Leed & Historic Tax Credit Certification


Published on

This presentation was given on May 4, 2011 by Michael Matts during The Heritage Ohio Webinar Series.

Published in: Education, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Belmain Building 28 Points with low hanging fruit. 26 certified.
  • Looked at the typical OTR property. Came within 3 points of certification for just being in OTR 37 vs. 40 Came within 6 points of Platinum for realistic strategies 74 vs. 80
  • LOCATION Infill / revitalization Near core integrated DEVELOPMENT Walkable Mixed use Density Mass transit Integrated green space IMPACTS Environmental Fiscal Social Health security
  • LOCATION Infill / revitalization Near core integrated DEVELOPMENT Walkable Mixed use Density Mass transit Integrated green space IMPACTS Environmental Fiscal Social Health security
  • Modern codes require continuous fire rated separations between dwelling units and common stairs minimize openings on zero-lot line exterior walls
  • The Building code requires a structural analysis when loads are increased by 5% or more.
  • Leed & Historic Tax Credit Certification

    1. 2. Also reliant on the generous donation of pro-bono or reduced-rate professional partners, including:
    2. 3. <ul><li>The project was managed by a partnership between the Over-the-Rhine Foundation and Gray & Pape, Inc. </li></ul>
    3. 4. Gray & Pape, Inc.
    4. 5. <ul><li>University of Cincinnati School of Architecture and Design </li></ul><ul><li>Emersion Design </li></ul><ul><li>Hampton Architects </li></ul><ul><li>SOL Developments </li></ul><ul><li>Ken Jones & Associates Architects </li></ul><ul><li>The Cincinnati Preservation Association </li></ul><ul><li>Urban Sites </li></ul><ul><li>Jacob Brothers Heating </li></ul><ul><li>Third Sun Solar </li></ul><ul><li>Pinnacle Engineering </li></ul><ul><li>Hamilton County Planning Dept. </li></ul><ul><li>City of Cincinnati B&I </li></ul><ul><li>Model Management </li></ul>
    5. 6. <ul><li>The project began with a common assumption: </li></ul><ul><li>Historic preservation and green design have conflicting goals. </li></ul>
    6. 7. <ul><li>Explore potential conflicts and commonalities between the goals of historic preservation and those of environmental preservation and determine: </li></ul><ul><li>What genuine conflicts exist? </li></ul><ul><li>Can we identify ways to overcome them? </li></ul><ul><li>In what areas do “green” and historic share common values, design elements, and technique? </li></ul><ul><li>Can green-historic be accomplished in a cost-effective manner? </li></ul>
    7. 8. <ul><li>Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Rehabilitation (SOI standards): These are the standards used for determining eligibility for state and federal historic tax credits. </li></ul><ul><li>Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is an objective point system for determining how “green” a building is built or rehabilitated. The standards have been created by the US Green Building Council and continue to evolve. This is the most widely used test of “green design” currently used in the US. </li></ul>
    8. 9. <ul><li>We used these two nationally recognized standards for judging whether properties would meet the definition of “green-historic.” </li></ul><ul><li>Each of the 4 project properties had to reach at least basic LEED certification. </li></ul><ul><li>The work needed to be done consistently with SOI standards. </li></ul><ul><li>And it had to be realistic: comport with building code, structural capacities, and the real estate market. </li></ul>
    9. 10. <ul><li>The project compiled an interdisciplinary team of professionals to analyze the potential of green-historic development on the project properties. </li></ul>
    10. 11. <ul><li>The IDT contained LEED Accredited Architects: </li></ul><ul><li>Chad Edwards of Emersion Design, also President of the Regional Chapter USGBC. </li></ul><ul><li>Sanyog Rathod of SOL Developments, also a member of the USGBC. </li></ul><ul><li>Steve Hampton, Hampton Architects, working primarily in Over-the-Rhine. </li></ul>
    11. 12. <ul><li>The IDT Contained Historic Experts: </li></ul><ul><li>Michael Matts and Patrick O’Bannon of Gray & Pape, historic consultants. </li></ul><ul><li>Ken Jones, Jones & Associates Architects, decades of experience in historic restoration work in OTR. </li></ul><ul><li>Margo Warminski, Cincinnati Preservation Association, years experience with historic tax credits and preservation. </li></ul>
    12. 13. <ul><li>The IDT Contained heating and cooling professionals: </li></ul><ul><li>John Fanselow of Third Sun Solar & Wind. </li></ul><ul><li>Ralph Jacob, Jacob Brothers Heating & Cooling, experienced with geothermal systems, as well as high-efficiency radiant and forced-air heating and cooling systems. </li></ul>
    13. 14. <ul><li>The IDT contained construction professionals: </li></ul><ul><li>Kip Ping, Pinnacle Engineering, structural engineer. </li></ul><ul><li>Greg Badger, developer/ construction management, Urban Sites. </li></ul><ul><li>Dave Thomas, developer/ construction management, Model Group. </li></ul><ul><li>Gregory Warner, designer, HGC Construction. </li></ul>
    14. 15. <ul><li>The IDT included government code and planning officials: </li></ul><ul><li>Dean Niemeyer , Senior Planner, Hamilton County LAND-HD. </li></ul><ul><li>Amit Gosh, Chief Building Official, City of Cincinnati. </li></ul>
    15. 16. <ul><li>The IDT was assisted by two University of Cincinnati courses instructed by professors Virginia Russell and Jeff Tilman. </li></ul><ul><li>General management was done by Mike Morgan of the Over-the-Rhine Foundation. </li></ul>
    16. 17. <ul><li>We chose four prototypical Over-the-Rhine building types for the study. </li></ul><ul><li>1313 Clay St., originally a stable for Brauer Dairy. </li></ul><ul><li>1420 Pleasant St., originally small tenement apartments. </li></ul><ul><li>1700 Vine St., originally a storefront with residential units above it. </li></ul><ul><li>1202-1204 Main St., the Belmain Building, originally constructed as a hotel for vaudeville performers. </li></ul>
    17. 18. <ul><li>Properties were chosen for more than prototypical reasons. They were also selected for containing both elements that we recognized as challenges and opportunities from the beginning. </li></ul>
    18. 19. <ul><li>Considerations: </li></ul><ul><li>Prototypical of open warehouse space, </li></ul><ul><li>Un-insulated brick walls have historic integrity, </li></ul><ul><li>Party walls have been removed, </li></ul><ul><li>Roof presents good opportunity for a garden or other “greening.” </li></ul>
    19. 20. <ul><li>Considerations: </li></ul><ul><li>One party wall and one opportunity for infill adjacent, </li></ul><ul><li>Common tenement floor-plan, </li></ul><ul><li>Most interior wood-work is in extremely good condition. </li></ul>
    20. 21. <ul><li>Considerations: </li></ul><ul><li>Prototypical of mixed-use building type in OTR. </li></ul><ul><li>Vine-facing property is great example of Italianate building stock, </li></ul><ul><li>Rear, connected property is great example of Greek Revival, </li></ul><ul><li>Vacant lot. </li></ul>
    21. 22. <ul><li>Considerations: </li></ul><ul><li>Party walls on both sides permitted energy modeling comparisons, </li></ul><ul><li>Light wells </li></ul><ul><li>Typical mid-rise OTR building type. </li></ul>
    22. 23. <ul><li>The Integrated Design Team (IDT) initially met to tour the properties and identify challenges and issues related to their respective fields. </li></ul><ul><li>A University of Cincinnati College of Architecture and Design Class was then instructed to do design work meeting the outlines set by the IDT. </li></ul><ul><li>The IDT then reviewed the designs and worked out resolutions to problems posed by LEED standards, SOI standards, building code, costs, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>The project took roughly a year to complete </li></ul>
    23. 24. <ul><li>We discovered that most “conflict” between meeting LEED certification and proper historic preservation results from a mis-understanding of other disciplines or an inadequate understanding of options. </li></ul><ul><li>Proper communication can also reduce project costs. For example, documentation standards for obtaining tax credits and LEED certification are very similar. </li></ul>
    24. 25. Emersion Design
    25. 42. Cincinnati Preservation Association
    26. 43. Secretary of Interior’s Standards <ul><li>Benchmark for proper rehabilitation </li></ul><ul><li>Preserve distinctive character of historic building while allowing for reasonable alteration </li></ul><ul><li>Required to follow for historic tax credit projects </li></ul>
    27. 44. SOI vs. City D esign Review Process <ul><li>City guidelines less stringent and less specific </li></ul><ul><li>More flexibility, especially in window replacement, storefront treatments, rooftop additions, new construction </li></ul><ul><li>Apply to exterior only </li></ul>
    28. 45. SOI Challenges: 1700 Vine Street <ul><li>North wall: Exposed by demo </li></ul><ul><li>Interior: Easiest location for wall insulation </li></ul><ul><li>Little trim to remove </li></ul><ul><li>Benefits can outweigh strict interpretation of standards </li></ul><ul><li>Standards prohibit removing plaster from brick walls; increases air infiltration, creates maintenance problem </li></ul><ul><li>Exterior: Repair, insulate </li></ul>
    29. 46. SOI Challenges: 1420 Pleasant Street <ul><li>Floor plan issues: </li></ul><ul><li>Challenges: Small tenement apartments: adapt to today’s market </li></ul><ul><li>SOI: Preserve primary spaces; discourage removal of interior walls </li></ul><ul><li>Stairwell with open staircase: character-defining feature, divides building front to back </li></ul><ul><li>Need to preserve while maintaining egress </li></ul><ul><li>Solution: Add new exterior fire escape: reads as new, removable </li></ul>
    30. 48. SOI Challenges: 1313 Clay Street <ul><li>Former stable: horse ramp </li></ul><ul><li>Character-defining feature; critical to retain </li></ul><ul><li>Change in use of building, offers some flexibility </li></ul><ul><li>Challenge: Ramp too steep for egress </li></ul><ul><li>Possible solution: Leave in place </li></ul><ul><li>Build new stairs elsewhere in building </li></ul>
    31. 49. SOI Challenges: Windows <ul><li>Set high bar for retention of original windows </li></ul><ul><li>Repair, not replacement, when feasible </li></ul><ul><li>Preserves aesthetic qualities </li></ul><ul><li>Retains embodied energy of original window (old growth wood: irreplaceable) </li></ul><ul><li>Quality storm windows an acceptable option </li></ul>
    32. 50. What About Replacement Windows? <ul><li>Short lifespan </li></ul><ul><li>Payback on energy savings can exceed lifetime of replacement window </li></ul><ul><li>Rip-out-and-replace cycle not sustainable </li></ul><ul><li>Quality storm windows an acceptable option </li></ul>
    33. 51. SOL Developments
    34. 52. Energy Modeling <ul><li>OBJECTIVE </li></ul><ul><li>Determine if historic buildings can obtain the minimum energy performance necessary to attain LEED certification, without compromising its historic character. </li></ul><ul><li>Assess if contributing historic characteristics of the exterior envelope such as single-pane windows, storefronts, exterior brick walls, and skylights can be preserved while pursuing LEED certification. </li></ul>
    35. 53. Energy Modeling <ul><li>METHODOLOGY </li></ul><ul><li>Energy analysis on two buildings </li></ul><ul><li>Belmain </li></ul><ul><li>OTR’s prototypical mixed use buildings with single-pane wood windows, wood store fronts, brick exterior walls with plaster finish on the interior. </li></ul><ul><li>Belmain also represents most OTR buildings with shared party-walls . </li></ul><ul><li>Clay Street </li></ul><ul><li>Unique in terms of its historic interior finish. Given its historic use as a stable the exterior brick walls were always exposed on the interior. </li></ul>
    36. 54. Energy Modeling - Parameters & Results PARAMETERS BELMAIN   Historic Baseline Model #1 Balanced Model #2 Efficient Target HERS Score 85 Maximum 85 Maximum Perimeter walls As is: Combination of Exposed brick and empty stud framed bump-outs. Where exposed to ambient conditions - rigid foam R10 + open cell spray foam in stud cavities Where exposed to ambient conditions - open cell foam R-15 + open cell spray foam in stud cavities Windows Double hung wood single paneU.9; SHGC.65 Storm windows over existing windows - U.58 ; SHGC .50; retail glazing U.40 SHGC.40 High end window replacements U.19; SHGC .27; retail glazing U.3 SHGC .3 Basement Clg. Un-insulated R10 continuous rigid foam on ceiling R13 open cell foam to basement ceiling Air Leakage .35 air changes per hour 20% improvement - tighter windows 20% improvement - tighter windows Ceiling R30 Same Same Parti Walls Building DOES abut other buildings Same Same Minimum LEED requirements were used for following elements: HVAC System (SEER 13), Lighting, Appliances, Water Heater Following elements of the building remained unchanged: Doors, Skylights   RESULTS Historic Baseline Model #1 Balanced Model #2 Efficient   HERS Score Energy Performance   102   85   79 End-Use Annual Costs $17,965 $15,105 $14,526 End-Use Energy Savings Annual - $2,860 $3,439 Installed Cost of Improvements - $41,265 $102,375 Annual Cash Flow - ($299) ($4,400)
    37. 55. Energy Modeling - Parameters & Results PARAMETERS CLAY STREET   Historic Baseline Model #1 Balanced Model #2 Efficient Target HERS Score 85 Maximum 85 Maximum Perimeter walls Exposed brick Exposed brick Open cell foam R-15 behind drywall and on interior of brick Windows Double hung wood single paneU.9; SHGC.65 High end windows replacements U.19; SHGC .27 High end windows replacements U.19; SHGC .27 Floor above basement Un-insulated slab R25 continuous spray foam to ceiling R13 open cell foam beneath slab Air Leakage .35 air changes per hour 20% improvement - tighter windows 20% improvement - tighter windows HVAC 14 SEER heat pumps Dual fuel heat pumps, 16 SEER Same as historic Ceiling R30 R49 Same as historic Water heaters 40 gal electric units Tankless natural gas Same as historic Parti Walls Building does NOT abut any other buildings Same Same Minimum LEED requirements were used for following elements: Lighting, Appliances,   RESULTS Historic Baseline Model #1 Balanced Model #2 Efficient   HERS Score Energy Performance   159   85   85 End-Use Annual Costs $12,899 $5,962 $6,409 End-Use Energy Savings Annual - $6,940 $6,492 Installed Cost of Improvements - $80,344 $90,117 Annual Cash Flow - $787 ($409)
    38. 56. Conclusions <ul><li>Historic buildings can attain the energy performance necessary for LEED certification while respecting SOI standards for historic rehabilitation. </li></ul><ul><li>Historic characteristics of the building can be preserved by improving energy performance of other building components such as mechanical systems, roof/ceiling and wall insulation </li></ul><ul><li>Energy modeling can help make calculated decisions about energy efficiency while preserving historic characteristics. </li></ul><ul><li>. </li></ul>
    39. 57. <ul><li>Party walls matter. Loss of abutting properties makes the remaining property less energy efficient. </li></ul>
    40. 58. <ul><li>In most residential applications, electric heat pumps appear to be the most cost-effective, energy-efficient heating and cooling systems. </li></ul><ul><li>Passive solar water heating systems may be viable aspects of projects. </li></ul><ul><li>Photovoltaic and Geothermal systems lacked sufficient life-cycle payback to justify the expenditure in the projects. A change in technology or significant government incentives may make these more viable in some cases. </li></ul>
    41. 59. Hampton Architects
    42. 60. <ul><li>While few real conflicts were discovered between LEED certification and historic preservation, legitimate conflicts with modern building codes were identified for both historic and sustainable design features. </li></ul><ul><li>OTR was built prior to modern building codes, making alterations challenging. </li></ul><ul><li>Building codes are also slow to be updated with best practices for sustainable design. </li></ul>
    43. 61. <ul><li>Natural Ventilation was achieved in historic buildings through transoms into stairways and/or light wells. </li></ul><ul><li>The natural “stack effect” allows hot air to rise through a shaft and pull cooler air into the building through windows on exterior. </li></ul>
    44. 62. <ul><li>The students working on the Pleasant Street building proposed utilizing natural ventilation through the basement to cool the building, but building codes do not permit non-protected openings between dwelling units and stairwells. </li></ul>
    45. 63. <ul><li>The Belmain building is served by two light wells that provide natural light and ventilation. </li></ul><ul><li>A proposed plan to glaze over the light wells and provide additional mechanical ventilation had code concerns similar to Pleasant Street. </li></ul>
    46. 64. <ul><li>Current plumbing codes do not allow for many sustainable design strategies: </li></ul><ul><li>Due to the dense urban fabric, stormwater piping has to be routed inside the buildings necessitating backflow preventers and additional expense. </li></ul><ul><li>Greywater systems have not been readily adopted yet in the building code. </li></ul>
    47. 65. <ul><li>Most buildings in OTR had pitched roofs with metal roofing, which are relatively light weight. </li></ul><ul><li>The addition of green roofs, stormwater collection tanks, or solar energy systems is limited without a structural analysis and additional support of the structural members. </li></ul>
    48. 66. <ul><li>OTR buildings primarily consist of brick and stone exterior walls, hardwood floors, doors and trim, and plaster walls and ceilings. </li></ul><ul><li>These material are very durable, easily repairable, and have already lasted a century in many cases. </li></ul>
    49. 67. Energy loss is bad, but air circulation is good. The most efficient air conditioner is the one that remains turned off. Large, historic windows can be sealed to make them air tight in cooler months, and still opened wide in warmer months.
    50. 70. <ul><li>Projection and angles increase the amount of natural light that penetrates the interior, </li></ul><ul><li>And catches breezes from street corridors. </li></ul>
    51. 71. Small attic windows were both decorative and functional. They were opened in the summer to exhaust heat from the attic, and closed in the winter to trap it. Thick masonry walls also trapped heat.
    52. 72. Over-the-Rhine Foundation
    53. 75. <ul><li>Each project identified points where gray water could be easily reused, but plumbing code currently either prohibits it or makes it more difficult. </li></ul><ul><li>These changes need to be made at both a state and local level. </li></ul>
    54. 77. <ul><li>City policies that treat demolition as the preferred means of dealing with problem properties should be as much of a concern to environmentalists as historic preservationists. </li></ul>
    55. 80. <ul><li>Eliminates the ability to recycle an entire building, </li></ul><ul><li>Has the impact of burning 56,000 gallons of fuel, </li></ul><ul><li>And in OTR it deprives remaining buildings of their own energy efficiency. </li></ul>
    56. 82. <ul><li>Most OTR buildings were erected without power tools or machinery, using natural, durable, local materials that were transported to the job site without burning a single gallon of gasoline. Properly maintained, the life-cycle of the buildings – even the windows -- are hundreds of years; and the entire buildings have been recycled by multiple generations. Their minimal carbon footprint was justified generations before any of us were born. </li></ul>
    57. 83. <ul><li>“ You are a fool or a fraud if you claim to be an environmentally conscious builder and yet are throwing away historic buildings.” </li></ul><ul><li>--Donovan Rypkema </li></ul>
    58. 84. Green and historic are compatible. Green and bulldozers are not.
    59. 85. <ul><li>The City’s “Green Cincinnati Plan” contains recommendations for better recycling demolition waste, but makes no mention of preventing demolitions. </li></ul><ul><li>It also fails to leverage the inherently “green” aspects of a historic city built largely before cars, and once reliant on streetcars. </li></ul><ul><li>In fact, rather than recognizing our historic building stock and planning patterns as a strategic asset, the City’s “Green Cincinnati Plan” says that it would be “unfair” to adopt any city policies that reward neighborhoods for existing density or mixed-use building stock. </li></ul>
    60. 89. <ul><li>Much of what constitutes the organic, local, and whole foods movements has been occurring at Findlay Market since the 1850’s. The market supports over 45 local farmers, which is good for both the economy and the environment. </li></ul>
    61. 90. <ul><li>Much of what constitutes “green planning” and “new urbanism” are attempts to recreate the mixed-use, walkable lifestyle that OTR typifies. </li></ul><ul><li>The neighborhood is home to the city’s only mixed-use urban zoning district and has the building of a self-sustainable neighborhood: a place where people can live, work, and play all within a short walking distance. </li></ul>
    62. 91. <ul><li>In 1881, two saloon owners decided to start processing brewers grain. It provides organic antibodies that protect livestock without chemical drugs. </li></ul>
    63. 92. And even Smitty’s is using higher-efficiency light bulbs.
    64. 93. <ul><li>Over-the-Rhine has roughly 500 vacant buildings, and hundreds more in need of significant restoration. This liability can become one of Cincinnati’s greatest strengths. </li></ul><ul><li>We have a vision of making Over-the-Rhine America’s greenest historic neighborhood. </li></ul>
    65. 94. Copies of the full report are available online at www.otrfoundation.org and can purchased on CD or recycled paper by contacting Mike Morgan at : [email_address]