November 22, 2020

Shan Arora

Director

The Kendeda Building for Innovative Sustainable Design

422 Ferst Drive NW

Atlanta, GA 30313

Dear Mr. Arora:

We are a group of first-year Georgia Tech students who have been conducting an archival research on the futuristic Kendeda Building for Innovative Sustainable Design. On behalf of the group, this letter sets out an overview of our research based on which we have added some recommendations for the improved functionality, aesthetics and inclusivity of the building.

The Ethos of the Living Building

In 2015, the Kendeda fund partnered with Georgia Tech because of the institution’s past experience pertaining to sustainability. One major sustainability achievement that Georgia Tech had accomplished was the construction of solar panels for the 1996 Olympics that were used to heat up the Olympic swimming pools. Moreover, constructing the building on a college campus encourages the future generation of engineers to appreciate sustainability and its benefits to the environment.

Diana Blank, the founder of the Kendeda Fund, was inspired by the Bullitt Center, a Living Building in Seattle, and wanted to create something of similar caliber in the Atlanta area. From there, plans regarding the construction of the Kendeda building started gathering momentum. Georgia Tech was then given a $30 million grant from the Kendeda Fund to construct “the most environmentally advanced education and research building ever constructed in the Southeast.”

What makes the Kendeda Building special is the plan to turn it into a Living Building. The Living Building Challenge 3.1 has seven performance areas, commonly represented in a flower petal graphic, in which a building is evaluated for the award.

The Place petal pertains to the geological context in which it is being built. The building has to honor and enrich the history of the land and the surrounding community, and therefore its construction should not pose a threat to the land or the community via perpetuating issues such as overcrowding.

“The Kendeda Building is built on a grayfield: specifically, a former parking lot. Construction of a living building may only occur on grayfields, or brownfields. By restricting construction to areas of land already developed and therefore leaving never-developed areas of land alone Georgia Tech’s Living Building encourages the preservation (as opposed to the use) of natural areas.” - Christina M. Colvin

The Water petal places emphasis on how the building could cultivate recycling water within itself or its surroundings. A major qualification for this petal is the criteria that all water associated with the project must be harvested from “precipitation or other natural closed-loop water systems, and/or by recycling used project water, and must be purified without the use of chemicals.” This condition ensures that the building has a net positive water footprint.

As showcased in a 2018 presentation by Senior Engineer Erin English and GT Program Manager Drew Cutright, the water management systems in the Kendeda building and the GT campus in general are of high priority. Rainwater is collected and filtered on the roofs of the Kendeda building and directed to the 50,000 gallon cistern in the basement of the building. The cistern was filled initially when the building was first constructed, but all the water supply after the construction depended solely on rainwater harvested by the building. When the water from the cistern is transported, Ultraviolet disinfection is conducted through use of UV disinfection lamps and such. The other type of water collected is known as “Grey Water”. “Grey Water” is a type of water collected from shower drains, water fountains, and sink drains and does not contain organic matter. Grey water is collected by the storages within the Kendeda Building and used as a water source for the wetlands nearby. Stormwater is also collected by the Kendeda Building and restored into the soil to reintroduce vegetation into the previously developed area. The water circulation and irrigation system is designed with a focus on passive flow, meaning that any excess water is rerouted to either a separate irrigation path or flows to the stormwater system, which is connected to the soon-to-be-completed Eco-Commons or the nearby rivers.

The Energy petal requires the building to have all its energy provided from renewable and eco-friendly sources. That said, this petal places priority on the optimization of energy use before the expansion of energy sourcing in effort to reduce the needless and wasteful spending of energy.

The ventilation system at Kendeda has been built as an energy-efficient substitute to traditional air-conditioners. The Dedicated Outdoor Air System (DOAS) also includes desiccants that keep humidity out of the building. Two firms – PAE Engineers, and Newcomb and Boyd are in charge of the Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing (MEP) design for Kendeda. Furthermore, the building operates at a 72% less energy intensity level than similar buildings of its size.

The Materials petal intends on cultivating buildings that are restorative to their environment. Given the fact that many construction materials have adverse effects on their surroundings when they eventually start to decompose, this petal attempts to mitigate this issue by requiring projects to utilize materials that are “non-toxic, ecologically restorative, transparent, and socially equitable.” Projects that use materials under the “Red List” are disqualified, although there are exceptions.

The UV disinfection lamps are an exception to the building’s materials list as it contains mercury which is a red list material as it has a potential harmful impact on the environment and ecosystem health. The embodied carbon cost of wood is far lower than that of concrete or steel. The use of repurposed wood laminated by Red-List free adhesives is seen at many places in the building as part of the campus ‘treecycling’ program. The project team would also calculate the project’s construction carbon footprint and purchase emission certificates to offset that footprint.

The Equity petal is made to ensure that the project brings value to nearby communities, with an emphasis on equity between different races, genders and socio-economic backgrounds. It is meant to invoke inclusivity and diversity between neighborhoods and communities involved with the project’s creation.

Interestingly, 6 workers from Georgia Works, a non-profit that helps nearly-homeless people build marketable skills, were hired to build the ceiling of the building. Additionally, the Kendeda Building’s design was selected through an idea competition.

The Beauty petal, as the name suggests, relates to the aesthetic creativity of a project. It is intended to act as an indicator of meaningful aesthetic appeal of a project, as opposed to the soulless designs with no consideration towards their surroundings or their environmental effects.

The design of The Kendeda Building is inspired by the vernacular southern porch. Vernacular architecture is the concept of utilizing local/indigenous resources and technology in order to build efficient and unique buildings. Southern porches are considered to be an invention of aesthetics and necessities as they add visual interest to a place and also serve as a crude air-conditioning system. “Before air-conditioning,” design team member Brian Court says, “every house had a porch—front porch, side porch, and back porch—and that’s really where life occurred during the day.” Gaining inspiration from this Southern architecture, the designers built a canopy of 917 solar panels that extends 40 feet to the west and creates a deep, shaded porch - the result is not only an aesthetic space, but also an innovative solution to generate 140% of the building’s energy demand making the Kendeda an energy positive building. The canopy is also a primary rain-water collection surface.

Lastly, the Health and Happiness petal is designed to put the human factor of a project into consideration. Though this aspect of a project is arguably the hardest to measure, there are certain clear guidelines such as compliance with air quality standards and the prohibition of smoking within the bounds of the project. Dedicated ventilation systems for certain sensitive areas such as kitchens and toilets are required. To further emphasise the Happiness factor, the project must be a catalyst to a biophilic relationship between humans and nature. This petal is clearly addressed with the efforts and plans made regarding the Eco-Commons project.

In a Q&A session with the architects of the Kendeda Building, the architects were asked if the aesthetic of the building was meant to be “sophisticated or rustic”. Based on the initial renderings, the design of the building appeared to be too artificial or “machine-like.” This issue was mitigated for both the indoor design and the exterior aesthetic by following a loose-fi approach to the building. This is to further address the possibility of having this building serving other purposes.

Eco-Commons - The Landscape Surrounding the Building

Relating to the place, water, beauty, and health and happiness petals, Eco-Commons is a campus wide project that plans to restore the natural landscape of the land before human artificial construction. The plan involves the restoration and preservation of 80 acres in which students have distinct areas to reflect, engage, and learn. The newest addition to the masterplan is the land west of the Kendeda Building; 8 acres of will be restored to their natural pre-urbanization conditions. Many different kinds of trees, ferns, and other vegetation will encompass the planting zones, all with consideration to the native landscape.

The land has interconnected river-like streams that flow throughout the breadth of the green-space, serving as both a storm-water management system and a natural irrigation system, working in tandem with the Kendeda Building’s self-sustaining water system.

The following pages contain a collection of archival documents that bear testimony to the rigorous planning for excelling at Performance Areas of the Living Building. The Kendeda Building is running its first year on many such sustainable design implementations. We believe that the progress towards sustainability must go on even after it achieves the Living Building certification. Hence, we have kept in mind the technicalities, constraints and possibilities associated with the Kendeda Building, as portrayed in the following archival documents, while framing our proposed developments for the building.

Contextual Archival Documents

[1]

“Kendeda Building.” The Kendeda Fund, livingbuilding.kendedafund.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/09/Materials-vetting.jpg.

This is a schematic that showed the materials selected to construct the living building. Since a living building strives to be as environmentally and ecologically sustainable as possible, it would make sense that it would be built out of materials that are long-lasting and would not generate any waste. The top of the schematic showed the important aspects of materials selection such as adaptability and ability to reuse the existing materials. The flowchart at the bottom documents the process of selecting a manufacturer that suits the goals of their building and we could tell it is a rather rigorous and complex process with all the different requirements. Each of the boxes are also color coded to help the reader better understand the directions of the flowchart.

[1.1]

The values considered while selecting materials for the building include the following factors:

Whether the materials are part of the toxic ‘Red List’ materials
The embodied carbon of the materials. (embodied carbon: carbon footprint left during fabrication and construction)
How far the materials must travel to get to the building site

The embodied carbon cost of wood is far lower than that of concrete or steel.The use of repurposed wood laminated by Red-List free adhesives is seen at many places in the building. This is part of the campus ‘treecycling’ program:

Edelstein, Kenneth G.“Wood is the New Steel”, Wood-is-the-new-steel.jpg (700×504) (kendedafund.org)

[1.2]

Retrieved from | Living Building at Georgia Tech | Georgia Institute of Technology | Atlanta, GA (gatech.edu). Accessed on November 18, 2020

Throughout the project, the construction teams at the Kendeda Building used salvaged materials preserved in a warehouse at the Grinnell Building by the university’s Facilities Design and Construction office. The tile fitted in the Kendeda building’s restrooms and showers comes from the roof of the Georgia Tech Alumni Association Building which was then being renovated.

A field trip to the iconic State Archives Building led to the discovery of elegant doors, metal fixtures, and exotic wood finishes and built-ins that might be of use in the Kendeda Building. However, the poor recyclability of the marble facade was a lesson to the team - A hundred years from now, if someone decided to tear down the Kendeda Building, the parts should be fit for reuse and not be sent to a landfill.

[1.3]

Retrieved from Materials Petal | Living Building at Georgia Tech | Georgia Institute of Technology | Atlanta, GA (gatech.edu). Accessed on November 18, 2020

The most iconic of the salvaged materials may be the heart pine joists dating back to the 1880s. These joists used to be part of the Tech Tower. Its renovation in 2016 has given a new identity to the timber - the stair treads of the Kendeda Building.

[2]

“Kendeda Building Water .” The Kendeda Fund , livingbuilding.kendedafund.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/09/Water.jpg.

This schematic shows how rainfall is harvested, filtered and finally recycled to be used as the main water source for the building.This archival document also mentioned the specific amount of water that could be held and thus reused as the water supply. It also details the various places that the harvested water goes to.

This system of water recycling aims to create an environmental balance between nature and human industrial developments. The main goal of this system is known as “Net Positive Water”, which means 100% of the water used in the Kendeda Building --- whether it’s for drinking, flushing the toilet, or irrigation for plants -- all comes from the rainwater captured on site.

[3]

“Kendeda Building Roof .” The Kendeda Fund , livingbuilding.kendedafund.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/09/view-from-roof-deck-2.jpg.

This image was designed by one of the architects of the Kendeda building and it envisions what the building would look like once it was completed. Obviously, this image was from before the construction of the Kendeda building as the Kendeda building just opened up last year, but it shows us what the architects hope to accomplish through their design of the building. This archival image depicts people walking around the building as it seems to be right in the middle of a park. It tells us the architects hope to create a building that seems modern but yet still connected to the environment in a way that people could enjoy both.

[4]

Albores, Mathew. “Miller Hull - About.” - About, 7 Oct. 2020, millerhull.com/about/.

The Just label and the equity petal encourages a more inclusive environment. The label and the petal symbolize inclusivity and act as a welcoming token to people of different ideology, race, and sexual preferences. Another message behind the label highlights the notion that most businesses in the world value their profits over the planet. With the Just label and its root in sustainability, the Kendeda building seeks to reinforce the idea that our planet is many times more important than profit.

[5]

Georgia Institute of Technology. Office of Capital Planning and Space. "2004 Campus Master Plan Update." Georgia Institute of Technology. Library. Archives, Records Management and Digital Curation Department. 2004-11, http://history.library.gatech.edu/items/show/4219

The 1997 master plan was intended to expand the campus. There were various goals. One of the main goals was to make Georgia Tech into a more sustainable campus. The key components included energy management, alternative fuels, increased tree canopy, reduced material consumption, and reduced water consumption. This plan was one of the first plans that targeted sustainability as one of their main components. Since this plan, many more efforts regarding sustainability have been introduced.

[6]

LEED Certification Requirements (See citation for full document)

“LEED 2009 MPR Supplemental Guidance Revision 2 (September 2011).” U.S. Green Building Council, U.S. Green Building Council, 1 Sept. 2011, www.usgbc.org/resources/leed-2009-mpr-supplemental-guidance-revision-2-september-2011.

Document detailing all of the requirements for a building to achieve an LEED certification.The Kendeda Building has a platinum LEED rating, and viewing the requirements for an LEED certification may be helpful to find what sort of design constraints or considerations the building planners had to accommodate for this project.

[7]

The Site in 1892

The Kendeda building site is marked by Ken Edelstein on a cropped portion of the 1892 bird's eye map of Atlanta. The Tech Tower, visible in the picture was only four years then and it marks Georgia Tech in the picture for us.The marked red site is also a beaming representative of Georgia Tech now. The lack of tree-cover in this area which was once a part of a mixed-hardwood forest is now being replenished. The original map and this curated version are cited respectively.

Koch, Augustus, Hughes Litho. Co, and Saunders And Kline. Bird's eye view of Atlanta, Fulton Co., State capital, Georgia. [n.p. Saunders and Kline, 1892] Map. https://www.loc.gov/item/75693189/.

Edelstein, Kenneth G. "An Ecological History of the Living Building Site." The Kendeda Fund, September 12, 2019 https://livingbuilding.kendedafund.org/2018/09/12/ecological-history-of-living-building-site/

The Current Operations and Value of the Building

The Kendeda building is being used today as an educational and research facility, housing a ~180 person auditorium and 2 classrooms with the capacity of approximately 60 students, along with 4 laboratories, a seminar room, a design studio, a makerspace, an auditorium, a rooftop apiary and a pollinator garden, an office space for co-located programs and a coffee cart. The building is currently utilized by students from diverse educational backgrounds. The College of Sciences operates some of its classes in Kendeda’s labs. Many sustainability focused courses, Serve-Learn-Sustain and English classes are held at the Kendeda building’s classrooms. It also serves as a symbolic keystone to Georgia Tech’s commitment and plans towards a sustainable future. The Kendeda Building stands as a success in terms of an energy-positive, regenerative building even in the hot and humid climatic conditions of the Southeast.

Kendeda weekly schedule, Kendeda Calendar / EMS (gatech.edu)

Proposed Developments for the Building

As it stands, the Kendeda Building is already extremely well-designed, and there are not very many aspects of it which may be improved further. The building itself contains a considerable amount of space for students and classrooms, and it fulfills its purpose as a Living Building quite well. However, the land surrounding the building does contain some areas which may be improved further.

The building and the area around the building itself contain a noteworthy amount of impervious surfaces, therefore rainwater runoff is easily able to travel across and pick up speed as it travels along sidewalks and pavement, giving the runoff more force when it impacts the soil, causing erosion (Surface Runoff and the Water Cycle). When building the Kendeda Building, its designers did implement several practices to mitigate this issue. Much of the soil around the building is covered and bioswales surround the building to slow down runoff and allow it to infiltrate the water table. If pervious concrete or other porous material can replace the standard concrete and stone bricks used currently, then the erosive runoff can be controlled further. (Huffman). Pervious concrete, unlike regular concrete, includes small pores that allow water to seep through and return to the soil. As a result, runoff is unable to form the streams seen on impervious surfaces, and the erosion of soil outside of these impervious surfaces is reduced significantly.

Another section where the building may be improved is the habitat for wildlife. Despite containing a significant amount of biodiversity in the form of plant life, and including several beehives, the Kendeda Building does not accommodate a wide variety of other pollinating insects as well as it does for honey bees. Native bees are among these groups of neglected pollinators, and many species of native bees are just as effective, if not more so, at pollinating plants than honeybees (Vance). To become more accommodating to these native species, one solution could be to add additional vegetation to the already astounding amount of plant life present surrounding the building currently, but that may cause an issue with the building’s other design compromises to give it the amount of vegetation it has today. Additionally, more green space is being added to a location very close to the Kendeda Building, so the addition of more vegetation surrounding the building is currently in action right now. Another solution, and the solution that would probably be best for a building/project such as the Kendeda Building, is to add housing for these insects. Habitat for stem nesting and tunnel nesting bees can be added to the building without additional disturbance to the current design of the Kendeda Building (Brokaw).

One final improvement that can be made to the building is the addition of an aquaponic environment. Aquaponics is an interesting concept which combines the idea of hydroponics, growing plants without soil, and aquaculture, or the cultivation of aquatic life in a controlled environment. This idea is more of a suggestion for a future building design rather than an improvement to the Kendeda Building as an aquaponic setup would most likely only be beneficial for growing any gardens in the building rather than reducing the energy consumption or utilities cost of The Kendeda Building. One exception to this statement is the fact that many aquaponic farms transform the waste heat of buildings into an environment where fish may thrive (Heckmann). That said, the Kendeda Building already performs extremely well at managing and dissipating waste heat. Seeing how the Kendeda Building is essentially a proof of concept design and learning space for future architecture undertakings, the inclusion of an aquaponics set up may prove to make the Living Building concept even more alive.

Furthermore, in an effort to strengthen the equity petal, we have a few recommendations:

The auditorium at the Kendeda Building may fix a monthly event to learn and educate about the native tribes of Georgia. Withstanding mass eviction from the state in the 19th century, few native people remained in hiding. Today, the state recognizes three tribes as the descendants of those people. The tribes may be represented by their own people here at Kendeda, through discussions, exhibitions and performances.

The Kendeda Building, in theory, is open to all. To make it effectively inclusive and manageable, the entrance of the building may place a pictorial overview of the site for easier navigation by the people. That said, the building has limited public capacity. Hence, upcoming site tours, events, or any community engagement program while being broadcast both online and offline for wider reach, may have a registration process that helps maintain the building’s capacity.

From our secondary observation, the design of the classrooms retain more conventional design than the regenerative or ‘living’ theme mastered by the greater part of the building. A biophilic design encourages human-nature interaction and is also conducive to the Beauty, and Health and Happiness petals. Members of the design team, Ramana Koti and Jim Hanford remark that the biophilic design is highly subject to the perceptions of the occupant. According to them,

“The experience of approaching the building, using it, and exiting it were studied by different breakout groups using three hypothetical users: a 20-year-old African-American male undergraduate student, a 30-year-old female graduate student in a wheelchair, and a male mathematics professor originally from Brazil. These hypothetical users had varied interests that informed their perception of the spaces and helped influence the building’s design.”

We suggest that the observations from the study be posted in the ‘Living Building Chronicle’ blog for more students and faculty to ideate.

We thank you and the entire team for their whole-hearted effort in bringing this ambitious idea to a reality. At the same time, we express our sincere intent to contribute to the sustainable development initiatives at the Kendeda Building and the campus at large.

Sincerely,

Abdullah Altaweel

Matthias Barbe

Patrick Yu

Purna Pratiti Saha

Tzu-Hua Huang

Bibliography

"LBC Place Petal", Living Future Institute, https://living-future.org/lbc-3_1/place-petal/
"LBC Water Petal", Living Future Institute, https://living-future.org/lbc-3_1/water-petal/
"LBC Energy Petal", Living Future Institute, https://living-future.org/lbc-3_1/energy-petal/
"LBC Materials Petal", Living Future Institute, https://living-future.org/lbc-3_1/materials-petal/
"LBC Equity Petal", Living Future Institute, https://living-future.org/lbc-3_1/equity-petal/
"LBC Beauty Petal", Living Future Institute, https://living-future.org/lpc/beauty-petal/
“LBC Health and Happiness Petal”, Living Future Institute, https://living-future.org/lbc-3_1/health-happiness-petal/
“Endorsing products that are safe for all species through time,” Materials Petal, Georgia Tech, http://livingbuilding.gatech.edu/materials-petal
“Creating developments that operate within the water balance of a given place and climate,” Water Petal, Georgia Tech, http://livingbuilding.gatech.edu/water-petal
Various Architects, “A Living Building Project Journey, Part-4.”, Lord Aeck Sargent Blog, December 16, 2016, www.lordaecksargent.com/blog/a-living-building-project-journey-part-4.
Edelstein, Kenneth G. “Of DOAS, displacement, desiccants, and radiance.” The Kendeda Fund, September 6, 2017 https://livingbuilding.kendedafund.org/2017/09/06/doas-displacement-desiccant-radiant-flooring/
“The Kendeda Building for Innovative Sustainable Design.” Georgia Tech, October 22, 2019 https://livingbuilding.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/media/kendeda_overview_vid_cc.mp4
“The Kendeda Building”, Georgia Tech, http://livingbuilding.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/documents/kendeda_bldg_fact_sheet_fall_2019.pdf
Edelstein, Kenneth G. "An Ecological History of the Living Building Site." The Kendeda Fund, September 12, 2019 https://livingbuilding.kendedafund.org/2018/09/12/ecological-history-of-living-building-site/
Cutright, Drew, and Erin English. “PowerPoint Presentation on the Kendeda Building Water Systems,” Georgia Institute of Technology, texaslivingwaters.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/TexasOneWaterWebinar51718.pdf.
"Eco Commons", Georgia Tech Facilities Management. , http://facilities.gatech.edu/ecocommons
"The Eco-Commons Design Unveiled",, GT News Center, 2 April 2020 , https://www.news.gatech.edu/2020/04/02/eco-commons-design-unveiled
Brokaw, Julia, and Rufus Isaacs. “BUILDING AND MANAGING Bee Hotels for Wild Bees.” Michigan State University, Michigan State University College of Natural Science, pollinators.msu.edu/sites/_pollinators/assets/File/Building%20Bee%20Hotels.pdf
“Georgia Institute of Technology.” The Eco-Commons Design Unveiled, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2 Apr. 2020, www.news.gatech.edu/2020/04/02/eco-commons-design-unveiled.
Heckmann, Richard A, et al. “Warm Water Aquaculture Using Waste Heat and Water from Zero Discharge Power Plants in the Great Basin.”, Brigham Young University, 31 Jan. 1984, scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2667&context=gbn.
Huffman, Dan. “Pervious Pavement.” National Association of City Transport Officials, National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, 2008, nacto.org/docs/usdg/pervious_pavement_an_infiltration_bmp_huffman.pdf
Surface Runoff and the Water Cycle, United States Geological Survey, www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/surface-runoff-and-water-cycle?qt-science_center_objects=0.
Vance, Erik. “Native Bees Often Better Pollinators than Honey Bee.” Research UC Berkeley, University of California Research, 14 Nov. 2011, vcresearch.berkeley.edu/news/native-bees-often-better-pollinators-honey-bee.
Crowe, Andy. “A Living Building Challenge - The Kendeda Building.” Velociteach, 22 Apr. 2020, www.velociteach.com/2020/04/sustainability-projects-in-a-living-building/.