FEASIBILITY STUDIES EXPANSION FOR A GREENHOUSE SC PAVILION - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

SC PAVILION CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY PRESENTATION FEBRUARY 04th, 2015

FEASIBILITY STUDIES EXPANSION FOR A GREENHOUSE

SITE SURVEY 01/10 SITE PLAN 1. 3. 5. 2. 4. 6. 6. 5. 4. 1. 3. 2.

OSCAR PETERSON CONCERT HALL SC PAVILION PHYSICAL SERVICES VANIER LIBRARY VANIER LIBRARY EXTENSION LOYOLA CHAPEL

02/10 AERIAL VIEW

The Concordia Student Union is studying the feasibility of constructing a greenhouse in which fresh produce would be cultivated for daily consumption on the two Concordia

• campuses. The three proposed sites are related ¡to the SC

Building on the Loyola Campus, and illustrated in this study. In each case, the fruit and vegetables would be grown in soil, either directly in the ground or in elevated beds within the

• greenhouses. Various principles such as rainwater recuperation,

anaerobic digestion, geothermal and passive solar heating have been investigated in order to reduce the dependance of the greenhouse

• n

the existing campus and municipal infrastructures.

PROJECT CONTEXT

• A. SECTION A
• B. SECTION B

OPTION A | greenhouse located on roof of existing building REFERENCES IMPLANTATION 03/10 ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT

9600 1500 8100 5900 19600 5300 8500 5300 6600 35300 9000 1000 1000 B A 5600

1 2 3

UT. 30m² 200m² 25m² 135m²

200 294 204 210 203 207 213 220 215-90 296 214 202 201 215 212 206-1 210-2 208 210

• 1

299-00

B A 30m²

116 113 115 194 101 112 111 199-30 110 106 107 199-10 196 109 102 PT-299-20 PT- 299-30 109-1 102-90 108 PT-299-21 110

• 90

B A 5932 5098 35m²

01-10 03-8 094 02 01 03-1 03-3 03-2 03-90 03-5 03-7 03-4 09 010 011 08 05 04 06 096 07 03 094

• 1

VE PT1 01-15 011-90 096-1 098 01-2 01-3 01-4 01-5 01-7 01-9 01-8 01-6 01-14 01-13 01-12 01-11 03-9 03-11 03-10

B A

mec.

30m² Avantages 1- High levels of unobstructed natural light penetration of greenhouse. 2- No additional land is occupied for the construction of the greenhouse 3- Greenhouse could be a visually interesting addition to the building. 4- Secondary functions could be shared with the existing building (washrooms, storage facilities, office space, etc.) reducing building cost. Disadvantages 1- The existing rooftop mechanical units, the required access spaces surrounding them and the 1m setback from the building's exterior walls create a complex and irregular footprint available for the greenhouse

• construction. The resulting irregular forms increase the building envelope

and energy loss from the greenhouse. The large rooftop airhandling units will shade parts of the greenhouse. 2- Potential structural reinforcement due to the additional weight of the greenhouse, and the seismic reinforcement could incur significant additional expenses 3- Roof slopes and drains would need to be reconfigured, and a new roof membrane would be required due to the construction. 4- A cistern for rainwater recuperation would be difficult to integrate in the new construction. 5- A request to modify existing zoning restrictions for the building site would be required, as the building is presently at the maximum height permitted by zoning. This would require a number of months for public hearings, and additional expenses. 6- Potential problems of snow accumulation around the air-handling units affecting their functioning as well as maintenance (difficult accessibility) when surrounding by the greenhouse. 7- New elevator and extension of two stairwells required to access the greenhouse.

• 1. BASEMENT PLAN
• 2. FIRST FLOOR PLAN
• 3. SECOND FLOOR PLAN
• 4. ROOF PLAN - NEW LEVEL

OPTION A 04/10 SURFACE AREA SUMMARY

CULTIVATION 360m² CIRCULATION 145m² UTILITIES 060m² TOTAL 565m²

OPTION A

PASSIVE SOLAR WALL

• A. SECTION A
• B. SECTION A - VARIATION

OPTION B | vertical greenhouse located in front of the building REFERENCES IMPLANTATION 05/10

26416 4500 3000 rainwater harvesting solar panels

200 294 204 210 203 207 213 220 215-90 296 214 202 201 215 212 206-1 210-2 208 210

• 1

299-00

26400 4500 3000 120m² 15m²

C B

116 113 115 194 101 112 111 199-30 110 106 107 199-10 196 109 102 PT-299-20 PT- 299-30 109-1 102-90 108 PT-299-21 110

• 90

C

26400 4500 3000 25m²

B

120m²

194-1 01-10 03-8 094 01 03-1 03-3 03-2 03-90 03-5 03-7 03-4 09 010 011 08 05 04 06 096 07 03 094

• 1

VE PT1 01-15 011-90 096-1 098 01-2 01-3 01-4 01-5 01-7 01-9 01-8 01-6 01-14 01-13 01-12 01-11 03-9 03-11 03-10

B

26400 4500 3000 25m² 50m²

A

120m²

02

Avantages 1- Fewer interventions to the existing building during construction and hence, reduced disturbance of day-to-day operations. 2- Secondary functions could be shared with the existing building (washrooms, storage facilities, office space, etc.) reducing building cost. 3- A direct visual and physical link between the Hive, CSU functions and the greenhouse spaces would stimulate interest in and optimize the greenhouse's additional role as a prototypical example of vertical urban agriculture integrating self-sufficient energy sources. 4- Possibility to cultivate plants in natural soil conditions on the lowest level. 5- The roof of the existing building would be available for solar panels (solar panels to generate heating and/or electricity for lighting). 6- Rational integration of rainwater retention for the greenhouse. 7- Reduced building envelope of the greenhouse and its adjacency to the existing building would minimize heat loss during the winter season. Disavantages 1- Removal of two or three mature trees adjacent to the proposed building site (new trees would be planted elsewhere to compensate for their removal). 2- Greenhouse accessed via existing occupied spaces.

• 1. BASEMENT PLAN
• 2. FIRST FLOOR PLAN
• 3. SECOND FLOOR PLAN
• 4. ROOF PLAN - NEW LEVEL

OPTION B 06/10 SURFACE AREA SUMMARY

CULTIVATION 360m² CIRCULATION 090m² UTILITIES 055m² TOTAL 505m²

OPTION B SECTION B

SOLAR PANELS DUMBWAITER DIRECT ACCESS RAINWATER HARVESTING

OPTION B | vertical greenhouse located in front of the building 07/10 SCHEMATIC SECTION - WINTER SCHEMATIC SECTION - SUMMER

OPTION B 08/10 OPTION B

OPTION C | on-grade greenhouse located on a site to be determined REFERENCES IMPLANTATION 09/10

B 25000 16800 360m² A 60m² 2400 14400 25000 4500 16800 4500 s w 16800 4500 s w Avantages 1- This option would require no modifications to the existing building. An autonomous site would permit a rational and simple construction using prefabricated elements. 2- In-ground agriculture would be possible depending upon the selected site. 3- Possibility to build the greenhouse with polycarbonate panels to reduce building costs and increase thermal resistance. 4- Potential for anaerobic digestion to generate biogas as a heat source. 5- Evolutive greenhouse dimensions; the project can be phased and grow. Disavantages 1- Potentially less accessible and less visible from the CSU functions in the existing building, hence reducing its pedagogic role. 2- Availability of an appropriate site on campus to be determined. 3- potential decontamination of greenhouse site. 2- New infrastructure would be required for the greenhouse (hook-up to aquaduct and sewer, gas, electricity, etc.).

PLAN OPTION C 10/10 SURFACE AREA SUMMARY

CULTIVATION 360m² UTILITIES 060m² TOTAL 420m²

SECTION B SECTION A - VARIATION OPTION C

PASSIVE SOLAR WALL

SECTION A REFERENCES

BERM MADE OF BACKFILL