AA LONDON - SED - TERM II PROJECT - GROUP WORK - PEOPLE 'S WHARF

People’s Wharf Refurbishing the City AA SED MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15 Architectural Association School of Architecture Graduate School Term 2 Project Aly Mahmoud | Oindrila Ghosh | Nimmiya Mariam | Cindrella W. Semaan April 2016

AA E+E Environment & Energy Studies Programme Architectural Asociation School of Architecture MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

Authorship Declaration Form TERM 1 PROJECT: Refurbishing the City TITLE: People’s Wharf

STUDENT NAMES: Aly Mahmoud Oindrila Ghosh Nimmiya Mariam Cindrella Semaan DECLARATOIN : “We certify that the contents of this document are entirely our own work and that any quotation or paraphrase from the published or unpublished work of others is duly acknowledged

Signatures:

Date: 1 April 2015

2

Acknowledgements Aly Mahmoud would like to acknowledge the entire AA SED staff, and especially Prof. Simos Yannas & Professor Jorge Rodriguez Alvarez for their guidance in the Term 2 Project.

Oindrila Ghosh would like to acknowledge the Architectural Association School of Architecture for the bursary she was awarded to attend the AA SED MArch course 2014 – 2015 and would like to acknowledge the entire AA SED staff, and especially Prof. Simos Yannas & Professor Jorge Alvarez Rodriguez for their guidance in the Term 2 Project.

Nimmiya Mariam would like to acknowledge the entire AA SED staff, and especially Prof. Simos Yannas & Professor Jorge Alvarez Rodriguez for their guidance in the Term 2 Project.

Cindrella Semaan would like to acknowledge the entire AA SED staff, and especially Prof. Simos Yannas & Professor Jorge Alvarez Rodriguez for their guidance in the Term 2 Project.

3

4

Abstract The objective of this term’s project was to use the findings of term 1 to identify and address the factors that impact the visual and thermal comfort in high density community living.

When the docks closed in the 1980s, the area lost its economic identity and left the urban landscape with large chunks of vacant brownfield land, with poor access, dereliction and contamination. Existing communities were isolated and economically deprived.Several attempts has been improving the situation gradually to regenerate the area.

Royal Docks being the next big financial district, according to the mayor’s plan, will attract people from all over the country and abroad.

Sustained investment in transport infrastructure has given the area excellent road and rail connections to London, the UK and Europe as well as air links to the rest of the world.The waterfront if developed will also allure people from all over London to Royal Docks.

All these factors make Royal Docks the perfect area to propose new interventions to create an outstanding place to live, work , play and stay .

5

6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 6 - CONCLUSIONS

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION Introduction 1.1 History of Royal Docks 1.2 Sit Selection Criteria 1.3 Site Connectivity

08 10 11 12

6.1 Findings and Results 6.2 General Conclusion

56 57

Bibliography

58

CHAPTER 2 – CLIMATE and SITE STUDY 2.1 Climate Study 2.2 Climate and Comfort Analysis of the Site 2.3 Site Plan 2.4 Shadow Range Analysis 2.5 Solar Study 2.6 Future Climate Scenario 2.7 Target occupants and Site Progamme

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

CHAPTER 3 - DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 3.1 Predesign Study 3.2 Site Planning 3.3 Programme Distribution 3.4 Site Plan 26 3.5 Mater Plan Layout 27

22 23 25

CHAPTER 4 – OUTDOOR STUDY 4.1 Shadow Analysis for Master Plan 4.2 Wind Analysis for Master Plan 4.3 Shadow Analysis for Apartment Block 4.4 Wind Analysis for Apartment Block 4.5 Flood Defence Strategies

30 31 32 33 34

CHAPTER 5 - INDOOR STUDY 5.3 PREDESIGN STUDY - Building Inclination Study 5.3 PREDESIGN STUDY - Building Precedents 5.3 PREDESIGN STUDY - Unit Layout Development 5.4 Effect of window to floor ratio on thermal and visual performance 5.5 Comparison between People’s Warf and Royal Wharf 5.6 Envelope Study 5.7 Thermal Improvements 5.8 Thermal Improvements: Conclusion 5.9 Shared Homes 5.10 Thermal Improvements: Shared Homes 5.11 Thermal Improvements: Comparison of all typologies 5.12 Meeting Residual Energy Loads 5.13 Terrace Design 5.14 Various adaptive features proposed 5.15 Renders

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 44 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

7

Introduction The term 2 project ‘The Refurbishing the City ‘ was an opportunity to use the findings and tools learnt during term 1 to develop inhabitant centred design strategies .The project brief asked to explore visions of sustainable living and working in London.The Royal Docks being the next area of opportunity in London served as the perfect setting for this project due to its favourable location ,good infra-structure and promising future plans.

One of the main issues considered during the design process were the changing climatic conditions. The location of the Royal Docks highlighted the fact that , that flood defence methods needed to considered very carefully. The increase in demand and prices for housing in London and the need for affordable housing reinforced the need for high density affordable housing in this area.

Although Royal Docks has a variety of facilities, attractions and tourist spots, the team noticed that it lacks urban life. As a result, a mixed use (commercial and residential) project was proposed by the team with open spaces that can be used as communal areas for weekly public events and gatherings to introduce urban life to the Royal Docks.

The design process went through several stages, where every stage was aiming to create an integrated sustainable project.

The first stage is about learning from precedents ( term 1) , and to follow the basic rules of thumb to perform pre-design studies which can be used in the preliminary design stages in order to come up with an initial design scheme for the master plan and the urban form.

The second stage is to use parametric tools (taught in term 2) to create dynamic urban forms that provide optimum solar penetration. As the project is located on the banks of the river Thames, visual connectivity with the river was another important priority.

The third stage is to provide indoor comfort to the occupants in summer and winter with minimum heating and cooling loads by providing adaptive opportunities, reducing the exposure and by improving the building fabric. Since a residential project has already been proposed on our site, it seems rational to use it as our bench mark. Hence a single unit from People’s Wharf is compared with a similar unit from the Royal Wharf for a better understanding .

And finally the potential from solar energy to contribute towards the energy supply for the the apartments were studied very briefly.

8

Chapter 1 -Introduction Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

1.1 History of Royal Docks

Figure 1.1 : The program distribution of people’s wharf project Source : Rhino

Figure 1.1 : Time line showing the history of Royal Docks.

10

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

Conclusion

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

Conclusion

1.2 Site Selection Criteria

As a part of the project brief , site selection was a crucial step for the development of the project. Being the new area of opportunity in London, Royal Docks was studied. (See Fig 1.2) The team’s criteria for selecting the site was to identify an area that lies within the area of regeneration and is well connected by DLR, roadways and ferry with the city centre and other areas. The team also wanted to take advantage of brownfield plots on the banks of the river Thames and to recapture the urban life Royal Docks once possessed.

Within the arc of opportunity defined by the London Plan, the team identified a site on the banks of the River Thames. The site is located on the intersection between the growing residential strip and the predicted cluster of public life (defined by the London Plan) ,providing the perfect opportunity to interweave urban life with housing and riverfront activities. (See Fig 1.3)

Figure 1.2 : Royal Docks Source: After Vision for Royal Docks ,2010

Figure 1.3 : The site selection criteria

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

11

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

1.2 Site Connectivity

As with all other sites in Royal Docks, the site is well connected by roadways, Rail and ferry. (See Fig 1.4) The Pontoon Dock DLR station is located 2 minutes by walk from the site. A new boat station has been proposed within the site which will be incorporated in the design process. The close proximity of the London City Airport will also attract demographics travelling for business or leisure.

Royal Wharf : The Future Proposal for the chosen site According to the Royal Docks Development plan, the site chosen by the team is intended to be a luxurious neighbourhood with a mix of services and amenities.The project is divided into different phases. The site chosen by the team for the term two project includes phase 1 and a part of phase 2 of royal wharf’s proposal that will probably house 1100 dwelling units approximately and include studios, apartments and town houses. (See Fig 1.5)

Figure 1.4 : Shows the connectivity of our site with important landmarks and areas.

The preliminary question was that in a high density scenario , is it possible to provide visual and thermal comfort to all or most of the dwelling units without compromising the economic benifits of the developer?

Figure 1.5 : showing the proposal for the master plan of Royal Wharf .

Source: Royal Wharf Brochure

12

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

Conclusion

Chapter 2 -Climate and Site Study Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

Conclusion

2.1 Climate Study Site Location Figure 2.1 illustrates the site location which is a part of the Borough of Newham that is situated 5 miles (8 km) east of the City of London, and is north of the River Thames. The Britannia Village and the North Woolwhich road lie in the north orientation of the site.

The site is surrounded by low rise factories at present which will be demolished for future proposals.The closest landmarks are the O2, Excel exhibition Centre, Britannia Village and the Pontoon Dock DLR Station.

The Site Coordinates:

h Road North Woolwic

No r th

Wo olw

North Woolwich Road ich R

oad

North W oolwich Ro

Latitude: 51°30’ Longitude: 0°01’

ad

Figure 2.1 : Site Location in the royal docks, surrounded by Britannia Village, O2 Centre and Excel (Source: Google Earth)

Weather Data Figure 2.2 illustrates the outdoor temperature of the site in London throughout the year. It highlights the lowest temperature reaching -2 ºC from november to february and the highest temperature reaching 32 ºC during midJuly. The adaptive comfort band used was De Dear 1998 that reflects the need for higher indoor temperatures to improve occupant comfort.

Figure 2.2 : Daily mean temperature, diffuse and direct radiation in the Royal Doklands, London throughout a year (Source: Weather Tool Software)

14

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

2.2 Climate and Comfort Analysis of the site

Indoor Study

Conclusion

Wind Analysis

Figure 2.3 : Royal Docks Sky condition throughout a typical year (Source: Satel-light)

Figure 2.4 : Autumn Source: Weather Data Tool (Source: Ecotect Software)

Figure 2.5 : Winter Source: Weather Data Tool (Source: Ecotect Software)

A study was undergone on the sky condition that is found to be predominantly intermediate sky having a total of 42% as an average throughout the year (figure 2.3). Whereas 32% of the time has a clear sunny sky condition and 26% has a cloudy condition .Therefore an intermediate sky was chosen for the parametric runs and simulations.

Figure 2.6 : Spring Source: Weather Data Tool (Source: Ecotect Software)

Figure 2.7 : Summer Source: Weather Data Tool (Source: Ecotect Software)

Observing figures 2.4 till 2.7, show the wind rose diagrams in London that are generated from Ecotect software specifically in the Royal Docklands. It shows that the prevailing wind is directed from the south west dominantly between 10-15km/h during all four seasons but specifically from the west during the summer season.

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

15

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

Conclusion

2.3 Site Plan A The site is 5.95 hectares (as seen in figure 2.8) flanked by the North Woolwich road and the Pontoon Dock DLR station in the north ,river Thames and a proposed boat station in the south and Barrier Park and Barrier Point residences in the east.The existing factories in the west are being demolished for a future proposal (Royal Wharf Project).

A

Unobstructed solar access from the south is one of the main site opportunities. The site slopes up towards the riverfront as a result of previous constructions giving it a height of 3m abover river level . The average wind velocity is 5 m/s which needs to be taken care of when designing the open spaces.

The main site constraint the team faced was the large site area.

B

B

C C D

D Figure 2.8 : Site Location in the royal docks, surrounded by Britannia Village, O2 Centre and Excel (Source: Google Earth)

16

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

Figure 2.9 : Site Photographs

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

Conclusion

2.4 Shadow Range Analysis

In addition to the sky condition, a shadow range study was undertaken to have an overview on the effect of the surrounding buildings on the site.

In December (figure 2.10), when the sun’s location is at its lowest point, it is observed that the site is overshadowed in the north west and north east orientation, but has a full solar access that encourages activities in outdoor spaces in the south west, south and south east orientation.

Figure 2.10 : Shadow Range from 8 AM to 6 PM every 30 minutes in December (Source: Ecotect)

In March (figure 2.11), the shadow is more concentrated on the east side of the site due to the 32 m high residential building where more solar patches are distributed on the south west and south.

In June (figure 2.12), when the sun’s position is at its highest, as expected ,the shadow is minimal.

Figure 2.11 : Shadow Range from 8 AM to 6 PM every 30 minutes in March (Source: Ecotect)

Figure 2.12 : Shadow Range from 8 AM to 6 PM every 30 minutes in June (Source: Ecotect)

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

17

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

2.5 Solar Study

In the site analysis process, solar radiation was considered an important factor to the programme distribition since it was the driving force of the ground level activity(figure 2.13). Examining the site’s shadow study throughout the equinox and winter/summer solstice, it was possible to identify the dark spots of the site.

After testing the amount of incident solar radiation falling on the facade when oriented in different orientations , the team decided to orient the units to either south, south west or south east to gain adequate amount of solar radiation that will be advantageous mainly during winter seasons (150 W/m2 is dominant during this time) in maintaining a comfortable internal temperature and thereby reducing the heating loads. (figure 2.14,2.15,2.16)

Figure 2.14 Incident solar radiation on 45 South East facing facade. (Source: Ecotect software)

Figure 2.15 Incident solar radiation on South facing facade. (Source: Ecotect software)

Figure 2.13 Incident solar radiation on site plan and the effect of the residential project to the east and factories to west. (Source: Ecotect software)

18

Figure 2.16 Incident solar radiation on 45 South west facing facade. (Source: Ecotect software)

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

Conclusion

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

Conclusion

2.6 Future Climate Scenario

It is vital to take into consideration the changing climatic conditions for a more sustainable approach. According to the statistics from the IPCC report ( figure 2.18 ), warmer/wetter winters and hotter/ drier summers are expected in UK as time progress. Moreover, according to the meteonorm current plot (2015) and the 2050 plot (figure 2.17), the average daily temperature is increased by approximately one degree which should be considered during the design process.

Therefore the main design strategies taken were to provide flexible affordable design approach that can adhere to the ever changing conditions and to provide a comprehensive solution for flooding. The site’s location makes it crucial to take some action against flooding. Every decade the sea level increases by one feet making it important to create a flood defence barrier. But the fact that the site is sloping higher towards the river front by 3 meters could be used to the team’s advantage. (See figure 2.19)

Figure 2.17 Predicted daily temperatures in 2015 and 2050 (Source: Meteonorm)

‘ Individual flood defence measures is likely to be less reliable and more expensive than a comprehensive approach.’

Source : Design For Climate Change Hence the team opted to go to a comprehensive approach by providing a flood defence wall around the royal dock area which could act as a river side promenade as seen in the Albion Quayside ,Gravesend (precedents) . (See figure 2.20)

Figure 2.18 Graph showing IPCC report on climate change (Source: Design for Climate Change) Figure 2.20 River side promenade acting as a new flood defence (Source: Design Precedence: Albion Quayside ,Gravesend )

Figure 2.19 Site topography having 3m above sea level

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

19

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

Conclusion

2.7 Target Occupants and Site Programme

The scarcity of affordable quality housing in London is a well known issue.

Figure 2.21 shows that there is a huge gap between the population , job opportunities and housing in London . As a result people move to the Suburbs for better and affordable living conditions and travel into London every single day .

Figure 2.22 shows the distribution of people of different age groups in different parts of London . On a closer look the team observed that the highest percentage of people living in inner London are between the age group of 20-39. Therefore , the team decided to target these young professionalas the future occupants.

The site programme comprises of a combination of affordable housing with common facilities like children’s daycare,gym ,laundrette etc and commercial and retail spaces. (See figure 2.23)

Figure 2.21 : Cumulative Growth of Jobs ,People and Homes in London since 2002 Source : GLA

Figure 2.22 :Graph showing the distribution of people of different ages in different parts of London Source : GLA

RESIDENTIAL

URBAN LIFE

Figure 2.23 : Programme Distribution

20

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

CHAPTER 3 -Design Development Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

Overview

3.1

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

Conclusion

Predesign Study

To begin with the design development, a series of pre-design studies were carried out. The team began with a single dwelling unit to formulate the main variables that needs to be considered when developing the unit design. The variables considered where adequate solar access to most of the dwelling units, maximum unobstructed river view , opportunity to have cross ventilation and to recieve day light and by creating passive zones in all the plans (Figure 3.1).

Moreover, typical area for each apartment typology was set based on these studies and also the dwelling size survey mentioned in the London housing standard 2010. (see Figure 3.2).

The team returned back to the projects studied last term namely the Alexandra Road estate and the Brunswick Centre , in order to have sound starting points to the site planning (see Fig 3.3).

Figure 3.1 : Thumb rules taken into consideration for the dwelling unit design

40 m2

30 m2

STUDIO

60 m2

ONE BEDROOM UNIT

TWO BEDROOM UNIT

Figure 3.2 : Showing the typical area of the dwelling units Source : Housing standard 2010,Dwelling Size Survey

Lessons from Precedence Successful Open space 1.Flats overlooking the open spaces thus more social and secure 2.Good Solar access and less over shadowing

Unused Park (Unsuccessful) 1.Obstructs view from the houses 2. Overshadowing

Figure 3.3 : Showing the use of open space in Alexandra Road Estate and Brunswick Centre

22

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

3.2

Conclusion

Site Planning

The site planning began with drawing two main axis of public circulation . One from the north east corner having the Pontoon Dock DLR station and the second one to the Thames river-front area towards the proposed boat station to create north - east commercial spine (Figure 3.4). The intersection between these two axes were identified as the main node or the public plaza(Figure 3.5).After which secondary circulations were drawn keeping in mind the street dimensions from precedences (Figure 3.6).

The plots formed in this process were further studied in-order to form independent apartment blocks with semi- private, secure communal or courtyard spaces (Figure 3.9).

Once extruded , this was further studied using grasshopper (software) to chamfer and orient the apartment blocks effectively as shown in the next page . (See Figure 3.10) Figure 3.4 :STEP 1

Figure 3.6 :STEP 3

Figure 3.5: STEP 2

The main criteria for selection were • • • •

Figure 3.7 :STEP 4

Figure 3.8 :STEP 5

Adequate solar access Maximum view to the river-front To minimize overshadowing To avoid windy spaces

Figure 3.9 :Master plan

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

23

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

STEP 2

STEP 1

STEP 5

STEP 6

STEP 9

Conclusion

STEP 3

STEP 4

STEP 7

STEP 8

STEP 11

STEP 10

PUBLIC AXIS

Indoor Study

STEP 12

RESIDENTIAL AREA

COMMERCIAL SPACES

COMMUNAL COURTYARDS

BOAT STATION

STEP 13

STEP 15

STEP 14

STEP 16

Figure 3.10 : Showing the chamfering of the blocks based on the solar access, unobstructed views , obstruction on wind etc.

Source : Rhino, ladybug

24

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

Conclusion

PUBLIC AXIS COMMERCIAL SPACES

3.3

Programme Distribution

SHARED HOMES BOAT STATION RESIDENTIAL AREA COMMUNAL COURTYARDS

The final masterplan accommodates 40% of the site area of which 28 % is commercial and retail spaces and 72% is residential area.

Figure 3.11 shows the distribution of studio , one bedroom and two bedroom dwelling units on the site. Figure 3.12 shows the distribution of programme on the masterplan highlighting the public axis,plaza and the communal courtyards. The masterplan also provides a public circulation along the river bank giving an opportunity for waterfront activities. After which the team simulated the three dimensional site massing on grasshopper (software) to identify the sunlight hours.

Figure 3.13 confirms that majority of the units have solar access atleast for four hours during extreme conditions (December). The area which was still overshadowed was studied further for better performance.

Two adjacent blocks were studied to analyse the overshadowing of one apartment block on the other during different times of the year.

Figure 3.14 highlights the overshadowing caused by the apartment blocks on each other during the worst conditions (December). The surface area that was overshadowed most of the year was subtracted resulting in better solar access on the communal courtyards.

Figure 3.12 :Final programme diistribution.

Figure 3.11 : Programme distribution for the People’s Wharf

Septemeber

December

Figure 3.13 : Sunlight hours achieved by the blocks during september and december months Source : Rhino, ladybug

Figure 3.14 : Obstuction study for the block during december.

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

25

Overview

3.4

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

Conclusion

Site Plan

A

B The final master plan titled the People’s Wharf project consists of 10 apartment blocks ,heights tapering from the river front ( 2-8 floors) to the north along the north woolwich road (10-13 floors) eliminating the overcrowding of the site and giving a sense of spaciousness which is usually unseen in high density neighbourhoods.(See figure 3.14).

The entry to the site as mentioned at the conceptual stage commences from the north east corner near the Thames Barrier park and the apartment block. One walks through a cluster of retail spaces and restaurants to reach the central plaza surrounded by commercial and public activities.

C

The plaza is meant to be a spacious open area which could double as a farmer’s market during weekends. The team proposed to have multiple temporary stalls and street furniture .

The public axis (commercial axis) flanked by public activities and retail spaces then continues to the river front that is landscaped with green areas and temporary stalls to encourage river front activities. This spine also directs the public to the boat station (proposed) that is located on the south east of the site as marked in figure 3.14.

The residents have multiple choices of circulation allowing them to either approach their apartments through the central spine or through the periphery and the semi private streets in between the blocks.

Figure 3.15 demonstrates the amount of sky visibility from different points on the site.

Figure 3.14 : Obstuction study for the block during december.

D Figure 3.15 : Sky View Factor (Source: Ecotect Software)

26

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

Conclusion

3.5 Master plan Layout

Figure 3.16 shows the ground floor programme distribution of the whole site. As mentioned earlier,the team decided to line the main spine with commercial and retail spaces and to locate residential area that includes the shared homes and their common facilities like child care/crèche , laundrette etc on the ground floor (surrounding the courtyard) within each apartment block to make it instinctively a semi private area.

The team further decided to study a single block into more detail (to unit level) for which block A located on the south west corner was chosen.

Figures 3.17, 3.18 show the ground floor plan and a typical floor plan of block A in more detail which will be studied further in the following chapters.

Figure 3.17 : Ground Floor plan of block A

A Figure 3.18 : A typical floor plan of blcok A

Figure 3.16 : Master plan showing the activities on the ground floor.

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

27

CHAPTER 4 -Outdoor Study Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

Conclusion

Winter Solstice (December 21)

4.1 Shadow Analysis for Masterplan

12:00 PM

3:00 PM

9:00 AM

12:00 PM

3:00 PM

9:00 AM

12:00 PM

3:00 PM

Summer Solstice (June 21)

Equinoxes (March/September 21)

9:00 AM

Figure 4.1 Sun patch studies showing incident solar radiation on exterior surfaces in the different seasons (Source: Ecotect Software)

30

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

Conclusion

4.2 Wind Analysis for Masterplan

As shown in page 19, figures (2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7) it was observed that the prevailing wind is mainly from south-west .The winair simulations show that the average wind speed on site is 1.5 m/s (Figure 4.2,4.3) .

Sections through the site in figure 4.4 and 4.5 shows that due to the staggered form of the master plan , an aerodynamic shape is created preventing higher wind velocity on the ground level according to beaufort scale.Although this could vary with seasonal and climatic variations.

Figure 4.3 :CFD analysis- Air Flow Rate(Source: Ecotect Software)

B

Figure 4.4: CFD analysis, air flow rate - Through the main public axis (A)

(Source: Ecotect Software)

Figure 4.5: CFD analysis, air flow rate - Through the block courtyards (B)

(Source: Ecotect Software)

A

Figure 4.2 CFD analysis- Flow Vector (Source: Ecotect Software)

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

31

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

Conclusion

4.3 Shadow Analysis for the Apartment Block

Figure 4.6 Shadow study on the communal courtyard during winter, spring /autumn equinox and summer.

(Source: Ecotect Software) The sun-patch study for the courtyard (figure 4.6) within the apartment was performed by the team in order to understand the extent of solar penetration into the courtyard spaces during different seasons of the year. Using parametric tools and choice of orientation ,the team was able to allow a good amount of solar penetration into the courtyard spaces. Although during December , due to the lower angle of the sun ,solar penetration was not possible. But the study confirms that during winter almost all the units receive solar penetration where as in summer , the units are shaded to allow adequate amount of solar radiation. The team aimed to provide the occupants with multiple choices of sunny and shaded outdoor spaces giving them opportunity to adapt .

32

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

Conclusion

4.4 Wind Analysis for Apartment Block

The figures 4.7 and 4.8 demonstrate the wind velocity in the courtyard that ranges between 1 m/s to 1.5 m/s.The courtyard typology helps avoid windy outdoor spaces by obstructing and as a result minimizing the wind flow from the south west and north east directions .

B Figure 4.7 Wind flow study on the communal courtyard (Source: Ecotect Software,Winair)

B

A

Figure 4.8 : Wind flow study on the communal courtyard (Source: Ecotect Software,Winair)

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

A

Figure 4.9 : KeyPlan MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

33

Overview

Design Development

4.5 Flood Defence Strategies

Outdoor Study

?

Indoor Study

Conclusion

Bench?

Wall?

Taking into consideration the statistics that confirm that every decade the sea level increases by one feet, several flood defence strategies were considered that could result in a more sustainable solution.

A flood defence wall could suffice in this case according to the precedence mentioned earlier. But that would mean blocking the view of the waterfront area at the ground level.

Hence the team propose various options (see figure 4.10) that would enhance the waterfront area by providing multiple choices to the users to enjoy the waterfront while at the same time performing the job of protecting the area from flooding in the future.

Shops?

Bike Stand/ Flyover?

Stairs/ Shelter?

Figure 4.10 Flood defence strategies

Figure 4.11 Schematic site view showing the riverfront area.

34

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

Chapter 5-Indoor Study Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

Conclusion

5.1 PRE-DESIGN STUDY BUILDING INCLINATION STUDY

As mentioned earlier a single apartment block located on the south west corner of the site was chosen for further study. Before commencing with the study to analyse the indoor occupant comfort,the team asked the following question- Which building typology (inclination) results in good indoor thermal and visual performance?

Three examples were studied (figure 5.1) namely Brunswick Centre ,Dog kennel Hill and Fitzrovia Hybrid Living to understand the impact of the building inclination on the indoor occupant comfort.

As shown in figure 5.1, Case B (performs well in winter) while Case C (performs well in summer and winter), it was observed that an inclined facade towards south is performing the best because it’s self shaded in summer and providing adequate solar gains in winter. The research question asked by the team was ‘if it is possible to achieve good environmental performance without inclining the facade ?’ Hence the team opted to go for a combination of both culminating with an integrated approach which allows solar access during winter and performs self shading during summer.

CASE A

CASE B

•Maximum Solar Access Resulting in Overheating during winter.

•More Exposure causing Heat Loss.

•Maximum Solar access in winter

The team also studied these precedents in detail to understand the impact of the factors like building layout , orientation etc on the indoor performance .(See figure 5.2) Having performed the building precedents study , the team concluded that in-order to provide natural cross ventilation and daylighting and also to avoid a dark overheated central corridor ,a layout with apartment units on one side is ideal in this scenario.

(Lessons from Precedence : Brunswick Centre Alexandra Road Estate)

(Lessons from Precedence = Dog Kennel Hill)

CASE C •Provides self shading during summerbutand maximum summer reduces the solar acsolarduring exposure in winter.. cess winter •Heat loss during winter (Lessons from Precedence = Fitzrovia Hybrid Living)

Figure 5.1 Inclination study

36

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

Conclusion

5.2 PRE-DESIGN STUDY BUILDING PRECEDENTS

DOG KENNEL HILL

GROSVENOR WATERSIDE

BRUNSWICK CENTRE

Highly exposed

Less exposed

Highly Exposed

Opportunity for cross ventilation and daylighting from the N-W facade

No opportunity for cross ventilation. resulting in overheating in corridor and apartment.

Opportunity for cross Ventilation and daylighting from the N-W Facade.

Winter: Higher Heat loss Summer: The existing ventilation strategy helped to dissipate the excessive heat gains.

Window to Floor ratio: 48%

Winter : Higher Heat Loss

Reduced daylight Window to Floor ratio: 12%

Summer : The existing ventilation strategy helped to dissipate the excessive heat gains.

Well Insulated

Window to floor ratio: 30.1%

Well Insulated

Not well insulated

Figure 5.2 : Building precedents study

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

37

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

Conclusion

5.3 PRE-DESIGN STUDY UNIT LAYOUT DEVELOPMENT

The unit design development began by formulating certain criteria such as adequate solar access from the south, unobstructed river view, daylighting and cross ventilation through the north etc. Basic rules of thumb were considered to attain the ideal unit dimensions to achieve a larger passive area. (See figure 5.3)

Figure 5.3 Rules of Thumb

This leads to the formation of a simple square plan that accommodates one to two occupants .A balcony was inserted to act as a transitional space that couples the indoors with the outdoors during summer and decouples and becomes a thermal buffer during the cold seasons. The team believed that the addition of this transitional element will also be favorable for the future climate conditions which is predicted to be warmer, drier summers and colder ,wetter winters. (figure 5.4,5.6) The team also considered it vital to take into account the changing lifestyle trends (See figure 5.7) when undertaking the dwelling unit design. The number of people opting to work from home is increasing and hence the team proposed movable partition walls that could be folded or unfolded to adapt to different functions or uses. Figure 5.5 illustrates the final unit design developed for a single bedroom apartment in this project.

Figure 5.4 : Unit Layout Development

This process was repeated to formulate the layouts for a typical studio and two bedroom units.

Figure 5.6 : Balcony adapting to seasonal changes

Figure 5.5 : Unit Layout Development

38

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

Figure 5.7 : Present and Future Lifestyle trends

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

Conclusion

5.4 Effect of Window to Floor Ratio on Thermal and Visual Performance.

To begin with the exercise a very high value window to floor ratio of 50% was considered which is prevalent in a lot of new constructions in and around London. On simulating, it was observed to have very high heating loads of more than 60 kwh/m2 (figure 5.8). So the next step was to decrease the percentage of window to floor ratio to 22% which had a marginal impact on the heating loads. To further reduce heating loads, the balcony was glazed. This intervention sharply dropped the heating loads to 12.25 Kwh/m2 with an average daylight factor of 2.15%.

Consequently , then several simulations were carried out for different window to floor ratios, until reaching to a minimal thermal load.

Accordingly, the window to floor ratio was decided at 28.1% which had a heating load of 11kwh/m2 and a corresponding daylight factor of 3.46%.

HEAT LOADS (KW-h)

After finalising the units plans and the block plan. The next research question was to understand the effect of different window to floor ratio on visual and thermal performance of the flat.The thermal loads and the daylight factor for the one bedroom unit were simulated with respect to changing window to floor ratio.

Thus , to understand the position of the finalised base case a comparison was made with our precedents. And a balanced result was reached when compared to the precedents as in the following (table 5.1) Figure 5.8 : Window to Floor ratio versus annual heating loads. (Source: TAS)

Table 5.1 Dog Kennel Hill

Grosvenor Waterside

Brunswick Centre

People’s Wharf

Window to floor ratio

48%

12%

50%

30.1%

Heat loads

23.2 Kwh/m2

21 Kwh/m2

196.75 Kwh/m2

11 kwh/m2

1.9%

8.1%

3.46%

Average daylight factor

CASE B DF: 2.15% Area between 1 & 6:58.1%

CASE D DF: 2.62% Area between 1 & 6: 37.1%

CASE E DF: 3.51% Area between 1 & 6: 54.8%

CASE F DF: 3.46% Area between 1 & 6: 53.2%

Figure 5.9 : Daylight factor of various cases corresponding to the graph above. (Source: DIVA)

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

39

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

Conclusion

TAS INPUT DATA ORIENTATION : SOUTH INFILTRATION (Ac/h): 0.6ac/h OCCUPANCY : 2 U-VALUES (W/m²K) External Walls : 0.25 Floor : 0.2 Window : 1.4 External Doors : 1.8 Roof : 0.2 Thermostat setting Upper Limit 28 °C Lower Limit 17 °C

5.5 Comparison between People’s Wharf and Royal Wharf For a better understanding of the performance of one bedroom unit as an average example in People’s Wharf (figure 5.10) was to compare it with an existing or proposed project in London, so the Royal Wharf Proposal was chosen for this comparison (figure 5.11) .

To begin with, south oriented - one bedroom units were taken from both projects. Same TAS inputs were used for both the cases. The U-values considered for the envelope were according to the CSH level 4 standards.

This is because the Royal Wharf project intends to achieve CSH level 4 and BREEAM excellence. Therefore, the simulations were calibrated (figure 5.13) accordingly for a credible results.

The Tas results show that because of the exposed nature of the unit in People’s Wharf, it has a higher heating load in comparison to Royal Wharf but for that very reason it performs better than royal wharf in terms of annual cooling loads.

Figure 5.10 : People’s Wharf single bedroom unit and keyplan

Figure 5.11 : Royal Wharf single bedroom unit and keyplan (Source Royal Wharf Brochure) Figure 5.12 : TAS inputs

ROYAL WHARF

KW-h

BASE CASE

Figure 5.13 : Comparison between Royal Wharf and People’s Wharf -Energy Loads (Source: TAS)

40

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

Conclusion

5.6 Envelope Study For a deeper understanding of why the base case was not able to perform better in winter , a decision was taken to do an envelope study for the two cases.

The envelope study was an indicative study to understand the performance of the units and should not be considered as the best case scenario. This along with the TAS outputs helped us realise some important observations as follows:

Figure 5.14 : People’s Wharf Keyplan

1. Fabric heat loss and window to floor ratio of the one bedroom unit in People’s Wharf was higher than that in Royal Wharf which contributed to increased heat loss.

2. Even though royal wharf had a higher glazing area which resulted in higher infiltration rate, the former also helped in providing higher solar gains which consequently reduces heating loads but increases the cooling loads.

3. Therefore it was deduced that a fine balance had to be maintained to achieve better thermal performance. And for that reason it was important to reduce heat loss through fabric without changing the window to floor ratio.

4. One way of doing it is by reducing the exposure of the fabric but without compromising the ventilation rates of the flat, because, if the latter is not taken care of, it might lead to higher cooling loads.

Figure 5.15 : Royal Wharf Keyplan

TAS output MinT

TAS output

PEOPLE’S WHARF

Figure 5.16 : Comparison between Royal Wharf and People’s Wharf - Envelope study (Source: TAS)

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

ROYAL WHARF

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

41

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

Conclusion

TAS INPUT DATA

The comfort band has been calculated using the ASHRAE 55-2010 adaptive comfort model for free running building. And therefore it is set at 18.4oC to 26.3oC. Keeping in mind the previous observation, the first change done to improve the thermal performance was to improve the U-values of the materials. After that the next intervention was to decrease the exposure of the flat without disturbing the window to floor ratio that was achieved by glazing the corridors. The glazing on the corridor as well as the balcony was designed to be fully adaptive (see figure 5.19) so that the occupants can control the ventilation and the heat loss of every flat. When it is completely opened in summer it facilitates cross ventilation.This reflects in the TAS simulations and therefore, it can be seen in figure 5.17 and 5.18 that there is not much difference in temperature between the interventions in summer. But we have been able to achieve comfort completely in the living room (figure 5.18) and for 95% of the time in a week in the bedroom . The bedroom overheats when there is no occupancy during the afternoon, that too on rare occasion as seen in figure 5.17. With the final intervention of overhangs, the temperature band had become much flatter than the base case.

ORIENTATION : SOUTH INFILTRATION (ac/h): 0.6ac/h OCCUPANCY : 2 IMPROVED U-VALUES (W/m²K) External Walls : 0.21 Floor : 0.2 Window : 1.28 Corridor glazing: 1.4 Thermostat setting Upper Limit 28 °C Lower Limit 17 °C

global solar radiation (W/m2)

5.7 Thermal Improvements

Figure 5.17 :Typical summer week - bedroom (source: TAS)

External Temperature

case 2 - glazed corridor

base case

case 3 - overhang

global solar radiation (W/m2)

case 1 - improved u-values for wall, glazing and floor

Figure 5.18 :Typical summer week - living room (source: TAS)

case 2 - glazed corridor

base case

case 3 - overhang

case 1 - improved u-values for wall, glazing and floor

Figure 5.19 : showing how the unit adapts to the occupant needs during summer

42

External Temperature

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

Conclusion

TAS INPUT DATA

The comfort band has been calculated using the ASHRAE 55-2010 adaptive comfort model for free running building.

And therefore it is set at 18.4oC to 26.3oC. As the bedroom is much less exposed with the glazed balcony in front ,the interventions did not have much of an impact on its thermal performance. But the living room (see figure 5.21) shows improvement in the thermal performance because of the interventions. In winter when the corridor and the balcony is closed , they act as a ‘winter conservatory’(see figure 5.22). The bedroom’s temperature is always within comfort range and therefore is free running as seen in figure 5.20. Again in case of the living room, it is always in the comfort range during the occupied hours of the day even though it drops below the comfort level in the early morning hours as seen in figure 5.21 when there is no occupancy and therefore does not seem to pose a problem.

ORIENTATION : SOUTH INFILTRATION (ac/h): 0.6ac/h OCCUPANCY : 2 IMPROVED U-VALUES (W/m²K) External Walls : 0.21 Floor : 0.2 Window : 1.28 Corridor glazing: 1.4 Thermostat setting Upper Limit 28 °C Lower Limit 17 °C

Figure 5.20 :Typical winter week - bedroom (source: TAS)

External Temperature

case 2 - glazed corridor

base case

case 3 - overhang

global solar radiation (W/m2)

case 1 - improved u-values for wall, glazing and floor

Figure 5.21 :Typical winter week - living room (source: TAS)

External Temperature

case 2 - glazed corridor

base case

case 3 - overhang

case 1 - improved u-values for wall, glazing and floor

Figure 5.22 : showing how the unit adapts to the occupant needs during Winter

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

43

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

Conclusion

Thermal Improvements : Conclusion The unit is free running for 75% of the times during the whole year.

With a heating load of 24.9 % of the year and virtually no cooling load.

Therefore, with the various improvements, it was possible to decrease the heating loads to 7.86 kwh/m2 from 11 kwh/m2 which is below the passive haus standards (10 kwh/m2). It has very low cooling loads (<1 kwh/m2) which can be ignored because the overheating (which triggers mechanical cooling) takes place when there is no occupancy.

(See Figure 5.23) As, it is known (Gething,2012) summers are going to get hotter and drier in future which was a reason for concern for the units. Therefore the next step was to evaluate the performance of the units of People’s Wharf as well as Royal Wharf for the 2050 scenario. It was observed that the unit in People’s Wharf can achieve comfort even during peak conditions due to its adaptive nature when compared to Royal Wharf.

As it can be seen in the graph, the unit from People’s Wharf is always within comfort band during occupied hours whereas Royal Wharf is overheated for almost throughout the week (figure 5.24). Therefore, this proves the fact that people’s wharf would out perform Royal Wharf in future.

The future winter season wasn’t our primary concern as it would be warmer and wetter (Gething,2012). Therefore logically, the building will perform better because in present conditions the unit’s indoor temperature in People’s Wharf is already within the comfort range for most of the occupied hours.

Figure 5.23 :Final comparison of energy loads between Royal Wharf,People Wharf (Base case and Final Case) (source: TAS)

Figure 5.24 :Typical summer week- 2050 - bedroom (Source: TAS)

44

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

Conclusion

Conservatory

DF: 3.46% Area between 1 & 6:53.2%

DF: 2.9% Area between 1 & 6:47.2%

DF: 2.97% Area between 1 & 6:53.4%

Figure 5.25 Final base case (Source: DIVA)

Figure 5.26 Final base case with overhang of 1.5 m depth (Source: DIVA)

Figure 5.27 Final base case with overhang of 1.5 m depth & no partition (Source: DIVA)

Introducing a conservatory to the single bedroom unit helped in the distribution of the daylight factor according to what is needed in every program. Having the conservatory’s glazing transmittance 80% and changing the percentage of the unit’s glazing transmittance from 80% to 75% helped in lowering the amount of daylight factor inside the unit itself reaching a mean daylight factor of 3.46%.

Adding the overhang on the living room’s glazing, helped in reducing the e xc e s s of daylight factor in the unit lowering it to 2.9% which is a good average in reference to the daylight factor requirement if the future program is taken into consideration (The house becoming a home office). To be able to achieve this program an adjustable wall was used to create the type of space required by the occupant at any time. Therefore removing this partition and having an open space office was tested and gave a result of 2.97%.

Room Living Bedroom Kitchen

Max 1.5 1.0 2.0

Min 0.5 0.3 0.6

If working from home, 5% desk level is needed & 2% minimum Daylight factor requirement Source: Solar and Housing Design .

(Yannas,S)

Figure 5.28: showing the foldable walls between the bedroom and the living area.

(Source: Revit Software)

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

Figure 5.29: showing the foldable walls between the bedroom and the living area.

(Source: Revit Software)

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

45

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

Conclusion

5.9 Shared Homes

The apartment block designed by the team had small parts which were overshadowed on the ground floor and the first floor and did not receive optimised solar access as much as the other floor. The part facing the public axis was designed to accommodate the commercial spaces and the remaining area was then designed to accommodate the shared homes.

The higher occupant density and higher internal gains per square meter of area would compensate the deficit of solar gains received. Hence it was placed in these shadowed, lesser optimised spaces in the apartment block. Moreover, the target occupants of this typology are students or new working professionals who choose to pay lower rents and are ready to share spaces and do not mind the prospect of not having river views.

Furthermore, the team continued with the design process and came up with two different designs for the shared homes: - a duplex L- shaped shared homes (see figure 5.30) and the other was a horizontal elongated shared home(see figure 31) .

Figure 5.30: The Duplex L shape Shared Home ( Source: Revit )

Figure 5.31: The horizontal elongated shared home (Source: Revit)

46

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

Conclusion

TAS INPUT DATA

5.10 Thermal Improvements : Shared Homes

Two typologies of home shared units were tested following a similar methodology as used in the single bedroom unit. And it was found that the horizontal shaped units performed better because of the high internal gains and occupant density.

ORIENTATION : SOUTH INFILTRATION (ac/h): 0.6ac/h OCCUPANCY : 2 IMPROVED U-VALUES (W/m²K) External Walls : 0.21 Floor : 0.2 Window : 1.28 Corridor glazing: 1.4 Thermostat setting Upper Limit 28 °C Lower Limit 17 °C

The bedroom in the horizontal shared home was always within the comfort band during occupied hours in summer which was not the case with the L-shaped home (Figure 5.33). The same can also be seen during winter week (Figure 5.34). Therefore it was decided to choose the horizontal shaped shared homes in the project design.

Figure 5.33: Typical summer week - bedroom (Source: TAS)

External Temperature L- shaped shared homes horizontal shared homes

Figure 32: Shared Homes | Glazing facing east with 75% transmittance (Source: DIVA)

Shared homes facing the east orientation and overlooking the courtyard performed better with a 75% transmittance glazing and an overhang of 1.5 m depth which had a mean daylight factor of 4.05% where 71.7% of the area is between 1 & 6%

Figure 5.34 :Typical winter week- bedroom

External Temperature L- shaped shared homes horizontal shared homes

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

47

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

Conclusion

50 45

5.11 Thermal Improvements : Comparison of

all typologies

40 35 30 25 20

Finally, a graph was chalked out to see the energy performance of all types of unit present in a typical block in Peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Wharf. It can be seen that all the units have heating loads below 15 kwh/m2 (Figure5.35). It can also be inferred that south direction is the best orientation for all unit types.

15 10 5 0 Heating

The one bedroom unit was taken as a starting point to reach to minimal heating and cooling loads by different adaptive strategies and the same strategies can also be applied to the other units to achieve similar results.

Cooling

Solar

Figure 5.35: Heating / Cooling Load + Solar gains in three differenet units. (Source: TAS) L-SHAPED ONE BEDROOM FLAT FACING EAST 75O FROM SOUTH L-SHAPED ONE BEDROOM FLAT FACING WEST 75O FROM SOUTH

The two bedroom unit and the studio which are facing west and east , 75 degrees from south has not been simulated. Although, the performance of the one bedroom unit which is also facing in the same directions can be indicative of the performance of the other typologies because even though, all of them have different floor areas ,they all have similar proportions (taken from the rules of thumb mentioned on page 22).

The heating and cooling loads for the shared homes were carried out because it has completely different proportions, floor area ,occupancy and accordingly internal heat gains. On simulating the shared homes for east as well as the south directions it could be inferred that south direction was better in terms of the heating loads of the unit as shown in figure 5.36.

On the positive side , all Peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Wharf units ,facing in any given direction has heating loads lower than a passive haus unit without compromising on the quality of spaces and occupant comfort.

L-SHAPED ONE BEDROOM FLAT FACING SOUTH AND SOUTH EAST.

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Heating

Cooling

Solar

Figure 5.36: Heating/ cooling loads in shared homes with different orientations. (Source: TAS) SHARED HOME FACING EAST SHARED HOME FACING SOUTH

Figure 5.37: Keyplan showing shared home units on the ground floor (Source: Revit)

48

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

Figure 5.38: Keyplan showing typical units on the higher floors (Source: Revit)

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

5.12 Meeting Residual Energy Loads

330 kWhr/year/apartment

As part of the requirements of the term’s design brief, a portion of the residual energy loads were to be offset by provision of renewable energy generation on site.

A total energy consumption was calculated for all the buildings. Then solar technology of generating clean energy proposed PV panels to generate electricity that will be distributed as shown in Figure 5.39.

7.86 kWhr/m2/year/apartment

38175.8 kWhr/yr for residential block

(2.36 times the total consumption) 90415.16 kWhr/yr produced for the residential block

Available area 470 m² on terrace

Thin Film - CIGS (Copper Indium Gallium Selenide) panel 104.13 kWhr/m²/yr

Figure 5.39: PV panels distribution on the block

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

49

5.13 Terrace design

Figure 5.40

Figure 5.41: 3D Exterior Roof program,All louvres opened. (Source: Sketchup)

Exterior Roof program; Horizontal Roof louvres opened (Source: Sketchup)

Figure 5.42: 3D Exterior Roof program; Conditions: Vertical louvres closed. (Source: Sketchup)

50

Figure 5.43: 3D Exterior Roof program; Conditions: Vertical louvres opened. (Source: Sketchup)

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

5.14 Various adaptive features proposed Corridor

Figure 5.48: Summer season having open adaptable conservatory panels. (Source: Sketchup)

Corridor

Figure 5.49: Summer season having closed adaptable overhang louvres on the living roomâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s balcony. (Source: Sketchup)

Corridor

Corridor

Figure 5.44: Winter season having closed adaptable conservatory panels. (Source: Sketchup)

Figure 5.45: Winter season having open adaptable overhang louvres on the living roomâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s balcony. (Source: Sketchup)

Figure 5.46: The block facade during summer. (Source: Sketchup)

Figure 5.47 Block facade during winter. (Source: Sketchup)

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

51

5.15 Renders

Figure 5.48: Living Room , Conditions: 21 December 12 pm

Figure 5.49: Bedroom , Conditions: 21 December 12 pm

Figure 5.50: Section through one bedroom unit , Conditions: 21 December 12 pm

Figure 5.51: Bedroom, Conditions: 21 December 12 pm Source : 3dS Max

52

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

Figure 5.52: In the public plaza looking towards the river (Souce: Sketchup)

Figure 5.53: The River front commercial strip (Souce: Sketchup)

Figure 5.54: The Public main spine towards north (Souce: Sketchup)

Figure 5.55: The Public plaza (node) (Souce: Sketchup)

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

53

54

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

Chapter 6-Conclusions

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

Conclusion

6.1 Findings and Results The entire design process can be summarised into few consecutive steps as follows:The first step after selection of the site was its environmental study. And it can be observed that the site was relatively large (5.95 hectares) and there wasn’t a problem with overshadowing in the plot. The sky conditions over the plot was intermediate throughout the year, while prevailing winds and river breeze were mainly from south and the south west.

To begin working on the site, the team undertook a predesign study, where simple environmental rules of thumb were used to come up with a typical unit plan for different unit typology. After which using these unit plans a building block with an aspect ratio of 0.5, which ensured optimum solar access, wind circulation and views to the river were developed.

This block was then replicated throughout the site and modified and adjusted in a conventional way, as the team did not want to compromise on the residential density of the site. Then the master plan was extruded and carved using environmental parametric tools to ensure all optimised solar gains, views and wind velocity throughout the whole site. After this step, the team focused on just one block and decided on designing it in more detail to make it free running.

A lot of precedent studies were carried out and after weighing all the pros and cons of these studies, the team proceeded with a shallow plan for the block to achieve good indoor environmental quality. in order to provide a balanced solution between the visual and thermal performance for every unit, another exercise was carried out using TAS and diva to come up with the optimum window to floor ratio for the unit. After then, the team fixed upon a window to floor ratio of 28.1% after these exercises.

On proceeding with further thermal simulations it was found that because of the high exposure, there was a high amount of heat loss (26.78 W/K), which inhibited the units from performing well in winter, therefore, the U-values for the unit envelope was further improved and all the transitional spaces were glazed in order to make it lesser exposed. As a result of these interventions, it was possible to lower the heating loads of the unit. And the final heat loads of the unit reached to 7.8kwh/m2, which is lower than the “Passiv Haus” standards of 15kwh/m2.

Since these glazed transitional spaces are adaptive, the building block transforms from being more decoupled in winter to coupled in summer and therefore it is always within the comfort zone during the occupied hours of the day and has a negligible cooling load of 0.5 kwh/m2.

Eventually the units worked well in present conditions with minimal energy requirements. It was also simulated for future and it was found to work even better, because of the increasing temperatures, the heating loads reduced during winter and in summer because of its adaptive features it is always within comfort zone.

In order to understand the unit better it was compared with its real counterpart “Royal Wharf”, on simulating royal wharf it was observed that it had lower heating load and higher cooling loads in comparison to “People’s Wharf”, because they over heated in the future scenario and had very poor indoor air circulation and quality because it was closed from all sides and had low exposure levels.

The “People’s Wharf” unit was also designed to supplement its energy needs fully with the help of solar PV panels installed on its terrace and each of the building block is also left with an extra energy load of 52239.36 kwh/year which can go back to the grid and help reducing CO2 emissions.

56

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

Overview

Design Development

Outdoor Study

Indoor Study

Conclusion

6.2 General Conclusion

People’s Wharf project was undertaken as a continuation of term 1 study to understand occupant comfort and an attempt to materialize team’s vision for a sustainable living and working in London.

The aim of the project was to improve the quality of living in Central London but at the same time maintaining a high density mixed use development. The team succeeded in providing quality, affordable indoor spaces that can adhere to the changing lifestyle trends and also climate conditions without largely compromising on the density of neighbourhood.

The public spine and plaza with its commercial spaces on the ground level provide the much needed urban life to the Royal Dock area that will contribute to the revitalisation of this area.

The main lesson learnt during this design process was that for an inhabitant centred design, it is essential to provide a balance between the environmental performances, occupant’s ability to adapt and in this case the river view. The project reinforced the fact that in high density scenarios quite often seen these days, where every square feet is vital to the developer, it is possible to provide occupant comfort indoors and outdoors by careful site planning ,orientation , the unit design , glazing design etc. Parametric tools taught this term proved to be of great use to study the environmental factors during site planning especially due to the large site area. The project also provided an opportunity to the team to use the SED methodology to confront this project in a clear and organized manner.

Even though free running conditions have been achieved for most of the occupied hours in a year, it was realised that it is very important to achieve a balance between exposed and compact unit spaces. This was concluded because some of the interventions that were carried out in the project, like glazing the transitional spaces to achieve adaptive comfort might not be a very practical solution because of monetary constraints in real world projects.

All in all, People’s Wharf project and several other term two projects (precedents) revealed that it is possible to achieve a near zero free running condition in London climate.

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15

57

Bibliography

261 City Road, SED students second term project 2011/2012 Code for sustainable homes, Case Studies CSH level4 Volume 4 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/7787/1161997.pdf Dog Kennel Hill, SED students second term project, 2012/2013 Fitzrovia Hybrid Living ,SED students second term project, 2011/2012 Gething, Bill, and Katie Puckett. Design For Climate Change.

Grosvenor Waterside, SED students second term project, 2013/2014 Newham core strategy http://www.newham.gov.uk/documents/environment%20and%20planning/ corestrategy2004-13.pdf Royal Docks Vision document https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/130422%20Royal_Docks_Vision.pdf Royal wharf , final brochure and endeavour house brochure http://www.royalwharf.com/brochures Solar Energy Check http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/scotland/tools-and-calculators/solar-energycheck Szokolay, S. V, and Christopher Brisbin.Introduction To Architectural Science.

Amsterdam: Elsevier, Architectural Press, 2004.

The Building Regulations 2000 http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADB_2000.pdf The Cross-dock, SED students second term project, 2011/2012 Yannas, Simos. Solar Energy And Housing Design.

[S.l.]: Architect. Assn., 1993.

58

Term 2

Refurbishing the City

MSc + March Sustainable Environmental Design 2014-15