Green Building Case Study: The Commons Melbourne

Introduction and Background

It is generally recognized that green building is an excellent method by which the necessity for applying sustainability and lasting improvement in the construction industry can be addressed [1]. Green building has been defined as "the practice of creating buildings and utilizing procedures which are ecologically responsible and resource-effective throughout a building's lifecycle" [2]. The creation of green buildings leads to significant reduction of adverse ecological impacts and more effective use of resources. Over the last twenty years, there has been an increasing focus on green building development, resulting in a clear shift toward green buildings worldwide [3].

This report is an evaluation of the green building known as The Commons. The Commons is a multi-residential condominium building situated in Brunswick, Melbourne, approximately 7 km from the CBD. The project was designed by local architect Jeremy McLeod of Breathe Architecture [4]. This case study evaluates resource utilization, building expenses, innovative technologies used in construction, and lessons learned from the project. The evaluation is conducted using the LEED green building assessment framework.

The recognition and adoption of green building practice have triggered the development of various green building technologies (GBTs) to improve sustainability performance throughout the construction process. As defined by Ahmad et al. [5], GBTs are systems integrated into building design and construction to make the final product environmentally friendly. There are various GBTs applicable across the entire process of delivering building projects, with common examples including solar power systems, green roofing and wall systems, and heat pump technologies [6] [7]. The integration of GBTs and their connections with other building techniques and components is increasingly important to successfully implement green building and achieve sustainability objectives.

Implementing GBTs offers a wide range of financial, social, and ecological advantages. Together with growing awareness of climate change, these benefits play a vital role in driving the adoption and development of GBTs. Balaras et al. [8] revealed that the use of higher energy-efficient windows and green wall technologies in residential design can conserve 14–20% and 33–60% of operational energy, respectively. The assessment by Galante and Pasetti [9] demonstrated that retrofitting existing housing stock with higher energy-efficient wall systems and components presents an excellent opportunity for the housing sector to conserve 25% of energy. Furthermore, as Zhang et al. [6] noted, construction companies often adopt GBTs — such as solar power technologies and optimization of building envelope thermal performance — because they contribute to competitive advantages, help build positive public perception, and create additional market opportunities [1]. Despite the numerous advantages associated with GBTs, their implementation still faces various barriers and challenges.

The LEED Green Building Rating System

LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, is the most widely used green building rating program in the world. Available for virtually all building, neighborhood, and residential project types, LEED provides a framework for creating healthy, highly efficient, and cost-saving green buildings. LEED is a third-party green building certification system and the internationally recognized standard for the design, construction, and operation of high-performing green buildings and communities [10].

Addressing all building and space types through various rating systems and adaptations, LEED provides building owners and operators with the tools they need to have an immediate and measurable impact on their buildings' performance. By endorsing a whole-building approach to sustainability, LEED recognizes performance in location and planning, environmentally sensitive site design, water use reduction, energy efficiency, materials selection, waste reduction, indoor environmental quality, innovative practices, and attention to regional priorities.

The LEED® Version 4 was launched in 2016 and is currently in use. The LEED® Green Building Rating Systems are voluntary and are designed to assess the environmental performance of an entire building throughout its life. Different systems are designed for rating new and existing commercial, institutional, and residential buildings. Every system shares the same list of performance criteria laid out in five categories, but the number of credits, requirements, and available points varies significantly based on the specific subject area and building type [10]. All systems provide mandatory prerequisites and optional credits, which may be selected based on the goals to be achieved. The review of points for each credit produces the assessment result. All credits are assigned a single weight based on a clearly defined scoring system. The scoring system features a maximum rating of 100 points, with up to 10 additional bonus points available for adherence to two unique categories [14]. Of the possible total of 100 points, a minimum of 40 points must be achieved to pass the primary assessment.

Project Description and Design Concepts

The Commons is an urban development created with the aim of being replicable, prioritizing community, sustainability, and affordability. The design strategy was to achieve more with less — to provide space and height, air and light [11]. The designer, Jeremy McLeod, coined the term "triple bottom-line development" because the project targeted three key outcomes: cost, sustainability, and livability. McLeod has noted that one of the more challenging aspects was finding an ethical developer for the project; he ultimately connected with Small Giants, the first B-Corporation operating in Australia, which uses the power of business to address social and ecological problems [4].

The building was designed to prioritize social and psychological well-being in addition to ecological sustainability. This led to the deliberate omission of car parking facilities, air conditioning, second bathrooms, individual laundries, plasterboard ceilings, bathroom tiles, and chrome fittings. Priority was instead given to features that maximize space, height, thermal efficiency, and double glazing [11]. The design also includes generous decks, shared laundry facilities, rooftop gardens, solar hot water, solar photovoltaics, hydronic heating, and low energy bills. The Commons has brought together like-minded people from all walks of life and built a genuine community.

Beyond providing a substantial range of shared residential amenities, The Commons contributes generously to the broader community. The ground floor has been configured to extend the adjacent, well-trafficked bicycle path. Likewise, the western light court and the rear courtyard are returned to the public realm as pocket parks. These green spaces provide public open areas that offer relief from the concrete and asphalt streetscape of Brunswick [11]. Apartments are further enriched with internal and boundary light wells, adapted by residents as intensive rooftop gardens and spaces for outdoor day beds and conversation.

The architect's discipline in reduction is apparent throughout the building, reinforcing its natural, minimal aesthetic. Recycled bricks make up the lobby wall surfaces on the ground floor, while bare concrete inscribed with pencil marks from two years of construction lines the staircase up to the second level.

The project team consisted of Breathe Architecture, Small Giants, Land Projects, and Landscape consultants.

The Commons is a simple building, constructed with beautiful, natural materials, comprised of many small but considered design moments. Each of these was created with a social, environmental, and financial mandate in mind. Sustainability and cost were managed through reduction [13]. The dematerialization of The Commons was an important strategic decision made not only from a sustainability standpoint but also an economic one. The total construction cost amounted to approximately ten million dollars.

The project comprises 24 apartments, 2 designer studios, and a café and retail space on the ground level. The apartments are minimally appointed but maximize northern orientation and daylight to give each compact unit (74 sq m) the feeling of a larger living space. In a move that caused some difficulties with building approval through state and local councils, the building provides no car parking. Instead, it offers bicycle parking for 65 bicycles and a dedicated car-share vehicle through GoGet [4]. This was essential in reducing construction costs; however, Victorian planning law required each dwelling to have a minimum of two car-parking spaces — a requirement that would have added unnecessary bulk and significant expense to the project.

Other important elements employed on this project include double glazing (not commonly used in Australian construction at the time), recycled timber floors, exposed concrete ceilings and columns to provide thermal mass and additional insulation, which meant air conditioning for every apartment could be eliminated. A standout feature of the building is the communal rooftop space comprising a large entertaining area, garden plots, and an apiary. The rooftop space completes the idea of a community — a new definition of the backyard for the urban dweller [4].

Additional innovative design features employed in this building include:

Recycled timber floorboards are used throughout, reducing the building's carbon footprint. The building is located just off Sydney Street, Brunswick's lively thoroughfare. Residents enjoy a ten-step walk to a bike route connected to the city's cycling network, twenty steps to the train platform, and one block to trams heading into the city center. A chalkboard watering roster on the first floor keeps the process organized and prevents the plants from drying out. Bare concrete inscribed with pencil marks throughout construction lines the stairway to the second level, reducing both building costs and the carbon footprint. The kitchens and bathrooms have no tiles, and none of the fixtures are chrome-plated, further reducing the building's carbon footprint. Toward the north, hanging chains support climbing wisteria vines that grow lush green leaves to shade the apartments during summer, then shed them in winter to allow warmth from the sun to enter. Residents — "the Commoners" — live without individual laundries, using a row of six washing machines and a shared clothesline on the rooftop instead, reinforcing the community concept while helping to reduce operational cost and resource use.

Bibliography

[1] A. P. C. Chan, A. Darko, and E. E. Ameyaw, "Strategies for promoting green building technologies adoption in the construction industry — An international study," Sustainability, vol. 9, no. 969, pp. 1–18, June 2017.

[2] United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2016.) Definition of Green Building. Online.

[3] McGraw-Hill Construction, World Green Building Trends: Business Benefits Driving New and Retrofit Market Opportunities. Bedford, UK: McGraw-Hill Construction, 2013.

[4] Archibald. (2015, November) Architectuul. [Online]. http://architectuul.com/architecture/the-commons

[5] T. Ahmad, M. J. Thaheem, and A. Anwar, "Developing a green-building design approach by selective use of systems and techniques," Archit. Eng. Des. Manag., vol. 12, pp. 29–50, October 2015.

[6] X. Zhang, A. Platten, and L. Shen, "Green property development practice in China: Costs and barriers," Build. Environ., vol. 46, no. 11, pp. 2153–2160, November 2011.

[7] X. Zhang, L. Shen, and Y. Wu, "Green strategy for gaining competitive advantage in housing development: A China study," J. Clean. Prod., vol. 19, no. 2–3, pp. 157–167, January–February 2011.

[8] C. A. Balaras et al., "European residential buildings and empirical assessment of the Hellenic building stock, energy consumption, emissions and potential energy savings," Build. Environ., vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 1298–1314, March 2007.

[9] A. Galante and G. Pasetti, "A methodology for evaluating the potential energy savings of retrofitting residential building stocks," Sustainable Cities and Society, vol. 4, pp. 12–21, 2012.

[10] (2017, September) Green Building 101: What is LEED? [Online]. https://www.usgbc.org/articles/green-building-101-what-leed

[11] (2018, March) Heart Foundation. [Online]. http://www.healthyactivebydesign.com.au/case-studies/the-commons/

[12] Breathe Architecture. [Online].

[13] N. Lavars. (2014, November) The Commons: Inside Australia's most sustainable apartment building. Online.

[14] E. Bernardi, S. Carlucci, C. Cornaro, and R. A. Bohne, "An analysis of the most adopted rating systems for assessing the environmental impact of buildings," Sustainability, vol. 9, no. 7, p. 1226, April 2017.

[15] W. Maitiú. (2015, March) Better together: The Commons.

[16] P. Torcellini et al., "Lessons learned from case studies of six high-performance buildings," National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO, No. NREL/TP-550-37542, 2006.

[17] P. O. Akadiri, E. A. Chinyio, and P. O. Olomolaiye, "Design of a sustainable building: A conceptual framework for implementing sustainability in the building sector," Buildings, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 126–152, May 2012.