland College began planning a new residence hall which would meet the needs and interests of students, model its environmental mission, and provide a living and learning laboratory for environmental studies.

Located near the pristine shores of Lake Superior, Northland College boasts a sincere goal of being the nation’s leading environmental liberal arts college. One of its objectives is to make significant contributions to the sustainability, quality and character of the north country region. Another goal is to provide facilities which foster effective teaching, learning, living, working and outreach, while incorporating prudent environmental practices. This building, the Wendy & Malcolm McLean Environmental Living and Learning Center (ELLC), begins to address these objectives, while serving as a learning lab both during and after its construction.

Program Elements

This new student housing complex is 40,000 square feet — two stories with a partial basement storage and mechanical space. Three different styles of housing rooms were chosen: standard double rooms; suites sharing a bathroom between two rooms; and six-person apartments which include full kitchens, living rooms as well as private and double bedrooms. The building includes 114 beds: 24 in apartments, 32 in suites, and 58 in double rooms. Common areas, kitchens, toilet/shower rooms, laundry, recycling rooms, and study/seminar rooms are provided for use by all students. The apartment wing includes a two-story greenhouse for growing food year round.

Project Goals

The primary goals, established by the students, staff, administration, trustees, and design team, were to create an energy efficient, healthy building environment to serve as a living and learning lab for students; utilize sustainable energy sources, regional resources and materials, with low embodied energy; and reduce construction wastes. One unique aspect of this project was the inclusion of a “Memorandum of Understanding” in the project specifications. Created by LHB Engineers & Architects, this document listed the major, measurable project environmental goals. It required all major stakeholders, including the contractors, to sign off on their understanding of these goals.

Site Planning

Following the campus Master Plan, this building was sited partially over an existing soccer field, which was moved slightly, in an open field, and partially in an existing parking lot. The building rests on the edge of a natural, wooded ravine which winds through the campus. The existing parking lot was bisected with a new tree-lined promenade designed to provide access, shade, green space and absorb carbon dioxide. Native species as well as low- and no-water plantings and grasses were chosen to minimize watering and maintenance.

Energy Efficiency

An early measurable goal was set to design the building to perform at 40% greater energy efficiency than current building codes. Projections indicate a probable 50% savings over code level. The building was modeled on DOE2.1E energy analysis software, and the effects of over 30 different energy conservation strategies were analyzed. It is important to note that 80% of the energy savings were achieved through design and 20% due to the contribution of renewable energy systems. It is much easier to conserve energy by design than by use. This is sometimes an obvious strategy overlooked by building designers and contractors.

Renewable energy systems were utilized to demonstrate their contribution potential. The building includes supplemental photovoltaic and wind power generation; solar preheated water; a greenhouse; passive solar design in one wing; and a high efficiency gas boiler heating system with two heat recovery units. Optimum insulation values and wall-to-window ratios were utilized for the exterior envelope. Windows are high performance units with low-emissivity coated glass (Hp-4 for south facing glass and Hp-5 elsewhere).

High efficiency lighting and energy efficient appliances were used throughout. Students often use meters to measure the energy consumption of various appliances they bring into the building such as a stereo or television.

Renewable Energy Systems

Three externally mounted photovoltaic panels generate 3.6 kW of electrical energy. Two panel devices track the sun while the third is stationary for comparison purposes. Wind power is provided through a 20 kW wind turbine mounted on a 120-foot tower. Projections indicate 32,000 kW per year will be supplied by wind, based on a 12 mph wind average. The combination of photovoltaic and wind power is expected to provide 45% of the power needs for four apartments in the “solar-wing” of the building. The solar domestic hot water system provides preheating for three of four apartments and, as are other energy systems, is monitored for determining its contribution to total energy consumed.

Materials

The building is wood framed with a masonry exterior for lower maintenance. Wood is less energy intensive than some alternatives and is completely renewable and biodegradable. The interior and exterior wall framing were cut and assembled off-site, in a controlled environment, to improve quality and reduce job site waste. Brick, while high in initial embodied energy, is one of the best environmental performance materials when considered over its useful life.

During the design phase, the architects evaluated all of the major materials which would be used in the construction and operation of the building. Questions of embodied energy, harvest practices of timber, recyclability, material life cycles, product durability, maintenance, transportation impacts, reuse/disposal, and the overall budget were weighed for hundreds of materials. The decisions made were part of the learning process for all involved, but particularly for the students, many of whom are majoring in environmental studies.

Some of the materials used include:

• Regionally harvested white cedar shakes

• Dimensional lumber from a sustainably managed forest.

• Cellulose (recycled paper) attic insulation

• Phenix Biocomposite’s Environ bio-composite counter surface material made from soy resin and paper

• Forbo Industry’s Marmoleum organic-based linoleum flooring (limited use of carpet)

• Sherwin Williams low-and no-VOC paint coverings and adhesives

• Eco-Tec 100% recycled plastic toilet partitions and exterior decking

• Ecologic furniture made from recycled milk jugs

• Louisiana-Pacific’s Fiberbond gypsum wallboard made from recycled newspaper, gypsum and perlite

Resource Efficiency

Regional materials were used wherever possible. Contractors were encouraged to present more sustainable options than those specified. A good working relationship and a team attitude with the contractor is critical to the success of any project, but it became even more important on a project with significant environmental goals. Some of the best ideas came from the suppliers and contractors of the various building components. One example of this is the use of regionally harvested white cedar shakes.

Students encouraged the use of water-saving composting toilets in the apartments — two such units were provided with design for expansion to four units. The rich compost created by these units is used to fertilize site landscape plantings. Low volume showers, toilets, and sinks were specified to conserve water.

Waste Management

Specifications called for site separation of construction waste. Two dumpsters were provided for recyclable materials and landfill waste, and there was also a “free” wood scraps pile for any wood waste. The key to the success of this effort was education. When workers were educated on the project goals, they began to contribute their best effort toward them.

A variance to eliminate the use of an elevator was sought and received. This was issued primarily on the basis of a duplicate use on each floor. Not having to install an elevator was a significant resource saver for the environment and the college. Sometimes the most resource efficient thing you can do is not build. It’s a new way of thinking for architects, who are traditionally paid based on how much they build.

Indoor Air Quality

The building was designed with minimal mechanical ventilation and maximum natural ventilation. Operable windows are used throughout, and air conditioning was consciously omitted. Ventilation, where required, was provided with the use of two heat exchangers. Heat from laundry dryers is recaptured, filtered, and used to preheat cold outdoor supply air.

Flooring materials are primarily natural based linoleum. Carpets, while minimized, are low-VOC and utilize no-VOC adhesive. The use of low-VOC paint and adhesive products primarily benefits the installers in a new building. This is important to recognize, but there are many cases where buildings are occupied during construction or renovation and adjacent finishing activities may cause discomfort to occupants and installers alike. Low-VOC paint and formaldehyde-free particle board were used along with frameless solid wood casework. The entire building is smoke free. The building’s mechanical systems were commissioned to ensure proper operation prior to occupancy.

Living and Learning Lab

Students were involved in the design process from the very beginning. Students produced an initial list of desired environmental qualities, and this was used to work through possible strategies with the design team. This provided an educational framework for the environmental design process. Occasionally students were challenged to determine the most environmentally responsible material between two or more choices. To continue the educational emphasis of the project, student housing residents are now engaged in monitoring building energy consumption and renewable energy contributions as well as the impact of conscious life style decisions on the operation of the building. The Energy Center of Wisconsin is presently involved in contracting for independent energy monitoring to determine actual building performance.

Cost

Construction cost was $3,600,000 including approximately $110,000 for all renewable energy systems. This computes to $85 per square foot or $31,578 per bed. Means Construction Cost Data indicates that the median cost per bed for student housing is $30,000. These construction costs are on average when compared to other student housing facilities that have been recently constructed. However, operational costs are projected to be significantly lower for this environmental living and learning center.

James Brew is an architect and Vice President of LHB Engineers & Architects in Duluth, MN, where he specializes in resource-efficient design strategies.