• Bertschi Living Building Science Wing

    Seattle, Washington

Bertschi Living Building Science Wing

Seattle, WA

Bertschi School Living Science Building, located in  Seattle’s Capitol Hill Neighborhood, was one of the first projects in the world to pursue the Living Building  Challenge v2.0 criteria and the first to achieve it. This non‐profit elementary school science wing was collaboratively designed  with the students and designed pro‐bono by the entire design team. A 20‐kilowatt PV system produces  all of the electricity for the building and allows students to participate in real‐time monitoring of the  building’s energy use and solar power production. All the water needed for the building is collected and  treated on site. This is done through a variety of methods including cisterns for storage, an interior  green wall of tropical plants which treats grey water and a composting toilet to treat black water. The  most important aspect of the project is that all sustainable features are visible and functional to  students to learn ecological concepts that can become intrinsic values for future generations.

Use the icons below to find out how this project approached each Petal of the Challenge.

SITE


© Benjamin Benschneider

Site condition prior to project start:Greyfield

Significant site information:

Located on the visible corner of Lynn Street, Bertschi School Living Science Building is a 1,225 square   foot building on a 3,888 square foot site that was previously a paved sport court. As an urban campus,  Bertschi School is on a tight site where every square foot of outdoor space counts. The school has a  variety of outdoor student learning zones that provide everything from physical activity to quiet  contemplation. The two garden areas associated with the Living Science Building provide learning  activities and spaces for quiet interaction among plants and other natural elements in these two  different examples of urban agriculture. The site also integrates low impact development features to  manage stormwater and water returned to the ecological flow after use within the building.

Name of Habitat Exchange project: Naches River
Location of Habitat Exchange project: Naches River, Kittitas County, Washington, East Cascades, Modoc Plateau Ecoregion
Name of participating Land Trust: The Nature Conservancy
Land Trust website:  http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/washington/index.htm
 

Back to Top

WATER


© Bertschi School

Annual Water Use
Utility Supplied for potable use due to regulatory requirement.
Potable Water Use:since April, 2011 - 3,471 gallons
Systems fed: Classroom sink and restroom lavatory
Harvested onsite:Rainwater, green roof stormwater and greywater

Collection strategies:  Rainwater is collected from  the building’s metal roof area as well as an adjacent building’s roof area for indoor water needs.  Stormwater collected from the green roofs along with the stormwater that overflows from the potable  water cistern contributes to the irrigation cistern. Greywater from sinks is collected in two Aqua2Use  filtration units, and pumped up to the indoor green wall for irrigation reducing the need for rainwater  for irrigation purposes. Blackwater is collected and treated by a composting toilet.

Systems Fed:  Low Impact Development strategies implemented onsite ensure that all stormwater not used for building or irrigation purposes infiltrates into the soil.  Pervious concrete provides a hard surface for pedestrians while allowing the stormwater to filter through the pavement, removing debris and pollutants, and infiltrate beneath.  Surplus water from the cisterns is directed to a raingarden which provides treatment and flow attenuation prior to infiltration.  These LID strategies mimic the pre-development hydrology of the site, and help to recharge the groundwater beneath the site.

Estimated total water use per capita:56.3 gal/day (assuming 20 students per day average)

Sub‐metering data:N/A

Design tool(s) and calculation method(s):Excel, Western Washington Hydrology Model version 3,  and interviews with faculty were used to determine water demands for the classroom.

Water Petal related regulatory appeals, including whether successful, name of Authority  Having Jurisdiction and location: Currently, the water  purveyor for the area (Seattle Public Utilities) will not permit another public drinking water system  within their jurisdiction, which prohibits the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) from  considering this system for permit. Because this system could serve over 25 people per day year round,  it is considered a Public Group A Water System. A treatment system appropriate for treating the  rainwater to potable levels has been installed for future use. Simply turning a few valves and replacing  a spool piece of pipe will allow the treated rainwater to flow to each fixture.

Back to Top

ENERGY

© Benjamin Benschneider

Type + size of renewable energy system(s) used:  20.1 kW rooftop mounted PV system with 225 W Sanyo panels and Enphase micro‐inverters.

Annual Energy Use
Actual:
48.1 kbtu/sf/yr
Simulated/designed: 31.5 kbtu/sf/yr
Energy use intensity:   48.1 kbtu/sf/yr
 

 

Actual end use breakdown
Heating:6852 kWh
Cooling:0 kWh
Lighting:4056 kWh (estimated, including green wall lighting, and classroom grow closet)
Fans/pumps:860 kWh (estimated)
Plug loads + equipment:3725 kWh (estimated)
Vertical transport:0 kWh
Domestic hot water:897 kWh (estimated)
Other:3800 kWh (estimated for composting toilet heat, vent, and vaccuum pump

Sub-metering data:  There is no sub‐metering on this project, there is a single “catch‐all” electric meter that measures  instantaneous kW and keeps a running tally of total kWh for whole projected. Production from PV  system is recorded off of manufacturer provided web‐interface.

Design tool(s) and calculation method(s):  This project was not a good fit for typical energy modeling tools, so a custom spreadsheet was used to  predict energy use. Using hourly weather data heating energy was estimated (though this was a source  of error as we were too optimistic in our assumptions for heating system efficiency. Other energy  consumption was predicted based on reputable studies (such as an LBNL report on aquarium energy usage), manufacturer’s estimates (another source of error, particularly with the composting toilet  system), or manual calculations.
 

Back to Top

HEALTH

© Bertschi School

Summary of short- and long-term health considerations for design, construction and occupancy phases:

From the very outset of this project, health has been a major concern. The creation  of and advocacy for health was one of the drivers for Bertschi School to undertake the rigorous  standards of the Living Building Challenge. In design, the team worked to create spaces that provided  healthy air and daylighting for occupants. The inclusion of the green wall of tropical plants to treat  grey water has the added benefit of helping to purify the air in the Ecohouse. These are all of particular  importance for young children as they need an environment that will aid in their concentration and  academic performance.

Along with this was a detailed consideration for including healthy materials  that are Red List free. This was a massive undertaking that required the strength of convictions from  both the owner and design team to pursue rigorous health standards for all building products used in  the project. In construction, efforts were taken to educate the contractors about the Living Building  Challenge and the need for healthy materials that promote ingredient transparency in our  industry.

Since the project's construction took place at an active school, the contractor took extra care  to ensure other classrooms were not affected by any construction debris, dust or noise. In occupancy,  all of these health issues from design to construction continue to play a role in supporting a healthy  environment for students. Interior finishes were reduced and products were selected to virtually  eliminate any off‐gassing. The students play an active role in their healthy indoor environment by  controlling the lighting, natural ventilation and caring for the indoor plants that all contribute to a  successful space. Air quality testing performed during occupancy has proven that the measures taken  by the design and construction teams along with the owner has helped to ensure a long‐term health  environment for future generations who use the Bertschi Living Science Building.

Back to Top

MATERIALS

© Benjamin Benschneider

Summary of approach to achieving the Materials Petal Imperatives :

Designing a building pro‐bono which would be constructed entirely with community fundraising was a  great challenge. It was imperative that the team considered every design solution in a fiscally  responsible manner. The requirement for natural, non‐toxic, and appropriately sourced materials also  helped to support life‐cycle considerations. Materials were reduced throughout the project including  the elimination of needless finishes and synthetic materials. Embodied energy of materials, as well as  the overall building were always taken into consideration and then ultimately offset. Whenever  possible, materials were reused or reclaimed for use on the Bertschi School Science Living Building  project.

Construction waste was massively reduced and diverted at 90‐100% levels with absolutely no waste  being burned. Alternative Daily Cover is not considered a diversion in our calculations. All 46,200  pounds of construction waste, well under average for this building type, was sorted by hand at the  Recovery 1 faculty, which garnered a 100% diversion rate for most categories.  The school employs a rigid recycling and compost program. This includes participation by the student  body. Students learn to reduce, reuse, recycle and compost waste as well as understanding some of the  larger global issues of waste streams. For nearly 20 years, the school has been practicing a strict waste  management program that includes education. Each building on campus is equipped with appropriate  recycling and compost containers and the students are instructed on how to properly use them.

The Bertschi School Living Building has been designed for thoughtful deconstruction and reuse, if  necessary. Careful consideration was given to the majority of the buildings architectural and  mechanical features to allow for easy upgrade or deconstruction and reuse if necessary.

Notable successful Red List Substitutions:

CSI Materformat Division    Original Product    Red List Item   Specified Manufacturer +
Product Names
Division 8    Skylights   PVC   Crystallite Skylights manufacturer removed PVC on request
Division 32   XeroFlor Drain Mat   Phthalates   Removed from the green roof  assembly without compromising product performance or warranty. Company could not  eliminate phthalates from product upon request
Division 7   C/S Group Expansion Joints   NA   Used Balco, Inc. Expansion Joints as a Red List Free alternative

Although not used on this project because product did not meet spec, our team worked with  Flotender Grey Water units to find a local alternative for our grey water boxes. Upon  investigation, we noticed the company had PVC and upon our request to comply with the Living Building Challenge, they  removed PVC from their designs.

 

Summary of the product classes and/or specific products that presented particular challenges:

Each product included in the Bertschi project presented challenges in determining accurate ingredient  and sourcing information. As one of the first Living Buildings, a great deal of education was needed to  help subcontractors and manufacturers understand the requirements and reasoning behind the Living  Building Challenge Imperatives 11 and 14. The team had to develop questionnaire templates that could  be distributed to manufacturers to outline the Challenge requirements and also gather product  data. Having a globally‐recognized contractor helped with these efforts as they have influence that  could help gather this information from even the largest manufacturers. In many, many instances it  was necessary to repeatedly and continually contact manufacturers to push to get responses to our  information requests. While every product represented a challenge in gathering information, perhaps  none was as difficult as mechanical and electrical items.

The large amount of these items included on  the project was the first difficulty to overcome in trying to gather so much data. Many manufacturers  did not have the information we were looking for on the smaller components or were not willing to  release it. Additionally, many of the mechanical and electrical components used in the building industry  have so many parts that it is difficult to track Red List and Sourcing information. The sheer amount of  data to be collected on all these items presented huge challenges to the project team as we struggled to  provide products that met the Challenge while keeping the project on time and on budget.

At the time of construction, some products like the curtain wall and Kynar coating presented the team  with no alternatives that would meet the Red List. The design team often went through exhaustive  efforts to research alternative products that would meet the Challenge. However, many times we were  unable to find an acceptable equal in performance, warranty or Challenge criteria. Understanding the  parameters and allowing time for this additional research presented many obstacles. 

Being one of the first Living Building Challenge project teams was also difficult when we were often the first to discover  discrepancies between LBC criteria and building codes. An example of this is galvanized metals. At the  time of construction, galvanized electrical conduit was the only allowable product approved by the  city. The team searched for non‐metal alternates and each time they were rejected by inspection and  code officials. Although other products like fiberglass conduit might have been just as acceptable for  the use we were proposing, local authorities expressed their opposition. This is one of the difficulties  that eventually led to the temporary exception for galvanization as long as this type of metal was not  located exterior of the building to come in contact with water or earth.

There were other occasions on the project when information from the manufacturer would show no Red  List ingredients but upon further inspection and sometimes even purchase of the products, our team  would find out these claims were false. This led to last minute product substitutions which resulted in  project delays.

Throughout the Bertschi Living Building Challenge project there were many challenges with materials research. It is not easy  to find products that meet such rigorous health and transparency standards. At this time in the  development of sustainability we all face a tough road to make real and positive change to an industry  that for so long, took for granted the negative health impacts of their products on those who were  unknowingly or unwilling able to search for the truth.

Notable regional products specified:

CSI Materformat Division  Specified Manufacturer + Product Names Location
Division 6 Premier Building Systems, SIPS Panels Tacoma, WA
Division 5/32  Alliance Steel Fabrication, Fencing, handrails McMinnville, OR/Seattle, WA
Division 7 AEP Span, Metal Roofing Tacoma, WA/ Kalama, WA
Division 6 AltruWood, FSC Siding and Trim North Vancouver Island, BC
Division 31 Glacier Northwest, Aggregates Washington and BC
Division 32 Miles Sand and Gravel, Crushed Rock Washington State
Division 3 Tiger Mountain Innovations, Concrete Counters Seattle, WA
Division 26 Crystallite, Skylights Everett, WA
Division 22 Oldcastle Precast, Inc, Cisterns Auburn, WA

Notable manufacturers who made "Proprietary Claims" when asked about product contents:

CSI Materformat Division  Specified Manufacturer +
Product Names
Division 26 Southwire Company SIMpull XHHW‐2
Division 7 Dow Corning, 795 Building Sealant

Sources for wood:Certified by Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), Salvaged

Notable manufacturers of FSC certified wood products:

CSI Materformat Division  Specified Manufacturer +
Product Names
Division 25 AltruWood Co., FSC Cedar Siding and Trim
Division 10 Roseberg Forest Products, Dimensional Lumber
Division 6 Premier Building Systems, SIPS Panels
Division 6 Calvert (Matheus Lumber), Glulams
Division 6 SierraPine, Medex MDF Core

Name of organizations/individuals that assisted with timber harvest and lumber seasoning process:

CR Siding –  15530 73rd Ave SE  Snohomish, WA 98296
Ph: 360‐668‐4182  

Larry Freeman – owner/estimator
larryfreeman@crsiding.com

Diane Moody,  FSC‐US, Northwest Region Manager
d.moody@us.fsc.org

Colin Wilson at Altruwood
Portland, OR.
(503) 972‐2682 or colin.wilson@altruwood.com

This project made great strides in the local and regional FSC market. First, because the Living Building  Challenge is the first green building rating system to require FSC‐Certification down to the subcontractor  level, many local subcontractors are reanalyzing obtaining a Chain of Custody for their businesses. Since  this has not been required by other systems, this level of certification has not yet been viewed as an  added business value by many companies. The Living Building Challenge, and specifically our project, is changing this with our local suppliers.

Secondly, there were numerous limitations of product availability for our project in the Pacific  Northwest. One example was our required FSC‐Certified OSB in sheets larger than 4’x8’. Our team was  finally able to find a manufacturer to make these FSC Certified OSB panels, which had just opened their  facility located in Canada.

Thirdly, because it was necessary to look outside of the typical supply chains to locate something FSCCertified,   new connections were made between the design team, contractor, subcontractor and  suppliers. New relationships were formed this way with local suppliers, including Sustainable Northwest  Wood. Additionally, our design team was also able to directly utilize help from some of the upper level  management at FSC who aided in tracking down local supply leads.

Finally, because of this project our architectural firm has signed on with Cascadia Green Building  Council’s pledge to provide FSC‐Certified or better wood flooring in all of our projects. We have now  made this change in our company’s master specifications document so that it will be included on all  projects we do. The Bertschi School Living Building has been a great success in many ways and the FSCCertified  wood is just one great aspect of the ways in which the Challenge is pushing the design and  building industry. Through the inspiration and information of a built case study like the Bertschi School,  owner’s, designers, and contractors will see that stringent, lasting and worthwhile changes can be  made for the benefit of sustainability in the building industry. Overall, this project was a great example  of connecting different parties from the Certification body through the installer. These relationships and  connections will be used on future Pacific Northwest projects with the design team and the large  contractor.
 

Brokers that assisted in sourcing salvaged materials:

Salvaged Product  + Organization Individuals Contact Information

Runnel Pebbles salvaged from old Coldwater Creek retail store

Jill Rinde | General Manager

CB Richard Ellis, Inc. | Asset Services

Greg Anderson, Insite Development

710 Second Ave, Suite 730 | Seattle, WA 98104

O 206 344 5151 | F 206 344 5252

jill.rinde@cbre.com | www.cbre.com,  Greg@insite123.com

Salvaged Wood Flooring from Olive 8 Development

David G Thyer, President R.C.Hedreen Company W 206 624‐8909 F 206 625‐1543

Salvaged Steel Railings

Alliance Steel Fabrication, Inc. 10751 A St S, Tacoma, WA (253) 538‐7935

Restroom Tile

Udo J. Reich | President

ambiente european tile design

227 NE 65th St. Seattle, WA 98115

Direct: 206 388 1025 Fax: 206 388 1043

udo@ambientetile.com

www.ambientetile.com

Embodied carbon footprint (TCO2e): 29 TCO2e
Name of Carbon Offset project: Climate Action Registry – type: wind
Name of Carbon Offset provider: 3Degrees Group, Inc.
Carbon Offset provider website: www.3degreesinc.com

Name of Carbon Calculator: BuildingCarbonNeutral.org’s Construction Carbon Calculator

Carbon Calculator Website: buildcarbonneutral.org
 

Back to Top

EQUITY

Summary of the influence of the Equity Imperatives and overarching intent of the Petal on the project  and Team:  Through the perspective of sustainability’s triple‐bottom line, we understand the need to focus on relationships  and how our buildings help us relate to each other. In order to be truly sustainable, we must work towards  buildings that through their stewardship of nature can provide for everyone and encourage a sense of  community. In designing for a space that was to be used by young students, it was crucial that the design be  comfortable and not create distraction. The classroom was designed to provide a lecture space that is more  appropriately sized for sitting while the tall Ecohouse space was scaled for standing experiments and housing  the large green wall. The project site is small and traditionally might have elicited a design that was lot line to  lot line, in order to maximize the space. Contrary to that practice, care was taken to ensure that the space was  “right‐sized” for the programmed use.

Although this building is located within the secure perimeter of a private school, Bertschi does provide free tours  to the general public and offers student summer courses that are open to the public. The science classroom  design strictly adhered to the principle of Rights to Nature. Shaded entirely by the historic Church Building, the  Living Building does not take away from adjacent sites but rather is a good example of the importance of  consideration for solar access.

The project team embraced the Equity Petal requirements of the Living Building Challenge. From the beginning  of the project, the team itself was a tight knit group of individuals with a passion for sustainability and a  dedication to the project’s mission. By forming the Restorative Design Collective, the team became a community  of design, engineering, and construction professionals that were voicing their commitment to seeing the Bertschi  Living Science Building become a reality. The collective believed that the building would serve as an example of  what was possible, a teaching tool for the school, and a source of inspiration and education for others in their  professions as well as the greater community.
 

Back to Top

Beauty

© Bertschi School

Educational Website URL:  bertschi.org/who‐we‐are/our‐campus

Project Tours and “Open Day” Information
 

Tour Information: (at the bottom of the webpage) bertschi.org/who‐we‐are/our‐campus

Tour Contact Name: Emily Fowler

Tour Contact phone number: 206‐442‐6860

Tour Contact email: emilyf@bertschi.org

“Open Day” Info: Bertschi Grand Opening Email Invite; Bertschi Grand Opening Invite. The ribbon cutting was also announced on the local NPR station.

Additional Beauty Petal Thoughts:   Beauty is often a controversial quality, especially when referring to how it might be subjectively judged for the  Living Building Challenge. But to the Bertschi Team, we understand the power of a meaningful design or  aesthetically pleasing natural element that can bring deep satisfaction to the mind. We realize that beauty is  unique to everyone and the mere consideration of whether something meets this characteristic has already been  successful in allowing us to consider the possibilities. In many ways, Beauty and Spirit became personal to the  Bertschi design team, the Bertschi faculty and their students. We each have our own stories about the ways in  which the Living Building Challenge framework and the building we designed, built, and learn in has touched our  lives. For many of us, both professionally and personally, we will carry this experience with us forever.

The Bertschi School Living Science Building has an honorable and necessary purpose. It exists for primary school  education and aspires to teach not only science, but environmental stewardship, as well. Bertschi’s campus  embodies a spirit of place. Located at the north end of Bertschi’s urban campus, it bookends a block of existing  buildings that Bertschi repurposed as school program spaces. Through renovation of historic homes, the overall  campus is a celebration of culture and place by honoring the buildings that existed on its site before the school  was there. Recent construction projects have worked to enhance the campus by adding the first LEED Gold  certified school building in Washington followed by the first Living Building Version 2.0 building. The campus  offers its students the opportunity to learn and play in buildings that range from early 1900’s Craftsman homes  to a mid‐century church, to the most innovative and sustainable buildings that are now possible.

For the students of Bertschi School, the beauty of their Living Science Building is in the manifestation of their  dreams. When the design team began our project, we started with the students. We asked them what a Living  Building means to them. What would they dream about seeing in their classroom? How would they wish to see  nature expressed? The students were inspiring and shifted the focus of what we as designers thought was  possible. They asked for “a stream [that] could be running under the classroom” and “A greenhouse where  something would be always growing.” Out of these ideas developed some of the greatest design features of the  building that not only perform functions and met LBC Imperatives but inspire and teach the beauty of nature.

The stream became a pebble‐lined runnel in the classroom floor that weaves its way through the building  mimicking the natural patterns of rivers. Part of the rain water collection system, the runnel and other pipes  bring the beauty of the hydrologic cycle right inside the classroom. The greenhouse has turned into the  Ecohouse with a wall full of tropical plants that treat our grey water. Students learn that plants are not onlybeautiful to look at, but that their beauty is also in their function. These natural features represented in their  classroom show the interconnectedness of the natural world. Our choices of how we use water have  consequences on nature and the students can reach out and touch these relationships from their desks. But  these connections don’t end inside. Just beyond the windows of the classroom the students are surrounded by  an ethnobotanical garden. The changing patterns of nature are on full display here as the students grow a  variety of vegetables, fruits and indigenous plants. They learn about Native peoples using these same plants for  tools, connecting them with the spirit of our ancestral culture. Nestled quietly throughout the building and its  garden’s natural elements are artists representations of nature. From all five species of salmon cast into the  floor along the runnel to the beetles mounted next to the green wall and even the garden sculptures, students  are immersed in the beauty of art that pays tribute to nature.

The most beautiful aspects of the building are the lessons and perspectives it instills in its students, quantified in  the survey they were asked to complete. Their answers prove that the building itself is creating a new normal  for the kids who have the opportunity to learn from it and in it. From their experiences in the classroom we all  hope they will carry forward what some students said so simply, “that all buildings should be living” and “we are  living what we are learning.” Those thoughts are planted like seeds in their mind and inform the many beautiful  sustainable ideas and solutions that develop as they become adults and choose their own paths into the future. 

A Living Building created for the education of our youth is a game changer. It is something that proves to their  young minds that this type of self‐sustaining, healthy and beautiful building is indeed possible and in fact  necessary. With the Bertschi building, we are hoping to make a shift in the way educational spaces are thought  of traditionally. It is time to start creating spaces for our students that are more than just shelter for activity but  a place that they can learn from and be inspired by. Their classrooms can create the impact that helps them  choose the direction for their careers and inspire them to make a difference through their life’s passion. The  Bertschi project team saw the potential for this and did everything we could to involve the students in the design  and the function of their classroom.

Based on the metaphor of a flower, the Living Building Challenge itself is an embodiment of beauty. By  designing the Bertschi Living Science Building to tell the story of the Challenge and what it requires, the team  believes they are providing a truly beautiful and inspiring place. All of the systems and components that help  the building function have been left exposed so students and visitors are able to understand how the building  works and what is necessary to achieve Imperatives like net zero energy and water. Wood from responsibly  managed local sources used as structural components are celebrated and left exposed. Processes are labeled  and materials left natural.
 

As an important consideration for all designs, whether pursuing the Living Building Challenge or not, Biophilia  was also featured. The design team understood that this Imperative would add to the building’s beauty and  spirit. It is in our human nature to seek elements of the natural world for healing and wholeness. When we ask  a group of students or adults during workshops to think about what is beautiful to them and they often recall  something natural. Designs throughout the project incorporate organic forms and shapes from the river in the  floor to the nautilus on the moss mat roof above. Natural light, air, complimentary contrasts, indoor/outdoor  spaces and spirit of place are just some of the biophilic features that Bertschi’s Science Wing displays.

Back to Top

PROCESS

© Bertschi School

Relevant details about project use The building’s primary function is as a  classroom operating with a consistent schedule. The school does provide public tours of the building  several times a month and hosts a variety of meetings, events and special educational sessions  throughout the year.

Project costs:$935,000
Soft costs:$0
Hard costs (land excluded):$935,000

Creative financing opportunities:  All design fees  for the project were provided pro‐bono. In addition, the General Contractor Skanska removed their  profit and contingency and provided countless donations in both time and materials for construction.  Numerous subcontractors also donated time and materials. The total construction cost was provided  through community fundraising led by Bertschi School.

Design ProcessBeyond the building’s design and function, the story of how it came to be is inspiring. The project began as an  idea in the minds of two of the project team members, Chris Hellstern and Stacy Smedley of KMD Architects. The  idea formed at the Living Future unConference in Portland, Oregon when Jason McLennan gave the audience a  charge to be Change Agents and show that Living Buildings were possible and necessary. Chris and Stacy took  this to heart and decided they could do this if they found a project that was the right scale to become a built  research project for their firm. If they could do that, and then find a team of professionals that also wanted to  make positive change and donate their time to create a built case study project, then they could answer Jason  McLennan’s charge.

Chris and Stacy happened on the Bertschi school by chance when looking to tour a local  LEED Gold school. At the end of the tour, Bertschi’s campus planner Stan Richardson, mentioned that they had  one more science building to construct as part of their master plan, and that they wanted to explore the Living  Building Challenge on that project. Chris and Stacy quickly reached out to build a team who shared their passion  for sustainability. Each contact immediately said yes to signing on to the pro bono project. With the dedicated  team in place, we approached the Bertschi School who agreed to take on the Challenge.  The team has told this story to people across the United States and has seen it inspire others to think big and  follow their individual passions and calls to action. And while it may seem like a complex and unique set of  circumstances that led to this project, the idea that started it is simple. Just ask. Ask what is possible. Ask for  help to create the change you believe in. This philosophy persisted throughout the Bertschi project from creating  a team of professionals to donate all their time to raising monetary donations for the construction and receiving  donated labor and materials to build the building. Through the Living Building Challenge we have found  people’s passion for doing what is right for the environment. We have found what matters to them in providing  something better for our future generations. People want to do what is right to leave a legacy of inspiration and  education and sometimes it just takes an appeal to their true spirit to unleash action.

As designers, we believe the Bertschi Living Building encompasses Beauty and Spirit in its story of creation, its  built form and in the lessons it is able to teach its students. From those who have been personally and  professionally invested in this project for nearly four years we see the beauty embodied in the young students  who can describe to their classmates the function of the composting toilet and the reason they collect their  energy from the sun. We see the spirit of the Challenge and its environmental stewardship principles permeate  the student’s family life as they implore their parents to turn off the water and lights at home when not in use  and to compost their food scraps. The idea of this project evolved from the need to inspire and educate our  future generations on the need for buildings that build a restorative future. We believe that the Beauty and  Spirit lessons of the Living Building Challenge will live on in the future generations and that is the true legacy of  the project.

Design Features

 

1. North, insulated glazing and operable windows provide daylighting and natural ventilation.
2. 2x12 wood framed, cellulose insulated walls
3. SIPS panel roof
4. Hydronic radiant floor heating
5. Ventilation system with energy recovery
6. Operable skylight provides stack effect ventilation
7. Rain leaders to cisterns, exposed for education
8. Glass-covered interior runnel transports rain water to potable cistern
9. Exterior runnel transports excess rain water for potable use to irrigation cistern and rain garden for infiltration
10. Irrigation Cistern
11. Rain Garden
12. Stormwater control valves divert water from other campus property to irrigation cistern and rain garden

 

1. Church Building rain leader to cistern, exposed for education
2. Rain leader for classroom butterfly roof
3. Glass-covered interior runnel transports rain water to potable cistern
4. Potable water cistern
5. Potable tank hand pump for water appreciation
6. Energy Recovery Ventilator (ductwork omitted for clarity)
7. Operable curtain wall window for ventilation

 

1. North, insulated curtain wall glazing provides daylighting
2. Skylights provide additional toplighting for the Green Wall
3. Greywater filter tanks remove large particulate matter before sending to Green Wall
4. Green Wall treats all greywater onsite through closed-loop evapotransporation
5. Vacuum flush toilet
6. Composting units (2) treat all blackwater on-site
7. Potable water treatment system (wall mounted) including micron filters and UV light for disinfection
8. Radiant floor hybrid hot water heater
9. Moss mat green roof
10. 2x12 wood-framed, cellulose insulated walls

Renderings courtesy of KMD Architects

All images, if not otherwise attributed, are courtesy of the Bertschi School.

Back to Top