• Exterior appearance similar to clear, uncoated glass
• Blocks approximately 60% of the total solar energy
• Excellent insulation value (U-Value = 0.29)

Solarban^® 60 glass is now available on Starphire^® ultra-clear glass and can also be combined in insulating units with an outboard lite of a PPG tinted or reflective tinted glass to increase performance options (see performance data to right and on page 21).

Note: This product meets the new energy efficiency guidelines set forth by the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) for spectrally selective glazing products.

LSG Ratio: Using the Light to Solar Gain Ratio (LSG) allows performance comparisons to be made between glazing products, and highlights the standards set by PPG glasses. The LSG ratio is the ratio of visible light transmittance to solar heat gain coefficient. The higher the LSG ratio, the better the glazing is at reducing unwanted solar heat gain and maximizing desirable natural light transmittance. Excellent LSG ratios can be attained using spectrally selective tinted glasses and/or Solarban^® Solar Control Low-E glasses.

Solarban^® 80 glass is designed to address the need of a single product for superior solar control, high visible light transmittance and aesthetic appeal.

Like no other glass, Solarban^® 80 glass creates a dynamic exterior aesthetic. A sample viewed indoors provides a glimpse of the same steel jade appearance exhibited by Solarban^® 80 glass when shaded from the sun. When the glass is bathed in direct sunlight, the glass transforms into a satin reflective finish, with true color reflected images…of the sky that looks blue and trees and landscaping that look green.

Solarban^® 80 glass has a Light to Solar Gain (LSG) Ratio* of an unbeatable 1.96, placing it at the top of its class.

• A one-inch insulating unit of Solarban^® 80 (2) clear glass provides:
• Optimum balance among visible light transmittance, glare control and superior solar control
• A satin finish that reflects undistorted images, clear and crisp, but not overpowering
• Solar control properties that meet the most stringent mechanical requirements
• True color transmittance for building occupants

Solarban^® 80 Performance —
One-Inch Insulating Glass Unit Comparisons Using 1/4″ (6mm) Glass¹

¹For detailed information on the methodologies used to calculate the performance values in this table, please visit our homepage at www.ppgglazing.com.Seattle Space Needle
Location: Seattle, Washington
Product: Solarban^® 60
Architect: Callison Architecture, Inc.
Glazing Contractor: All New Glass, and Evergreen House, Inc.
Glass Fabricator: Northwestern Industries, Inc.
Owner/Developer: Space Needle Corporation
Short Form Glass Specifications

Type: Solar Control Low-E Clear Insulating Glass”Solarban^®” 60 (2) “Clear” by PPG Industries, Inc.Indoor Lite: Clear “transparent” Float glassOutdoor Lite: Clear Float, Sputter Coated on second surface (2)
Coating: “Solarban” 60 Solar Control Low-E (Sputtered) by PPG Industries, Inc.
Location: Second Surface (2)Performance Values

Approved Manufacturers: PPG Certified FabricatorOutdoor Appearance: Clear color, low-reflective glass product“Solarban^®” 60 (3)”Caribia^™ by PPG Industries, Inc.Indoor Lite: Clear Float, Sputter Coated on third surface (3)
Coating: “Solarban” 60 Solar Control Low-E (Sputtered) by PPG Industries, Inc.
Location: Third Surface (3)Outdoor Lite: Caribia^™ glass by PPG Industries, Inc.Performance Values

Approved Manufacturers: PPG Certified FabricatorOutdoor Appearance: Aqua-green, low-reflective glass product

“Solarban^®” 60 (3) “Solexia^™” by PPG Industries, Inc.

Indoor Lite: Clear Float, Sputter Coated on third surface (3)
Coating: “Solarban” 60 Solar Control Low-E (Sputtered) by PPG Industries, Inc.
Location: Third Surface (3)

Outdoor Lite: “Solexia^™” by PPG Industries, Inc.

Performance Values

Approved Manufacturers: PPG Certified FabricatorOutdoor Appearance: Light green color, low-reflective glass product

“Solarban^®” 60 (3) “Atlantica^™“ by PPG Industries, Inc.

Indoor Lite: Clear Float, Sputter Coated on third surface (3)
Coating: “Solarban” 60 Solar Control Low-E (Sputtered) by PPG Industries, Inc.
Location: Third Surface (3)

Outdoor Lite: “Atlantica^™” by PPG Industries, Inc.

Performance Values

Approved Manufacturers: PPG Certified FabricatorOutdoor Appearance: Emerald green color, low-reflective glass product

“Solarban^®” 60 (3) “Azuria^®“ by PPG Industries, Inc.

Indoor Lite: Clear Float, Sputter Coated on third surface (3)
Coating: “Solarban” 60 Solar Control Low-E (Sputtered) by PPG Industries, Inc.
Location: Third Surface (3)

Outdoor Lite: “Azuria^™” by PPG Industries, Inc.

Performance Values

Approved Manufacturers: PPG Certified FabricatorOutdoor Appearance: Aquamarine color, low-reflective glass product“Solarban^®” 60 (3) “Bronze^®“ by PPG Industries, Inc.Indoor Lite: Clear Float, Sputter Coated on third surface (3)
Coating: “Solarban” 60 Solar Control Low-E (Sputtered) by PPG Industries, Inc.
Location: Third Surface (3)Outdoor Lite: “Bronze” by PPG Industries, Inc.Performance Values

Approved Manufacturers: PPG Certified FabricatorOutdoor Appearance: Warm bronze color, low-reflective glass product“Solarban^®” 60 (3) “Gray^®“ by PPG Industries, Inc.Indoor Lite: Clear Float, Sputter Coated on third surface (3)
Coating: “Solarban” 60 Solar Control Low-E (Sputtered) by PPG Industries, Inc.
Location: Third Surface (3)Outdoor Lite: “Gray” by PPG Industries, Inc.Performance Values

Approved Manufacturers: PPG Certified FabricatorOutdoor Appearance: Cool gray color, low-reflective glass product“Solarban^®” 60 (3) “Optigray^®23″ by PPG Industries, Inc.Indoor Lite: Clear Float, Sputter Coated on third surface (3)
Coating: “Solarban” 60 Solar Control Low-E (Sputtered) by PPG Industries, Inc.
Location: Third Surface (3)Outdoor Lite: “Optigray 23″ by PPG Industries, Inc.Performance Values

Approved Manufacturers: PPG Certified FabricatorOutdoor Appearance: Gray with warm bronze undertone color, low-reflective glass product“Solarban^®” 60 (3) “Graylite^®“ by PPG Industries, Inc.Indoor Lite: Clear Float, Sputter Coated on third surface (3)
Coating: “Solarban” 60 Solar Control Low-E (Sputtered) by PPG Industries, Inc.
Location: Third Surface (3)Outdoor Lite: “Graylite” by PPG Industries, Inc.Performance Values

Approved Manufacturers: PPG Certified FabricatorOutdoor Appearance: Dark gray color, low-reflective glass product
PPG Industries, Inc.
Sweets Catalog Classification Code
08 81 00/PPG

PPG Industries, Inc.
PPG Glass Business and Discovery Center
400 Guys Run Road
Cheswick, PA 15024
Tel: 1-888-PPG-IDEA (1-888-774-4332)
Fax: (412) 826-2299
Website: http://www.ppgideascapes.com
Email: ideascapes@ppg.com

This presentation is available for view and download at:

www.cowieassociates.com/hughesville

Hughesville Village

D1.0 Donna

D2.1 Donna/Pauleen

D2.2 Donna/Pauleen

D3.1 Donna/Pauleen

Introduction:

Thank you for the opportunity to present you with this material.  First let me introduce myself and explain my involvement in the Hughesville Revitalization effort. 

I am an Architect with over 25 years experience working on master plans, new and existing development and revitalization efforts.  I am licensed in over a dozen states, have an office in Washington DC in Georgetown.  I have been and continue to be focused on various projects in Southern Maryland including St. Mary’s County, Great Mills School, St. Mary’s College, currently working on a request for a redevelopment proposal for the Calvert County Middle School and have and am working projects in Prince Georges County, Prince Frederick and Charles County.

My introduction to Hughesville came in 1998 when Ray Mertz approached me to work with him in a pro-active study of how the proposed state bypass might impact the existing village of Hughesville and what opportunities might be considered.  We prepared a photo survey and conceptual development illustrations in a power point presentation that is very much in line with the subsequent approved County Plan.  While I have been provided as a paid consultant for some of my services I have also volunteered a significant amount of time and energy over the years exploring and presenting various revitalization ideas including the design and preparation of a Hughesville Business Map that has been printed and distributed through the efforts of the Preserve Hughesville Group and HBCA.  Ray Mertz is disappointed that he cannot attend this presentation tonight however he is being formally inducted as Tri County Member at Large in Annapolis Maryland.

Donna and Pauleen have presented the evolution from Preserve Hughesville to the county’s efforts in working with the community that culminated in the Hughesville Village Revitalization Plan that I will refer to as the Approved Plan and on to the creation of HBCA. 

The HBCA priority points have as a corner stone the “Approved Plan” and this is the starting point for the illustrations I would like to present.  This slide is from page 65 of the approved plan and includes some key elements that we plan to explore in more detail. 

This page illustrates the Village Core Revitalization Area also referred to as the PFA or priority funding area.  This creates a shape around the village that I will talk in more detail about in the next few slides.  This page also includes a number of key elements I would like to point out that will also be viewed in more detail and include four gateway locations, N, S, E, W.  A gateway is a location to encourage a sense of arrival or entrance into the village core and can include elements such as signage, landscape, building features and other amenities to announce arrival.  Another important element of this page is the green dashed lines and street section drawings on the bottom of the page.  These identify the opportunity to create a linear streetscape theme that can serve to connect the gateway areas and are instrumental in creating a village feel to Hughesville that offers a balance of vehicular and pedestrian scale elements in keeping with the village character to make Hughesville a special place.

D4.1 PFA Approved

These pages will walk us through the PFA area. Priority Funding Area that is meant to define the village core and focus our revitalization efforts.  The Purple outline on D4.2 is a shape that was included in the county’s approved plan and is about 600 acres.  The background plan is the approved county pfa plan.

D4.2 PFA Proposed

This page D4.2 is the same approved county plan that includes an overlay to illustrate a proposed redistribution of pfa area in order to reallocate some of the periphery pfa area that included residential areas and relocate those areas to focus on the main street and gateway opportunity areas.  The three green colored shapes that are primarily residential are identified as pfa are to be removed and moved to these other shapes identified as PFA area relocated.   Our goal is to infill along Main Street and the opportunity areas in a way that does not change the total pfa area from what is included in the approved plan.

D4.3 PFA Area Proposed

This page illustrates the new pfa area shape overlaid on the approved county plan.

D4.4 PFA Area proposed just highlights this new proposed pfa shape.

D4.5 PFA Area proposed continues to highlight the same new proposed pfa shape but is now overlaid over a more current Google satellite map for reference.

D4.6 Village Core

D4.6 takes the proposed pfa shape and rotates the image with main street running horizontally left to right.  This page also illustrates the location of the gateway areas and streetscape opportunity along Main Street similar to what is included in the approved plan illustration we discussed on D4.0.

D6.1 This page D6.1 illustrates three focus areas that we will illustrate how the intent of the approved plan and HBCA priorities can be implemented.  Area 1 is the gateway location, area 02 includes both the streetscape elements and the one of the more significant historic tobacco barns and area 3 is the main intersection of Main Street and 231.

D6.2 illustrates an aerial view of focus area 1.  

D6.2 Existing 

Existing conditions are shown on the bottom image and includes MD 5 were Main Street Old Leonardtown Road and the bypass MD 5 split.  This area currently has some features including the All American Harley Davidson building that has a significant presence and contributes to the gateway idea and also includes the entrance to the new building and site improvements currently under construction by SMECO.

D6.2 Proposed

Proposed conditions are illustrated on the top of page D6.2 includes several features that can add to the sense of gateway and help anchor the northern edge of Main Street.  One of these elements is a proposed signalized intersection.  The state of Maryland is exploring ways to improve the life safety aspect of cars and pedestrians near this northern gateway location.  While the state is considering several locations in this vicinity HBCA believes it would best serve the village if located were Main Street and the bypass split.  This would provide a safe and controlled condition for traffic from Main Street to travel both north and south on MD 5 and would also reinforce the sense of gateway.  Other features in this gateway area include the proposed Hughesville station that could include building and site features that serve to create as sense of entry in to the village along with streetscape site amenities, trees, sidewalks, signage and lighting that becomes a thread tying these various features to the other opportunity areas along Main Street. 

D6.2.1 provides another aerial view looking NW and illustrates how the various elements can work together to provide a sense of gateway and can be an anchor for the northern edge of the village core.  Existing buildings are shown in white and include the All American Harley Davidson building shown here and the orange buildings are conceptual illustrations of what could be proposed at Hughesville station and a future Oncology center.

D6.3 One for gateway elements we are exploring is a sign that could define the entrance into the village core.  This illustration shows how we have made reference back to one of the older historic buildings that used to be part of Main Street and have extracted the façade proportions and arrangement to translate into a proposed Hughesville Village sign.  This sign could be located at the northern gateway area and include identification for Hughesville businesses.

D6.3.1 Temporary Sign: we are exploring ways in which to accelerate the implementation of some of these ideas and elements including a simplified version of a more permanent sign shown here on D6.3.1.  This sign could be constructed with two telephone poles, three sheets of plywood painted and decorated with architectural trim and the business and Hughesville sign could be re-used when a more permanent sign is constructed.  We are working with local business owners and citizens including SMECO to try and implement this temporary sign concept.

D6.3.2 provides a day and night artist rendering of how this temporary sign could create a sense of identity for the Village.

D6.4   Focus Area 2

D6.4 Illustrates focus area 2 and includes the existing Historic Tobacco Barn buildings that are located along main street shown in this lower aerial view looking NE.  The approved plan makes note of several items that can be opportunities for this area and we see this as a core focus opportunity area to implement several of these ideas.

The approved plan points out how the existing road configuration of four lanes has a negative impact encouraging high speed vehicular traffic, does not allow for convenient on street parking and is not pedestrian friendly.  The approved plan suggests creating a streetscape that could include parallel parking that would slow traffic speed, provide better access to businesses and create a pedestrian friendly atmosphere with safe and convenient access to businesses and to support local events.  The approved plan also notes that a in addition to parallel parking, a streetscape concept should be considered to incorporate sidewalks, ornamental lighting, street trees, bicycle parking, the placement of infill buildings and parking located behind buildings in order to reinforce the village concept as a healthy and walk able community.

These elements suggested in the approved plan are illustrated in the proposed aerial view on the top of D6.4 and include an adaptive re-use of the existing historic tobacco barns, sidewalks, street trees, on street parking, infill buildings and additional parking to support local events and supplement on street parking for the local businesses.

D6.5 The Barns at Hughesville.  The approved plan makes note of the tobacco barns and suggests a more detailed study be considered in order to find a creative way to retain the unique quality of the barn structures as well as preserve the historic contribution the tobacco industry has had in Hughesville.

These next few pages illustrate a conceptual adaptive re-use of the barns that would respect the original interior structure, allow for a variety of local business and community uses and reinforce and compliment the proposed street scape vision proposed for Main Street. 

D6.5.1.1 is a plan view of the existing barns that includes three structures that physically relate to each other but each has its own unique style and character.

D6.5.1.2 is a plan view of the barns showing how the three areas can be renovated to accommodate a variety of spaces and uses that could include a main hall that could serve as a meeting space for community assemblies and could act as a community arts and cultural center providing space for local school and or community performances, presentations, banquets and community celebrations and art fairs.  This type of use would retain the interior quality of the open truss system in the main hall.

Surrounding spaces located along the street could include small shops, café or coffee shop, tobacco museum or visitor center, arts and crafts type spaces.  The end building is shown with a conceptual layout for sit down restaurant that could also compliment the community hall.  The blue area illustrates the adjacent barn building and we have prepared various studies for adaptive re-use that includes academic classroom space for the School of Southern Maryland.

D6.5.1.3 is an aerial view looking NW and shows the relationship of the proposed shop, café, visitor center spaces to an active streetscape that could include parallel parking, street trees, decorative lamp post lighting, outdoor seating, bicycle racks and other pedestrian friendly amenities.

D6.5.1.4 is the same aerial view looking NW with the roof removed to illustrate how the interior community hall, restaurant, shops and adjacent school use could complement each other.

D6.5.1.5 is an interior view of the existing barn structure and illustrates the unique quality of the interior truss work creating a main hall space with individual bays along the perimeter.  We feel it would be important to retain the quality and character of this space.

D6.5.1.6 illustrates how the space could accommodate various community functions that could include a stage, open cat walk area and side bay spaces.

These next few pages just illustrate how the space might feel during a community gathering or arts performance.

D6.5.1.9 is a cut away view of the building that illustrates the relationship of the interior hall to the adjacent street scape spaces.  And finally just a couple of view of the outside streetscape with shops and outdoor spaces creating an active and healthy presence to the street and building façade fabric.

The location of the barn buildings are at a unique and vital area of the village core and we hope that this can be one of the opportunity areas that can be realized in the near future in order to establish a precedent for future revitalization in the village.  We are fortunate to have one of the local business owners and HBCA board member committed to exploring these ideas in order to help bring these visions to a successful implementation.

D6.6 Focus Area 3

This third area is at a strategic location the intersection of main street and 231 and can serve as a second anchor to the streetscape concept anchored by the gateway elements at the northern end of Main Street.

D6.6 illustrates the existing building and street fabric on the bottom of the page and a proposed renovation of an existing building located on the NW corner and an infill building at the SW corner.  The infill building configuration is consistent with the plan objectives included in the approved plan.  Buildings are located along the street edge to reinforce the streetscape concept and parking is located behind the buildings.

D6.7 is a view of the existing building located on the NW corner that does not have a very inviting exterior façade or street presence.  These next few slides superimpose an image that represents the type of architecture, public pedestrian scale amenities and features that reinforce a healthy, safe and friendly environment for the village. 

Conclusion:

This concludes my presentation of the illustrations and ideas.  The purpose of this presentation has been to share with the community various ideas related to implementation of the approved plan with some specific examples of how this might be accomplished.  Thank you again for the opportunity to make this presentation, I hope you have found it informative and exciting.  I welcome constructive input, ideas, thoughts and comments.  I believe Pauleen is making this material available to the community in a variety of formats so you can reflect on the material.  At this point I would like to turn the meeting back over to Pauleen.

Thank you.

This document is also available for view and download clicking on the link below:
Hughesville Village

• Location: Loudoun County, VA
• Building type(s): Retail, Offices
• 100% new construction
• Suburban
• Completed October 2009
• Rating: U.S. Green Building Council LEED-CS, v.2.0 –Level: Gold

Environmental Aspects

The project includes:

1. An annual energy savings of 30.6% and a cost savings of 24.7% over the conventional ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerant and Air-conditioning Engineers) standard
2. A 100 % reduction in potable water use for irrigation
3. 92.14% of the construction waste generated by the project was diverted from landfills
4. 50% of the wood used in the construction of the buildings was harvested from sustainably managed forestry
5. 56.71% of the total building products were manufactured as well as harvested locally (within 500 miles)

http://www.atapcoproperties.com/Properties/eastgate.html

by Kimberly Tchang

There is an automotive revolution rolling onto U.S. roads — and into retail parking lots. Electric vehicles, or EVs, are about to go mainstream, with the introduction of about a dozen highway-capable models between 2010 and 2012. At least two — the hybrid electric Chevy Volt and Nissan’s all-electric, zero-emission Leaf — could be on the road by year-end. This new crop of EVs will feature three categories that require regular recharging: plug-in hybrid electric cars; smaller electric city cars, which can run for 40 to 60 miles on a charge; and larger electric cars, which have a range of about 100 to 200 miles. This means that consumers will need convenient places to “top off” these cars with an hour or two’s charge — and, it is hoped, to do some substantial “charging” of their own while they wait, in a nearby store or restaurant. Though most EV owners will probably fully charge their electric cars at home overnight, using a residential charging unit, there is a move under way to create an infrastructure of charging stations at convenient public locations. “We urge people planning future parking lots or developments to consider what it means that there will be a lot of these cars in just a few years,” said Richard Lowenthal, CEO of Coulumb Technologies, a Campbell, Calif.–based charging-station manufacturer. Coulumb installed chargers at South Coast Plaza, in Costa Mesa, Calif., in April. “As the first installation in the nation of a networked charging station within a shopping center, we hope that other organizations will look to South Coast Plaza as an example and welcome this new wave of transportation,” said Lowenthal. Certainly, federal incentives are helping to rev up demand for EVs. President Obama has set a goal of 1 million plug-in hybrid vehicles on the road by 2015. The administration has dedicated over $4 billion to support the design, manufacture and purchase of these cars. In addition, U.S. regulations requiring higher fuel efficiency and lower emissions are currently being strengthened. Many municipalities have already received federal money to set up charging station networks, and they are buying commercial fleets of the smaller EVs. And consumers can take advantage of a federal tax credit of up to $7,500 for the purchase of an EV through the end of this year. Still, not every retailer is in any heated rush to put up charging stations in the parking lot. Costco, for one, installed dozens of charging stations about 10 years ago at select warehouses in California and Arizona, to accommodate the very first generation of electric cars. But the momentum for those cars was short-lived, and those early charging units need some retrofitting if they are to work with the new EVs. Costco is taking a wait-and-see approach as it considers upgrading. “Whether it does anything for our business or not, I’m not sure,” said Craig Peale, Costco’s assistant vice president of energy. “It’s more along the lines of, is this something that we need to do for our members?” Developers and EV advocates alike, however, acknowledge that today the electric-vehicle market is entirely different, with the confluence of tax incentives, consumer readiness and the sheer numbers of EV rollouts is fueling a much more viable market for the cars. “EVs will be kind of commonplace, whereas before they were just a small curiosity,” said Lowenthal. Among the shopping center developers that see potential is Simon Property Group, which is working with utility companies to install stations at some of its centers. “We believe that a well-developed charging infrastructure is going to be key to the success of EVs,” said George Caraghiaur, Simon’s vice president of energy services. “We also believe that malls will be an important part of that infrastructure, given their popularity and the amount of time typically spent by shoppers at our malls.” Like Costco, Macerich also installed charging stations at several of its centers years ago. The developer is now working with the city of Santa Monica, Calif., to put two charging units into the garage that serves Santa Monica Place. The center is under reconstruction and slated to reopen in August. “This makes perfect sense, given the environmentally conscious character of the community it serves,” said Rebecca Stenholm, senior public relations manager at Macerich. The firm has no immediate plans to replace the units or to add new ones at any other properties. One issue for center owners to consider is the cost to purchase and install a charging station. This can range from a few thousand dollars to upwards of $10,000, depending on how much work is needed to run the electricity. The federal government is offering a 50 percent rebate to businesses to offset costs for units purchased and installed this year, but there is as of yet no clear return on investment for retailers. Along those lines, some are considering ads on the charging-station screen readers. “There has to be something more to get most commercial entities interested in installing these charging stations, because the direct revenue isn’t there,” said John Gartner, a senior research analyst at Pike Research, a Boulder, Colo., firm that studies global clean-technology markets. But perhaps just as valuable to center owners is the PR potential: the ability to differentiate themselves as a “green,” “forward-thinking” company, and to attract the early adopters of EVs, who are expected to be educated and affluent. “Some of [the developers] can see that this investment may blow the doors off any kind of ad buy they may purchase over the next few months,” said Colin Read, vice president of corporate development at Tempe, Ariz.–based ECOtality, which focuses on clean electric transportation and storage technologies. ECOtality subsidiary eTEC has received $100 million from the U.S. Department of Energy. As part of the EV Project, eTEC is creating a network of some 11,000 charging stations in major cities in Arizona, California, Oregon, Tennessee and Washington. ECOtality is in discussions with major chains and developers, Read says. Whether center owners choose to wait things out or race right in, one thing is for sure: The EV revolution has arrived. In Lowenthal’s words, “It’s time to start thinking and planning about this, because it’s going to happen.”

The Bamboo plywood is 100 percent renewable bamboo material it uses only the finest adhesives that are both strong and formaldehyde emissions free.

• All Bamboo plywood is unfinished
• Bamboo plywood is compatible with most industrial finishes
• Can be fire-treated to meet Class 1 requirements (please check on local code requirements)
• Bamboo plywood is a stock item in 4′ x 8′ sheets
• Custom sizes available up to 12′ in length

Bamboo plywood is no different then many other types of plywood’s, it can be cut and sanded using most conventional woodworking equipment. The bamboo is produced with a low resin with an open grained material that takes stains and finishes exceptionally well, if you would like to stain it we have found an aniline dye works best. Bamboo can also be glued and/or fastened using the same materials commonly used with standard wood products.

Bamboo plywood comes in both a Carbonized (darker) and Natural (light) tone and it is laminated to produce the two different surface grains of horizontal or vertical. The vertical grain appears as 1/4″ strips for the surface and our horizontal grain pattern is very unique as we offer a 2″ wide bamboo strip on the surface of the plywood.

LEED^® Credits
Credit EQ 4.1, Low Emitting Materials: Indicating adhesive agent contains low voc adhesive.
EQ 4.4: No added urea formaldehyde
MR 6: Rapidly Renewable Materials

For more informations, visit the Higuera Hardwoods website: www.higuerahardwoods.com

LiteSteel™ beam from LiteSteel Technologies is a structural beam with the strength of steel and the installation ease of wood. This revolutionary product was developed in response to the demand for a light structural beam with the strength of steel but with the workability and ease of installation associated with cold formed sections and wood products. LSB® can be used in place of other structural beams; wood or steel. It is on average 40% lighter than hot rolled steel and engineered wood beams of equivalent performance. The innovative, patented cold forming process gives LSB a unique profile with the torsional rigidity you would normally expect from hot rolled steel. It is easier to lift and carry and can be hoisted without the need for a crane. When you weigh up the problems involved with hot rolled structural steel beams and engineered wood beams, LSB can provide significant time and installation cost advantages. It can be carried like a wood beam and can be cut, nailed, screwed, and drilled on site using standard professional tools. LSB can also be used in a back-to-back configuration to significantly increase land bearing capacity. LSB is supplied with a G-60 or equivalent coating for superior corrosion protection.

Features
LSB is up to 40% lighter than hot rolled steel or engineered wood—can be carried and hoisted like lumber without the need for a crane.

The unique patented LSB profile delivers more structural performance in terms of load carrying capacity.

LSB provides significant time and installation cost advantages compared to hot rolled steel, engineered wood or on site fabrication of cold formed sections. Can be cut, drilled, screwed, bolted, nailed, and welded on site using standard professional tools.

Building Code Compliance
LiteSteel Technologies has received a Code Compliance Research Report (ATI CCRR#0123) for some of its LSB products against the 2006 International Building Code, the 2006 International Residential Code and the 2004 Florida Building Code.

From: Eco-structure Magazine

Vegetation isn’t just for flat roofs. Here are some factors to consider when designing and installing sloped green roofs.

The humble, workaday green roof—flat, thin, and supporting a limited palette of plants—increasingly is a part of mainstream construction in North America. But sometimes both greenery and slope are desirable on top of a building. Pitched roofs are usually more visible at grade, and unusual topography can make a strong design statement. There are, however, unique concerns to consider.

Stability

The first priority in designing such a project is holding the assembly in place. The critical pitch at which shear force becomes an issue on a green roof is generally considered to be 10 degrees.

Different blends of growing medium will have different coefficients of friction. Some are engineered specifically for sloped applications. Often the medium is held in place by a perforated plastic honeycomb-like grid or similar material. That’s the case for a new hyperbolic paraboloid roof at Lincoln Center in New York with slopes of up to 18 degrees. Architect Heidi Blau of New York–based FXFowle says the plants’ roots will grow through the perforated polyethylene cellular Geoweb, which is attached to the building perimeter with stainless steel tendons, and knit the system together.

In some cases, the necessity of stabilizing the medium begets a feature. At the California Academy of Sciences, the green roof has seven domes to reflect San Francisco’s seven hills, with the steepest slopes approaching 60 degrees. Holding the medium and biodegradable planting modules in place without connections, pins, curbs, or cleats that could damage the waterproofing membrane was a challenge, says landscape architect John Loomis of SWA Group. Their solution included a network of narrow gabions laid out in 576-square-foot grids. Intersections and sloped areas were reinforced with rebar and the same kind of polyester cord straps used to secure shipping containers.

According to engineer Charlie Miller, president of Philadelphia-based Roofscapes, on a failed green roof the slip surface is most likely to lie underneath the medium. Designers must have a solid understanding of all system interfaces, he says, and stability analysis should be based on interface friction coefficients only. Since these systems are intended to last a long time, designers should not depend on the bonding strength of adhesives between the layers of the green roof assembly, including the one that attaches the waterproofing membrane to the roof deck. The shear stresses in the membrane should be reduced as much as possible. For installations that exceed the critical pitch, stabilization systems that can transfer downslope forces to the roof ridge or eaves, or to battens installed at intervals across the roof deck, will be required. These supports must be designed to avoid compromising the waterproofing system.

Drainage

Slope greatly affects retention, so pitched green roofs are not ideal for stormwater management. In addition, especially on large roofs, the amount of water moving through the system during a storm can potentially overwhelm its ability to drain properly.

The roof on the Haworth furniture company headquarters in Holland, Mich., vividly illustrates the challenge. It’s big—45,000 square feet—and its west end slopes down six stories to grade while also narrowing in width from 60 feet at the top to 24 feet at the bottom. When the manufacturer of its aluminum edging expressed concern about hydraulic pressure during severe storms, horticulturist and system designer Dave MacKenzie of LiveRoof shared the concern with the design team, which prompted an engineering review. In a collaborative effort, modules were modified for increased subdrainage and three elevated steel barriers were installed to help regulate flow. Larger drain holes also were drilled into the edging at the base. The roof has performed well during two 100-year storms since its installation in 2007.

On the California Academy of Sciences roof, the gabions were designed to provide drainage as well as stability. The open grades between the coarse black basalt stones that fill the wire baskets promote fast movement of water off slopes.

Plants

Sloped roofs are challenging horticultural environments. The area close to the ridgeline will usually be especially hot and dry, while lower areas can be quite wet. While these situations should be accounted for when designing drainage, they also present opportunities to take advantage of microclimates. Even if tried-and-true green roof plants such as sedums comprise the primary plant palette, more sheltered spaces might accommodate flowering perennials or grasses.

Most sloped green roofs are extensive, meaning they host at most 6 inches of medium. But on the accessible Lincoln Center roof, an average depth of 9 inches supports a carefully selected lawn mix of turf type tall fescue and Kentucky bluegrass. The adjustable irrigation system was designed with seven zones to make sure water is correctly distributed, and a series of check dams directs excess water under the surface to drains that are strategically placed to provide even distribution.

Linda McIntyre is a freelance writer based in Washington, D.C., and New York. Her book, The Green Roof Manual: Define, Design, Install, and Maintain, written with Ed Snodgrass, president and founder of Emory Knoll Farms Inc., will be published by Timber Press later this year.

“This standard will serve as an indispensible tool in the marketplace for property managers, architects, contractors, appraisers and other parties who measure space,” remarked BOMA International Chair James A. Peck, RPA, FMA, senior director of asset services, CB Richard Ellis. “The updates we have made to the standard reflect the needs of users in the field. We have also brought the standard into the digital age by including hyperlinks to definitions and full color illustrations in the PDF document, eliminating ambiguity and making it easier than ever to understand.”

The new features of the standard include:

* A new Single Load Factor Method. This new calculation, “Method B,” applies to the occupant area of each floor to determine the rentable area and is the same for all floors of a building, which will greatly simplify leasing calculations for property managers.
* More options. Users can choose either the new Method B or the measurement methodology of the 1996 standard, referred to as “Legacy Method A.”
* Regional leasing practices. A new clause in the standard states that if external corridors are the only way tenants can access their space, property managers can include them as building common areas and therefore include them in their common area maintenance allocations. This will be advantageous for buildings in warm climates.

* Measurement clarity. The standard introduces new terms to simplify and clarify the process of measurement, including a step-by-step sequence that includes boundary line definitions. Users will be able to zoom in on full color illustrations to get a closer look at how classes of space transition.

In addition to Office Buildings: Standard Methods of Measurement and Calculating Rentable Area (2010), the BOMA suite of measurement standards also includes Gross Areas of a Building: Methods of Measurement and Industrial Floor Measurement Standard. Later this year, BOMA will release two more standards, one for use in multi-residential buildings and one for retail spaces.

For more information on BOMA’s new office measurement standard, visit the BOMA Bookstore.

This is where Gustavo writes stuff about BOMA. This is where Gustavo writes stuff about BOMA. This is where Gustavo writes stuff about BOMA. This is where Gustavo writes stuff about BOMA. This is where Gustavo writes stuff about BOMA. This is where Gustavo writes stuff about BOMA. This is where Gustavo writes stuff about BOMA. This is where Gustavo writes stuff about BOMA. This is where Gustavo writes stuff about BOMA. This is where Gustavo writes stuff about BOMA.

On the heels of the publication of ASHRAE Standard 189.1, a new code addressing sustainability in traditional commercial and high-performance buildings is now open for public review and comment. The International Green Construction Code (IGCC) Public Version 1.0 addresses energy use, water use, material and resource use, indoor environment quality, and building impacts on the environment such as greenhouse gas emissions, site design, sustainability owner/facility management education, and exiting buildings. Designed to provide a regulatory framework regarding sustainability in commercial buildings, it was developed by a Sustainable Building Technology Committee (SBTC) created by the International Code Council (ICC) board of directors. The American Institute of Architects and ASTM International served as cooperating sponsors.

Rather than compete with other codes or standards, the IGCC is designed to coordinate or integrate with existing International Codes (I-Codes) to provide minimum regulations for buildings and systems using prescriptive and performance-related provisions. For example, the IGCC uses the requirements of the 2012 International Energy Conservation Codes as its baseline energy provision.  In addition, recognizing potential conflicts in the marketplace, the ICC worked with the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), and the Illuminating Engineers Society (IES) to incorporate Standard 189.1 in the technical content of the IGCC as an alternative path of compliance.

In creating the initial provisions, the SBTC sought to create baselines and guidelines that do not unnecessarily increase construction costs; do not restrict the use of new materials, products or methods of construction; and do not give preferential treatment to particular types or classes of materials, products, or methods of construction. As a model code, the IGCC requires adoption by a governing jurisdiction before becoming law. Recognizing that the model language can be modified as needed to address local conditions, the code includes a set of “project electives” that will give jurisdictions options to customize the code beyond the baseline sustainability options.

The first version of the code is available for download at iccsafe.org, and the ICC will be accepting public comments via the web site until May 14. Comments will be posted on July 2, and public hearings will take place August 14-22 in Rosemont, Ill. Public Version 2.0 will be issued in November, and final action hearings are planned for 2011, with the end goal being the publication of the 2012 IGCC.