Analyzing the Shearing-Layer Concept Applied to Urban Green System

Currently, green rating systems are mainly utilized for correctly sizing mechanical and electrical systems, which have short lifetime expectancies. In these systems, passive solar and bio-climatic architecture, which have long lifetime expectancies, are neglected. Urban rating systems consider buildings and services in addition to neighborhoods and public transportation as integral parts of the built environment. The main goal of this study was to develop a more consistent point allocation system for urban building standards by using six different lifetime shearing layers: Site, Structure, Skin, Services, Space, and Stuff, each reflecting distinct environmental damages. This shearing-layer concept was applied to internationally well-known rating systems: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for Neighborhood Development, BRE Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) for Communities and Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE) for Urban Development. The results showed that LEED for Neighborhood Development and BREEAM for Communities focused on long-lifetime-expectancy building designs, whereas CASBEE for Urban Development gave equal importance to the Building and Service Layers. Moreover, although this rating system was applied using a building-scale assessment, “Urban Area + Buildings” focuses on a short-lifetime-expectancy system design, neglecting to improve the architectural design by considering bioclimatic and passive solar aspects.

Authors:

• S. Pushkar
• O. Verbitsky

Keywords:

• Green rating system
• passive solar architecture
• shearing-layer concept
• urban community.

References:

[1] LEED-ND v4, LEED for Neighborhood Development v4, 2013.
[2] BREEAM for Communities. SD5065 Technical Manual. Version 1.
BRE Global Ltd, 2011.
[3] CASBEE-UD, CASBEE for an UrbanArea+Buildings. Technical
Manual. Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
(IBEC), 2007.
[4] CASBEE for New Construction. Technical Manual. Institute for
Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC), 2010.
[5] A. Haapio, “Towards Sustainable Urban Communities,” Environ Impact
Assess Rev, vol. 32, pp. 165–169, Jan. 2012.
[6] Garde, A. “Sustainable by design? Insights from U.S. LEED-ND Pilot
Projects,” J Am Plann Assoc, vol 75, pp. 424-440, Dec. 2009.
[7] R. E. Knack, “LEED-ND: What the Skeptics Say,” Planning, vol. 76,
pp. 18–21, Dec. 2010.
[8] LEED-ND v3, LEED for Neighborhood Development v3, 2009.
[9] E. Shaviv, “371: Passive and Low Energy Architecture (PLEA) VS
Green Architecture (LEED),” in Proc. of PLEA, Dublin, 2008, pp. 23-
25.
[10] A. Scott, “Design Strategies for Green Practice,” Journal of Green
Building, vol. 1, pp. 11–27, Fal 2006.
[11] P. Murphy, The Green Tragedy: LEED’s Lost Decade. Yellow Springs,
OH: Arthur Morgan Institute for Community Solutions. 2009.
[12] R. Chang, “Energy Benchmarking,” ASHRAE Journal, pp. 74–77, 2010.
[13] J. H. Scofield, “No evidence LEED Building Certification is Saving
Primary Energy,” APSNEWS, 2013.
[14] M. Horvat and P. Fazio, “Comparative Review of Existing Certification
Programs and Performance Assessment Tools for Residential
Buildings,” Architect Sci Rev, vol. 48, pp. 69-80, Mar 2005.
[15] E. Shaviv, “The Energy Chapter of the Israeli Green Building Standard,” in Proc. of SB11, Finland, Helsinki, 2011, pp. 45-48.
[16] SI5281–Sustainable buildings: Part 3–Requirements for Office
Buildings, The Standards Institution of Israel, 2011.
[17] F. Duffy, Measuring Building Performance. Facilities. 1990.
[18] S. Brand, How Buildings Learn. New York: Viking. 1994.
[19] S. Pushkar and E. Shaviv, “Green Rating Systems: An Adoption of
Shearing Layer Concept,” in Proc. of SB13 Oulu, Finland:,Oulu, 2013,
pp. 86-88.
[20] A. Sharifi and A. Murayama, “A Critical Review of Seven Selected
Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment Tools,” Environ Impact Assess
Rev, vol. 38, pp. 73–87, Jan. 2013.
[21] LEED-NC v3, LEED for New Construction & Major Renovations,
2009.