John W. Olver Transit Center

The John W. Olver Transit Center, located in Greenfield, Massachusetts, is the first net zero transit center in the United States. It was funded in part by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The 24,000-square-foot intermodal transit hub has introduced high-performance design to Franklin County, demonstrating a commitment to sustainability and ethical design. The project is a depot for regional and interstate bus lines, a station for Amtrak’s Vermonter and Valley Flyer lines, and an office for the Franklin Regional Council of Governments.

From xeriscaping to sustainable technologies, this project brings a broad range of ecological and environmental values to the heart of the community. The design process fostered a multidisciplinary effort that integrated engineering, building technology, architecture, and landscape architecture into a seamless holistic design. Architectural decisions benefited from real-time feedback with respect to energy modeling optimization.

The design team worked closely with the community and identified two important objectives early in the design process: The transit center needed to connect to the city’s historic architecture, materiality, and urban fabric; it also needed to be healthful, sustainable, and net zero. The project has become a central public space within the city and is used for community meetings and gatherings. It also has increased accessibility to public transportation. The design process was made accessible to all members of the community through facilitated programming and design workshops, through sustainability charrettes, and in the definition of project aspirations. The process engendered the creation of an equitable design that promotes sustainability, stewardship, and a connection to the landscape and ecosystem.

While the building’s massing and the exterior materials—brick, copper, and locally sourced stone—respectfully mimic the stately brick buildings in the historic downtown district, the transit center is a radical departure from these inefficient, energy-guzzling structures. The building’s western brick façade may pay homage to the past, but its perforated-brick construction screens western-facing glass from the late-afternoon summer sun. The final goal of the project was to serve as a catalyst for sustainable urban revitalization. According to city officials, the project has had a positive economic impact and is credited with stimulating environmentally responsible development in the city and region.

The process engaged the community repeatedly during design, and as a result, the project is perceived by citizens as a successful expression of community needs, values, and aspirations. In a city with many well-crafted, historic buildings, it is easy for the community to appreciate the contextual exterior materials of brick and copper. The community values the design for its social awareness and inclusivity, ecological sensitivity, connection to the city and the landscape, durability, economy, low operating costs, healthful interior spaces, and its net zero sustainability in response to the climate crises.

Explore the John W. Olver Transit Center site plan in Fig. 1 Design for Integration. 

The project represents an effort to bring together communities. The building is charged with facilitating travel throughout the region and creating intimate public spaces for local connection and engagement at the heart of Greenfield. Operationally, the process of the community design brought stakeholders together around common goals and values, facilitating dialogue and all points of view that ultimately established community consensus for the project. Stakeholders participated in project workshops and sustainability charrettes with the architects and systems engineers. These meetings included hundreds of community members, the staff of the two organizations housed in the building, state and local transportation officials, representatives from the FTA and the Massachusetts Department of Energy, the mayor, the Board of Selectmen, the town operations director, the director of social services, and the local fire and police departments. All were able to voice their feedback in open town meetings. Community input stimulated the design team and raised compelling ideas that inspired the creation of a valuable resource for the city.

Design intent

Who does the project serve? Identify the stakeholders who are directly or indirectly impacted by the project.

The transit center, which provides access to bus and train services, has an equitable impact on a geographically dispersed ridership, which is 91% low income, elderly, and minority. The county government offices that occupy the building serve a similar demographic, creating a unique overlap between government administrators and the population to which they are beholden. The iterative public workshop process offered diverse stakeholders the opportunity to exchange ideas and formulate a common vision of an accessible, walkable, just, and human-scaled building serving the community. Additionally, the café, waiting areas, and community meeting spaces promote human connection and engagement.

Describe the stakeholder engagement process over the course of the project.

The engagement process was a critical aspect of the project, and the lengthy design phases were intended to encourage stakeholder input on every aspect of the building. The architect and design team facilitated 10 workshops on the following topics:  

• community aspirations for the project
• equity and diversity in design
• site analysis and urban context
• community needs and programming
• project relationship to surrounding historic architecture  
• building massing and site organization
• preliminary systems and net zero objectives
• massing models and design iterations  
• review of iterative three-dimensional views and hard models
• sustainability charrette
• net zero strategy, landscape strategy, materials, and daylighting

Identify project goals that support equitable communities and describe how those goals were developed.

During the first community meetings, a healthy, equitable community came to be defined as one that supports social, physical, and mental well-being for all its residents at all stages of life. The values of accessibility, affordability, stability, diversity, safety, and equity were emphasized throughout the design process and are embedded into the program and built environment. The design and construction team were 16% minority-owned business enterprises (MBEs) or women-owned business enterprises (WBEs). The transit building is an inviting and accessible hub for social connection. The site and building are fully accessible and conveniently accessed by foot, bike, or transport.

Describe the project team's explorations or design strategies that respond to the above-stated goals.

Designing for accessibility began with the site selection one block from the center of the historic downtown. The entrance facing the center of town and the eastern façade at the transit waiting area are transparent, conveying openness and invitation. The building is ADA accessible and braille is incorporated into building signage. Material choices are familiar and of the place—brick and copper are a continuation of the palette found throughout the historic town center. The building was affordable with a cost that was 38% below the base building and 21% below the original project budget.

Describe stories or evidence that demonstrate how the project successfully contributes toward more equitable communities.

The design process brought the diverse community together to work through a complex challenge in which participants learned to listen to each citizen’s point of view. During many inclusive workshops, the community developed consensus around project programming, values, aspirations, equity, and sustainability. Today, one can see the results. The building’s users reflect the diversity of the county, and the county government offices and the transit center serve all segments of the population. The building hosts numerous community meetings and outreach services that assist the under-served. The building’s materials and the natural light provide an inspiring space for these gatherings.

Every community is unique, and every project has unique has unique opportunities to respond to issues of equity and inclusion. Describe any exemplary practices or outcomes for this project.

Labor practices: The design and construction teams included 16% MBEs and WBEs. Safety checks occurred daily, ensuring that all construction work complied with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations. The architect investigated the material suppliers’ labor practices, OSHA compliance, and non-toxic manufacturing practices. Funding from FTA and ARRA required that all procurements (materials and equipment) comply with the Buy America Act of 2009.

Supply chain: The supply chain excluded any materials or equipment fabricated outside the United States. Thirty-nine percent of materials were regional.

Mobility: Access to busses, trains, sidewalks, and the building are ADA compliant.

Health impacts: The absence of fossil fuel emissions improved the surrounding outside air quality. Interior air quality benefits from ample ventilation, an air purifying system with MERV-14 filters, high levels of natural ventilation, and the use of nontoxic materials with low or zero VOCs. Bike storage, showers, lockers, daylighting, and views to the landscape promote physical and mental well-being.

Adaptability: The design process reviewed multiple future uses.

Cultural heritage: The design process assured the reification of the community identity expressed in workshops. Exterior materials respect Greenfield’s past. However, the brick also acts as a screen and shades western glass from the summer sun.

Environmental justice: The design transforms a 100% impervious brownfield site. Now, the building footprint occupies 12% of the site, leaving 88% as open space. Forty-three percent of the site is planted with native species, and 100% of stormwater is managed on-site.

Engagement methods: The design process included numerous public workshops that defined community aspirations and programming and reviewed and critiqued ideas and design iterations.

Vulnerability: Local hazards were identified and included hail, earthquakes (low risk), drought, extreme temperatures, power outages, grid instability (low risk), and flooding (low risk). The design responds to all these vulnerabilities.

Metrics

Walk score: 94

Bike score: 50

Transit score: Walkscore.com indicates a walk score but does not provide a transit score for the project site. Nevertheless, the project site is a regional transit center with stops for all eight of the region’s buses, three Greyhound routes, and Amtrak train service on the Vermonter and Valley Flyer lines. 

The site design supports the health of the surrounding ecosystem, celebrates the ecological characteristics of place, and engenders species diversity for both flora and fauna. Terraces at the south and north ends of the building invite the public and users to engage in the landscape and connect to the project’s ecosystem-place and characteristics. The landscape is “infrastructural,” spare, and essential. It supports species diversity, retains 100% of site stormwater, and needs no irrigation. The program for the 81,400-square-foot site includes a 9,510-square-foot building footprint, a large busway turn-around, bus loading areas, limited parking, a biomass boiler, wood pellet storage, and a 7,300-square-foot photovoltaic array. The landscape design embraces a maximally dense and biotically diverse agenda. Pedestrian hardscapes are only as large as required and are permeable where possible. All remaining corners of the site are planted in native meadow, wetland, and woodland ecotypes. The woodland’s canopy shades and cools occupants, both inside and outside the building. It also shades pavements to reduce urban heat island effects. The vertical presence of the trees visually screens pavement, vehicles, and the prominent underbelly of the photovoltaic array.

Design intent

How does the design minimize negative impacts on animals?

The meadow fulfills several ecological roles. It slows and reduces runoff through infiltration and evapotranspiration. Upon establishment, the meadow, which includes hundreds of native grass and wildflower species, requires infrequent maintenance and minimal energy inputs. It provides habitat for various small mammals, birds, bats, and amphibians. The meadow provides floral resources and nesting sites for hundreds of bee species, moths, butterflies, and other insects. The site lighting is minimal and meets dark-sky requirements. Most glass windows are screened by copper or brick, which deter bird deaths. Bird-deterring decals for two large areas of glass have been specified.

How does the project support biodiversity and improve ecosystem services?

While lacking the scale and continuity of central Massachusetts’ forests, the site’s wooded areas, with 139 species of native oak, hornbeam, and beech, mitigate the site’s overall impact on climate and enhance species diversity. The bio-retention garden of sedges and irises treats and retains the stormwater. In rain events, the basin collects, slows, and filters runoff from the busway. Microbiota in the soil and at the roots of plants biologically degrade some water pollutants into nontoxic substances.

Metrics

0% of site area was vegetated (landscape or green roof) pre-development.

42.7% of the site area is vegetated (landscape or green roof) post-development.  

There was a 42.7% increase in vegetated area, post-development.  

100% of the vegetated areas are planted with native species. 

The original 81,400-square-foot site was 100% impervious with asphalt paving and a car dealership structure. The biogenic value of the landscape was considered but not calculated. All stormwater is filtered and retained on-site. The site is now 42% vegetated with non-irrigated native species. The driveway is 50% pervious, and the design includes a large, landscaped retention basin of sedges and irises, a primary treatment and retention mechanism for stormwater. In rain events, the basin collects, slows, and filters run-off from the 24,000-square-foot busway. Microbiota in the soil and at the roots of plants biologically degrade some water pollutants into nontoxic substances. Additional drywells for overflow prevent stormwater from leaving the site. All plantings are indigenous and drought tolerant, so none of the site requires irrigation. Within the building, low-flow fixtures reduce water consumption. The water usage has been higher than expected due to nonproject-specific uses, such as charity carwashes and the weekly washing of the bus fleet.

Design intent

Describe how the project's stormwater and potable water strategies contribute to site and community resilience.

All stormwater is filtered and retained on-site, eliminating any reliance on city storm sewers. Building water use is reduced significantly through ultra-low-flow fixtures, minimizing the impact on the local wastewater treatment plant. Early site plans included a small wastewater tertiary treatment facility—a Living Machine designed by John Todd. As the design developed, it was determined that the site’s limited size could not accommodate this tertiary treatment facility and the bio-retention basins.

Describe the quality of the water that runs off the site.

There is no runoff from the project site.

Describe how and where the project's black water is treated.

Black water from the building is treated at the Greenfield, Massachusetts, sewage treatment plant.

Metrics

Water use intensity (gal/sf/year)

Benchmark: 20.9

Predicted: 4.3

Measured: 3.1

Reduction in potable water use (from benchmark)

Predicted: 79.5%

Measured: 85%

Total annual water demand met using potable sources

Predicted: 100%

Measured: 100%

100% of stormwater is managed on-site. 

At its core, the design of the John W. Olver Transit Center is about doing more with less, a new example of a tradition of frugality in New England. To create an architecturally significant design for modest cost, the project uses economic strategies, including “rightsizing” and the elimination of spatial redundancy. The building plans are 22% more efficient than the baseline building, including additional spaces such as showers and changing areas. Other strategies include the utilization of regional construction materials and traditions. Value-engineering workshops after the construction contract was awarded invited input from the contractor and led to a series of subtractive change orders that reduced the original construction cost by 21%. The project was completed for $455 per square foot, 38% percent below the benchmark building. The project demonstrates that sustainable, net zero designs can be far more cost-effective than comparative baseline buildings.

How does this project contribute to local and/or disadvantaged economies?

The project has renewed the economic and social life of the city and the county. The public uses the building to access regional and interstate bus services and Amtrak. The public also uses the building to interact with the Franklin County Regional Council of Governments and to attend community meetings and workshops. The building was intended to be an example of sustainability for the county and has been a catalyst for sustainable redevelopment of the city. Members of the public have participated in sustainability tours of the building and attended workshops about sustainable design.

How did design choices reduce system sizes and minimize materials usage, allowing for lower cost and more efficiently designed systems/structure?

Integrated design led to greater efficiency relative to initial capital expenditures and subsequent operational costs. Building forms were sculpted in response to energy models to minimize the surface-to-volume ratio and the energy consumption of the project. Volumes were manipulated to shade fenestration, and window locations were determined based on heat gain impact and the daylighting effect on lighting loads. The clerestory and skylights were added to bring daylight to 84% of the occupied spaces and minimize the lighting load. The second-floor volume was precisely formed to optimize the solar shading of the glass wall at the transit waiting area.

How did life cycle cost analysis influence the project's design?

The design also considered life cycle and operational costs. The net -zero design and material selections resulted in the following annual operational savings:  

Utility cost savings: $11,261

Durability and cleaning savings: $45,085

Overall annual savings: $56,346

Cost

Construction cost per sq. ft.: $454.17

The project is the first FTA-funded net-zero transit center in the country and is an early net-zero emissions project in Massachusetts. The project was funded in part by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The design eliminates dependence on fossil fuels, significantly reduces energy use, specifies a high-performance building envelope, and reduces lighting, heating, and cooling loads. The design process relied on an integrated design team and the use of energy and daylighting models to inform decisions. Thermal modeling of details was integrated throughout the design process to eliminate thermal bridging. In addition to a high-performance envelope and reduced energy loads, passive design strategies include optimized daylighting, thermal mass temperature regulation, interior and exterior shading, a solar wall for preheating make-up air in the winter, and natural ventilation. Active strategies include 22 geothermal wells, water-sourced heat pumps, chilled beams, energy recovery systems, and occupant engagement through an energy dashboard. On-site energy generation includes a 98 kW photovoltaic array and a biomass boiler. Grid electricity is 100% green power. The real-time data collection and energy dashboard utilized by staff to operate and maintain the systems allow for nimble adjustments to systems and operations that could be running more optimally.

Explore how the John W. Olver Transit Center integrates a solar-shading screen in the design of the copper panels in Fig. 2 Design for Energy.

Design intent

Describe any energy challenges associated with the building type, intensity of use, or hours of operation, and how the design responds to these challenges.

The design intent was to create a net zero energy building that eschewed fossil fuels. The site area was limited: There was only space to build a 98 kW photovoltaic array to power the electrical systems of the building. The area (including the roof area) was not large enough to install a sufficient number of PVs to power an electric boiler, and at the time of design, grid electricity was not 100% renewable. Nearly a decade later, with updated technology, an electric furnace and a battery storage system are being considered to replace the biomass boiler powered by waste-wood pellets previously specified.

Metrics

Is the building all-electric? No.

In its measured usage, including on-site renewables, did the project achieve its 2030 Commitment reduction target (70% reduction by 2015, 80% reduction by 2020)? Yes.

The project's total carbon (embodied + operational) over 10 years in kg CO2e is 645,000.

There is a 100% reduction (inclusive of renewables) from benchmark, measured.

100% of total energy is derived from renewable sources, measured.

There is a 95.5% reduction (inclusive of renewables) in operational carbon from benchmark, measured.

Please explain if a mandatory metric is unavailable or a metric requires additional interpretive information.

For supplementary heat, the project uses a wood pellet biomass boiler fed by locally sourced wood pellets made from forestry waste. The rationale at the time was that the wood was a renewable resource releasing back into the atmosphere the CO2 the trees sequestered during their growth. Today, this rationale is no longer acceptable, and we now provide supplemental heat using renewable electricity.

Annual consumption was modeled at 424.6 MBtu/yr, which corresponds to a consumption EUI of 424,600 kBtu/24,000 sf = 17.7 kBtu/sf/yr. Actual annual consumption was 31.41 tons per year, generating 511.98 MBtu per year, which corresponds to a consumption EUI of 21.3 kBtu/sf/yr.

The design embraces the transformative value that good design brings to communities and individuals. Sited one block from the center of the city, the transit center provides public transportation (train and bus) access and significantly expands the ability for someone to travel without the use of a car. Secure bike parking, lockers, showers, and changing rooms on-site encourage employees and travelers to commute via bike. The ground-floor public meeting and waiting areas are accessible, well-lit, and safe. The design and program boost the use of public transportation and community interaction. All interior occupied spaces are designed to receive natural light, and 85% of these spaces have quality views of the site and surrounding landscape. While the lighting and mechanical shades are programmed, office employees on the second floor are able to override and modify their local interior environment, including lighting, shades, and operable windows for natural ventilation. Interior materials with low or zero VOCs, such as concrete, terrazzo, and wood, were specified to promote healthy indoor air quality, complementing a MERV-14 filtration system. All wood used in the project was FSC certified.

Design intent

Was a chemicals of concern list or other third-party framework used to inform material selection? If so, how?

The construction specifications follow LEED and EPA recommendations regarding chemicals of concern and air quality. The material choices eschewed toxic materials and materials fabricated in a toxic manner. The following materials were not used in the construction: formaldehyde, lead, PCBs, and other commonly prohibited materials. Concerns for indoor air pollution led to the specifications of materials with low or zero VOCs. Air-filtration (MERV 14) eliminates particles, and indoor air quality testing during the pandemic demonstrated that the building was filtering air as designed. No pesticides are used in the landscape.

How did the project advocate for greater transparency in building material supply chains?

Supply chain transparency was discussed with the contractor and the owner. Available data on products was shared with all parties, and where possible supplier labor practices were reviewed, product quality and fabrication safety were considered, and the sustainability of the manufacturing process was investigated. Where possible, materials were sourced from the surrounding region.

Metrics

84% of the regularly occupied area is daylit (sDA 300/50%).

100% of the regularly occupied area is compliant with annual glare criteria (ASE 1000, 250).

98% of the regularly occupied area has quality views.

61% of the regularly occupied area has access to operable windows.

561 is the design goal for maximum CO2 in parts per million (ppm) when spaces are fully occupied. The goal is relative to outdoor CO2 levels. 

The design optimizes and balances priorities of form, materials, and program. Formally, the building takes advantage of programmatic area requirements: The upper-floor office space is significantly larger than the ground-floor transit space and community room. This provided an opportunity to cantilever the second floor on the north, east, and south sides to create protected entry and waiting areas adjacent to the glazed interior waiting areas. The overhangs were calculated to facilitate summer shading while allowing the winter sun to passively warm the ground floor. This reduced lighting and air-conditioning loads and provided views to the buses and landscape.

Materials were selected to be as durable and nontoxic as possible. Brick and copper were chosen as the primary building materials as they require little or no maintenance, age well, do not emit VOCs, and are natural materials. The design process included stakeholders, employees, and local community members. Eight-five percent of construction waste and more than 75% of operational waste were diverted from the landfill via composting, recycling, and trash sorting. 

Design intent

Did embodied carbon considerations inform the design? How?

Reducing embodied carbon was not an objective for the project when it was designed; however, as a public project, materials were selected for their durability, recyclability, and low VOC emissions. In preparation for this submittal, Build Carbon Neutral (version 0.03.5) was used to analyze the LCA of the building, and the project achieved an embodied carbon reduction score that was 75% of the baseline building. The structural system is upcycled steel and concrete, the cladding is copper and brick, and the first floor is a light-colored terrazzo, which enhances daylighting, minimizes lighting loads, and uses local aggregates.

Did the idea of circularity/circular economy inform the design? How?

The project used many strategies to reduce non-recyclable petroleum products and increase renewable energy and recyclable building materials. Copper and brick, both natural and recyclable materials, make up a large percentage of the envelope. A biomass boiler fueled by waste wood from local lumber mills was specified at the time. However, more environmentally suitable energy sources would be selected today, in addition to the 98 kW solar array that serves the site. Portions of the site were reforested with indigenous trees, and low-water native grasses and flowers were planted to contribute to the local micro-ecosystems.

Describe any special steps taken during design/construction to make disassembly, deconstruction, or reuse easier at the building's end of life.

The building is designed to last 100 years with proper maintenance. During the design phases, the potential reuse of the building and site was studied. These studies informed design decisions that ensure feasible adaptability in the future. The building circulation can accommodate two different uses, one on each level. Fit plans were generated for the following programmatic types, successfully demonstrating the flexibility of the design:

• art gallery
• art center with open studios
• offices
• conference center
• visitors center
• recreation center

These fit plans demonstrated that the building would accommodate a range of future uses.

Metrics

0% of project floor area was reused or adapted from existing buildings.

Was embodied carbon modeled? Yes.

26.9 kgCO2e/sf is the project's embodied carbon intensity.

100% of the installed wood is FSC certified. 

The project provides 24,000 square feet of adaptable community space at the center of the city, spaces with non-fixed furnishings throughout ensure that the building can be easily reprogrammed as needed. The space has an open layout and houses community meeting spaces, county government offices, and a county transit center. The project addresses economic inequality and financial vulnerability by providing a public resource to the community and access to public transportation. The dedicated 98 kW solar array provides a period of passive survivability during severe weather or power outages. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the offices were one of the first in Greenfield to safely reopen as a result of the well-designed and well-equipped ventilation systems, MERV-14 filters, and automated controls. All of the motorized shades are programmed to respond to exterior lighting conditions, reducing the need for shared controls. Lighting, heating, and cooling are also automated, further reducing contact of shared surfaces.

Explore how the John W. Olver Transit Center uses passive strategies, including optimized daylighting, solar-shading, and natural ventilation, in Fig. 3 Design for Change.

Design intent

In what ways does the design anticipate climate change over the life of the building?

The design is durable, resilient, and intended to last up to 500 years. Its structure is steel and concrete, and its cladding copper and brick. Durable materials such as terrazzo and stone comprise the interior. Exterior maintenance costs are negligible with the exception of the high-albedo roofing membrane, which has a 30-year warranty. Sustainable in its programmatic adaptability, the design anticipates the incorporation of new responses to climate change. For example, with the arrival of 100% sustainable power from the local utility grid and the availability of air-source heat pumps, the design team is currently considering updating the biomass boiler to an all-electric boiler.

How does the design anticipate restoring or adapting function in the face of stress or shock, such as natural disasters, blackouts, etc.?

During the cooling months, passive energy strategies are designed to reduce heat gain with extensive overhangs, window shading, and screens. In the winter, the thermal mass of the building stabilizes temperature fluctuation. Combined with substantial daylighting, the interior environment can extend occupancy during power outages. Resiliency and change are addressed through the building’s expanded thermal comfort range, natural ventilation, high-performance envelope and electric infrastructure supported by a photovoltaic array. The building has served as a cooling center in extreme heat and as an emergency operational center.

Metrics

Research Score: 70

Resiliency Score: 83

The building can be used as a safe harbor to support the community during a crisis. During the cooling months, passive energy strategies that include extensive overhangs and layers of window shading are designed to reduce heat gain. In the heating months, the western brick wall acts as a thermal mass wall, retaining solar energy. Combined with substantial daylighting autonomy, these create an environment that can extend occupancy during power outages. Resiliency and change are addressed through the building’s expanded thermal comfort range, natural ventilation, high-performance envelope, and electric infrastructure supported by a photovoltaic array. The building has served as a cooling center in extreme heat and as an emergency operational center. Through passive sustainability, the building can function for 21 hours. The building has a high-performance envelope, significant thermal mass, great daylighting capacity, a biomass boiler for supplemental heat, and a large 98 kW photovoltaic array. Depending on the season and on the nature of an event or catastrophe, survivability is estimated at between 12 and 30 hours.

When the design process began, the John W. Olver Transit Center was the firm's first zero net energy project, a term that the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy had defined as a building that is “optimally efficient and, over the course of a year, generates more energy on-site, using clean renewable resources, in a quantity equal to or greater than the total amount of energy consumed on-site.” To achieve this, all decisions, from massing and form to materials and systems, were made only after carefully analyzing their performance impact on the energy model.

The building metering system allows for continuous real-time data collection of energy usage for heating, cooling, lighting, process loads, plug loads, water usage, and PV energy generation. This data is used by maintenance staff to operate and maintain the systems and educate the building occupants through an interactive touchscreen in the public lobby. The dashboard also provides information about the project’s sustainability features. The executive director has noted that these features have increased curiosity and knowledge about sustainability.

Explore the John W. Olver Transit Center’s impact on more responsible sustainability behaviors in Fig. 4 Design for Discovery.

Design intent

What lessons learned through this project have been used to improve subsequent projects?

The John W. Olver Transit Center was the first zero net energy (ZNE) transit center in the United States and the first ZNE project undertaken by the firm. This project demonstrated that pursuing ZNE requires a fully integrated design process and a scientific outlook. In this project, the firm established a positive relationship with the engineers, who were serious and impactful collaborators. Going forward, projects seeking LEED, WELL, or zero net status have mechanical, electrical, and civil engineering integrated into the team during the conceptual design phase. Architecture is both an art and a science.

If a post-occupancy evaluation was performed, design the process and outcomes.

The post-occupancy report analyzed the following aspects of the project: overall building energy use, lighting energy use, PV generation, receptacle use, mechanical system use, air handling systems, water source heat pumps, office temperature and humidity, domestic hot water, and building management systems. The building was performing well but energy consumption was slightly higher than projected. The analysis led to a second round of commissioning, which improved the efficiency of the building.  Some meters were inaccurate and were replaced. Some lighting controls were incompatible with some fixtures and were replaced. Building operations staff were given additional training in monitoring the systems.

If a post-occupancy performance testing was conducted, describe the process and outcomes.

A post-occupancy energy-use analysis was performed using building sensors, utility metering, and invoicing. The report analyzed total building energy use, total lighting energy use, building receptacle energy use, photovoltaic on-site energy generation, mechanical system energy use, and air handler and water source heat pump performance. This post-occupancy report led to a second round of commissioning, which included blower door testing, replacement of defective meters and sensors, replacement of lighting ballasts, recalibration of temperature and humidity sensors, recalibration of system controls based on actual hours of operation, adjustments to outdoor air dampers and energy recovery systems, and HVAC rebalancing.

Metrics

Post-occupancy evaluation score: 100

Transparency score: 100

Commissioning score: 80

Feedback score: 100

Please explain if a mandatory metric is unavailable or a metric requires additional interpretive information.

Transparency score: In the level of transparency section, the spreadsheet allows for two "other" categories to calculate the transparency score. We selected yes for both because the project has been presented in lectures at schools of architecture and has been presented to several professional organizations. The project has been presented to the Massachusetts state government and the secretary of transportation. The project has been published internationally. 

Year of design completion: 2010

Year of substantial project completion: 2014

Gross conditioned floor area: 24,00 sq. ft.

Number of stories the building has: two

Project site: Brownfield

Project site context/setting: Urban

Annual hours of operation: 3,650

Site area: 81,400 sq. ft.

Cost of construction, excluding furnishing: $10,900,000

Total annual users: 3,750 

Architect: Charles Rose Architects

Construction Manager: Fontaine Brothers, Inc.  

Consultant - Building Envelope: Building Envelope Technologies

Consultant - Code: R.W. Sullivan Engineering

Consultant - Lighting Design: Reflex Lighting Group

Engineer - Structural: Richmond So Engineers

Engineer - MEP/FP: Arup Group

Engineer - Civil: Nitsch Engineering

Engineer - Geotech: McPhail Associates

Landscape Architect: Groundview, LLC

Owners Representative: McMahon Associates

Specification Writer: Kalin Associates   

Katie Ackerly, AIA, Chair, David Baker, Oakland, Calif.

Julian Owens, Assoc. AIA, Jacobs, Arlington, Va.

Seonhee Kim, AIA, Design Collective, Baltimore

Avinash Rajagopal, Metropolis, New York