FEASIBILITY STUDIES EXPANSION FOR A GREENHOUSE SC PAVILION CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY PRESENTATION FEBRUARY 04th, 2015
1. 2. PHYSICAL OSCAR PETERSON SERVICES CONCERT HALL VANIER LIBRARY SC PAVILION 4. VANIER LIBRARY EXTENSION 5. 3. 4. 1. 6. 3. 2. LOYOLA CHAPEL 5. SITE PLAN 6. SITE SURVEY 01/10
PROJECT CONTEXT The Concordia Student Union is studying the feasibility of constructing a greenhouse in which fresh produce would be cultivated for daily consumption on the two Concordia campuses. The three proposed sites are related ¡to the SC Building on the Loyola Campus, and illustrated in this study. In each case, the fruit and vegetables would be grown in soil, either directly in the ground or in elevated beds within the greenhouses. Various principles such as rainwater recuperation, anaerobic digestion, geothermal and passive solar heating have been investigated in order to reduce the dependance of the greenhouse on the existing campus and municipal infrastructures. AERIAL VIEW 02/10
REFERENCES ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT IMPLANTATION B. SECTION B A. SECTION A OPTION A | greenhouse located on roof of existing building 03/10
OPTION A PT- PT1 299-30 PT-299-20 PT-299-21 Avantages 09 1- High levels of unobstructed natural light penetration of greenhouse. 109-1 113 116 2- No additional land is occupied for the construction of the greenhouse 106 011 010 01-15 107 3- Greenhouse could be a visually interesting addition to the building. 109 01-13 01-14 199-30 112 4- Secondary functions could be shared with the existing building 094 VE 115 -1 111 01-12 01-11 08 (washrooms, storage facilities, office space, etc.) reducing building cost. 199-10 A A 094 194 110 01-6 -90 101 01 07 011-90 Disadvantages 108 196 06 05 02 1- The existing rooftop mechanical units, the required access spaces 04 110 01-3 01-8 096 01-5 surrounding them and the 1m setback from the building's exterior walls 01-7 01-9 096-1 create a complex and irregular footprint available for the greenhouse 5932 01-2 30m² 01-4 01-10 35m² construction. The resulting irregular forms increase the building envelope mec. 098 and energy loss from the greenhouse. The large rooftop airhandling 102-90 03 03-2 03-4 B B units will shade parts of the greenhouse. 03-10 03-8 5098 2- Potential structural reinforcement due to the additional weight of the 03-90 102 greenhouse, and the seismic reinforcement could incur significant 03-1 03-7 03-9 additional expenses 03-3 03-5 03-11 3- Roof slopes and drains would need to be reconfigured, and a new roof membrane would be required due to the construction. 4- A cistern for rainwater recuperation would be difficult to integrate in the new construction. 5- A request to modify existing zoning restrictions for the building site would be required, as the building is presently at the maximum height 1. BASEMENT PLAN 2. FIRST FLOOR PLAN permitted by zoning. This would require a number of months for public hearings, and additional expenses. 6- Potential problems of snow accumulation around the air-handling units affecting their functioning as well as maintenance (difficult accessibility) when surrounding by the greenhouse. 7- New elevator and extension of two stairwells required to access the greenhouse. 210-2 202 9000 214 210 212 -1 210 204 SURFACE AREA SUMMARY 200 208 206-1 299-00 8100 1000 UT. CULTIVATION 360m² A 213 A 201 207 294 30m² 203 CIRCULATION 145m² 296 215 UTILITIES 060m² 19600 TOTAL 565 m² 1 2 3 215-90 5900 25m² 30m² 135m² 200m² B B 5600 PASSIVE SOLAR WALL 220 1000 1500 6600 9600 5300 8500 5300 35300 3. SECOND FLOOR PLAN 4. ROOF PLAN - NEW LEVEL OPTION A 04/10
REFERENCES IMPLANTATION B. SECTION A - VARIATION A. SECTION A OPTION B | vertical greenhouse located in front of the building 05/10
PT1 PT- 299-30 PT-299-20 OPTION B PT-299-21 09 109-1 113 116 Avantages 106 011 010 01-15 107 01-13 01-14 199-30 109 112 094 VE 115 1- Fewer interventions to the existing building during construction and -1 01-12 01-11 111 08 hence, reduced disturbance of day-to-day operations. 199-10 094 2- Secondary functions could be shared with the existing building 01-6 194 110 01 -90 101 07 011-90 (washrooms, storage facilities, office space, etc.) reducing building 108 196 cost. 05 06 194-1 04 01-3 01-8 110 096 3- A direct visual and physical link between the Hive, CSU functions and 02 01-5 01-7 the greenhouse spaces would stimulate interest in and optimize the 01-9 096-1 01-2 01-4 01-10 greenhouse's additional role as a prototypical example of vertical urban agriculture integrating self-sufficient energy sources. 098 102-90 03 03-2 03-4 4- Possibility to cultivate plants in natural soil conditions on the lowest level. 03-8 03-10 5- The roof of the existing building would be available for solar panels 03-90 102 (solar panels to generate heating and/or electricity for lighting). 03-1 6- Rational integration of rainwater retention for the greenhouse. 03-3 03-5 03-7 03-9 03-11 7- Reduced building envelope of the greenhouse and its adjacency to the existing building would minimize heat loss during the winter season. 3000 B B 3000 50m² 25m² 25m² Disavantages 4500 4500 120m² 120m² 1- Removal of two or three mature trees adjacent to the proposed building site (new trees would be planted elsewhere to compensate for 26400 26400 A their removal). C 2- Greenhouse accessed via existing occupied spaces. 1. BASEMENT PLAN 2. FIRST FLOOR PLAN SURFACE AREA SUMMARY CULTIVATION 360m² 210-2 CIRCULATION 090m² 202 214 210 212 -1 UTILITIES 055m² 210 204 200 208 TOTAL 505 m² 206-1 299-00 213 294 201 207 203 296 RAINWATER HARVESTING 215 SOLAR PANELS 215-90 solar panels DUMBWAITER DIRECT ACCESS 220 B 3000 3000 15m² rainwater harvesting 4500 4500 120m² 26400 26416 C 3. SECOND FLOOR PLAN 4. ROOF PLAN - NEW LEVEL SECTION B OPTION B 06/10
SCHEMATIC SECTION - WINTER SCHEMATIC SECTION - SUMMER OPTION B | vertical greenhouse located in front of the building 07/10
OPTION B OPTION B 08/10
REFERENCES IMPLANTATION OPTION C | on-grade greenhouse located on a site to be determined 09/10
OPTION C s Avantages 1- This option would require no modifications to the existing building. An autonomous site would permit a rational and simple construction using prefabricated elements. w 2- In-ground agriculture would be possible depending upon the selected site. 3- Possibility to build the greenhouse with polycarbonate panels to reduce building costs and increase thermal resistance. 4500 4- Potential for anaerobic digestion to generate biogas as a heat source. 5- Evolutive greenhouse dimensions; the project can be phased and grow. 16800 Disavantages 1- Potentially less accessible and less visible from the CSU functions in the SECTION A existing building, hence reducing its pedagogic role. 2- Availability of an appropriate site on campus to be determined. 3- potential decontamination of greenhouse site. 2- New infrastructure would be required for the greenhouse (hook-up to aquaduct and sewer, gas, electricity, etc.). SURFACE AREA SUMMARY s CULTIVATION 360m² UTILITIES 060m² TOTAL 420 m² w REFERENCES 4500 PASSIVE SOLAR WALL BERM MADE OF BACKFILL 16800 SECTION A - VARIATION A 2400 60m² B 16800 14400 360m² 4500 25000 25000 PLAN SECTION B OPTION C 10/10
Recommend
More recommend
