LYCEUM OF THE PHILIPPINES UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, COMPUTER STUDIES AND ARCHITECTURE

COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE

CASE STUDY
BUILDING TECHNOLOGY 5
BROCK ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER

SUBMITTED BY:
BALANZA, ANABELLE M.
2016-2-01839

SUBMITTED TO:
ARCH. EUGENE AGUILAR
INSTRUCTOR
CHESAPEAKE BAY BROCK
ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER

Building Name: Brock Environmental Center

Building Location: Virginia Beach, Virginia, United States
Project Size: 10,518 ft2
Market Sector: Private
Building Type: Office / Environmental Education Center
Delivery Method: Construction Management at-Risk
Total Building Costs: $410/ft2 (excluding sitework)
Date Building Occupied: 1/5/2015
BROCK ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER

DESCRIPTION

The Brock Environmental Center serves as the hub for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation's (CBF)
Hampton Road office and supports their education, outreach, advocacy, and restoration initiatives.
In addition to offices for CBF and partner groups, the Center provides meeting rooms and an 80–seat
conference room designed to express CBF's mission of collaboration to protect one of the nation's
most valuable and threatened natural resources — the Chesapeake Bay. Outdoor spaces, including a
prominent outdoor classroom that hosts thousands of K–12 students each year, allow for a
reduction in built area and connect occupants to the site.

The Brock Environmental Center will be the beachhead for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s
(CBF) lower bay programs, bringing the community together to solve complex environmental
issues and empower the next generation of citizens through environmental education programs
in the Chesapeake Bay. The center is located in Virginia Beach, Virginia, where the Chesapeake
Bay meets the Atlantic Ocean, an ecologically vital area to the Bay ecosystem. This building
serves as the hub for CBF’s Hampton Road offi ce. It supports the Foundation’s education,
outreach, advocacy, and restoration initiatives. In addition to offi ces for CBF and partner groups,
the Center provides interpretative exhibits spaces, meeting rooms, and an 80-seat conference
room.

Early charrettes with the client and neighbors led to a shared vision for the project, against
which design options were evaluated and optimal solutions chosen. Previous collaborations
between the project’s architect, engineer, owner, and green consultant allowed the team to
candidly evaluate and draw lessons from past projects. This provided a comprehensive
understanding of how CBF uses its centers. Based on these insights, we were able to make key
design decisions including reducing workstation size, adding an outdoor classroom, and
implementing targeted design decisions including selecting optimal glazing and renewable
materials.

The project’s architect, engineer, owner, green consultant, and contractor worked closely
throughout the design process. The team toured other Living Building Challenge (LBC) projects,
including meeting with these project’s teams to learn lessons applicable to the Brock
Environmental Center project. Next, to formulate a shared vision for the project, a full-day, pre-
design charrette was held on-site, with participants including stakeholders from all design
disciplines, such as local offi cials, community representatives, and outside experts in LBC / LEED.

Project partnerships between experts and the use of simulation tools in our iterative design
process allowed the team to validate and maximize each design decision. Through pre-design as
well as site and climate analyses, we discovered the site has unique potential for using wind as a
renewable resource. Site analysis also included an investigation of the ecological function of the
site from pre-colonial periods to the present, emphasizing the site’s potential to filter
stormwater from beyond its own boundary. The architecture and MEP engineer worked closely,
using a shared BIM model. To meet the challenges of the LBC materials petal, we held a “red-
list” charrette during schematic design. The client, architect, contractor, green consultant, and
interns from local schools developed shared online tools and formalized methodologies for
materials vetti ng. The team partnered with the Center for Wind Energy at James Madison
University to optimize the wind turbine design, and partnered with the US Fish & Wildlife
Services to ensure these turbines would be safe for birds. Conversations with regulatory
agencies began during early design and spanned throughout design and construction, enabling
us to collect rainwater for potable use

Building system used to attain Energy Efficiency

The Center uses natural ventilation and daylighting to provide lighting and passive cooling for all
public spaces. A white, acoustical metal deck ceiling and high, north clerestory windows maximize
daylighting effectiveness. The building's shallow (33' deep) footprint facilitates the effectiveness of
both daylighting and natural ventilation. The primary circulation corridor along the south edge
buffers workstations from direct daylight and cool breezes, extending the natural ventilation season.
Materials' ingredients were documented to ensure no LBC red-list chemicals were included in the
Center. A local university conducted an on-site assessment including thermal comfort, IAQ, lighting,
and acoustics based on an occupant IEQ satisfaction survey, along with field measurements of IEQ
parameters including dry-bulb and globe temperatures, humidity, CO2, illuminance, and sound
pressure levels.

View of open office areas showing clerestory windows that provide ample daylight and release rising
hot air. Ceiling fans promote airflow during the natural ventilation season. Interior forms and
finishes reflect daylight, creating even natural illumination.

During design, simulation tools ensured that window glazing, configuration, size, and location
optimized daylight, views, and ventilation without creating glare or unwanted solar gain. A white,
acoustical metal deck ceiling and high, north clerestory windows maximize daylighting effectiveness.
The building’s shallow (33’ deep) footprint facilitates the effectiveness of both daylighting and
natural ventilation. The primary circulation corridor along the south edge buffers workstations from
direct daylight and cool breezes, extending the natural ventilation season. Bi-directional breezes are
captured with low inlets and high outlets on both North and South facades. When sensors determine
climate suitability, mechanical cooling shuts and automated controls send an email to staff alerting
them to open windows, using a combination of hand-crank and motorized operators. Motorized
windows allow night-flush of the interior to pre-cool the interior during cooling-driven months.

The only exception to the availability of operable windows is one small meeting space that has
borrowed light and air. We posted to the dialog to confirm that this would meet the intent of the
imperative.

MEPF installed
An iterative design process was also used to determine the most energy-efficient active systems to
implement on the project. The mechanical system uses a variable-refrigerant flow (VRF) system with
geothermal wells. Electric lighting was modeled to ensure that target light levels would be provided
and with no overlit spaces. In addition, a photo sensor dimming-control system was used in almost
every space to reduce the electric lighting when sufficient daylight is present.

The wind-turbine system consists of two 10-kW turbines, each on a 70-ft pole. The turbines were
located off the east and west ends of the building, as far away as possible from nearby trees, but
close enough to limit site disturbances. The design team chose wind turbines manufactured by
Bergey because they were the only small-scale turbines whose output was certified by the Small
Wind Certification Council (SWCC). The PV system designed for the building originally consisted of
(141) 270-W modules for a total of 40 kWp (kilowatt peak). Solar insolation modeling was performed
to determine the areas of the roof with the highest insolation values. The PV system was located on
the sloped roof with additional space allocated for more modules to be added in the future. Shortly
after construction was completed, the client team opted to install 6.5 kW of additional PV modules.
Due to the early planning on both the roof system and the electrical system, they were added fairly
easily.

The Brock Center incorporates natural materials into the building facades, most notably the
reclaimed cypress left with a transparent finish. This material makes a connection to the adjacent
maritime forest, connecting the building with its setting. The Center also uses color to reinforce a
connection to the site. The color of accent walls inside the Center was selected by sampling colors
found on site. The long attenuated building form, orientation, and elevation above grade creates
abundant vistas to the shoreline creating a connection to the site.
BUILDING ENVELOPE
The curved shape of the conference room recalls natural shapes and forms – the diamondback
terrapin shell, an oyster shell, or the wingspan of a gull. The roof is clad in metal tiles recalling fish
scales. The interior vaulted shape resists straight lines, with beams that recall curving limbs of
windswept live oaks found on site.

The diagonal wood flooring pattern found throughout creates a unifying geometry despite the
irregular shape of the building, integrating the various rooms that comprise the center into a
cohesive whole. The floor pattern inside the conference room builds on the diagonal pattern
evolving it into a spiraling fractal. The pattern spirals towards the center of the room, creating a
central focus point in contrast to the room’s complicated geometry.

Along the building’s length, interior volumes are comprised of two parallel spatial elements: a
relatively low, flat ceiling space that abuts the taller sloped ceiling space. The lower space is half
interior and half exterior, with the building enclosure running down the middle. The exterior porch
and interior corridor have parallel forms, blurring the distinction between inside and outside. The
taller office volume uses the element of spaciousness with its tall ceilings and openness, contrasting
the space of the lower porch/corridor.

The Center’s massing responds to the unique characteristics of its site. The horizontality of the
building form reflects the site: low marshes, extended horizons, extensive shoreline. The form was
inspired by regional cultural elements influences, including Native American “long houses” (simple,
vaulted shapes and long building forms), plantation houses (elevated on stilts with wrap-around
porches), and southern vernacular dogtrot houses (two masses with an open porch in the middle,
united by a consistent roof).

The visitor arrival sequence captures the idea of exploration and discovery. Visitors park off-site and
the 5-10 minute walk along a path through the maritime forest fosters a sense of exploration and
discovery. At the end of the path, the site opens up revealing the shoreline and the Center. Visitors
arrive at the open-air pavilion whose form offers both prospect and refuge from the elements
overlooking the vistas to the south and west. Programmatically it is a literal example of security and
protection providing shelter from the elements on rainy days – allowing its inhabitants to engage
with nature while remaining protected from its forces.
OVERALL PROJECT GOAL/PHILOSOPHY
Locating the Center on an ecologically-sensitive site allowed CBF to implement its advocacy,
restoration, and education efforts in one location, but also necessitated appropriate
environmental goals: to protect, preserve, and celebrate this setting, creating a design of its
place, while simultaneously showcasing technologies that contribute to Net-Zero Energy,
Water, and Waste. CBF also understood that a building can influence the public to embrace
sustainable development, having witnessed the broad impact that their game-changing
headquarters, the Merrill Center, had on society. As such, they envisioned the Center would
manifest the highest aspirations of sustainability, creating a project that transcends notions
of "doing less harm" towards a reality where a project can create a positive, regenerative
impact on both the environment and society.

Image courtesy of SmithGroupJJR

Secure/Safe Goal: According to NOAA, the Hampton Roads area in Virginia is experiencing

the highest rates of sea-level rise along the entire U.S. East Coast. Second only to New
Orleans, Hampton Roads contains the largest population center in the US at risk from sea-
level rise. Situated on a coastal site entirely within the 100–year flood plain, in a hurricane
prone region, the project sought to embody resilient design ensuring its ability to resist
natural and man-made hazards. Goals included creating an enduring, safe-haven for the
neighboring community, and a replicable example of resilient development in the region.

Sustainable Goal: CBF again pursued the goal of creating no less than the greenest building
possible. The team identified both LEED Platinum certification and the strict standards of the
Living Building Challenge (LBC), a green building certification program promulgated by the
International Living Future Institute that defines the most advanced measure of
sustainability possible today. LBC certified projects are required to demonstrate that they
have a "net-positive" impact on the environment.

Functional Goal: The Brock Center must not only be environmentally sustainable, but must
do so in a way that doesn't compromise function or comfort. CBF had a parallel goal to
create the best quality environment for staff, which promotes collaboration and effective
advocacy and research. Additionally, since educating the public on the Chesapeake Bay's
ecosystems is a pillar of their mission, a functional need was to create a place to host and
attract visitors and enact their outdoor education program.

Accessible Goal: As required by the LBC, effortless accessibility for all was a guiding design
principle from the start. All spaces within the Center must meet and exceed the latest
federal regulations for accessibility. Additionally, the project committed to not block access
to, nor diminish the quality of, fresh air, sunlight, and natural waterways for any member of
society or adjacent developments. Brock's site consists of approximately 195 meters of
shoreline on the Lynnhaven Inlet. The project strived to maintain unfettered access to all of
the existing pathways that follow the shoreline.

Aesthetic Goal: While the ambitious environmental goals like resource efficiency,

performance, and passive design strategies were powerful forces that would shape the
design, the project also sought to make the center beautiful and compelling — a memorable
place that draws visitors in and celebrates the client's mission and site. Another aesthetic
consideration was to embrace biophilia, the concept that human beings have an intrinsic
bond with living systems. The team pursued a design inspired by natural forms, colors,
materials, textures, and patterns that connects visitors and staff to nature, enhancing a
sense of well-being.

Cost-Effective Goal: CBF's desire to create a replicable example of sustainable design,

combined with their nonprofit mission, required the team to work towards a design solution
that would be cost-effective. LBC/Net-Zero Energy goals altered the design team's approach
to Life-Cycle Cost Assessment (LCCA). The cost benefit of conservation approaches was
measured against the cost of on-site renewables, rather than the cost of cheap, grid-
provided electricity. This approach put an increased emphasis on conservation.

Historic Preservation Goal: While there were no existing buildings on the site, celebrating
the cultural history of the region and the site was part of the project's biophilic goals. The
design seeks to strengthen its connection to nature by celebrating its sense of place,
connecting to the historical and cultural vernacular and spirit, as well as the one-of-a-kind
site, the last undeveloped large privately held land in Virginia Beach.
Aerial view of the site and detailed site plan.
Image courtesy of SmithGroupJJR

Productive Goal: The Brock Center sought to demonstrate that Net-Zero Energy and
aggressive conservation does not compromise staff productivity. CBF sought to create a
highly productive and collaborative work environment for the staff of 25 who work each day
in the Center. Both staff and tenants previously worked in a traditional, closed-office, work
environment. The mission of both staff and tenants also centers on partnerships and
collaboration, so the design team was tasked with creating a more collaborative, effective,
productive, healthy, and connected interior environment. Project goals included providing
every occupied space inside the Center with daylight, views, and an operable window to
connect occupants to the exterior. The design also sought to create superior indoor air
quality by avoiding materials with toxic ingredients including a list of over 300 chemicals
known for human health hazards, called "the red list".
Natural Ventilation Approach
Images courtesy of SmithGroupJJR
Daylghting/External Shading Approach

Awards

Governor's Environmental Excellence Award (Virginia), Gold Medal, 2015

Sustainable Building Project Award, American Planning Association, 2015

ENR, Best Green Project, 2015

HRACE Best Sustainable Design — Award of Excellence, 2015

Architectural Engineering Institute, Mechanical Systems Design (Award of Excellence), 2016

AIA Northern Virginia, Award of Excellence - Institutional Architecture, 2016

Award of Honor, AIA Maryland, 2016

Shortlist for the WAN Sustainable Buildings Award 2016

ASHRAE National Technology Award, Second Place, Commercial Buildings — New, 2016

Honor Award: Sustainable Buildings Industry Council Beyond Green Awards, Category A: High-
Performance Building, 2016