AA SED-Term 2 Project 2021-22

DESIGN RESEARCH REFURBISHING THE CITY PART II Residential Development at Somerset Estate, Battersea Church Road Surabhi Agarwal | Shreya Aneja | Marina Lima Vecchio | Raghav Swarup

AA SED MSc + MArch Sustainable Environmental Design 2021-22 Architectural Association School of Architecture Term 2 Project | March 2022

A U T H O R S H I P D E C L A R AT I O N F O R M Term 2 Project - Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II Residential Development at Somerset Estate, Battersea Church Road 13,486 words

“I certify that the contents of this document are entirely my own work and that any quotation or paraphrase from the published or unpublished work of others is duly acknowledged.”

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

Surabhi Agarwal

Shreya Aneja

Marina Lima Vecchio

Raghav Swarup

28th March 2022

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The team would like to thank everyone who contributed to the accomplishment of this project, starting with the SED Programme Directors - Simos Yannas and Paula Cadima - for the tutorials and the guidance they provided on the project through the term. We are also extrmemly grateful to the rest of the faculty and staff members of the Architectural Association School of Architecture’s Sustainable Environmental Design programme; Nick Baker, Byron Mardas, Gustavo Brunelli, Herman Calleja, Joana Gonçalves, Jorge Rodríguez and Mariam Kapsali for their valuable guidance and feedback throughout the project.

ABSTRACT This report is the outcome of the Term-2 Design Research Project of the MSc - MArch Sustainable Environmental Design programme, 2021-2022. This design project is for a Residential Development located at Somerset Estate on Battersea Church Road in London. The project aims to provide the required 100 homes for Somerset Estate keeping both architectural as well as environmental agendas paramount.

The site falls within the borough of Wandsworth, and while there have been proposals made previously for this site, the community in the area has strong views and opinions regarding the residential development and the shape it should take. Therefore, this study consists of a detailed analysis of the site - it’s location, context, the neighbourhood, the demographics and the environmental conditions to fully understand the needs of the community while designing a environmentally conscious development.

Based on these contextual studies, some key design and environmental strategies were established, which in turn informed the development of the building form and the zoning of the site. Simulations were done parallely to explore the correlation between the built form and the environmental quality and performance in and around the proposed building.

The key environmental problems were carefully analyzed and documented which allowed a strategic and methodical approach, helping us to address the problems and minimize environmental impact of our proposal while simultaneously paying close heed to the way the spaces would be used by the occupants.

TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S 1.INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................11-13 1.1.INTRODUCTION....................................................................................12 1.2.THE METHODOLOGY .............................................................................13 2.CONTEXTUAL STUDIES................................................................................15-21 2.1.LOCATION................................................................................16 2.2.BUILDING TYPOLOGIES...........................................................................17 2.3.BUILDING HEIGHTS.................................................................................18 2.4.AMENITIES AND ACCESS.......................................................................19 2.5.MATERIALITY....................................................................................20 2.6.DEMOGRAPHIC STUDY...........................................................................21 3.CLIMATE ANALYSIS ......................................................................................23-25 3.1.THE CLIMATE CHART .............................................................................24 3.2.WIND | SKY COVER | ILLUMINANCE .....................................................25 4. EXISTING PROPOSALS .............................................................................27-33 4.1.COUNCIL VS COMMUNITY’S PROPOSAL...............................................28 4.2.PREVIOUS SED PROPOSALS....................................................................30 4.3.BUILT PRECEDENTS..................................................................................31 5.DESIGN AGENDAS.......................................................................................35-37 5.1.BRIEF REQUIREMENTS.............................................................................36 5.2.ARCHITECTURAL AND ENVIRONEMTAL AGENDAS..........................37 6.FORM DEVELOPMENT.................................................................................39-53 6.1.SHADOW ANALYSIS..............................................................................40 6.2.ZONING...............................................................................41 6.3.MASSING...................................................................................42 6.4.FINAL BASE FORM..................................................................................43 6.5.ELEMENTAL REFINEMENTS.......................................................................44 6.6.HIERARCHY OF OPEN SPACES.................................................................45 6.7.ELEMENT STUDY......................................................................................46 7.SITE AND PLANNING..................................................................................55-63 7.1.SHADOW ANALYSIS...............................................................................56 7.2.WIND ANALYSIS.....................................................................................57 7.3.SITE PLANNING.....................................................................................58 7.4.PRODUCT MIX AND UNIT DISTRIBUTION...............................................59 7.5.TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN AND UNIT PLAN....................................................60 7.6.AXONOMETRIC AND MATERIALITY.......................................................61 7.7.SECTION............................................................................................62 8.SITE AND PLANNING..................................................................................65-95 8.1.EMBODIED CARBON ANALYSIS.............................................................66 8.2.THERMAL STUDIES...................................................................................67 8.3.DAYLIGHT STUDIES..................................................................................80 8.4.A DAY IN THE LIFE....................................................................................91 8.5. RENEWABLE RESOURCES.........................................................................94 8.6.WHOLE LIFE CARBON ASSESSMENT...................................................95

9.CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................97-99 10.REFERENCES ...........................................................................................100-102 11.APPENDICES ..........................................................................................104-111

LIST OF FIGURES Fig 1.1.1: Image of the Southern side of the site showing the junction between the green spaces and Selworthy House Fig 1.2.1: The Methodology Flowchart Fig 2.1.1: Bird’s eye view of the site Fig 2.2.1: Typology of buildings around the site Fig 2.3.1: Building heights around the site Fig 2.4.1: Ameinities and access around the site Fig 2.5.1: Montevetro Facade: Glass and Steel Fig 2.5.2: Selworthy Apartment: Brick and Concrete Fig 2.5.3: Contextual Residences: Exposed brickwork Fig 2.5.4: Adjacent affordable housing: Brick and Concrete Fig 2.6.1: Mean age groups mapping Fig 2.6.2: Family size percentages Fig 2.6.3: Age group percentages Fig 3.1.1: Weather Station used for the Project: St. James Park Weather Station Fig 3.1.2: Analysis of the London Climate Chart and establishing the two Analysis Periods and Typical Weeks Fig 3.2.1: Wind Rose for Analysis Period-I May to Aug (left) and Analysis Period- II Nov-Feb (right) for London Fig 3.2.2: Pie-chart illustrating frequency of sunny, intermediate & cloudy skies annually Fig 3.2.3: Monthly maximum global illuminance & mean global illuminance for sunlight hours for London Fig 4.1.1: Comparison chart between the two proposals Fig 4.1.2: Collado Collins Architects’ Proposal Fig 4.1.3: Darling Associates Proposal Fig 4.1.4: Solar Access on the two built masses of the proposals Fig 4.1.5: Solar Radiation on the two built masses of the proposals Fig 4.3.1: Dortheavej Residence Fig 4.3.2: Elmwood Court Fig 4.3.3: Via Verde Fig 5.1.1: Major takeaways from the brief and community’s requirements Fig 6.1.1: Bare site shadow analysis Fig 6.1.2: Shading mask on the site Fig 6.2.1: Site Zoning Fig 6.3.1: Block Orientation Fig 6.3.2: Neighbourhood Permeability Fig 6.3.3: Scale Adjustment Fig 6.3.4: Solar Radiation study for linear form Fig 6.3.5: Stepping Reversal Fig 6.3.6: Solar Radiation study for convex form Fig 6.4.1: Final Base Form Fig 6.4.2: Solar Radiation Study for Final Base Form Fig 6.4.3: Solar Access Study for Final Base Form Fig 6.5.1: Adding the Cores Fig 6.5.2: Creating Voids as Semi Open Spaces Fig 6.5.3: Adding the Balconies Fig 6.6.1: Hierarchy of Open Spaces Fig 6.7.1: Affect of the wind on the open green spaces Fig 6.7.2: UTCI Studies for the Open Spaces Fig 6.7.3: Activity Mapping of densities and various age groups for the Open Spaces Fig 6.7.4: UTCI Studies for the Terrace Gardens Fig 6.7.5: Thermal Study Results for the Voids Fig 6.7.6: Solar Protractor Studies for the Balcony Depth Fig 6.7.7: Section to understand the Passive Zone and Shading Effect of the Balcony

12 13 16 17 18 19 20 20 20 20 21 21 21 24 24 25 25 25 28 28 28 29 29 31 32 33 36 40 40 41 42 42 42 42 42 42 43 43 43 44 44 44 45 46 46 47 48 49 50 50

Fig 6.7.8: Thermal studies to understand various depths of the balcony Fig 6.7.9: Comparison of Radiation and Solar Access with and without balconies Fig 6.7.10: UTCI Comfort Percentages of the Balconies for the Typical Weeks Fig 6.7.11: South East Facade Visualization Fig 6.7.12: North West Facade Visualization Fig 7.1.1: Shadow Analysis of the Built Mass Fig 7.2.1: Wind Analysis for the two periods Fig 7.3.1: Site Plan Fig 7.4.1: Units forming the Building Mass Fig 7.4.2: Unit modularity Fig 7.4.3: Unit Stacking Fig 7.5.1: Typical Floor Plan with Unit Plan Fig 7.6.1: Exploded Axonometric of the Unit Fig 7.6.2: Materiality of the Built Mass Fig 7.7.1: Section through the Building Fig 7.8.1: The Connection to the Central Greens from the Riverwalk Fig 7.8.2: The front Promenade with Permeable Opening into the Site Fig 7.8.3: View Showing the Functionality of the Balcony Fig 7.8.4: Interior View of the Void Fig 8.1.1: Carbon Analysis Fig 8.2.1: Thermal Studies Methodology Fig 8.2.2: Unit Selection for Thermal Studies Fig 8.2.3: Soft Computations for the chosen Studios Fig 8.2.4: Soft Computations for the chosen 2 Bedroom Units Fig 8.2.5: Step I Thermal Results for the Chosen Units Fig 8.2.6: Problem Area for the Units Fig 8.2.7: Thermal Studies for Tower 2 Studio Fig 8.2.8: Energy Balance for Tower 2 Studio Fig 8.2.9: Typical Week Study Fig 8.2.10: Thermal Studies for Tower 2, 2BHK Fig 8.2.10: Thermal Studies for Tower 3, 2BHK Fig 8.2.10: Thermal Studies for Tower 8 Studio Fig 8.2.11: Energy Balance for Tower , 2BHK Fig 8.2.11: Thermal Studies for Tower 7, 2BHK Fig 8.2.12: Climate Change Studies Fig 8.2.12: Typical Week Study Fig 8.3.1: Selection of Units for Daylight Studies Fig 8.3.2: Studio daylight comparatives between various units Fig 8.3.3: 2BHK daylight comparatives between various units for Sunny Sky Conditions Fig 8.3.4: 2BHK daylight comparatives between various units for Overcast Sky Conditions Fig 8.3.5: Studio Tower 2 Point In Time Studies Fig 8.3.6: Studio Tower 8 Point In Time Studies Fig 8.3.7: Studio_Illuminance Perspective Fig 8.3.8: 2 BHK Tower 2 (top) Point In Time Studies Fig 8.3.9: 2 BHK Tower 2 (low) Point In Time Studies Fig 8.3.10: 2 BHK Tower 7 Point In Time Studies Fig 8.3.11: 2BHK_Illuminance Perspective Fig 8.5.1: Renewable Strategies Fig 8.6.1: Whole Life Carbon Assessment

51 52 52 53 53 56 57 58 59 59 59 60 61 61 62 63 63 63 63 66 67 68 69 70 71 71 72 73 73 75 77 74 76 78 79 76 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 94 95

“The best way to predict the future is to design it” -Buckminster Fuller

1

Introduction

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

1.1. Introduction The aim for this study was to propose a robust 100-home residential development at Somerset Estate on Battersea Church Road in South London applying the principles of sustainable environmental design, while simultaneously allowing the development to be architecturally engaging and adding value to the neighbourhood. This is achieved through the combination of imaginative exploration and visualization of future urban scenarios, which are concurrently tested for environmental performance through computational simulations.

Since the site is part of an existing residential estate, and is located within a developed residential neighbourhood, one of the major challenges for the project was to make the development contextually relevant while paying a great deal of attention to the environmental factors and to the occupants’ comfort and wellbeing. The study, therefore, begins with a detailed study of the context within which the site lies, and of the climate of London to help formulate the major design and environmental agendas and brief for the development of the project.

Several future urban scenarios, such as the continuing trends of working from home were explored as part of this study. This allowed for a detailed analysis of how the occupants would use the space over daily & seasonal cycles, and to identify the range of conditions to be achieved for their comfort and wellbeing. Adaptive mechanisms and opportunities for the occupants were derived from this study.

Measures were undertaken to propose a development resilient to the future scenario of climate change and to minimize its whole-life carbon impact through the use of adaptive design features, natural systems allowing independence from non-renewable energy sources and the use of low embodied carbon materials.

12 |

Fig 1.1.1: Image of the Southern side of the site showing the junction between the green spaces and Selworthy House

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

1.2. The Methodology This report is divided into mainly eight chapters. The first one includes the introduction of the project, its aim, expected outcomes and the outline of the way in which the project has been carried out.

After this, an overview of the site including its location and contextual studies has been specified. This includes a study of the surrounding built fabric, access & amenities available and a demographic study of the borough within which the site is located.

In order to establish key periods of study, in the next part, the climate of the geographical location of the site was analysed. Through this, the essential periods of study and major focus were established.

The fourth chapter was consisted of literature research on the existing proposals made for this very site – one each by the council (in collaboration with Collado Collins Architects), the community (in collaboration with Darling Associates) and by four previous SED teams in March 2021. Further, other built precedents were studied to inspiration related to architectural and environmental strategies.

Further, the fifth chapter brought together information from the earlier chapters to formulate a design brief and establish the architectural and environmental agendas for the development.

The major design process is done as part of Chapters 6 & 7, wherein the form is developed through zoning, massing and study of various building elements in conjunction with their consequent environmental performance.

The site plan is then developed around this form, further informed by shadow and wind studies. The product mix, unit design & distribution, architectural drawings and materiality are also covered in depth within these chapters.

The environmental studies are then carried out in the final chapter which uses the SED tools to deal with a large variety of environmental aspects, such embodied carbon, thermal studies, climate change, daylight studies, adaptive mechanisms & opportunities, renewables and whole-life carbon assessment. The use of these spaces in conjunction with these aspects has also been explored imagining potential future urban scenarios.

Fig 1.2.1: The Methodology Flowchart Introduction | 13

2

Contextual Studies

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

2.1. Location

Residential Development at Somerset Estate, Battersea Church Road Location: 51.48°N; 0.17°W

The site is located at the intersection of Battersea Church Road and Bolingbroke Walk as part of Somerset Estate in South London, with close proximity to the River Thames. Somerset Estate consists of a number of residential dwellings spread across seven low-rise blocks and two high-rise residential towers.

The site, which is around 5,993 sqm in area, currently consists of garages which (used as storage units) and a multi-use games area - both of which are used by residents of the neighbourhood.

Latitude/ Longitude: 51.48°N; 0.17°W

Fig 2.1.1: Bird’s eye view of the site

16 |

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

2.2. Building Typologies Since the site is located as part of an existing estate and within an already developed neighbourhood, the contextual studies played a significant role in the development of the design agenda for this project.

River Thames

The site surroundings consist primarily of residential buildings, along with a few educational buildings, namely, the Westbridge Primary School, the Somerset Nursery School and the Royal College of Art within close proximity as well. St. Mary’s Church, located along the riverwalk, is a famous landmark within the area.

Westbridge Primary School

While there is the Dimson Lodge (a now defunct building), any other amenities, social gathering spaces or community spaces are notably missing from the entire neighbourhood.

SITE Montevetro

Selworthy House

St. Mary’s Church

Dimson Lodge

SOMERSET ESTATE

Sparkford House

Somerset Nursery School

Fig 2.2.1: Typology of buildings around the site

Overview | 17

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

2.3. Building Heights The surrounding residential developments are primarily low-rise upto four stories high, with the exception of Selworthy House, Sparkford House and the Montevetro towers all of which are approximately 65m high.

River Thames

This fairly limited height of the surrounding buildings allows for potential views of the river from the site above six stories high.

Westbridge Primary School

SITE Montevetro

St. Mary’s Church

Selworthy House Dimson Lodge Sparkford House

Fig 2.3.1: Building heights around the site

18 |

SOMERSET ESTATE

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

2.4. Amenities and Access Amenities and Access Within close proximity of the site, there is a lack of amenities, utilities and connection to public transport.

In terms of public transport, the closest tube stations are Clapham Junction (21 minutes walk), Battersea Park (29 minutes walk) and Imperial Wharf (23 minutes walk), leaving the site deprived of close walkable-distance tube connectivity. There is a bus-stop, Sunbury Lane, at a 2 minutes walk which operates every 10 minutes and connects Victoria to Clapham Junction. In addition, there is a Santander Bike stand in front of the site while promotes the use of public transport but there is no bike path to cycle safely.

In terms of utilities, while there is a small convenience store located on Battersea Bridge Road (5 minute walk), the nearest large grocery store or pharmacy is more than a 20 minute walk away.

In terms of amenities or community spaces, apart from the existing multi-use games area (which is located at the site itself), the neighbourhood is lacking on both fronts.

Fig 2.4.1: Ameinities and access around the site

Overview | 19

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

2.5. Materiality The materiality or the built fabric of the surroundings was an essential component to understand to be able to create a development that achieves the balance of having it’s individual character, while integrating with the built environment of the neighbourhood.

The material palette for the surrounding buildings is mostly brick for both residential and other buildings, while some of the high-rise residential towers also use glass and steel.

The colour palette primarily consists of beige, red and brown.

20 |

Fig 2.5.1: Montevetro Facade: Glass and Steel

Fig 2.5.2: Selworthy Apartment: Brick and Concrete

Fig 2.5.3: Contextual Residences: Exposed brickwork

Fig 2.5.4: Adjacent affordable housing: Brick and Concrete

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

2.6. Demographic Study A study of the demographics of the borough was conducted to understand the future occupants of the development and what their needs would be.

In terms of age, the average age in the borough is 36.2 years and the largest proportion of people fall within the ages of 30 to 44. 68% of the population falls within the ages of 16-44, which may be considered primarily as a students and working age group. 10% are aged below 15 years old, while 22% are those aged above 65.

With further investigation into the distribution of household types, it was found that the largest proportion was that of single residents (43%). The other household types found were - couples without children (24%), couples with children (9%), single parent (9%) and students & senior citizens (15%).

This demographic study informed of the potential residents and types of households in our proposed development, and therefore allowed for certain design agendas and the residential product mix to be formulated accordingly.

NO. OF PEOPLE IN A FAMILY

Fig 2.6.1: Mean age groups mapping

Fig 2.6.2: Family size percentages

AGE GROUP

Fig 2.6.3: Age group percentages Introduction | 21

3

Climate Analysis

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

3.1. The Climate Chart

St. James’ Weather Station

The climate of London was analyzed to understand the climatic context for the site. It was observed that the mean outdoor temperatures are typically below the comfort band for the entirety of the year. The coldest months were observed to be January and February, having temperatures as low as -2°C, while June and July were the warmest months with temperatures as high as 32°C. This led to establishing two different analysis periods based on extremities in temperature and solar radiation throughout the year. Further, typical weeks within these periods were chosen for simulation, which were representative of the mean temperature and solar radiation of the periods themselves.

Weekend (NO Occupants) Weekend (NO Occupants)

25.0

25.0

1

Weekend (NO Occupants) Weekend (NO Occupants)

Site at 1 Somerset Estate

1 As seen in Fig 3.1.2, ∆T for the Summer Period from comfort was found to be only 7.5°C. It was hypothesized that this ∆T may be achieved in a free-running 25.0 25.0 scenario through the use of basic environmental strategies and the use of appropriate materials. Therefore the Winter Period, which has a ∆T of 14.5°C from comfort, was identified as the period which may require closer attention to move towards a free-running situation.

20.0

1200

20.0

25 °C 20 °C

0.0

5 °C

10.0

5.0

600

10:30:00 PM

9:00:00 PM

0.0

Radiators ON

1200

300

1000

14.5 °C

th -10 °C Nov 19 , Friday

January Facilities Office Facilities Workshop

Radiators Radiators ON ON Radiators ON th

Radiators Radiators ON ON Radiators ON th

Radiators ON th

Nov 19 , Nov Friday 19 , Friday

Nov 20 , Nov Saturday 20th, Saturday

Nov 20th, Saturday Nov 20th, Saturday Nov 19th, Friday

February

300

800

0.0

0

Radiators ON

-5 °C

7.5 °C

5.0

600

1400

17.0 °C

7.5 °C 0.0

7:30:00 PM

6:00:00 PM

4:30:00 PM

10 °C

3:00:00 PM

1600

10.0

24.5 °C

5.0

900

1800

22.0 °C

15 °C

0 °C

900

Solar Radiation (Wh/m2)

10.0

15.0

ΔT ≈ 12.2°C ΔT ≈ 12.2°C

10.0

1200

MarchFacilities Office April Office Facilities

Nov 21st, Sunday

May Facilities Courtyard FacilitiesJune Courtyard

Radiators ON

Nov 21st, Sunday

Radiators Radiators ON ON Radiators ON st

Nov 21 , Nov Sunday 21st, Sunday

Radiators ON

Nov 22nd, Monday Nov 22nd, Monday

JulyGlobal Horizontal August September RadiationRadiation Global Horizontal

Radiators Radiators ON ON Radiators ON nd

600 400

Radiators 200 ON

Nov 22 ,Nov Monday 22nd, Monday Nov 23rd, Tuesday

October November December Adaptive Comfort Band (EN15251) Adaptive Comfort Band (EN15251)

Nov0 23rd, Tuesday Occupancy Occupancy

Radiators ON Band ON Workshop DiffusedDiffused Horizontal Radiation Radiators Facilities Workshop Diffused Horizontal Radiation (Wunderground) London (Wunderground) Adaptive Comfort Band (EN15251) Occupancy Global Horizontal Radiation Outdoor DBT Facilities Min andCourtyard Max Outdoor DBTLondon Adaptive Comfort Band (EN15251) Occupancy FacilitiesMean Office Global Horizontal Radiation Facilities Courtyard Facilities Global Horizontal Radiation Horizontal Radiation Adaptive Comfort (EN 15251) Radiators ON Diffused Horizontal Radiation Diffused Horizontal Radiation

Facilities Workshop London (Wunderground) London Fig 3.1.2: Analysis of the London Climate Chart and establishing the two Analysis Periods(Wunderground) and Typical Weeks

Radiators ON

0

(Source: Ladybug Tools)

6:00:00 AM 10:30:00 AM

30 °C

1500

Analysis Period II November to February- Winter Months

12:00:00 AM 3:00:00 PM 1:30:00 AM 4:30:00 PM 3:00:00 AM 6:00:00 PM 4:30:00 AM 7:30:00 PM 6:00:00 AM 9:00:00 PM Air Temperature (°C) 7:30:00 AM 10:30:00 PM 9:00:00 AM 12:00:00 AM 10:30:00 AM 1:30:00 AM Air Temperature (°C) 3:00:00 12:00:00 PM PM 3:00:00 AM 4:30:00 1:30:00 PM PM 4:30:00 AM 6:00:00 3:00:00 PM PM 6:00:00 AM 3:00:00 PM 7:30:00 4:30:00 PM PM 7:30:00 AM 4:30:00 PM 9:00:00 6:00:00 PM PM 9:00:00 AM 6:00:00 PM 10:30:00 7:30:00 PM PM 10:30:00 AM 7:30:00 AM PM 12:00:00 9:00:00 PM 12:00:00 PM 9:00:00 PM 1:30:00 10:30:00 PM AM 1:30:00 PM 10:30:00 PM 3:00:00 12:00:00 AM AM 3:00:00 PM 12:00:00 AM 4:30:00 1:30:00 AM AM 4:30:00 PM 1:30:00 AM 6:00:00 3:00:00 AM AM 6:00:00 PM 3:00:00 AM 7:30:00 4:30:00 AM AM 7:30:00 PM 4:30:00 AM 9:00:00 6:00:00 AM AM 9:00:00 PM 6:00:00 AM 10:30:00 7:30:00 AM AM 10:30:00 PM 7:30:00 AM 12:00:00 9:00:00 AM PM 12:00:00 AM 9:00:00 AM 1:30:00 10:30:00 AM PM 1:30:00 AM 10:30:00 AM 3:00:00 12:00:00 PM PM 3:00:00 AM 12:00:00 PM 4:30:00 1:30:00 PM PM 4:30:00 AM 1:30:00 PM 6:00:00 3:00:00 PM PM 6:00:00 AM 3:00:00 PM 7:30:00 4:30:00 PM PM 7:30:00 AM 4:30:00 PM 9:00:00 6:00:00 PM PM 9:00:00 AM 6:00:00 PM 10:30:00 7:30:00 PM PM 10:30:00 AM 7:30:00 AM PM 12:00:00 9:00:00 PM 12:00:00 PM 9:00:00 AM PM 1:30:00 10:30:00 PM 1:30:00 PM 10:30:00 PM 3:00:00 12:00:00 AM AM 3:00:00 PM 12:00:00 AM 4:30:00 1:30:00 AM AM 4:30:00 PM 1:30:00 AM 6:00:00 3:00:00 AM AM 6:00:00 PM 3:00:00 AM 7:30:00 4:30:00 AM AM 7:30:00 PM 4:30:00 AM Summer 9:00:00 AM Week- 10th August to 15th August 6:00:00 AMTypical 9:00:00 PM 6:00:00 AM 10:30:00 7:30:00 AM AM 10:30:00 PM 7:30:00 AM 12:00:00 9:00:00 AM PM 12:00:00 AM 9:00:00 AM 1:30:00 10:30:00 AM PM 1:30:00 AM 10:30:00 AM 3:00:00 12:00:00 PM PM 3:00:00 AM 12:00:00 PM 4:30:00 1:30:00 PM PM 4:30:00 AM 1:30:00 PM 6:00:00 3:00:00 PM PM 6:00:00 AM 3:00:00 PM 7:30:00 4:30:00 PM PM 7:30:00 AM 4:30:00 PM 9:00:00 6:00:00 PM PM 9:00:00 AM 6:00:00 PM 10:30:00 7:30:00 PM PM 10:30:00 AM 7:30:00 AM PM 12:00:00 9:00:00 PM 12:00:00 PM 9:00:00 AM PM 1:30:00 10:30:00 PM 1:30:00 PM 10:30:00 PM 3:00:00 12:00:00 AM AM 3:00:00 PM 12:00:00 AM 4:30:00 1:30:00 AM AM 4:30:00 PM 1:30:00 AM 6:00:00 3:00:00 AM AM 6:00:00 PM 3:00:00 AM 7:30:00 4:30:00 AM AM 7:30:00 PM 4:30:00 AM 9:00:00 6:00:00 AM AM 9:00:00 PM 6:00:00 AM 10:30:00 7:30:00 AM AM 10:30:00 PM 7:30:00 AM 12:00:00 9:00:00 AM PM 12:00:00 AM 9:00:00 AM 1:30:00 Winter Typical 10:30:00 AM PMWeek- 29th November to 5th December 1:30:00 AM 10:30:00 AM 3:00:00 12:00:00 PM PM 3:00:00 AM 12:00:00 PM 4:30:00 1:30:00 PM PM 4:30:00 AM 1:30:00 PM 6:00:00 3:00:00 PM PM 6:00:00 AM 3:00:00 PM 7:30:00 4:30:00 PM PM 7:30:00 AM 4:30:00 9:00:00 PM PM 9:00:00 AM 6:00:00 PM 10:30:00 PM 10:30:00 AM 7:30:00 PM 12:00:00 AM Solar Radiation (Wh/m2) 12:00:00 PM 9:00:00 AM PM 1:30:00 1:30:00 PM Solar Radiation (W/m2) 10:30:00 PM 3:00:00 AM 3:00:00 PM 12:00:00 AM 4:30:00 AM 4:30:00 PM 1:30:00 6:00:00 AM AM

35 °C

Air Temperature (°C)

15.0

Air Temperature (°C)

Air Temperature (°C)

15.0

Analysis Period I May to August- Summer Months

TFacilities Workshop TFacilities Workshop TFacilities Workshop - Workshop TFacilities -TCourtyard TCourtyard TCourtyard TCourtyard ΔT ≈ 12.2°C ΔT ≈ 12.2°C

15.0

24 |

1

1500

Fig 3.1.1: Weather Station used for the Project: St. James Park Weather Station

Analysis Period II November to February- Winter Months

5.0

1

3:00:00 7:30:00 AM AM 4:30:00 9:00:00 AM AM

20.0

20.0

1

1

Rad O

Nov

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

3.2. Wind | Sky Cover | Illuminance

< Analysis Period I: Summer May to August Direction: South-West

Wind The St. James’ Station’s weather file was consulted for wind direction which is depicted in the wind rose (fig 3.2.1). The prevailing wind in London is predominantly from the South West direction.

> Analysis Period II: Winter November to February Direction: West

Sky Cover Sky conditions were found to be typically clear, partially cloudy and overcast for almost equal periods throughout the year (fig 3.2.2).

Wind Speed

Global Illuminance Analysis Period I: Mean GI 31,000 lux & Maximum GI 59,000 lux Analysis Period II: Mean GI 11,000 lux & Maximum GI 26,000 lux

0.5 1.5 3.3 5.5 7.9 10.7m/s

(Source: CBE Clima Tool)

Fig 3.2.1: Wind Rose for Analysis Period-I May to Aug (left) and Analysis Period- II Nov-Feb (right) for London

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 0 Fig 3.2.2: Pie-chart illustrating frequency of sunny, intermediate & cloudy skies annually

10000

20000

30000

40000

Fig 3.2.3: Monthly maximum global illuminance & mean global illuminance for sunlight hours for London

50000

60000 (Source: Satel-Light) Climate Analysis | 25

4

Existing Proposals

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

4.1. Council vs Community’s Proposal Two development complexes were proposed for this site: one conducted by Collado Collins architects, and another by Darling Associates, who explored the community’s request on another solution for the development.

In these analysis conducted by the group, some main architectural features as well as environmental were prioritized. The height of the buildings, the total site occupied area, as well as the impact of these characteristics on solar gains and on shading of others in their surroundings

COLLADO COLLINS ARCHITECTS No. of Blocks: 2 No. of Storys: G+24 No. of Cores: 2 PROS

•

• •

The entire tower/ maximum number of units may be placed within favourable part of the site (in terms of solar exposure).

Less ground coverage & more open area.

Above the first five floors, there is an opportunity to provide river views

CONS

•

•

•

May have negative impact on the surrounding area – both in terms of shading as well as aesthetics.

Units may have more rigid orientation due to tower + core form.

Higher cost of construction.

Fig 4.1.2: Collado Collins Architects’ Proposal (Source: Batmazz, Bhattad, Boldereff Report 2021)

DARLING ASSOCIATES No. of Blocks: 4

Total units Units / Floor N° of Buildings N° of Floors Building Height Area / Floor Achieved GC Green space Play area Exercise space Games pitch Access to riverwalk

Collado Collins Architects 101 4 2 23 75 250 6 x x

No. of Storys: G+5

Darling Associates

Unit

102 4 5 15 1200 28 x x x x x

no. no. no. no. sqm sqm %

x

Fig 4.1.1: Comparison chart between the two proposals 28 |

No. of Cores: 4 PROS

• • •

Fig 4.1.3: Darling Associates Proposal (Source: Batmazz, Bhattad, Boldereff Report 2021)

Morphology preferred by people in the community.

Harmonious with the surroundings.

There may be more opportunity to take advantage of orientation as compared to in a high-rise tower.

CONS

• •

More ground coverage & less open area.

The higher density may cause blocks to be planned closely, leading to selfshading and consequently restrictive solar exposure.

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

SUMMER SE FACADE

Darling Associates

Although, because of this main difference - height - we can see that there could be a correlation between the amount of radiation received by all units of the building and it’s shape.

NW FACADE

Fig 4.1.4: Solar Access on the two built masses of the proposals

(Source: Ladybug Tools)

Fig 4.1.5: Solar Radiation on the two built masses of the proposals

(Source: Ladybug Tools)

Collado Collins Architects

Radiation simulations were conducted in order to analyse the impact of sun for both typologies. During summers, it is clear how Collins’ proposed building receives radiation in an uniform way throughout the floors. The opposite happens with the Darling Associates, since the “U” shape creates areas that do not receive radiation. However, in winters there aren’t many changes for either one of the buildings.

SE FACADE

Darling Associates

Solar studies were conducted on the two proposals to understand the impact of radiation and access on the built masses.

The solar access simulation shows how the tall tower is negatively impacted on the amount of radiation falling on every unit, because of the configuration of this proposed building (4 to a core). On the other hand, the open and more spread form conceived by Darling Associates allows more units to have solar access during the year.

NW FACADE

Collado Collins Architects

4.1. Council vs Community’s Proposal

WINTER

Existing Proposals | 29

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

4.2. Previous SED Proposals In order to move forward with an in depth analysis of the already given information; the team further compared and studied the proposals offered by previous year’s SED students. The advantage of studying was that the site provided was the same and the brief given also stated similar demands. The proposals offered an insight into not only the kind of methodology that can be followed while analyzing and designing from a sustainability perspective but also gave an opportunity to learn from the shortcomings of the projects. The four designs were well curated and intuitive. They were very helpful in charting an accurate guideline to follow while dealing with this site.

Proposal 1: Batmaz, Bhattad, Boldereff

Proposal 2: Agarwal, Mittal, Leung

•

•

Mass subtracted from South – West to allow for max. units to have sun exposure

•

Built entirely in timber

•

Central atria to allow natural light and

•

Common

green

spaces

minimally

Proposal 4: Chawla, Dona, Duchamp

•

•

•

Placement of built mass on North of site, to

•

allow maximum solar access areas

ventilation

•

Linear form allowing good natural daylight.

Balconies with 1.2 m depth given majorly

•

Dual aspect with balconies on south façade,

as a design solution for the

that reduce solar radiation during summer

•

bigger units.

months

•

Not enough daylight in north oriented units

•

Terrace gardens with user activities planned. etc.

•

Appropriate amount of daylight due to orientation in most units.

Detailed demographic study to analyze different kind of user activities in space

overshadowed

These offer views, significant sun exposure

30 |

Proposal 3: Upama, Zhang

•

South facing balconies aim to minimize building footprint

Curvilinear form to maximize views from

•

Constructed using CLT

the units

•

76m

Ample daylight due to form linearity

height

of

tower,

overshadows

neighboring buildings significantly and creates wind shadow

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

4.3. Built Precedents This project shows how the form and its orientation can create different spaces, going from public to more private areas, and allow for interactions to happen in various forms.

DORTHEAVEJ RESIDENCE Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Architect: Bjarke Ingles Group Use: Residential - Affordable Housing Units: 66 Storeys: 5

Curved form shapes public and private spaces

Permeability and access at ground floor level

Modularity

Southern facade more open (glazed area and balconies)

Fig 4.3.1: Dortheavej Residence (Source: Bjarke Ingels Group) Existing Proposals | 31

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

4.3. Built Precedents In this building, balconies play a role as semi-private/public spaces, giving residents access to the outdoors with more privacy. In addition to this feature, the dual aspect of the building allows more daylight to come into the apartments.

ELMWOOD COURT Location: London, UK Architect: C.F. Moller Use: Residential - Apartment building Units: 22 Storeys: 5

Double aspect units and no long

Balconies: privacy and

Movement:

corridors

daylight in rooms

Alternated openness on the facade

Upper level setbacks to reduce scale

Fig 4.3.2: Elmwood Court (Source: CF Moller) 32 |

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

4.3. Built Precedents The stepping structure of this residential and mix use building adds to the public spaces available for the users apart from those in the ground level, with the rooftop gardens and green areas. The form also incorporates environmental features integrated with the building, like the PV panels installed on the and the water harvesting system coming from the green roofs.

VIA VERDE | RESIDENTIAL Location: Bronx, New York, US Architect: Dattner Architects + Grimshaw Architects Use: Mixed - Social and Market-Rate Housing, Amenities (Retail, Health Center, Amphitheater, Community Room, Playground) Units: 222 Storey/typology: 20 storey; 6-13 story mid-rise apartment; 2-4 story townhouse Stepped buildings

Green areas: rooftop gardens and street level courtyard

Environmental performance and renewable systems

provide users with multi-use green spaces

- Building orientation parallel to prevailing wind - Green terraces: water harvesting - PV panels located on rooftops

Fig 4.3.3: Via Verde (Source: Dattner Architects + Grimshaw Architects) Existing Proposals | 33

5

Design Agendas

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

5.1. Brief Requirements The existing proposals, especially the proposal from the community (in collaboration with Darling Associates) from Chapter 4 were studied extensively to give us a broad brief in terms of the requirements and priorities of the community for this proposed development.

The requirement for 100 homes on the site, which were proposed by both the existing schemes, were to be provided while saving all the large mature trees on the site. The multi-use games area was to be retained/ re-located on the site. A more pronounced access to the riverwalk, more open areas for playing, gathering and exercising and sufficient cycle parking were among some of the other important concerns raised by the community.

This brief, which was essentially the requirements of the community, was then analyzed in conjunction with the contextual and climate studies carried out in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 respectively to formulate an Architectural and Environmental agenda for the proposed development. These agendas allowed for a framework to be created on the basis of which the further design and development process was carried out.

100

TREES

OPEN AREAS

M.U.G.A

RIVERWALK

CYCLE

HOMES

PROVIDED

SAVED

ACCESS

Fig 5.1.1: Major takeaways from the brief and community’s requirements 36 |

MAXIMIZED

PARKING

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

mid rise -Rise Development Development Mid-Rise development

Visual & Visual Connectivity Connectivity access & visual connectivity to riverwalk withwith Riverwalk Riverwalk

existing trees to be ges Trees to be toProtected be Protected protected

Fabric ric Visually Visually Similar Similar building fabric visually similar to context he o Neighbourhood the Neighbourhood

enities ies Catering Catering to the to theamenities provide needed by neighbourhood bourhood’s ighbourhood’s Needs Needs

formulate Semi-Public mulating ting Semi-Public &semi-public & and community spaces ommunity Community Spaces Spaces

ENVIRONMENTAL

ARCHITECTURAL

5.2. Architectural and Environmental Agendas

Promenade Promenade Creating Creating a Permeable a Permeable to to allow the neighbourhood Allow Allow thein the Neighbourhood Neighbourhood In In create permeability to

orientation for N-SN-S Orientation Orientation to Maximize to Maximize southern exposure Solar Solar Exposure Exposure segregation of vehicular 100% 100% Pedestrian-Friendly Pedestrian-Friendly SiteSite and pedestrian zones

dual-aspect units Linear Linear + Dual-Aspect + Dual-Aspect Units Units for Maximum for Maximum for maximizing daylight Daylight Daylight & Cross-Ventilation & Cross-Ventilation & cross ventilation Providing Balconies Balconies – as– as provideProviding balconies as private Private outdoorPrivate spaces Outdoor Outdoor Spaces Spaces South-Facing South-Facing Balconies Balconies Act Act as southern facingas balconies also contributing to shading Shading Shading Devices Devices Community Community Spaces Spaces not not restricted restricted community spaces not restricted to ground level LevelLevel to the to the Ground Ground Minimizing Minimizing WholeWholeminimizing whole life carbon Life Life Carbon Carbon

Integrating Integrating Adjoining Adjoining Open Open spaces to the site Spaces Spaces intointo the Site the Site SiteSite Zoning Zoning to Maximize to Maximize site zoning to maximise outdoor comfort Outdoor Outdoor Comfort Comfort

Avoid Avoid Shading Shading OthO in the neighbourhood the the Neighbourhood Neighbourho avoid shading other homes

Maximizing Maximizing Occupa Occ health Health and well-being Health & Well-Being & Well-B maximizing occupant

Designing Designing to Cater to Caf climateClimate changeClimate Change Change designing to cater for

Minimizing Minimizing Energy Ener consumption &Heating heating demand Heating Demand Deman minimizing energy

integrating adjoing green

Maximizing Maximizing UseUse of use of Renewables renewables Renewables maximizing

all areas universally

Universal Universal Access Access

accessible

Design Agendas | 37

6

Form Development

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

6.1. Shadow Analysis The first step carried out was a shadow analysis and shading mask of the bare site to understand the impact of the context and surrounding buildings, especially the adjacent high-rise residential towers, on the amount of solar exposure received by the site.

It was observed from the shadow analysis (fig 6.1.1) that although Selworthy House does cast a shadow on part of the site, the Northern part of the site which is adjacent to Battersea Church Road, receives direct solar exposure for most part of the year. This area was, therefore, identified as an ideal location for the built mass of the proposed development to be placed to ensure higher solar exposure.

1200 HRS

1500 HRS

WINTER SOLSTICE

EQUINOX

SUMMER SOLSTICE

0900 HRS

Fig 6.1.1: Bare site shadow analysis 40 |

(Source: Ladybug Tools)

Fig 6.1.2: Shading mask on the site

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

6.2. Zoning Based on the area identified for the placement of the built mass from the shadow analysis, the Architectural and Environmental agendas formulated in Chapter 5 were then translated into a zoning diagram (fig 6.2.1).

Permeability with Neighbourhood

As established through the climate analysis carried out in Chapter 3, the winter period was identified as the period requiring closer attention to move towards a free-running scenario. Therefore, maximum number of units having good southern exposure to solar radiation was a priority and so to start with, a linear form with dual-aspect having solar exposure to the South was considered.

In terms of the some of the architectural agendas for the development, the site was envisioned as a community node within the neighbourhood, and therefore permeability with the neighbourhood, connection with the riverwalk and integration with the adjacent open areas were key considerations made at an early design stage. The placement of the building mass allowed for the creation of two distinct zones - the public zone (accessed directly from Battersea Church Road) and and semi-public zone within the site itself.

Mid-Rise

Public Zone

Linear Form with Southern Exposure N-S Orientation

Parking and Drop Off Zone

Semi Public Zone

Open Areas Creating a Integration

Permeable Promenade to Allow the Neighbourhood In

Development

Access & Visual Connectivity with Riverwalk

100% Pedestrian-Friendly Site

Existing Trees to be Protected

Providing Balconies – as Private Outdoor Spaces

Building Fabric Visually Similar Fig 6.2.1: Site Zoning Mid-Rise Development to the Neighbourhood

Mid-Rise Development

Access & Visual Connectivity with Riverwalk

Community Spaces not restricted Creating a Permeable Promenade to to the Ground Level 0m the10m 20m 30m In 50m Allow Neighbourhood

Creating a Permeable PromenadeIntegrating to Amenities Catering Accessto&the Visual Connectivity Adjoining 100%Open Pedestrian-Friendly Site Allow the Neighbourhood In Neighbourhood’s Needs with Riverwalk Spaces into the Site permeability with Formulating Semi-Public neighbourhood &

connection with integration of open riverwalk green spaces 100% Pedestrian-Friendly Site

Existing Trees to be Protected Community Spaces

vehicular and pedestrian segregation

Providing Balconies – as Universal Access Private Outdoor Spaces

Form Development | 41

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

6.3. Massing The massing process saw the zoning visualized three-dimensionally, and then further refined in a step-by-step process based on the scale of the building mass with respect to permeability with the neighbourhood, the scale of the building mass with respect to the context and an emphasis on the public and semi-public zones created - all while simultaneously checking the solar radiation on both the longer facades to ensure southern solar exposure.

SUMMER

STEP III: SCALE ADJUSTMENT

WINTER

SE FACADE

STEP I: BLOCK ORIENTATION

•

• stepped roof created to adjust the scale with respect to the neighbourhood • form checked for radiation

NW FACADE

•

linear mass of required volume taken block oriented to have increased southern exposure N

Fig 6.3.1: Block Orientation

Fig 6.3.4: Solar Radiation study for linear form (Source: Ladybug Tools)

Fig 6.3.3: Scale Adjustment

0 kwh/m2

STEP IV: STEPPING REVERSAL

SE FACADE

STEP II: NEIGHBOURHOOD PERMEABILITY

stepping reversed to enable higher radiation on the tallest side • form convexed to emphasize the promenade • form checked for radiation

Punctures created on ground level to allow permeability into the green spaces

Fig 6.3.2: Neighbourhood Permeability 42 |

NW FACADE

• •

600 kwh/m2

Fig 6.3.5: Stepping Reversal

Fig 6.3.6: Solar Radiation study for convex form (Source: Ladybug Tools)

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

6.4. Final Base Form STEP V Form further Elongated and Scaled to suit the Neighbourhood Curved in a way to make two Distinct Enclosures for: Public and Semi-Public Zones

SUMMER

WINTER

Semi Public Space

Public Space

NW FACADE

SE FACADE

kWh/m2

Fig 6.4.2: Solar Radiation Study for Final Base Form (Source: Ladybug Tools)

SE FACADE

Hours

NW FACADE

• •

Fig 6.4.1: Final Base Form

Fig 6.4.3: Solar Access Study for Final Base Form (Source: Ladybug Tools) Form Development | 43

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

6.5. Elemental Refinements Once the final base form was created, some of the other functional as well as architectural and environmental agendas were incorporated to further refine the building mass without hampering the design intent. This included refinements such as adding the cores as vertical circulation, creation of voids in the building mass and adding balconies for all units along the entire length of the Southern/ South-Eastern facades.

N

• •

44 |

N

Fig 6.5.1: Adding the Cores

Fig 6.5.2: Creating Voids as Semi Open Spaces

STEP VI: Adding the Cores

STEP VII: Creating Voids as Semi Open Spaces

Added as a functional requirement of vertical circulation for all units Aligned to the Southern/ South-Eastern facade so as to not have any unwanted self-shading due to the cores

• •

Created as semi-open community spaces within the building mass above the ground level Serves the dual function of reducing the visual mass of the building

N

Fig 6.5.3: Adding the Balconies

STEP VIII: Adding the Balconies • •

Added to provide private outdoor spaces for all units Serves the dual function of providing shading from unwanted radiation during the summer period

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

6.6. Hierarchy of Open Spaces The zoning of the site, along with elemental refinements allowed for the creation of multiple open and semi-open spaces with varying levels of public or private access. The promenade, which serves as a node, is a completely public space envisioned to have several retail and community facilities. The permeability of the building mass allows for the centralized green area to be accessible yet segregated, creating a semi-public space.

The terrace gardens and the voids were envisioned as semi-private spaces within the building mass with access available to the residents only. The terrace gardens were placed on the part of the building which is more shaded (from the adjacent Selworthy House), and would therefore be a more comfortable outdoor space in the summer period, while the voids were provided with operable glazed louvers to allow more thermal comfort even in the colder months. Each unit was also provided with a balcony, acting as a private outdoor space.

Fig 6.6.1: Hierarchy of Open Spaces Form Development | 45

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

0900 HRS

6.7. Element Study SUMMER SOLSTICE

1-2_Promenade and Centralized Green Each of the open spaces (fig 6.6.1), were further analyzed through simulations to understand the periods of the year when these spaces would be comfortable to use. For the largest open spaces - the promenade and the centralized green area - CFD and UTCI studies were carried out.

Wind: Although the impact of the wind is minimal (fig 6.7.1) with average wind velocities <0.4 m/s, the openings in the building mass at the ground level promote air flow and allow for ventilation.

WINTER SOLSTICE

UTCI: During the summer period, the shading provided by the building mass on the promenade and centralized green area play an important role. This can be seen through the more pronounced temperature gradation (fig 6.7.2) for the summer solstice. This allows for the promenade to be comfortable for >95%, and the centralized green to be comfortable for >85% of the hours in a typical summer week (fig 6.7.3).

During the winter period, however, the longer shadows owing to the lower sun angle more evenly shade these open areas leading to a more even temperature gradation (fig 6.7.2). These spaces are therefore comfortable for only roughly 50% of the hours in a typical winter week (fig 6.7.3).

1200 HRS

DBT: 19.8 °C Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s Cloud Cover: 30%

DBT: 21.5 °C Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s Cloud Cover: 20%

DBT: 19.6 °C Wind Speed: 0.3 m/s Cloud Cover: 30%

DBT: 8.8 °C Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s Cloud Cover: 100%

DBT: 11.1 °C Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s Cloud Cover: 100%

DBT: 12.0 °C Wind Speed: 0.7 m/s Cloud Cover: 100%

SUMMER TYPICAL WEEK UTCI Comfort 10th August 16th August

% Hours

UTCI Comfort 29th November 5th December

(Source: Autodesk CFD) Fig 6.7.2: UTCI Studies for the Open Spaces (Source: Ladybug Tools)

46 |

°C

WINTER TYPICAL WEEK

m/s

Fig 6.7.1: Affect of the wind on the open green spaces

1500 HRS

% Hours

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

0900 HRS

Activity Mapping: For the summer times a larger amount of activity can be observed in the open spaces due to greater comfort in these spaces.

During the morning hours more activity may be observed in the promenade spaces where people could be shopping for groceries, having coffee at the cafe or even simply resting in the area.

However, towards the evening activity shifts towards the play areas in the central green which is also more comfortable during this time of the day.

For the winter months a similar pattern can be observed except the densities of people outdoors would be much lesser because of a colder temperature and reduced comfort. However, with adaptive opportunities such as clo value and different activities with higher met values like gym and sports, these outdoor spaces could be more comfortable.

Major Activities

Major Activities

Major Activities

Major Activities

Major Activities

Major Activities

WINTER SOLSTICE

1-2_Promenade and Centralized Green Based on the UTCI studies carried out (fig 6.7.2), the schedules or periods of the year for which the promenade and the centralized green would be most used were identified.

1500 HRS

SUMMER SOLSTICE

6.7. Element Study

1200 HRS

Fig 6.7.3: Activity Mapping of densities and various age groups for the Open Spaces AGE GROUPS KEY

<18 years old 19-50 years old >50 years old

Form Development | 47

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

0900 HRS

UTCI: The UTCI study showed that the terrace garden on the lowest part of the building mass (which receives maximum shading) was comfortable for >85% of the hours in a typical summer week, while the terrace gardens at the higher part of the building mass (also shaded, but less) were comfortable for 70-80% of the hours in a typical summer week.

In the winter period, however, the comfort hours were only between 30-40% in a typical winter week, with a majority of that being the latter part of the day (1500hrs).

DBT: 19.8 °C Wind Speed: T7: 0.73 m/s T8: 0.64 m/s T9: 0.58 m/s Cloud Cover: 30%

DBT: 21.5 °C Wind Speed: T7: 0.78 m/s T8: 0.70 m/s T9: 0.63 m/s Cloud Cover: 20%

T7

1500 HRS DBT: 19.6 °C Wind Speed: T7: 0.65 m/s T8: 0.58 m/s T9: 0.53 m/s Cloud Cover: 30%

T7

T8

T9

T8

T9

T9

N

DBT: 8.8 °C Wind Speed: T7: 0.80 m/s T8: 0.67 m/s T9: 0.65 m/s Cloud Cover: 100%

N

DBT: 10.3 °C Wind Speed: T7: 0.80 m/s T8: 0.67 m/s T9: 0.60 m/s Cloud Cover: 100%

T7

DBT: 11.7 °C Wind Speed: T7: 0.83 m/s T8: 0.72 m/s T9: 0.60 m/s Cloud Cover: 100%

T7

T8

T8

T9

N

T9

N

N

SUMMER TYPICAL WEEK

WINTER TYPICAL WEEK

UTCI Comfort 10th August 16th August

UTCI Comfort 29th November 5th December % Hours

% Hours

N

Fig 6.7.4: UTCI Studies for the Terrace Gardens (Source: Ladybug Tools) 48 |

°C T7

T8

T9

N

T7

T8

N

WINTER SOLSTICE

3_Terrace Gardens As previously mentioned, the terrace gardens, envisioned as semi-private community spaces, were placed on the part of the building mass which receives more shade from the adjacent high-rise residential tower (Selworthy House) to ensure that the space is more comfortable during the summer period. A UTCI study was carried out to confirm this hypothesis.

SUMMER SOLSTICE

6.7. Element Study

1200 HRS

0900 HRS

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

1200 HRS

1500 HRS

Thermal_ Simulations were carried out to analyze the thermal performance of the voids in both the summer and winter periods. As seen from the comfort hours, the occupants would be comfortable in these spaces for >90% of the hours in a typical summer week. This may be attributed to the crossventilation and shading provided for these spaces. The void in Tower-6 (single-height void) was found to be marginally less comfortable owing to its smaller volume causing it to be slightly warmer. Such cases may be effectively dealt with using adaptive mechanisms such as operable louvers.

For the winter, the large glazed area with low u-value allowed for fairly high solar gains. This allowed for these space to be comfortable for >75% of the hours in a typical winter week.

N

N

N

WINTER SOLSTICE

4_Voids Since the promenade, the centralized green area and the terrace gardens all served as open spaces which proved to be comfortable for a majority of the summer period but not so much in the winter period, the voids were envisioned as semi-private community spaces which would be semi-open to allow more thermal comfort even in the winter period. This was done by providing operable glazed louvers along both the Southern/ South Eastern and the Northern/ North Western facades, which could be used to promote cross-ventilation in the summer period while used to minimize heat loss in the winter period.

SUMMER SOLSTICE

6.7. Element Study

°C

N

N

N

SUMMER TYPICAL WEEK

WINTER TYPICAL WEEK

% Hours

N

% Hours

N

Fig 6.7.5: Thermal Study Results for the Voids (Source: Ladybug Tools) Form Development | 49

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

1.5m

6.7. Element Study 5_Balconies The balconies, which were primarily provided as private outdoor spaces for each unit, were also tested for their capacity to act as shading with the focus being to block the unwanted solar radiation in the summer period, while allowing for solar exposure in the winter period. This was done through solar geometry studies analysing the sun angle and orientation for different times of the year.

Sun Path and Solar Protractor: A southeast-facing unit was tested with multiple balcony depths, whilst maintaining a minimum of 1.2m to ensure the primary function and usability. Owing to the higher sun angle during the summer period, a depth of 1.5m proved to block a significant amount of the unwanted direct solar radiation in the summer, while allowing for solar radiation in the winter period.

st

21 n

Ju

N

21st Jun

21st Dec

58º

21st Sep

E

15º

40.5m

W

21st Dec

LEGEND

S Shadow with 1.5m balcony Sun path during summer period Facade (2BHK unit - Tower 2 )

Fig 6.7.6: Solar Protractor Studies for the Balcony Depth 50 |

Fig 6.7.7: Section to understand the Passive Zone and Shading Effect of the Balcony

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

6.7. Element Study 5_Balconies Thermal Studies: The same southeast oriented unit was studied in terms of the impact of the balcony on the indoor operative temperature for a balcony depth of 1.5 and 2m. This was further compared to a east oriented unit to establish whether varying balcony depths would be appropriate for varying orientations.

The thermal studies for the southeast oriented unit proved the solar geometry studies showing a reduction of 3.5-4°C in the indoor OT during the summer period, while leaving the winter indoor OT largely unaffected. Although the larger 2m balcony depth did allow for the summer indoor OT to be further reduced by 0.5-1°C, however it also reduced the spring and autumn OT by almost 1.5°C, which was unwanted. The east oriented unit showed a similar, but less pronounced impact of the 1.5m deep balcony with approximately a 1.4°C reduction in the indoor OT due to less solar exposure, however, this was still a favourable result. Therefore the same balcony depth of 1.5m was followed for all units.

35

1400

30 21.7°C (Mean CB)

1200

25

1000

20

Temp. (◦C)

12.1°C (Mean DBT)

800

15 10

600

5

400

0

200

-5

JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

Indoor OT

Indoor OT

(No Natural Vent. + No Shading)

JUNE

JULY

Indoor OT

(No Natural Vent. + 1.5m Deep Balcony)

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

Outdoor DBT

(Natural Vent. + 2.0m Deep Balcony)

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

Global Horizontal Radiation

DECEMBER

0

Monthly Average Solar Radiation (Wh/m2)

Tower 2 2BHK (SE Orientation)

Adaptive Comfort Band (EN15251)

35

1400

30 21.7°C (Mean CB)

1200

25

1000

20

Temp. (◦C)

12.1°C (Mean DBT)

800

15 10

600

5

400

0

200

-5

JANUARY Indoor OT

FEBRUARY

(No Natural Vent. + No Shading)

MARCH

APRIL

Indoor OT

(No Natural Vent. + 1.5m Deep Balcony)

MAY

JUNE Indoor OT

(Natural Vent. + 2.0m Deep Balcony)

JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

Outdoor DBT

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

Global Horizontal Radiation

DECEMBER

0

Monthly Average Solar Radiation (Wh/m2)

Tower 7 2BHK (E Orientation)

Adaptive Comfort Band (EN15251)

Fig 6.7.8: Thermal studies to understand various depths of the balcony (Source: Ladybug Tools) Form Development | 51

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

6.7. Element Study 5_Balconies Radiation: A solar radiation study showed that the 1.5m balcony allowed for direct solar radiation on the South/ South-Eastern facade to be reduced by approximately 35-40% in the summer period while not affecting the radiation in the winter period, which proves the impact of these balconies seen in the thermal studies.

UTCI Comfort: Since the balconies were still seen primarily as usable private outdoor spaces, a UTCI study was conducted to understand the periods of the year when these would be comfortable to use, and could then potentially act as an extension of the indoor living spaces.

Radiation With Balconies

UTCI Comfort Typical Summer Week Due to the shading from the balcony above, all balconies (despite varying orientations) are comfortable for >95% of the hours in a typical summer week.

The shading provided at the terrace level indicates how it benefits the comfort for

Summer

Radiation Without Balconies

balconies below.

Winter

Typical Winter Week The hours in comfort for a typical winter week are 40-50%. However, as seen from solar and thermal studies, these lower number of hours in comfort are not due to the shading provided by the balconies but rather due to lower direct solar radiation in this period.

N

Fig 6.7.10: UTCI Comfort Percentages of the Balconies for the Typical Weeks Fig 6.7.9: Comparison of Radiation and Solar Access with and without balconies (Source: Ladybug Tools) 52 |

(Source: Ladybug Tools)

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

Fig 6.7.11: South East Facade Visualization

Fig 6.7.12: North West Facade Visualization

Form Development | 53

7

Site and Planning

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

0900 HRS

1200 HRS

1500 HRS

Once the form, along with all the elemental refinements was developed, a shadow analysis of the building mass was carried out. This was done to verify the zoning and massing strategies and to ensure that the building mass was not depriving the neighbouring residential units of solar exposure due to shading. This was an key point to establish since the goal for this development was to enhance the community by acting as a node and providing various amenities, and not hampering the existing neighbourhood in any way.

SUMMER SOLSTICE

7.1. Shadow Analysis

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

WINTER SOLSTICE

EQUINOX

As can be seen in Fig 7.1.1, the building mass only casts shadows on the site itself (which was earlier seen in the UTCI studies for the promenade and centralized green area) and not on any of the neighbouring units for most of the year.

Fig 7.1.1: Shadow Analysis of the Built Mass

56 |

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

7.2. Wind Analysis

SUMMER PERIOD

The summer wind pattern indicates that within the site the velocity is low (almost 0.06m/s in some areas), but still shows the existence of air movement, which can be positive for the activities that take place at that area, such as restaurants and cafes. In the promenade there is an increase of the wind speed, although it does not go beyond 0.2m/s. On the other hand, there can be observed that the wind is being channeled in the larger void, favouring higher speeds (reaching 0.5m/s). As this space serves as a passage and there are no activities taking place, the performance of the void can be perceived as positive as it is helping with the air movement withing the internal part of the site. The taller towers towards the right portion of the site can create a barrier against the prevailing wind, blocking the high velocities wind (0.5m/s), thus favouring a more pleasant environment on the inner most part of the site.

0.50m/s

0.20m/s

0.25m/s

0.30m/s

0.15m/s

0.35m/s

0.45m/s

0.50m/s

WINTER PERIOD

0.06m/s

Fig 7.2.1: Wind Analysis for the two periods

0.30m/s

0.15m/s 0.20m/s

0.70m/s

0.50m/s

0.30m/s

0.15m/s

0.20m/s

(Source: Autodesk CFD) Site and Planning | 57

2M

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

7.3. Site Planning 6M

Based on the site zoning and the study of the open spaces conducted in Chapter 6, a site plan was developed.

This layout aimed to incorporate all architectural agendas previously mentioned, such as access & visual connectivity with the riverwalk, protection of existing trees, provision of amenities catering to the neighbourhood’s needs, formulation of semi-public & community spaces, creation of a permeable promenade, 100% pedestrian friendly site through separation of vehicular & pedestrian zones, integration of adjoining open spaces, retention of the multi-use games area, universal access, maximizing open areas, sufficient provision of cycle parking and site zoning ensuring outdoor comfort.

The Front Promenade

Restaurant

The ground floor was dedicated to outward facing retail spaces opening onto the public promenade, and inward facing community spaces opening into the semi-public centralized green area. Lobbies for each of the towers consisting of a reception, mail boxes and waiting area were also provided at this level.

Cafe

Cafe Co Working

Multi Purpose Hall

TERRACE (UNIT BELOW)

1.5M

ad

h Ro

hurc

ea C

ers Batt

Riverwalk Connection

Accessible Central Greens

Grocery Store

Indoor Games

Gym

Sandpit Play Area and Outdoor Gym

M.U.G.A

THIRD FLOOR PLAN Fig 7.3.1: Site Plan

58 |

0m

10m

20m

30m

50m

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

7.4. Product Mix and Unit Distribution In line with the demographic studies carried out as part of contextual studies in Chapter 2, a product mix consisting of 54 studio units (for 1-2 persons) and 43 2-bedroom units (for 3-4 persons) was established. This mix also happened to be in line with the council’s earlier proposals.

No. of Bedrooms

No. of Persons

Unit Type

Studio

1-2 Persons

2 BHK

GIA/Unit (sqm)

No. of Units

Total GIA (sqm)

Intermediate Rent

32

54

1,728

3-4 Persons

Affordable

80

13

1,040

3-4 Persons

Market Sale

80

30

2,400

97

5,168

Total NOTE: The product mix has been derived from the Council’s proposal

A tower strategy of having 4-units to a single core was then devised. Each tower would consist of three studio units and one 2-bedroom unit serviced by a core. To ensure modularity of these units, the unit dimensions were chosen such that three studio units could potentially be converted into a single 2-bedroom unit is required. The units could also be stacked alternatively (fig 7.4.3) to create an interesting facade modulation due to this modular strategy.

In terms of the unit distribution along the form, the majority of studio units were placed within the first 3-4 floors to ensure that the larger, more expensive two bedroom units may enjoy the views of the river towards the North.

Vertical Cores 2 Bedroom Units Studio Units Community + Retail Spaces

N

Fig 7.4.1: Units forming the Building Mass

10m

10m

CORE

CORE 8m

STUDIO-1

STUDIO-2

CORE LIVING ROOM

STUDIO-3 STUDIO-1

STUDIO-2

BED ROOM

STUDIO-3

BALCONY

LIVING ROOM

[3 x STUDIOS]

Studio 2BHK Studio Studio 2BHK 2BHK Studio 2BHK

BED ROOM

BALCONY BALCONY

The central core, flanked by three studio units to one side and one 2-bedroom unit to the other, consists of a staircase and two elevators. Four such blocks were designed as part of the proposed building development.

BED ROOM

[3 x STUDIOS]

BALCONY

[1 x 2BHK] [1 x 2BHK]

3 x Studio 2BHK 3 x Studio 2BHK 3 x Studio 2BHK 3 x Studio 2BHK

UNIT MODULARITY 8m

BED ROOM

UNIT MODULARITY allows [3 x Studios] to be converted into [1 x 2BHK] if required allows [3 x Studios] to be converted into [1 x 2BHK] if required

Fig 7.4.2: Unit modularity

BED ROOM BED ROOM

BED ROOM

BED ROOM

LIVING ROOM

CORE LIVING

LIVING ROOM

ROOM LIVING ROOM

BED ROOM

BALCONY BALCONY

[1 [1 x 2BHK]

BED ROOM

BED ROOM

BED ROOM

BALCONY BALCONY

x 2BHK]

[1 x 2BHK]

[1 x 2BHK]

4 to a Core 4 to 4 a to Core a Core 4 to a Core

Fig 7.4.3: Unit Stacking Site and Planning | 59

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

7.5. Typical Floor Plan and Unit Plan The typical floor plan was laid out with the product mix and unit distribution as shown in Fig 7.4.1 & 7.4.3. The bedrooms and living room were placed so as to receive the southern solar exposure, while the bathrooms and kitchen were placed towards the North. This was done to maximize thermal and visual comfort for the living spaces, and since the kitchen has significantly large internal loads, its lesser solar exposure was hypothesized to be adequate. Drawing from the linear and dual aspect plan, the units were planned with a maximum depth of 6m for the living spaces to ensure they would fall within the passive zone and hence receive adequate daylight, while the remaining depth towards the North was allocated for the toilets and kitchen.

The core was designed with a glazed passage towards the North to provide access to the three studio units while the 2-bedroom unit can be accessed for the central lobby itself, leaving the North facade unobstructed.

2 BEDROOM

LIFT

LIFT

(80 SQM)

LIFT

LIFT

PASSAGE DN

TOI

TOI

LIVINGPASSAGE AREA

UP

KITCHENETTE

TOI-2

2 BEDROOM

KITCHEN

KITCHENETTE

TOI-1

KITCHENETTE

PASSAGE

DINING

2M

(80 SQM)

LIVING AREA

TOI

LIVING AREA

PASSAGE

BEDROOM-1

BALCONY BEDROOM-2 10M

TERRACE (UNIT BELOW)

1.5M

BALCONY

10M

4M

STUDIO

Kitchen/ Dining

THIRD FLOOR PLAN

0m

10m

20m

30m

50m

Bathroom Bedroom Balcony Living Room Core/ Lobby Kitchen/ Dining Bathroom Balcony

0m

10m

20m

30m

50m

Core/ Lobby

BEDROOM LIVING AREA BALCONY

(32 SQM)

KITCHENETTE

TOI

4M

(32 SQM)

Living Room

60 |

BALCONY

BALCONY

Bedroom

Fig 7.5.1: Typical Floor Plan with Unit Plan

LIVING ROOM

BEDROOM LIVING AREA

BEDROOM STUDIO

TERRACE (UNIT BELOW)

THIRD FLOOR PLAN

UP

STAIRS

1.5M

6M

DN

TOI

KITCHENETTE

TOI-2

DINING

TOI-1 KITCHEN

KITCHENETTE

BEDROOM-2

STAIRS

6M

2M

LIVING ROOM BEDROOM-1

TOI

BEDROOM LIVING AREA BALCONY

4M

STUDIO

BEDROOM

(32 SQM) BALCONY 4M

STUDIO (32 SQM)

4M

BEDROOM STUDIO

(32 SQM) BALCONY 4M

STUDIO (32 SQM)

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

STRUCTURAL SYSTEM

7.6. Axonometric and Materiality

GGBS Reinforced Concrete Beams GGBS Reinforced Concrete Columns

To begin with, the materials were chosen to reduce the embodied carbon below 500 kgCO2/m2 target as per LETI guidelines. Although Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) was initially considered as the primary structural material, however, since building regulations in the UK do not allow for this, Ground Granulated Blastfurnace Slag (GGBS) reinforced concrete was chosen for the foundation, columns & beams, while CLT was used for floor slabs.

CLT Slabs

For windows, the LETI guidelines for u-value, g-value and WWR were followed, while medium density blockwork was used for the walls due to it’s fairly low u-value & embodied carbon along with it’s ability to blend in with the built fabric of the neighbourhood.

GGBS Reinforced Concrete Substructure

WINDOW U Value- 0.90

WWR North: 15%

SHGC- 0.50 VT- 0.72 4mm thk Glass

WWR

16mm thk Argon Fill

South: 25%

4mm thk Glass

EXPOSED ROOF

FLOORSLAB

U Value- 0.16

U Value- 0.19

100mm thk Soil

ED

25mm thk Screed 60mm thk Woodfibre

75mm thk Sheepwool

75mm thk Sheepwool

130mm thk CLT

130mm thk CLT

EXTERNAL WALLS

INTERNAL WALLS

U Value- 0.20

U Value- 0.20

RO

IO

ST

UD

IO

Fig 7.6.1: Exploded Axonometric of the Unit

12 mm thk Plyboard

UD

120mm thk Expanded Perlite

ST

100mm thk Blockwork

IO

12 mm thk Plyboard

UD

12 mm thk Plyboard

ST

250mm thk Expanded Perlite

OM

100mm thk Blockwork

2B

10mm thk Filter 25mm thk Screed 60mm thk Woodfibre

Fig 7.6.2: Materiality of the Built Mass Site and Planning | 61

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

7.7. Section The culmination of the architectural and environmental agendas, the form development, the site planning and the unit design was a 100-home residential development which endeavored to fulfill all the concerns of the community, while acting as a node within the neighborhood and providing an architecturally engaging & sustainable indoor as well as outdoor environment. The various open spaces – the promenade, centralized green area, terrace gardens, voids and balconies – were all well integrated with the carefully developed building form to provide both function as well as to promote occupant health and well-being. The linear building form allowed for dual-aspect units with ample daylight, cross-ventilation and views to the river, while provision of solar PVs on the roof ensured substantial power generation and lesser dependence on non-renewable energy sources.

Fig 7.7.1: Section through the Building

62 |

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

Fig 7.8.1: The Connection to the Central Greens from the Riverwalk

Fig 7.8.2: The front Promenade with Permeable Opening into the Site

Fig 7.8.3: View Showing the Functionality of the Balcony

Fig 7.8.4: Interior View of the Void

Site and Planning | 63

8

Environmental Studies

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

8.1. Embodied Carbon Analysis As mentioned as part of the materiality study, the embodied carbon was a key consideration for material selection. The chosen materials achieved 437 kgCO2/ m2 without sequestration, which achieves the target of <500 kgCO2/m2 for medium and large scale housing projects from the LETI guidelines as well as falls within the 2025 range on the RIBA 2030 challenge for domestic building. When including sequestration, which is due to the use of CLT for floor slabs on the upper floors, 270 kgCO2/m2 was achieved which falls into the 2030 range on the RIBA 2030 challenge.

The services contribute to 35% of the embodied carbon, and although this is a limitation of the FCBS Carbon used, it may be hypothesized that this value for embodied has the potential to be further optimized.

Fig 8.1.1: Carbon Analysis

66 |

(Source: FCBS Carbon Tool)

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

8.2. Thermal Studies Methodology: The methodology for thermal simulations to test the performance of the chosen form and materiality was broken down into three steps.

Firstly out of the 97 units in total, certain units were selected for simulation on the basis of their varying orientation, exposed surface area and the volume of the unit. Further for the units that did not perform up to a satisfactory level, the problem areas were identified and potential solutions were devised. For Step-2, the solutions were tested and iterated to be able to optimize the performance of these units up to a satisfactory level. Finally, the resilience of these optimized units was tested for a future scenario of climate change.

ST EP I

Orientation Exposure Volume

Preliminary

SOFT COMPUTATIONS

Simulate

Explore

Explore

Explore

Explore

Explore

Explore

ANALYZE PROBLEMS

Shading/ WWR Envelope Material

Iterate

STUDY ITERATION RESULTS

Optimize

SELECT UNITS TO SIMULATE

STEP II

Design Requirement

Resilience

CONCLUDE

CLIMATE CHANGE

STEP III

Fig 8.2.1: Thermal Studies Methodology

Environmental Studies | 67

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

8.2. Thermal Studies Step I Select Units to Simulate: The ‘base case’ studio unit was selected as the unit with south-eastern orientation and minimal exposed surface area (to minimize heat losses in the winter period). This was the fourth floor studio unit in Tower-2 (fig 8.2.2). This unit was also hypothesized to be the best performing unit owing to its good solar exposure, reduced heat loss and smaller volume. The first floor studio unit in Tower-2 (with an exposed floor) was tested for the impact of large exposed surface area, while the studio unit in Tower-9 was tested for the impact of it’s varying orientation. The top floor unit in Tower-8 was tested due to it’s varying orientation and large exposed surface area (roof and wall) as compared to the base case unit.

A similar approach was taken for the 2-bedroom units, wherein the ‘base case’ or hypothesized best performing unit was the third floor 2-bedroom unit in Tower-2. This was contrasted with the top floor & sixth floor 2-bedroom units in Tower-2 (both with exposed roofs), first floor 2-bedroom unit in Tower-3 (with an exposed floor) and the second floor 2-bedroom unit in Tower-7 (with varying orientation).

T7 T6

T5 T6

UNIT SELECTION CRITERIA:

T5 T4

T8 T7

Orientation | Exposure | Volume

T3 T2

T1

T8 T9

2BHK Simulated Units Studio Simulated Units Note: All units were considered as single zone for these simulations

N

Fig 8.2.2: Unit Selection for Thermal Studies

68 |

(Source: Ladybug Tools)

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

ΔT

8.2. Thermal Studies

6.8°C

6.9°C

6.5°C

6.7°C

T9 Studio Low

900

Summer Period Mean Outdoor Temperature: 17.1°C

Soft Computations | Studio: The thermal performance of the selected units was first tested through soft computations.

Target ΔT: 4.3°C – 10.3°C

300

Internal Loads Number of Occupants

1

Lighting Load

2.0 W/m2

Equipment Load

5.5 W/m2

Infiltration

0.1 ac/h

Ventilation per Person

30 m3

Additional Ventilation

0.5-1.3 ac/h

Schedules

For the winter period, despite the very low solar gains for the studios in both Tower-8 & 9, the controlled heat losses and the significant heat gains from the occupants and large appliances still allow for an increase of 7.3°C in the indoor operative temperature as compared to the outdoor dry bulb temperature. The first floor unit in Tower-2 (with an exposed floor) has a similar performance as the higher solar gains are balanced by the higher heat loss due to the exposed floor. The ‘base case’ unit showed substantial increase in indoor operative temperature due to large gains through solar radiation and fairly meagre heat loss (fig 8.2.3).

LOADS (W)

SUMMER PERIOD

During the summer period, although the shading provided by the balconies plays a significant role, however, solar gains were still observed to be the largest source of heat gain. The heat load due to occupants, and the large appliances load per floor area also led to substantial heat gains. The heat losses are fairly meagre and therefore natural ventilation (approx. 1 ac/h) plays a large role, especially in the ‘base case’ unit leading to a free-running scenario. Expected results in terms of varying solar gains due to varying orientation, and varying heat loss from opaque conduction (roof/ floor/ walls) due to varying area of exposed surface were observed (fig 8.2.3).

600

Comfort Band: 21.4°C – 27.4°C

Occupancy Schedule

16 hours

Lighting Schedule

10 hours

Equipment Schedule

10 hours

Heating Schedule

N/A

0

-300

-600

-900

T2 Studio Low

T2 Studio Mid (BC)

T8 Studio Top

Ventilation (Wellbeing)

-49

-50

-44

-43

Ventilation (Cooling)

-120

-158

-69

-109

Glazing Conduction

-16

-17

-15

-17

External Walls

-10

-11

-39

-11

Roof/ Floor

-35

0

-33

0

Infiltration

-18

-18

-21

-23

Occupants

67

67

67

67

Appliances

70

70

70

70

Lights

20

20

20

20

Solar Gain

92

96

65

46

7.3°C

7.3°C

ΔT

7.3°C

17.2°C

900

Winter Period Mean Outdoor Temperature: 7.3°C

600

Comfort Band: 18.2°C – 24.2°C

300 LOADS (W)

WINTER PERIOD

Target ΔT: 10.9°C – 16.9°C

Internal Loads Number of Occupants

1

Lighting Load

2.0 W/m2

Equipment Load

5.5 W/m2

Infiltration

0.1 ac/h

Ventilation per Person

30 m3

0

-300

-600

-900

T2 Studio Low

T2 Studio Mid (BC)

T8 Studio Top

T9 Studio Low

-90

-125

-49

-77

Ventilation (Cooling)

0

0

0

0

Glazing Conduction

-30

-42

-17

-30

External Walls

-19

-26

-44

-19

Roof/ Floor

-63

0

-37

0

Infiltration

-33

-46

-23

-42

Occupants

67

67

67

67

Appliances

70

70

70

70

Lights

20

20

20

20

Solar Gain

78

82

14

12

Ventilation (Wellbeing)

Schedules

Fig 8.2.3: Soft Computations for the chosen Studios

Occupancy Schedule

16 hours

Lighting Schedule

10 hours

Equipment Schedule

10 hours

Heating Schedule

N/A

Environmental Studies | 69

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

ΔT

8.2. Thermal Studies

7.1°C

6.7°C

6.8°C

7.2°C

6.9°C

900

Summer Period Mean Outdoor Temperature: 17.1°C

Soft Computations | 2BHK: The soft computations showed fairly similar thermal performance for the 2-bedroom unit as compared to the studio units.

Target ΔT: 4.3°C – 10.3°C

During the winter period, a significant variation in solar gains between the ‘base case’ unit and the Tower-7 unit are observed due to the differing orientation. However, the large occupant load and fairly minimal heat losses still allow for an increase of 8.6°C in the indoor operative temperature as compared to the outdoor dry bulb temperature. Other units, despite exposed surfaces, also performing similarly owing to fairly large solar gains due to their South-Eastern orientation (fig 8.2.4).

300 LOADS (W)

SUMMER PERIOD

In the summer period, the larger area of the unit (and more occupants) as compared to the studios leads to larger heat gains from the occupants and substantial solar gains. However, heat loss through natural ventilation (approx. 1 ac/h) allows for a free-running scenario for all the 2-bedroom units during the summer. Expected variation due to orientation and opaque conduction (exposed surface area) were observed for these units as well (fig 8.2.4).

600

Comfort Band: 21.4°C – 27.4°C

Internal Loads Number of Occupants

3

Lighting Load

2.0 W/m2

Equipment Load

2.1 W/m2

Infiltration

0.1 ac/h

Ventilation per Person

30 m3

Additional Ventilation

0.5/1 ac/h

Schedules Occupancy Schedule

16 hours

Lighting Schedule

10 hours

Equipment Schedule

10 hours

Heating Schedule

N/A

0

-300

-600

-900

T2 2BHK Top

T2 2BHK Mid

T2 2BHK Low (BC)

T3 2BHK Low

T7 2BHK Low

Ventilation (Wellbeing)

-155

-145

-148

-151

-150

Ventilation (Cooling)

-378

-355

-361

-215

-224

Glazing Conduction

-79

-74

-75

-96

-73

External Walls

-65

-61

-62

-79

-64

Roof/ Floor

-92

-86

0

-124

0

Infiltration

-57

-53

-54

-65

-56

Occupants

200

200

200

200

200

Appliances

70

70

70

70

70

Lights

50

50

50

60

50

Solar Gain

505

456

381

400

248

10.3°C

9.8°C

8.7°C

8.6°C

T2 2BHK Top

T2 2BHK Mid

T2 2BHK Low (BC)

T3 2BHK Low

T7 2BHK Low

-223

-213

-259

-180

-186

Ventilation (Cooling)

0

0

0

0

0

Glazing Conduction

-114

-109

-132

-115

-90 -80

ΔT

11.9°C

900

Winter Period Mean Outdoor Temperature: 7.3°C

600

Comfort Band: 18.2°C – 24.2°C

300 LOADS (W)

WINTER PERIOD

Target ΔT: 10.9°C – 16.9°C

Internal Loads Number of Occupants

3

Lighting Load

2.0 W/m2

Equipment Load

2.1 W/m2

Infiltration

0.1 ac/h

Ventilation per Person

30 m3

0

-300

-600

-900 Ventilation (Wellbeing)

Schedules

Fig 8.2.4: Soft Computations for the chosen 2 Bedroom Units 70 |

Occupancy Schedule

16 hours

Lighting Schedule

10 hours

Equipment Schedule

10 hours

Heating Schedule

N/A

External Walls

-94

-90

-109

-95

Roof/ Floor

-132

-126

0

-148

0

Infiltration

-82

-78

-95

-77

-69

Occupants

200

200

200

200

200

Appliances

70

70

70

70

70

Lights

50

50

50

60

50

Solar Gain

324

297

276

284

105

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

LETI Standard Heating Demand

8.2. Thermal Studies Step I Simulate: The thermal performance for the same four studio units and five 2-bedroom units was tested through computer-based simulations. Since it was established from the soft simulations that the summer period would be comfortable and free-running, the performance of these units were measured in percentage of comfort hours throughout the year and the heating demand to achieve comfort. The team aimed not only to achieve the LETI standard for space heating of 15 kWh/m2/year, but rather reduce it by at least a further 25%.

The results of the simulations showed satisfactory results for six out of the nine units (based on the team’s internal target), with the best performing studio unit and best performing 2-bedroom unit achieving a space heating demand of 2.0 kWh/m2/yr and 6.7 kWh/m2/yr respectively. Meanwhile, the worst performing studio unit was the Tower-8 top floor unit and worst performing 2-bedroom unit was the Tower-3 first floor unit with a space heating demand of 16.8 kWh/m2/yr and 14.8 kWh/m2/yr respectively.

Analyze Problems: The three units with unsatisfactory performance were further analyzed to establish the cause for their poor performance. The Tower-8 top floor studio unit, which had the highest overall space heating demand of 16.8 kWh/m2/yr, was hypothesized to perform poorly due to heat losses through a very large proportion of its surface area being exposed which was further coupled lower heat gains due to it’s North-East and SouthWest orientation. The 2-bedroom unit with the highest space heating demand of 14.8 kWh/m2/yr was found to be the Tower-3 first floor unit due to it’s exposed floor and some amount of shading by the neighbouring building.

≤15

HL: 16.8 kWh/m2/yr CH (FR): 53%

HL: 11.2 kWh/m2/yr CH (FR): 57%

HL: 10.9 kWh/m2/yr CH (FR): 67%

kWh/m²/yr

LETI Standard Standard LETI Heating Demand Demand Heating

≤15 >25% kWh/m²/yr

HL: 11.0 kWh/m2/yr CH (FR): 66%

reduction

HL: 2.0 kWh/m2/yr CH (FR): 89%

from LETI Standard

HL: 6.7 kWh/m2/yr CH (FR): 73%

N

HL: 4.6 kWh/m2/yr CH (FR): 69%

HL: 14.8 kWh/m2/yr CH (FR): 58%

HL: 5.8 kWh/m2/yr CH (FR): 76%

Fig 8.2.5: Step I Thermal Results for the Chosen Units (Source: Ladybug Tools)

• Night Shutters • Adding Window on Exposed Wall • Further Insulating Exposed Wall Large Exposed Surface & NE-SW Orientation

• Night Shutters • Increasing WWR E-W Orientation

Possible solutions to increase heat gain such as increasing WWR or addition of windows on the exposed, and to reduce heat losses such as night shutters & further insulation were identified to optimize the thermal performance of these units.

Best Performing Studio Best Performing 2BHK

Large Exposed Surface & Low Solar Exposure

• Night Shutters • Further Insulating Exposed Floor Fig 8.2.6: Problem Area for the Units Environmental Studies | 71

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

8.2. Thermal Studies Step II Iterate | Tower 2 Studio Best Performing Unit: Step-2 began with analyzing the annual thermal performance of the best performing studio unit and closely understanding the role of the shading provided by the balconies and that of natural ventilation. Through the use of both these measures, it was found that for 89% of the year the occupants can be comfortable in this unit in a free-running scenario, with space heating required only for a small part of the year in the winter period. This resulted in a space heating demand of only 2.0 kWh/m2/yr.

Best Performing Studio

Total Energy Consumption Total Energy Consumption

≤35 ≤35

30.4 30.4

kWh/m² kWh/m²

30.4 kWh/m² kWh/m kWh/m²2

LETI Standard LETI Standard

Achieved Achieved

N

Total Heating Demand Total Heating Demand

≤15 ≤15

Fig 8.2.7: Thermal Studies for Tower 2 Studio (Source: Ladybug Tools) 72 |

2.0 2.0

kWh/m² kWh/m²

kWh/m² kWh/m²

LETI Standard LETI Standard

Achieved Achieved

Note: The unit was considered as single zone for these simulations Note: The unit was considered as single zone for these simulations

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II No Natural Ventilation + No Shading (Free Running)

8.2. Thermal Studies

15.0

Storage

12.0

Cooling Glz. Conduction

9.0

Opq. Conduction

Step II Iterate | Tower 2 Studio Best Performing Unit: To further understand the reasons for it’s good thermal performance, the energy balance of a scenario with no natural ventilation and no shading was compared to that of a scenario with natural ventilation and shading. Further, the indoor operative temperature was analysed for both the typical summer and winter weeks to investigate whether there were any diurnal fluctuations in the operative temperature.

Loads (kWh/m2)

6.0

Nat. Ventilation

3.0

Mech. Ventilation

0.0

Infiltration

-3.0

Occupants

-6.0

Lighting Fan Electric

-9.0

Equipment

-12.0 -15.0

Solar

JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

Heating

Natural Ventilation + Shading (Free Running) 15.0

Typical Weeks: Taking a closer look at the indoor operative temperatures through the typical weeks, it was observed that the indoor OT remains stable and lies within the comfort band for the entirety of both the summer and winter typical weeks in a free-running scenario with shading and natural ventilation.

12.0 9.0 6.0 Loads (kWh/m2)

Energy Balance: The comparison of the two energy balances showed that while the shading provided by the balconies and natural ventilation were both very effective in the summer period by reducing heat gain and increasing heat loss respectively, they did not hamper the thermal performance in the winter period. The large heat gain through the equipment, the substantial solar gains due to it’s South-Eastern orientation and it’s smaller volume allowed for this unit to achieve a low space heating demand and be the best performing unit.

3.0 0.0 -3.0 -6.0 -9.0 -12.0 -15.0

JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

Fig 8.2.8: Energy Balance for Tower 2 Studio (Source: Ladybug Tools)

Fig 8.2.9: Typical Week Study (Source: Ladybug Tools) Environmental Studies | 73

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

• Night Shutters • Adding Window on Exposed Wall • Further Insulating Exposed Wall

8.2. Thermal Studies Step II Iterate | Tower 8 Studio Worst Performing Unit: The indoor operative temperature for the typical summer and winter weeks for the worst performing studio unit were then analyzed and iterated with.

Large Exposed Surface & NE-SW Orientation

It was seen that although through natural ventilation and shading, the OT for this unit would be in the comfort band for the typical summer week, however, during the typical winter week the OT was significantly below comfort.

Therefore, the earlier identified solutions to increase heat gains and reduce heat loss were tested. It was found that through an additive process of introducing night shutters, adding a window on the exposed South-East facing wall and further insulating the same wall, the indoor operative temperature could be increased by 1.2°C in the typical winter week, and the space heating demand could consequently be reduced by 25%.

Total Energy Consumption

≤35 kWh/m2

41.5 kWh/m2

37.3 kWh/m2

LETI Standard

Step I Achieved

Step II Improved

Total Heating Demand

≤15 kWh/m2

16.8 kWh/m2

LETI Standard

Step I Achieved

12.6 kWh/m2 Step II Improved

Fig 8.2.10: Thermal Studies for Tower 8 Studio (Source: Ladybug Tools) 74 |

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

8.2. Thermal Studies Step II Iterate | Tower 2 2BHK Best Performing Unit: A similar process of first analyzing the best performing 2-bedroom unit (having a space heating demand of 6.7 kWh/m2/yr) was carried out. Here it was observed that this unit would be comfortable for 73% of the year in a free-running scenario with natural ventilation and shading from the balcony. Consequently, space heating would be required for only a fourth of the year, leading to a fairly low space heating demand.

Best Performing Studio

Total Energy Consumption Total Energy Consumption

≤35 ≤35

20.6 30.4 41.5 20.6 41.5 30.4

kWh/m² kWh/m² kWh/m²

kWh/m² kWh/m² kWh/m²

LETI Standard LETI Standard

Achieved Achieved

N

Total Heating Demand Total Heating Demand

≤15 ≤15 kWh/m²

Fig 8.2.10: Thermal Studies for Tower 2, 2BHK (Source: Ladybug Tools)

2.0 6.7 16.8 16.8 6.7 2.0

kWh/m² kWh/m²

kWh/m² kWh/m² kWh/m²

LETI Standard LETI Standard

Achieved Achieved

Note: The unit was considered as single zone for these simulations Note: The unit was considered as single zone for Environmental these simulations

Studies | 75

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

8.2. Thermal Studies Step II Iterate | Tower 2 2BHK Best Performing Unit: A comparison was made between the energy balance of a scenario with no natural ventilation and no shading and that of a scenario with natural ventilation and shading. The indoor operative temperature for both typical summer and winter weeks was further investigated.

Energy Balance: The comparison between the two energy balances showed very similar results to that done for the best performing studio. Although this unit achieved a low space heating demand of 6.7 kWh/m2/yr, this was still higher than that of the studio’s due to it’s larger volume and lower equipment load per floor area as compared to the studio.

Typical Weeks: Taking a closer look at the indoor operative temperatures through the typical weeks, it was observed that the indoor OT lies within the comfort band for the entirety of the summer typical week in a free-running scenario with shading and natural ventilation, however, it is still slightly outside of the comfort band in the typical winter week. Since this ∆T is quite low, the space heating demand for this unit is fairly low as well.

Fig 8.2.11: Energy Balance for Tower , 2BHK (Source: Ladybug Tools)

Fig 8.2.12: Typical Week Study 76 |

(Source: Ladybug Tools)

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

8.2. Thermal Studies Step II Iterate | Tower 3 2BHK Worst Performing Unit: Similar to the studio, the indoor operative temperature for the typical summer and winter weeks for the worst performing 2-bedroom unit were analyzed and iterated with.

Here again, this unit was found to be in the comfort band for the typical summer week due to shading and natural ventilation, however, during the typical winter week the operative temperature was significantly below comfort.

It was found that through an additive process of introducing night shutters, and further insulating the exposed floor, the indoor operative temperature could be increased by 0.7°C in the typical winter week, and the space heating demand could consequently be reduced by 31%. These measures which were made to reduce heat loss were seen to have little or no impact in the typical summer week.

Large Exposed Surface & Low Solar Exposure

• Night Shutters • Further Insulating Exposed Floor

Total Energy Consumption

≤35 kWh/m2

27.8 kWh/m2

23.2 kWh/m2

LETI Standard

Step I Achieved

Step II Improved

Total Heating Demand

≤15 kWh/m2

14.8 kWh/m2

10.2 kWh/m2

LETI Standard

Step I Achieved

Step II Improved

Fig 8.2.10: Thermal Studies for Tower 3, 2BHK

(Source: Ladybug Tools) Environmental Studies | 77

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

• Night Shutters • Increasing WWR

8.2. Thermal Studies Step II Iterate | Tower 7 2BHK Poor Performing Unit: Through an additive process similar to that followed for other units, night shutters were introduced for this unit. This resulted in a small increase in the indoor operative temperature of only 0.3°C, and consequently reduced the heating demand by only 7%.

E-W Orientation

In both the worst performing studio and 2-bedroom unit, the space heating demand and indoor operative temperature in the winter period were optimized through a combination of increasing heat gain and reducing heat loss. However, this unit did not have a large exposed surface area, and the primary reason for it’s relatively poor performance was it’s orientation.

Hence, it was hypothesized that increasing the WWR on the East facing facade from 25% to 30% would result in improved solar gains. This was tested, but it was found that although this was true for a free-running scenario (a further increase of 0.2°C in indoor operative temperature was observed), however, with heating the increased WWR resulted in increased heat loss through glazing conduction and consequently increased the space heating demand. Therefore, the original WWR was retained.

Total Energy Consumption

≤35 kWh/m2

25.0 kWh/m2

24.2 kWh/m2

LETI Standard

Step I Achieved

Step II Improved

Total Heating Demand

≤15 kWh/m2

11.2 kWh/m2

10.4 kWh/m2

LETI Standard

Step I Achieved

Step II Improved

Fig 8.2.11: Thermal Studies for Tower 7, 2BHK (Source: Ladybug Tools) 78 |

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

8.2. Thermal Studies 40

1200

30 40

1400 1000

25 35 14.2°C (Mean DBT)

1200 800

20 30

1000 600

15 25

12.2°C (Mean DBT) 10 20 14.2°C (Mean DBT)

800 400

5 15

600 200

0 12.2°C (Mean DBT) 10

Firstly, a comparison between the outdoor dry bulb temperatures for London in the current scenario and that of TRY 2080 was conducted. It was observed that the annual mean DBT increased by 2°C in TRY 2080, with an increase of 2.6°C in the summer period and that of 1.5°C in the winter period.

-5 5

JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

OCTOBER

8.1 Global Horizontal 11.0 Radiation14.2 9.9 (Current) 11.6 15.6 MARCH APRIL MAY

17.2 19.3 JUNE

18.9 22.3 JULY

18.2 21.6 AUGUST

16.4 Outdoor DBT 12.7 (TRY 2080) 19.1 15.7 SEPTEMBER OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

0

Current -5 TRY 2080

6.8 Outdoor DBT6.0 7.1 (Current) FEBRUARY 8.1 JANUARY Outdoor DBT (Current)

Global Horizontal Radiation (Current)

Outdoor DBT (TRY 2080)

400 0 200

2) Daily Average Solar Radiation Daily Average Solar(Wh/m Radiation (Wh/m2)

1400

35

Temp. (◦C) Temp. (◦C)

Step III Climate Change: Since designing for climate change was a key aspect of the environmental agenda established early on, therefore, after testing and optimizing the thermal performance through the indoor operative temperature and space heating demand for all the selected units, it was imperative to test their thermal performance in a future scenario of climate change. The test reference year (TRY) of 2080 was chosen for the same.

9.2 Global Horizontal7.1 Radiation 12.2 (TRY 2080)

11.7 NOVEMBER

8.4 DECEMBER

0

14.2

Global Horizontal Radiation (TRY 2080)

The Tower 7 second floor 2-bedroom unit was chosen to be simulated in this future scenario of TRY 2080. When comparing the annual free-running operative temperatures, it was found that only 3% of the year was above comfort band, the temperature peaks of which can be seen in July. The overall percentage of comfortable hours increased by 5% and percentage of hours below the comfort band reduced by 7%. This led to a consequent reduction of space heating demand of 4%.

The purpose of Step III was to test the resilience of the proposed units, and through the results it may be concluded that the performance of the building is largely unchanged (if not marginally improved) in the future scenario.

(Current)

Fig 8.2.12: Climate Change Studies (Source: Ladybug Tools)

Environmental Studies | 79

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

8.3. Daylight Studies Select Units to Simulate_ Similar to the thermal analysis, both height and orientation of these units could also influence their daylight performance. Thermal simulations investigated the performance for the 7 units and the role balconies were playing in the reduction of solar gains.

Therefore, it was important to investigate how those same units were performing in terms of daylight.

The group decided for point in time simulations, for both summer and winter solstices and under different sky conditions. For the comparison between the units, it was considered results taken at 12h of both solstices and sky conditions. And fisheye images were also taken for glare analysis of the living room in all units.

UNIT SELECTION CRITERIA: Orientation | Exposure | Volume Orientation | Height

21st June 1200 hrs

N

21st December 1200 hrs

2BHK Simulated Units Studio Simulated Units Note: All units were considered as single zone for these simulations

Fig 8.3.1: Selection of Units for Daylight Studies 80 |

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

8.3. Daylight Studies Studio - 1200h - Sunny & Overcast_ The two studio units in both solstices showed good results in the simulation for sunny sky condition. The lower value identified was higher than 100lux, at the entrance of the unit in tower 2 which, again, is a satisfactory illuminance for a hall.

Despite the good performance with sunny sky conditions, an overcast one did not show good results. The further away from the window, the lower the values get. Even though the unit does not have a deep plan, the lack of daylight in this condition brings the illuminance values close to 30lux at the unit’s entrance

N

Fig 8.3.2: Studio daylight comparatives between various units (Source: Ladybug Tools)

SUNNY

Tower 8 - 6th floor

Tower 2 - 5th floor

Tower 8 - 6th floor

WINTER SOLSTICE

SUMMER SOLSTICE

Tower 2 - 5th floor

OVERCAST

Environmental Studies | 81

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

8.3. Daylight Studies 2 Bedroom - 1200h - Sunny_Comparing the results for all three 2BHK units, it is seen that the unit with different orientation (located in tower 7) did not perform as well as the unit in tower 2 at the same height. Despite lower illuminance values, it is observed that areas close to windows show around 300lux at 12h with a sunny sky, which can still be considered enough for a residential space.

HEIGHT

Tower 2 - Lower Floor

Tower 7 - Lower Floor

N

WINTER SOLSTICE

SUMMER SOLSTICE

Tower 2 - Upper Floor

ORIENTATION

Fig 8.3.3: 2BHK daylight comparatives between various units for Sunny Sky Conditions (Source: Ladybug Tools) 82 |

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

8.3. Daylight Studies 2 Bedroom - 1200h - Overcast_For an overcast sky, the simulation for 12h shows that all three units showed much lower values – with the one in tower 7 with its higher values close to 200lux. This was expected, given the sky condition, but still satisfactory if considered as residential use.

HEIGHT

Tower 2 - Lower Floor

Tower 7 - Lower Floor

N

WINTER SOLSTICE

SUMMER SOLSTICE

Tower 2 - Upper Floor

ORIENTATION

Fig 8.3.4: 2BHK daylight comparatives between various units for Overcast Sky Conditions (Source: Ladybug Tools) Environmental Studies | 83

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

8.3. Daylight Studies Studio - Tower 2_The daylight performance of this studio is overall satisfactory, even with an overcast sky, as observed in the summer solstice. However, in the winter solstice the values are very low even close to the window.

Here is it also seen the role of the balconies as shading devices as the morning sun during summer is being blocked but is coming in during winter, which is positive from both thermal and daylight aspects.

OVERCAST SUMMER SOLSTICE

SUNNY WINTER SOLSTICE

SUMMER SOLSTICE

WINTER SOLSTICE

09h

12h

15h

Fig 8.3.5: Studio Tower 2 Point In Time Studies (Source: Ladybug Tools) 84 |

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

8.3. Daylight Studies Studio - Tower 8_These results show the importance of the additional opening on these units facing southeast, as the mains source of daylight comes from this window.

OVERCAST SUMMER SOLSTICE

SUNNY WINTER SOLSTICE

SUMMER SOLSTICE

WINTER SOLSTICE

09h

12h

15h

Fig 8.3.6: Studio Tower 8 Point In Time Studies (Source: Ladybug Tools) Environmental Studies | 85

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

8.3. Daylight Studies Studio - Illuminance Perspective_ The studio in tower 8 is the unit that shows presence of glare. This can be seen specially during the mornings, because of the opening located towards the east. This can be reduced with the installation of operable blinds by the users.

TOWER 2 SUMMER SOLSTICE

TOWER 8 WINTER SOLSTICE

SUMMER SOLSTICE

WINTER SOLSTICE

0900

86 |

Lux

700

630

560

490

420

350

210

70

140

Fig 8.3.7: Studio_Illuminance Perspective (Source: Ladybug Tools)

0

1500

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

8.3. Daylight Studies 2 Bedroom - Tower 2 (Top)_With these simulations it is possible to observe that the performance of this unit is overall very good with sunny sky conditions, with illuminance reaching high values in every room. It is clear the change with different sky conditions, but it is also noticeable a change when comparing summer and winter. Is it clear how the balconies act as shading devices for these units, blocking the lower sun in the morning.

OVERCAST SUMMER SOLSTICE

SUNNY WINTER SOLSTICE

SUMMER SOLSTICE

WINTER SOLSTICE

09h

12h

15h

Fig 8.3.8: 2 BHK Tower 2 (top) Point In Time Studies (Source: Ladybug Tools) Environmental Studies | 87

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

8.3. Daylight Studies 2 Bedroom - Tower 2 (Low)_It is observed that the performance of this unit is similar to the one in an upper floor in the same tower. However, the values shown are lower, indicating that the “height” factor is influencing the amount of daylight it is receiving.

OVERCAST SUMMER SOLSTICE

SUNNY WINTER SOLSTICE

SUMMER SOLSTICE

WINTER SOLSTICE

09h

12h

15h

Fig 8.3.9: 2 BHK Tower 2 (low) Point In Time Studies (Source: Ladybug Tools) 88 |

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

8.3. Daylight Studies 2 Bedroom - Tower 7_These results reflect how the orientation plays an important role in daylight. In comparison with the unit in tower 2 at the same height, this unit receives less daylight in the rooms analyzed.

However, it is worth mentioning the importance of the dual aspect of these units. The east-west orientation of the openings allows it to receive daylight throughout the year.

OVERCAST SUMMER SOLSTICE

SUNNY WINTER SOLSTICE

SUMMER SOLSTICE

WINTER SOLSTICE

09h

12h

15h

Fig 8.3.10: 2 BHK Tower 7 Point In Time Studies (Source: Ladybug Tools) Environmental Studies | 89

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

8.3. Daylight Studies 2BHK Illuminance Perspective_Given the point in time results, it was important to understand the impact that glare could have in those hours when the sun would be in its lower angle.

Results show a higher variation only for the sunny sky summer solstice day for the upper unit in tower 2, with values ranging from 70lux on the floor to 630lux closer to the window.

Overall, the results were satisfactory, with low variations in lux throughout the rooms analyzed.

TOWER 2_LOW

TOWER 2_TOP WINTER SOLSTICE

SUMMER SOLSTICE

WINTER SOLSTICE

SUMMER SOLSTICE

WINTER SOLSTICE

Lux Fig 8.3.11: 2BHK_Illuminance Perspective (Source: Ladybug Tools) 90 |

700

630

560

490

420

350

210

70

140

0

1500

0900

SUMMER SOLSTICE

TOWER 7

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

8.4. A Day in the Life Post carrying out the thermal and daylight studies, the use of adaptive opportunities and the occupant schedule was explored. Six major adaptive opportunities were looked at and their use was determined in the schedule of the occupants causing a further optimization in consumptions in terms of heating and lighting loads hence improving efficiency.

Occupant Information No. of Occupants_ 3 Window Operability Reduced temperature through ventilation For summers months

Shutter Blinds Prevents glare and acts as shading For winter and summers months

Occupant 1: John Age: 40 years old Occupation: Financial Advisor Work Schedule: Works from Home Night Shutters Prevents heat loss during night For winter months

Temperature Control Allows for heating load optimization Opportunity to adjust based on different Met and Clo Values

Hobbies: Gardening, Chess

Occupant 2: Yoko Age: 47 years old Occupation: Interior Designer Work Schedule: Works from Home twice a week Hobbies: Working Out, Guitar

Occupant 3: Julian Lighting Control Based on the daylighting and lux requirements the lighting can be controlled

Clo Value Must be altered based on season, physiology, and metabolic activity

Age: 17 years old Occupation: School Student Work Schedule: Goes to school on weekdays Hobbies: Video Games, Basketball

Environmental Studies | 91

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

0700 - 0900 SUMMER

0900 - 1100 WINTER

SUMMER

cooking

cooking

at co-working space

at co-working space

jogging (outdoor)

working out (indoor)

out to work

out to work

getting dressed

getting dressed

out at school

out at school

1100 - 1300 SUMMER

92 |

WINTER

1300 - 1500 WINTER

SUMMER

WINTER

at co-working space

at co-working space

lunching

lunching

out to work

out to work

out to work

working out (indoor)

out at school

out at school

out at school

getting dressed

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

1500 - 1700 SUMMER

1700 - 1900 WINTER

SUMMER

WINTER

working (balcony)

gardening (terrace garden)

shopping grocery (promenade)

cooking

out to work

out to work

resting/snacks

playing guitar (void)

playing video game

playing basketball (court)

playing (outdoors)

studying

1900 - 2100 SUMMER

2100 - 2300 WINTER

SUMMER

WINTER

cooking

cooking

resting

resting

cooking

cooking

resting

resting

watching tv

watching tv

resting

resting Environmental Studies | 93

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

PV SYSTEM

8.5. Renewable Resources In order to further reduce the energy demand as well as contribute to the reduction of operational carbon, renewables systems were investigated.

A PV system was then explored, as a replacement for non-renewable energy sources. Following LETI’s recommendation of coverage of 70% of roof area for PVs, six out of nine towers were identified for their installation. The towers which receive maximum solar radiation were chosen to increase the potential energy generation. Following that, it was considered that 20% of this area would be left for servicing and access.

Calculating for the most commonly used 250W PV panels, it was found that a total energy generation of 13.83 kWh/m2/yr could be achieved.

The more expensive but more efficient 400W panels could generate 19.15 kWh/m2/yr, which would reduce the net operational energy for the project by almost 45%.

In addition, rainwater harvesting and storage were considered for this project, so it could be used as alternative water source. For this the average rainfall and available roof area was used to calculate the potential of water that could collected. It was found that a third of the total water required for flushing could be replaced by rainwater, which would reduce the total water requirement for the development.

Panel Wattage: 250W

Panel Wattage: 400W

Power Generation: 0.13kWh/m2/yr

Power Generation: 0.18kWh/m2/yr

System Efficiency: 20%

System Efficiency: 20%

Total Roof Area Available: 950 m2

Total Roof Area Available: 950 m2

Roof Area for PVs: 665 m2

Roof Area for PVs: 665 m2

(70% of Total Roof Area)

(70% of Total Roof Area)

Effective Area for PVs: 532 m2

Effective Area for PVs: 532 m2

(20% Area Lost for Servicing, etc.)

(20% Area Lost for Servicing, etc.)

Total Generated Energy

Area for panels

13.83 kWh/m²/yr

Total Generated Energy

kWh/m²/yr

Rainwater harvesting

RAINWATER Average rainfall (yr): 690 mm

N

Total roof area: 950 m² Water collected (yr): 655.5 l Water collected (month): 54.6 l Total number of people: 232 Water consumption with flush (monthly): 166.7 l

Total Water Supply (for flush) Fig 8.5.1: Renewable Strategies 94 |

19.15

33%

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

8.6. Whole Life Carbon Assessment The whole life carbon impact was a key consideration for this development. As previously mentioned, through the use of CLT and GGBS reinforced concrete, the embodied carbon achieved met the targets set by both the LETI guidelines, as well as the RIBA 2030 challenge for domestic buildings with a total of 270 kgCO2e/m2. A closer look at the carbon impact over the various stages of the project lifecycle showed that the major embodied carbon impact is from A1A5, which is the construction stage.

In terms of operational energy, the development’s net operational energy of 26 kWh/m2/yr also meets the targets set by the RIBA 2030 challenge. The carbon impact of operational energy (stages B6-B7), are still quite substantial, but are partially offset by use of renewable energy sources.

26 -155 35

-155

26 Fig 8.6.1: Whole Life Carbon Assessment (Source: FCBS Carbon Tool) Environmental Studies | 95

9

Conclusions

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

9.1. General Conclusions Through this project, the team set out to propose a 100home residential development, with the goal of creating an architecturally, environmentally and contextually robust development with minimum environmental impact and bringing maximum comfort to its occupants.

Through a detailed study of the surrounding built fabric & materiality, amenities & access for the neighbourhood, demographic data, concerns & requirements of the community, the existing proposals, built precedents and the climate of London, a set of design and environmental agendas were formulated which formed the base framework for the further development of the project.

For the outdoor environment, a distinct zoning of outdoor spaces was done ranging from completely public to completely private outdoor spaces. Each of these outdoor spaces were envisioned as usable outdoor spaces with access to amenities and activities, which would not only serve as community and gathering spaces, but also promote health & well-being of the occupants. Wind and UTCI studies were conducted for the promenade, the centralized green area, the terrace gardens, and the balconies and it was observed that they are all comfortable for >90% of the summer period, however, only comfortable for approximately 45% of the winter period. Therefore the voids, which also served the dual function of reducing the building mass, were designed with operable glazed louvers. This allowed the voids to be comfortable for >90% of the summer, and >75% of the winter periods. This creates a variety of open spaces which the occupants can move across over the varying daily and seasonal cycles.

For the indoor environment, it was hypothesized from the climate study that through the use of basic environmental strategies, such as effective use of shading, use of natural

98 |

& cross-ventilation, appropriate selection of materials and through the provision of adaptive opportunities, the summer period may be entirely free-running and comfortable for the occupants. The challenge was hence to maximize the comfort for the winter period, and bring it close to free-running to consequently reduce space heating demand. Therefore, from the early stage of the environmental agenda further to the zoning and massing, increased levels of solar exposure and reduced levels of heat loss were prioritized to ensure higher heat gains for the units in the winter period. This was achieved through orienting the building mass for maximum units to have southern exposure, by creating linear & dual aspect units and by selection of materials with low u-value. The thermal performance of some of the units was further optimized by reducing heat loss through the use of night shutters and insulation, and increasing heat gains through solar gains. The resultant units were found to be completely free-running in the summer period as hypothesized, and with all units having space heating demands which were lower than the LETI benchmarks by >25%, with some units having demands >80% lower than the LETI benchmarks.

The indoor environments were tested for their resilience through simulations for a future scenario of climate change. It was found that the thermal performance and occupant comfort in the units remains largely unaffected (if not marginally improved) in the future scenario.

In terms of daylight, the southern exposure coupled with the linear & dual-aspect unit design (with living spaces within the passive zone) allowed for sufficient daylight in the units through most of the year. The problem of glare during times with a lower sun-angle were tackled through the provision of the adaptive mechanism of operable blinds in the units.

A detailed study of the potential usage patterns of both the indoor and outdoor spaces within the site across varying daily and seasonal cycles was carried out to establish the functional, aesthetic and comfort aspect for these spaces.

Several future urban scenarios, such as continuing trends of working from home were explored as part of this study. Adaptive mechanisms and opportunities for the occupants, such as operable windows, heating control, operable blinds, night shutters, lighting control, metering, and operable glazed louvers were derived from this study.

Another environmental agenda was to be able to move towards a scenario of independence from non-renewable energy sources. Provision of PV panels on 70% of the roof area of the development allowed for solar energy generation of around 33% of the total operational energy demand. Other measures such as rainwater harvesting also help reduce operational energy.

The whole-life carbon impact of the development was considered from the project onset. Materials with low embodied carbon, such as CLT and GGBS reinforced concrete were selected which allowed the embodied carbon to be >45% lower than the LETI benchmarks.

The space heating demand was significantly reduced through the measures taken in the thermal studies, while high levels of daylighting allowed to reduce dependence on artificial lighting. The further use of PV panels and rainwater harvesting allowed the operational energy was to be reduced to achieve the RIBA 2030 climate challenge and fall within the “innovative” building band.

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

9.2. Personal Outcomes These three months of the term have been extremely exciting as well as exhilarating. Learning from various practicing architects from the field and exploring the principles in design this term was extremely rewarding.

The site situated at Battersea provided very contrasting yet interesting contextual studies. Not just the site surroundings but also the views of the community helped us with the designing process.

We carefully kept in mind the needs of the people and started designing with the form through a series of careful analysis of sun and wind. This iterative process helped us reach to a informed designed form which contributed to good thermal results. Decisions like south facing living spaces, balconies, dual aspect were major factors. Apart from this the materials were carefully chosen to ensure minimum carbon footprint as well as optimal U values.

These factors were investigated through both soft computations and simulations to understand and reach a desired value for each. Having optimized this we, calculated the loads to achieve LETI standards and keep a buffer of about 25% from the minimum to account for the difference between simulations and POE. For daylight aswell, relevant units were simulated to understand if there were low light levels or issues of glare.

To close, we further optimized the loads through adaptive opportunities in schedules.

The studies and discussions carried out for the project led to a very comprehensive understanding of the design process and further application for climate change.

As a team, we ensured to keep switching roles throughout the term from one review to the other to ensure each person gets a clarity of each of the tools and the concepts associated to them.

Finally, I would like to conclude by saying that it was an extremely enriching term in terms of both application of tools and clearing the environmental concepts.

The experience of learning about environmental user comfort in a space, while designing it simultaneously has been exhilarating . Balancing the two got really challenging at times, but I can confidently say that at the end of the term we are one step closer to designing efficiently while keeping all these factors in mind.

During the initial process of design, our team concentrated on iteratively arriving at the best possible form - keeping in mind the visual aspect of the design and trying to maximize comfort of the occupant in the spaces. This was very interesting as it not only made us utilize the full potential of the tools we had been taught in term one but also made us critically think and analyze beyond what the technical simulations showed us directly. This enabled us to try to intuitively design as we progressed further into the details.

Additionally this semester, we were able to study the global impact of different materials on carbon emissions and also understand how to design for climate change.

It was interesting to observe these factors and implement changes in our design accordingly .

The project also made us realize that while we design, iterate, and analyze heavily for the immediate occupants of our space - but as architects specializing in sustainability it is important to keep the surrounding neighborhood in mind. Shadow studies and UTCI helped us arrive at solutions which would be best for the community .

Additionally, I was also happy with how we were able to identify the accurate base cases for thermal analysis based on various factors that lead us to finding solutions and adding elements where needed, much more efficiently.

Finally, this semester was a big learning curve for me despite the problems we incurred, I am glad we learnt so much along the way to designing according to the communities demands and ensuring environmental comfort for the users.

The ability of combining theoretical knowledge gathered throughout months and analytical approach learned from previous works was one of the main outcomes from this project for me.

During this project, we went back to the basic principles learned during the previous term and to the analytical process of building performance analysis. Through this process and at the end of it, it became clear to me how we were could develop the ability of determining our own design guidelines based on solid environmental principles.

The form development was a good example of how we were able to base our design process on qualitative environmental notions we had built through Term 1.

Determining the most favorable orientation for residential units in London climate, then looking at the surroundings for shadow analysis and solar access of both our building and the surrounding ones, and finally combining that with mass variation for more solar gains and integration with the surrounding neighborhood.

Exploring balconies in London climate was an interesting challenge that showed me how many variables there are to be considered – from environmental aspects of this climate to the usability of this space. This is one of the learnings I would like to further investigate.

Also, the challenges that thermal analysis imposes on daylight is always an interesting and defying process.

And I was very pleased on how our group conducted it through an iterative process, identifying different solutions and adding them in such a way that we could better the results.

The challenge of balancing architectural features, usability, and community integration of a building design process with comfort standards, environmental performance and sustainability solutions was the tonic during this process. Despite the challenges and necessary compromises and tradeoffs, I could – gladly – experience it as an integrated process.

Although personally having had prior experience of working on residential design projects, this project was especially interesting (and challenging at the same time) with equal importance given to both architectural and environmental agendas. This meant that from the project outset itself, each decision was weighed by the team in terms of both its architectural and environmental impact – with empirical data produced to support each design decision.

I was pleased with how the study progressed from our initial visit to the site to understand the context and the built fabric of the neighbourhood to a deeper study of the demographics of the area, which gave us the critical understanding of the occupants we would be designing for. Taking decisions from the beginning based on basic passive design strategies such as orientation and study of solar geometry allowed us to reach a building form which would eventually perform up to a satisfactory level in terms of both thermal and daylight performance – ensuring comfort and reducing the energy demands. The use of the soft computation and simulation tools allowed us to successfully ascertain the major variables and causes for relatively poorer performance of some units.

We could then refine and optimize the performance through a sensitivity study following an additive process.

A variety of outdoor spaces were designed with varying levels of privacy, access, functionality and imagined usage patterns. This fulfilled the major concern of the community of the lack of open spaces, and would also promote occupant health and wellbeing.

As someone having a keen interest in the studies related to climate change and whole-life carbon, it was intriguing to study the various aspects pertaining to these complex issues. It was encouraging to see results through the use of different tools that our design met (and bettered in several instances) the standards set out by LETI and the RIBA 2030 challenge.

-SURABHI AGARWAL

-SHREYA ANEJA

-MARINA LIMA VECCHIO

-RAGHAV SWARUP

Conclusions | 99

10

References

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

102 |

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

10. References Computational Tools Excel MInT Spreadsheet Autodesk CFD Ladybug / Honeybee Open Studio & Energy Plus UTCI FCBS Carbon Tool Online Resources Satel Lite: http://www.satel-light.com/ Meteonorm: https://meteonorm.com/en/ EPW Maps: https://www.ladybug.tools/epwmap/ http://www.uwe.ac.uk http://www.18thc-cities.paris-sorbonne.fr/Bedford-estates-in-London.html?lang=en#2 https://passivehouseplus.co.uk/magazine/upgrade/historic-london-house-gets-near-passive-transformation https://www.wunderground.com/ https://www.pvfitcalculator.energysavingtrust.org.uk/ https://www.dattner.com/projects/view/via-verde-the-green-way/ https://www.pvfitcalculator.energysavingtrust.org.uk/ https://www.pvfitcalculator.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Documents/150224_SolarEnergy_Calculator_Sizing_Guide_v1.pdf https://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/reports/AtHomewithWater%287%29.pdf https://en.climate-data.org/europe/united-kingdom/england/london-1/ https://www.arch2o.com/homes-for-all-dortheavej-residence-bjarke-ingels-group/ https://www.archdaily.com/903495/homes-for-all-dortheavej-residence-bjarke-ingels-group Published Material Givoni, B. (1998) Climate Considerations in Building and Urban Design. Van Nostrand Reinhold, the USA Yannas,S. (1993) Solar Energy and Housing Design. Architectural Association, UK (2019) Environmental Design, CIBSE Guide A. The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, UK Baker, N.V. and K. Steemers (2019). Healthy Homes. Designing with light and air for sustainablitiy and wellbeing. RIBA Publications.

Baker N V. (2007). Natural ventilation strategies for refurbishment projects. Revival Technical Monograph 3 www.revival-eu.net. [FS] CIBSE (2006). Environmental criteria for design. Chapter 1 in CIBSE Guide A. Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, London. [FS] City of London Corporation (2020). Thermal Comfort Guidelines for developments in the City of London.

Corner, D., J.Fillinger, A. Kwok (2018). Passive House Details. Routledge.

Dunster, B. (2019) ZEDLife: how to build a low carbon society today. RIBA Publishing.

LETI (2017). Climate Emergency Design Primer. London Energy Transformation Initiative.

LETI (2017). Embodied Carbon Primer. London Energy Transformation Initiative.

Levitt, D. and J.McCafferty (2018). The Housing Design Handbook. A guide to good practice. 2nd Edition. Routledge.

Reinhart, C. (2014). Daylighting Handbook I. www.DaylightingHandbook.com Rodriguez, J. and S. Yannas (2020). Domestic Overheating in a Temperate Climate. Feedback from London residential schemes. In Sustainable Cities and Society 59. Elsevier.

Yannas, S. (1994). Solar Energy and Housing Design. Volume 1: Principles, Objectives, Guidelines. AA Publications.

References | 103

11

Appendices

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

MInt Spreadsheets Studio T2 Summer and Winter

106 |

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

MInt Spreadsheets Studio T8 Summer and Winter

Appendices | 107

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

MInt Spreadsheets 2BHK T2 (TOP) Summer and Winter

108 |

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

MInt Spreadsheets 2BHK T2 (LOW) Summer and Winter

Appendices | 109

SED | MSc + MArch | 2021-22

MInt Spreadsheets 2BHK T7 Summer and Winter

110 |

Design Research: Refurbishing the City Part II

Carbon Spreadsheets

Appendices | 111