Archetype for the Living City: Sustainable House Competition

1) Can the 250 words design description be on the board or send as separate file through email to you?

No – the 250 word descriptions will go on project labels designed/made by DX that will also include Team Participants.

3) The Q & A's seem to indicate that the judges will be going through the LEEDS process for each submission on their own, as part of their evaluation - is this correct? (or will they be reviewing ours?)

Teams should comment within the report on how the design meets LEEDS gold as per the credits and prerequisites outlined in LEEDS 1.71. Judges are required to grade according to LEED grading system as well as team report.

3A) As a second part to this question, Question 9 in the first set of Q & A's says that the documentation of the LEEDs requirements should be a "one line explanation" - is that per credit or per section or for the whole thing?

Per credit

4) Re the "Downloadable Cover Form" for the submission package – how do we give this to the DX (or since it the same as the Cover Letter, do we assume that you already have it and that is enough)?; we have an additional person to add to our team, so if the latter is the case, how do we get the name and information to you?

Teams should resubmit the “downloadable cover form” indicating any changes in the team and indicate assigned team number. Remember, team names are NOT to appear anywhere on boards, model, report. They will only appear in the “downloadable cover form”. Provide short bios on separate paper for any team changes.

5) Re the issue with the LEEDs LL and ID credits: if the intention of the DX is to have a total of 100 credits to evaluate in the end (the LEEDs form currently has a total of 108), then deleting 10 from LL and adding 6 of those to ID gives a total of 104, not 100. Can you please re-explain how this is going to work?

Based on LEED 1.71, by taking off 10 points from LL the intent is to add additional credits to ID to reach 100. We will review numbers to ensure 100 scoring.

6)Can the budget sheet be in the report, or do you want it on a separate sheet?

The budget sheet should be in the report.

1) There is an apparent contradiction in the advice we have been given
regarding floor area calculation: The answer to an earlier question indicated that we would be required to include the wall area in our area calculations (February 22, #1). A later question asked about the BOMA standard (March 2, #2), which specifically excludes wall area: "measuring to the inside finished surface of the dominant portions of the permanent outer building walls, excluding any major vertical penetrations of the floor . . ." etc. - although I'm not sure why this competition would be using a standard intended for determining leasable space in office buildings.
The Ontario Building Code says this: "Floor area means the space on any storey of a building between exterior walls and required firewalls including the space occupied by interior walls and partitions, but not including exits, vertical service spaces, and their enclosing assemblies."
(http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Regs/English/970403a_e.htm)
Given that energy-efficient buildings often need to make use of thicker wall assemblies to add insulation, and knowing that the more environmentally responsible insulation products generally need more width to achieve the same thermal resistance as, say, foam . . . would it not make sense to follow the OBC method?

Thank you for pointing out a discrepancy. Your point about thermal mass and wall thickness in regards to energy efficiency is a good one. This has been discussed at length and the Ontario Building Code comes closest to what we want to achieve. In fact, we recognize that the Ontario Building Code is going through modifications to address energy, efficiency, thermal bridging and green technologies. There are a lot of issues addressed in the new Building Code. Designers are encouraged to offer their recommendations to Building Code square foot applications. At this time the majority consensus is that square footage should exclude external walls due to potential increase in thickness but would include all interior walls and partitions.

2) Will the DX be providing the display bases/pedestals/tables for the models or are the teams supposed to provide this? Please confirm if we are also supposed to supply a clear Plexiglas enclosure for display purposes.

DX is supplying pedestals as part of the exhibition. Models will not be covered by plexiglass – if teams wish to provide a covering, they are welcome to do so. The base of the pedestal is 40” by 40”.

3) Please confirm that DX is providing damage insurance for models and panels while under your care.

DX will provide insurance. Please email us with an estimate for insurance purposes, of the value of the materials used in creating your model and presentation boards.

4) Will the student report be also part of the exhibition?

The report will not be available to the general public but available to leaders, experts and industry professionals. Distribution will be coordinated by DX and TRCA.5.

5) How do we justify waste management points in section M&R 6.2?

If there are any recommendations for construction of house to builders/consultants to reduce contribution of waste to landfills, recommendations provided in the report will be taken into consideration with LEED scoring and under production building criteria.6.

6) If we spec an added cost system; eg. green roof, does the budget account for the ADDED COST of having a green roof vs a standard roof (that is, the added cost is the difference between the two)?

Yes – the added cost is the difference between the two.7.

7) We are thinking of creating a third panel (36"w x 48" high) to display the 1/4 inch scale model, therefore the model would be on a vertical surface Is this acceptable? or do the organizers have something else in mind for the display of the models ie. "stoops", cubes" etc.

No – we have designed an exhibition to accommodate model sizes as specified.

1) I suppose we could incorporate the number in any manner, size, etc we deem fit on the boards, model and report.

No. The number should only appear on the back of your boards and in the report.

2) At the site visit, it was my understanding that the model could show the interior spaces, but it wasn't mandatory: a further clarification suggested that interior spaces needed to be shown as well as the shell. Are you requiring the interiors to be shown, and if so, are you looking for a model that comes apart (an idea that would give the model a very short shelf life)?

A question and answer from the last set to respond to the above: 1) Can the model requested be a digital one? If not, what are the requirements for the model. ie will it be traveling... durability and crateing. Does it require to show massing only? or does it have to be a take-apart showing the interior spaces and operations? A digital model may accompany your submission, however, we do require a physical model as per competition criteria. The exhibition is intended to travel and the exhibition is being designed to include crating. Please factor in model durability for exhibition transportation. Model presentation is discretionary but project presentation (i.e. board and 3d model should convey full design (exterior/interior) effectively.)

3) Should we assume that the building cost part of the budget does not include appliances such as fridge, stove, dishwasher, clothes washer and dryer, which are part of section F: Movable Equipment and are suggested in the specifications, but the building cost does include such as sinks, toilets and showers/bathtubs and are they included in section B1: Fixed equipment- Mechanical and Electrical, or in section B3:Fixed equipment–Fixtures and finishes?

Fridge, stove, dishwasher, clothes washer and dryer – these costs are not included. Sinks, toilets and showers/bathtubs are included in the price, however, if there is a unique sustainable component, the added cost should be included in the above costs section. B1 would include items such as plumbing and B3 would include items such as sinks, toilets and showers.

4) Should the budget section C: Site development include piping ready for hook up to grid or is that included in section B1?

TRCA is negotiating a new pricing structure for utility services for sustainable development. Not required in budget/project.

5) In section B1: Fixed equipment- Mechanical and Electrical, can any “specialty equipment used for energy saving purposes’ be part of the “additional costs for technologies and/or design benefit” ie. accessibility of green materials, economy of scale etc. as per question 7 of March 2nd questions?

Yes. Refer also to question #3 above.

6) If we are specifying a system that costs more for ‘green’ technology, does the budget have to also include a lower budget option for the particular system?

No, remember to articulate added costs.

7) In the competition criteria it states:
“6 additional credits are added to the INNOVATIVE AND DESIGN PROCESS SECTION. The addition of credits to this section will give the judging team a total of 10 credits that can be awarded on a scale. Designers are not expected to specifically submit 10 individual initiatives; rather all sustainable initiatives included will be evaluated together and graded out of a total 10 credits”. What is the maximum number of points we can assume for the ID section, 6 or 4? Is the maximum number of points for the LL section still 4?

The ID process currently identifies 4 credits; 6 are added for this competition to round to 10. The judges will score a maximum of 10 for ID. No points are awarded for LL (they have been integrated into the ID Section).

8) What is necessary for the ‘Comprehensive Owner’s Manual and Multiple Walkthroughs / Training” point in the LEED checklist?

Identify in the report, the education mechanism that new home owners would need to operate the home and live sustainably.

9) In the budget section C: Site development, we assume roads refers to anything on the individual lot and not common roads to the community?

Yes, correct.

10)Want to clarify if the team is to provide the travel case for the model while the crating for transportation will be provided by DX?

Teams are responsible for providing safe delivery of model/submission to DX. DX is developing an exhibit design that includes crating for traveling to future locations.

1)If we don't need specific model for E&M, is it the same for all exterior and interior finishes and other equipment?

It would be beneficial if general specifications for technologies are identified. It is however up to the teams to recommend depth of detail for systems and integration. The winning team would finalize details during the contracting phase.

2) Are we following BOMA in doing the area calculations? Which means staircase is only counted once.

Yes

3) 'SHC-Lot' lots, recently emailed to all parties, are shown as 20'x100' lots, not 40'x100' lots, as noted. This is according to the DX bar-scale at the bottom of the page. Answer to Question #2 states that Kortright has a specific lot in mind (both size -40'x100' & orientation); however your 'Addendum to Oct 18 Kortright Mtg; point #3' & 'Answer #2' below also state that the theortical site can be organized however each team sees fit to develop (size & orientation). Our team has designed for a 50' lot with a particular orientation. The house can can adapted for other orientations, but our presentation panels are underway, displaying our chosen orientation. Will we be penalized for this?

4)Another costing question, I am not sure where or if the builders profit margin should be counted. This amounts to a substantial cost, and can be different for each builder.

We will not account for builders profit margin at this stage. We should focus on square foot cost ($80-100 base house cost) plus additional technologies, and exclusive of land costs.

5) You have identified a lot size of 40x100' in the project brief, the lot size was identified in the Competition criteria item C as 50 x 120. We have designed our house to fit on this larger lot.

TRCA has identified variable lot size within community blocks; therefore, we will respect proposals in either lot size. Please note however that the smaller lot size was unanimously agreed upon at the October 18 workshop.

6) I must have missed addendum #17. We assumed the site was flexible based on the original 50'x120' lot. Addendum #3 states the lot size is
flexible.

Same as Question 5.

7) FYI the budget as stated at $100/sf seems well below those in the Toronto Real Estate Board's 'Rough guide to Construction Costs 2006' for January 2006 prepared by Hanscomb cost consultants... The range the guide suggests is from $108-$160/sf (not including gst) for one or two story homes with garage, based on an economy of scale of up to 5 units of a similar design & using union labour... Has the target figure been properly rationalized especially as prices have been rising approximately 10% per year & we are looking at basically 2007 dollars ?

The range is $80-$100 square foot, plus additional costs for technologies that teams have identified that are new in the market. It should be recognized that a majority of the technologies that will be recommended to satisfy sustainable/green design are currently at a price point higher than competititve products on today’s market. By extracting these from the $80-$100 square foot, and identifying them as added costs in the report, should allow the home to be designed/built to the same standards recognized through the Toronto Real Estate Board's 'Rough guide to Construction Costs. Our efforts to keep the sqft costs to $80-$100 addresses the sustainability component of affordability. If you find the costs for your design are beyond recommended, make a case for the increased cost in your report. IE: accessability of green materials, economies of scale, etc are valid points that will be considered by the Jury team without penality. Note: Jury team must see validity of your argument for increased costs!

8) The Canadian version of ENERGY STAR for Homes is currently in a pilot phase in Ontario and so the standards you are asking us to use are not publicly available. Will you supply up-to-date information on what the requirements of the Canadian version are? A further issue: LEED for Homes credit EAc1.2 depends on exceeding the minimum HERS score. The same points can be achieved using a evaluation path that does not depend on the HERS rating. However, the USGBC included credit EAc1.2 because the HERS rating, which is a holistic measure of energy efficiency improvements, gives designers (and builders) a great deal more flexibility. By excluding this path from the competition, a wide range of possible measures may not be able to receive credit under the LEED-H system (because credits EAc2.1 to EAc7.2 cover only certain issues, some of which are more important in the US than in Canada, and most of which use American standards for their evaluation anyway). I would suggest that you allow the HERS rating because - contrary to what the earlier questioner stated - it is entirely possible to assign a HERS score to a Canadian house and it will provide the greatest flexibility for the design teams. That is, of course, unless there is an equivalent system in the yet-to-be-released Canadian ENERGY STAR for Homes program . . .

We have had a few requests to use the Canadian ENERGY STAR for Homes in the rating system and have accepted its use for this competition. That then allows us to move ahead in future with LEED for Homes in Canada. However, both mechanisms – American or Canadian – will be accepted. Please identify which one you are using.

9) "Location & Linkages section: We assume that this section still does not apply and that all teams should count 4 points as per your original instructions". According to the LEEDs Home checklist, the total points for the Location & Linkages section appears to be 10 points. Why do we only get 4 points for this section?

For the sake of judging, we are rounding off the full score to 100.

10) Report: Can we include the team information on the student report?

Team information should be supplied as a separate document from the report.

11) On the west is a new roadway with two new roads linking the properties to the main road. Any parking allowed on the roads? Any visitor parking space planned? How about dead-end turnaround? Is the new roadway restricted to Kortright staff for maintenance only? Are the visitors supposed to park at the west parking lot and walk in from the south end of the site area?

Visitors will walk to the site.

1) Can the model requested be a digital one? If not, what are the
requirements for the model. ie will it be traveling... durability and
crateing. Does it require to show massing only? or does it have to be a
take-apart showing the interior spaces and operations?

A digital model may accompany your submission, however, we do require a physical model as per competition criteria. The exhibition is intended to travel and the exhibition is being designed to include crating. Please factor in model durability for exhibition transportation. Model presentation is discretionary but project presentation should convey full design (exterior/interior) effectively.

2) Do you have a PDF of the 5 acre site that is smaller is size. We are
having problems printing the large file.

We received a smaller version of the pdf which we emailed out last week.

3) Location & Linkages section: We assume that this section still does not apply and that all teams should count 4 points as per your original instructions, even though the 5 acre development plan has been added to the submission requirements.

Yes

4) Site Stewardship (SSc1.1) and Surface Water Management (SSc4.1) Mandatory requirements apply only if site area > 1/3 acre and 1/4 acre respectively. We assume that these limits apply to 50' x 120' lot size
rather than 5 acre development area.

Yes

5) Pest control (SSc5): We assume the site is not in a termite area.

Yes - not a termite area

6) Third party testing (re. IEQ 4.3 and many different categories) Third party verification is required for many of the IEQ and EA credits. How should we handle this in our competition presentations given that the projects are theoretical and, therefore, 3rd party testing won't be performed? For eg. EAc3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 require testing to measure volume of air leakage in and out of conditioned spaces in house. Can we simply assume the maximum points?

Yes

7) EnergyStar for homes: LEED-H dovetails with the US EnergyStar for Homes code but not with the Canadian EnergyStar for Homes. For eg. (a) in EAc1.2 points are based on HERS score, but HERS points are only found in the US code and (b) IEQc1 refers to an Indoor Air Package, which is part of the American code. Are we correct to assume that we should be using the American EnergyStar for Homes code rather than the Canadian one?

No. Use Canadian EnergyStar standards. The demo house will be used as a catalyst to make the LEED for home rating system a Canadian product. We are working with Canada Green Building council to make that a reality.

1. What are we supposed to do with the shc lots in the image that has been posted?

Please clarify why they are shown the way they are. Only one lot shown is for the sustainable house, the rest of the lots are shown for future development.

2. It would be important to have the lots in a drawing that can be scaled, preferably an Autocad drawing file or something that can be translated into such.

The scaling can be done by the teams. The measurements on the lot can be rescaled in AutoCad.

3. Can you please clarify the per square foot cost of the project?

$100/sq foot is an estimated price for Southwestern Ontario. Please see revised Addendum for further details. All teams must make a case for pricing above or beyond this cost.
NOTE: The sqft cost is for the house construction only and does not include the price of the lot or premium green technologies.

4. Do we have to separate the design and system information on the two individual panel boards or spread out information on both boards?

Please separate but cross reference items on each panel

5. Do we still need to show the site plan of Kortright with our proposed house or just the site plan of the 5 acres lot?

The Kortright Centre site plan should be illustrated. Additionally, a proposed site plan for a neighbourhood should be placed on a 5 acre lot.

6. Is the 5 acre site plan predetermined?

No it is not. Part of the exercise is for the teams to establish this.

7. What level of ‘specifications’ are required in the report? ie: Do they need to follow National Standard Format or are you looking for a more general overview of the products and systems being proposed or will you be providing a format outline that the teams should follow? I think the question is what level of detail is required at this phase of the proposal?

We require a general overview but would also like to see some good layout structure, presentation format, graphics, etc.

8. Concerning the budget estimate… are we to use the exact format provided as an outline, and can you explain why in the example the percentage figures do not match the actual totals on the right hand column (example: b2 Information Technology indicates (10% of A) and shows a total of 2,400.00 but the amount of A is 180,000.00?

The enclosed budget estimates are intended as sample budget. A blank budget form is available on the Archetype web site.

9. How much document is required to demonstrate how the LEED requirements are being met, for example do we need to follow the LEED process for documenting credits or will it be a summary along with the checklist provided?

One line explaining how LEED requirements are being met is sufficient.

10. Is the garage included in the square footage of the house or is it outside
the allotment?

Garage is not usually included in sqft when purchasing homes so it should not be included here.

11. The scale for the Site Plan issued in the addendum to the October 18 Kortright meeting is indicated as 1"=100". On an hypothetical 5 acres of a square shape (+/- 466' x 466') this would result on a drawing of approximately 56" x 56" which would be too large. Can the scale be adjusted to ensure the 5 acre neighbourhood plan fits in the width of one of the panels? (36"). Please review scale and confirm.

The scale on the Site Plan was just to give the teams an idea of the lot orientation and what the future development plans are for that area. They are not carved in stone. The hypothetical 5 acre development plan is designed to give the judges an idea how the house might fit into a large development. The scale you use should be appropriate for the size of the panels.

12. Under minimum home requirements there is a statement indicating that the entry "must provide a design for innovative waste water treatment" Does this refer to grey water or to sanitary water as well? Please clarify.

This refers to sanitary or black water. The house could have separate systems, one for grey and one for black. Because the building on this site is not connected to the sewer system we need to treat the waste water on site; however teams are not responsible for this solution (see question 17 in addendum).

13. What level of detail is required for the final submission (i.e. Do you require finishes for doors, and fixtures for toilets, sinks & faucets)?

Please provide examples of the type of finishes you might have for these items.

14. Competition Criteria: Aesthetic and Ergonomics-last bullit reads -'built on 2 sides of the defined lot." What are the set backs from the front, rear, and side lot lines?

In regards to the setback requirements, this is left up to each team
Does this literally mean that you can built on 2 sides of the lot ie zero lot line?

No, there will be lots on either side (houses should not be touching)

15. Is the garage included in the square footage of the house or is it outside the allotment?

Garage is not usually included in sqft when purchasing homes so it should not be included here.

Addendum to Competition Criteria (right click and choose 'save as' to download)(PDF) [NEW]

SHC Lots (right click and choose 'save as' to download) (.doc) (JPG image) [NEW]

Site Map (right click and choose 'save as' to download) (JPG image) (EPS) [NEW]

Download the Criteria here: PDF (English)

Download the Criteria here: DOC (Unformatted French version)

Download the Letter of Intent here:PDF (English)

The Living City Campus Master Plan: (Appendix A)

LEED-H 1.71: (Appendix B)

COMPETITION CRITERIA

The design team is encouraged to reference the following documents:

• The Living City Campus Master Plan (Appendix A)
• LEED –H 1.71 (Appendix B)
• Energy Star
• Energuide for Houses
• National Association of Home Builders guidelines
• Green Globes
• Built-Green Alberta guidelines
• Net-Zero Homes

a.The home design must meet a minimum LEED for Homes 1.71 gold rating
(Appendix B) and achieve an Energy Star for New Homes designation.
The following modifications to the LEED-H 1.71 rating system will be applied to meet the intent of TRCA to use the sustainable house as a demonstration and education tool.

• The Location and Linkages section will not apply. 4 credits will automatically be applied to the design proposal to compensate.
• 6 additional credits will be added to the Innovation and Design Process section. The addition of credits to this section will give the judging team a total of 10 credits that can be awarded on a scale. Designers are not expected to specifically submit 10 individual innovative initiatives; rather, all sustainable initiatives included will be evaluated together and graded out of a total 10 credits.

b. The home must be designed for mass production.
Materials, technology and building processes must be proven to be available for community development. The report compiled by the student team member is expected to have a specific section to meet the needs of this criteria:
• Local suppliers identified under this criteria will meet LEED-H: MR c1
• Materials that are environmentally preferred will meet LEED-H: MR c5.2

c. Aesthetics & Ergonomics
The submitted proposal must reflect design standards accepted by consumers and home builders in Southern Ontario. The mass production criteria above should also be considered here. The Archetype home will have the following site features:
• the design is applicable to east–west orientation
• the rear of the house will be facing south
• the lot size is 50’ wide x 120’ deep
• depth of the lot will be a north-south orientation
• design will consider integration into a subdivision with 2 story homes built on 2 sides of the defined lot.

Note:
This criteria is important to the intent of the sustainable home as a training tool for builders and as an education tool for consumers. However, the architect is encouraged to provide a design that will demonstrate what can be achieved when all the elements and principals of “good design” are fully explored.

d. Four bedroom home with a garage adaptable to change and use over time.
The design must provide for four bedrooms but also reflect the intent to reduce overall square footage as outlined in LEED-H:MR credit 1. The design layout and capacity for the garage is at the discretion of the design team but must meet the requirements outlined in LEED-H:IEQ prereq. & credit 10.1,10.2,10.3.

e. Provide a site plan within the context of TRCA ’s conservation and resource management strategies for the surrounding lands.
A site for the competition project has been selected within the extensive habitat lands on site at The Living City Centre. The design must be well integrated into the predetermined location for the demonstration house (a tour will be conducted at the full day site workshop on October 18, 2005) demonstrating sustainable principles of lands conservation inclusive of:

• Minimum disturbance of existing vegetation
• Maximize habitat and landscape restoration
• Green storm water management techniques
• Address micro climate concerns
• Appropriate roadway circulation patterns to and from the home
• Consideration of any outdoor displays in relation to the environment
• Consider visitation patterns (general public & course participants) to the home in relation to The Living City Campus master plan
• Consider the quality of the outdoor living space from a family’s perspective

f. Provide a design for an innovative waste water treatment system.
One of the unique opportunities of this demonstration project will be the ability to showcase current and new technologies that might not be considered in today’s community developments. TRCA has the opportunity with The Living City Campus to engage community leaders, show what can be achieved with water conservation and prove the reliability of sustainable technology.
Currently on site is a large black water treatment plant that processes the waste water at the Kortright Visitor’s Centre. This system results in a 90% reduction of potable water use annually. TRCA wants to continue to explore water saving initiatives and provide monitoring and evaluationof innovative waste water treatment systems for the residential market.