Citation
Highland housing

Material Information

Title:
Highland housing
Creator:
Hagerty, Robert K
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
73 leaves : chart, form, maps, plans ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Cluster housing -- Colorado -- Denver ( lcsh )
Dwellings -- Highland (Denver, Colo.) ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 71-73).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Architecture, College of Design and Planning.
Statement of Responsibility:
Robert K. Hagerty.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
09747688 ( OCLC )
ocm09747688
Classification:
LD1190.A72 1982 .H3389 ( lcc )

Full Text
HAGezry
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
AURARIA LIBRARY
SSS?
Robert Hagerty
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
AURARIA LIBRARY
ARCHIVES
LD 1190 A72 1982 H3389
l
i
i.
"jl
r*
i


Highland Housing
An Architectural Thesis
Presented to the College of Design and Planning,
University of Colorado at Denver, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Architecture
Robert K. Hagerty
Spring 1982
I
i


CONTENTS
page
Introduction 1
Site 5
Location 5
History 7
Existing Conditions 9
Zoning 10
Description 11
Current Use 11
Land Cost 11
Soil Condition 11
Existing Buildings and Property Lines 13
Building Analysis 14
Existing Grade 13
Uti1ity Locations 13
Views 17
Public Tansportation 17
Traffic 17
Pollution 18
Recreaticn/Open Space 18
Schools 18
Entertainment 18
Climate 20
Summary 21
Design Temperatures 21
Solar Access 21
Typical Meteorological Year 22
Annual Wind Rose 24
Building Codes 25
Program 29
Discussion 30
Specific Building Program 35
Design 38
Description 39
Graphics 42
Systems 53
Drainage Analysis 54
Structure 5b
Passive Solar Heating 59
Cogeneration 83
References 71


For my thesis project I have chosen to design a hypothetical housing development to be located within the Highland neighborhood of North Denver. The site chosen for this study is a 3.26 acre parcel of land which makes up roughly two-thirds of an existing block. It is a critical site which forms part of the transition between the old, established neighborhood and imminent high density development of the "Bluff", an area located directly northwest of the 1-25 corridor, across from and overlooking the central business district. The neighborhood is comprised largely of modest single family detached homes, typically constructed of brick, which have been built in sporadic subdivision developments since the 1890s. The inhabitants of these homes are generally middle and lower income, and make up a significant portion of Denver's Chicano and elderly populations. Interspersed with these homes are many small neighborhood businesses built before zoning laws dictated homogenous residential development. The streets are generally quiet, narrow, and lined with mature trees and flagstone sidewalks. The neighborhood, until now, has been affected little by the tremendous growth which Denver has undergone in recent years.
Directly across 32nd Ave., which forms the southern edge of the residential portion of lower Highland, is the Bluff.
This area, zoned mostly B-4 (known as B-anything), is currently under intense development pressure. It is a CBD fringe area which is becoming more attractive to developers as the CBD building boom continues. Indeed, a PUD proposal for 485,000 sq. ft. of mixed-use development on just one block located four blocks from the thesis site was brought before the Denver City Council in November of 1981. While the council did not approve the poposal, it is indicative of the intent which developers have for the Bluff .
Currently the Bluff is a mixture of office, warehouse, light industrial, and residential uses. It is anticipated that demand for land will force out all but the office uses; other uses will make way for higher density office and mixed use developments.
The fabric of the residential neighborhood breaks down as


it approaches 32nd Ave. There is a relatively large amount of vacant land. Land uses currently found on the Bluff spill across the street to the north side of 32nd Ave. on pockets of B-4 land.
It has long been the intent of the neighborhood to establish the residential character found further to the north in these blocks adjacent to 32nd Ave. This was a specific policy recommendation of the Highland Neighborhood Plan, published by the Denver Planning Office in 1976. Little has been done to date to accomplish this goal. Its importance to the neighborhood as a whole increases along with heightened development pressures on the Bluff.
With the development of Denver as a major urban center, the lack of downtown housing, particularly middle income housing, has become an important issue. Without housing Denver can never become a vital, productive urban center. Land downtown currently is selling for as much as $60O,0O/sq. ft. This is prohibitively high for housing development. With $5.00/sq. ft. lend costs, the only housing developed in the Skyline Urban Renewal project downtown are luxury condominiums. It thus becomes apparent that the only hope for increased middle income housing near the CBD will have to come from the fringe areas encircling it.
For the reasons mentioned above the use chosen for this site is middle income, medium density housing. High income housing on this site could help stimulate a trend of displacement of existing residents and possible replacement of the existing housing stock with higher density development. Conversely, lower income (subsidized) housing development in a neighborhood saturated with lower income units would serve only to keep the area suppressed. Hopefully, middle income housing on this site will contribute to the stability of the neighborhood and give it a chance to reach its full potential.
The infilling of a new development of this type on an existing block could cause many problems if not handled with great sensi-
3


tivity. Of utmost importance is the weaving together of tne old and the new. The new development must fit in and contribute to the existing neighborhood. Issues of context, density, and community must be addressed.
With any development under consideration in these times issues of resource scarcity become important. In a city with a climate such as Denver's and with current design techniques, there is no reason that a housing development ccnnot meet the bulk of its energy needs using site-available resources. Water scarcity is an issue particularly important to this region. Additionally, waste disposal problems (methane gas pockets, land development on old landfills, etc.) have become a factor in the Denver Metro area. Clearly, creative techniques for coping with these problems are needed.
A


LOCATION
The site block is bordered on the south by 32nd Avenue; on the north by 33rd Avenue; on the east by Pecos St.; on the west by Quivas St. It is approximately one mile north-northwest of Denver's CBD.

r CT
r1 ti

6


HISTORY
The site is located in what was the original town of Highland, platted in 1853 by General William H. Larimer. Highland merged with Denver City and Auraria to form Denver in 1361. Highland was primarily a "bedroom suburb", with people commuting to work in Denver. People lived there for what they thought was a better quality of life: pure air, pure water, good homes, good schools, and high moral standards at a time when Denver was known for precisely the opposite. The establishment of a strong community with these high ideals was never really established. Access to Denver was difficult--across the Platte River and 36 adjacent railroad tracks. Many of the wealthy ultimately left to build homes in Capitol Hill, on the other side of town.
The largest influx of residents to come into the area was in the lC90's with the immigration of Irish, German, English, and finally Italians. Each immigrant group would initially reside in the
"Bottoms", near the Platte River, and then work their way up the .
hill to the northwest as they became more established.
The first viaduct to Denver from the north was at 14th Street.
It is now the north bridge of Speer Blvd. With this major transportation link established commercial development began to occur at the expense of residential areas. The construction of 1-25 also eliminated housing stock in what was the Bottoms.
Subdivision of property was done in a rather haphazard way, with builders often constructing clusters of homes surrounded by acres of open space. This vccant land was then infilled in subsequent time periods with little appcrent order or concern for what had been built previously. Consequently, any block in the neighborhood may contain homes representing the residential styles of the 1S901 s, 1910's, 1920's, 1940's and 1950's. One interesting characteristic of the neighborhood is the existence of carriage lots in the center of many blocks, typically 100 feet square and ringed by houses.
The area was primarily Italian prior to World War II; many
7


of the current elderly are holdovers from that era. The flight to the suburbs in the '950's resulted in an influx of a large population of Chicano families which generally were of lower income than those they replaced. The current population is roughly 43% Chicano, 4<6% Anglo, 3o Black, with the balance comprised of many groups, including Native Americcn, Asian American, and Southeast Asian. Recent years have seen a relatively small influx of young white professionals, but speculation on residential property, c phenomenon commonly associated with this type of displacement, is not strongly evident. This may be attributable to the economic problems experienced by the housing industry in general in the last few years.
There has been increased community involvement in the last 5 years. Groups such as Highland Neighborhood Housing Services,
Jefferson-Highland-Sunnyside Neighborhood Association, and North Denver Gateway, to name a few, have worked to improve the exist-

ing community, stop the disintigration of existing housing stock, end to prevent unprecedented high density development within the confines of the neighborhood.


o?*ic-fc w^et
EXISTING CONDITIONS
5-^<£.ev C./0^') -p" 2^*A ft
Q


ZONING
Existing zoning on the site is a combination of R-2 and B-4. It is anticipated that the use as suggested by this report would be implemented by Planned Unit Development proceedings. In such c proceeding, existing zoning requirements are not necessarily adhered to. Rather, a process of proposal, negotiation, and approval is conducted by the developer and the Denver Planning Office. Final approval is required by the Denver City Council.
' : '

1 f, < < '
vu V- 'xvCv' * T-' V £ £ Al> | Vv -j 7 >
m 0- X
(Rs^. Denver Zcr.ina Ord. 1980)


\
DESCRIPTION
The site block is 375 ft. by 379 ft., property line to property line. The total area, including alleys, is 142049 sq. ft., or 3.26 acres.
CURRENT USE
There currently are 23 dwelling units on the block. Also existing are an auto repair business, an office/ warehouse buil ding (currently being used for the storage of construction materials), a former bakery (vacant), and three garages (accessory to residences). Much of the vacant land is now being used for equipment storcge.
LAND COST
One of the parcels of B-4 land on the block was purchased earlier this year by A1 Cohen Construction Co. at c cost of $4.00/ sq. ft. Some R-2 land across Pecos St. recently was appraised for the City of Denver at $1.45/sq. ft.
(Ref. Cohen 1981)
SOIL CONDITION
A soil and foundation investigation was prepared by Chen and Associates, Inc., consulting engineers, for A1 Cohen Construction Company prior to the construction of their heme office building, which is located 1 block south of the site block. To quote from this report:
"SUBSOIL CONDITIONS
Subsoil conditions at the site were
11


erratic. Generally, they consisted of 0 to 3 feet of man-made fill overlying an erratic combination of very sandy clays, clayey sands and fairly clean sands. Competant bedrock was found at depth 20 to 22 feet below the ground surface. Most of the upper natural soils do not possess swell potential; however, at places, the stiff clays possess moderate swell potential ... Free water was found at depth 16 to 19 feet below the ground surface at the time of our investigation.
BUILDING FOUNDATIONS
...Since the upper soils are adequate to support the proposed structure, we believe the most desirable and safe type foundation is spread footings placed on the upper natural soils. The following design and construction details should be observed:
(1) All footings should be placed on the natural soils below the existing fill material.
(2) Footings placed on the natural soils should be designed for a maximum soil pressure of 2,500 psf. Under this pressure, we estimate that the maximum settlement will be on the order of
1 inch and the differential settlement across the building less than 1/2 inch,
(3) Since some of the lower soils possess swell potential, it is desirable to assign a minumum dead load pressure on the order of 800 psf to all footings..."


EXISTING BUILDINGS AND PROPERTY LINES
ill.
SO


BUILDING ANALYSIS
14


EXISTING GRADE
15


UTILITY LOCATIONS
to---------------------------
--------ft---- *ZZ**SA
-----------*fc *H -te£. e.
16


VIEWS
The primary view from the site is of Denver's central business district. This view is becoming increasingly spectacular as the downtown building boom continues. Secondary views are of residential streets with mature trees.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
The Regional Transportation District operates several nearby bus routes. RTD bus numbers 6 and 52 turn toward downtown, via the 20th St. viaduct, at the corner of Pecos St. and 33rd Ave. There is a stop at St. Patrick's Church, directly ccross from the site block. Bus numbers 32 and 44 circulate across the 16th St. viaduct, with a stop 3 blocks from the site. Additionally, the Boulder Regional bus passes near the site to access onto and egress from 1-25; bus stop availability is subject to demand.
(Ref. RTD 1981)
TRAFFIC
Both 32nd Ave.(2600 vehicles/day) and 33rd Ave.(2100 vpd) are collector streets. 33rd is one-way, eastbound, and is the access to the 20th Street viaduct from the west. Pecos and Quivas Streets are local streets as thay pass the site. However, Pecos St. north of 33fd Ave. is a one-way collector (3150 vpd) southbound. Osage Street, one block east of Pecos Street, is the other half of a oneway couple which provides access to and from the 20th Street viaduct for north and southbound traffic. The 20th Street viaduct carries 10,600 vehicles per day.
The Highland Neighborhood Plan calls for downgrading 33rd Ave. to a two-way local street, but this does not seem likely in the near future. Southbound access to 1-25 is one-half block southeast of the site, off Central Street; northbound access is off Platte Street, across the 18th Street bridge. Exits off of 1-25 are located at roughly the same locations.
(Ref. Denver Traffic Eng. 1981)
17


POLLUTION
Possibly the largest drawback to the site is its proximity to 1-25. The heavy traffic it carries is a major source of air pollution, especially CO and particulates. It also constitutes a one-line source of noise. Highest noise levels occur at the southeast corner of the site, where Pecos Street and 32nd Ave. meet. In the middle of the site this noise is, while certainly audible, abated considerably.
RECREATION/OPEN SPACE
The Platte River Greenway, located across 1-25, provides the largest amount of open space and recreational opportunity for residents of the site. Plans for a major park between the Greenway and 1-25 north of and with access from the 20th Street viaduct are currently being studied. Hirshorn Park, located two blocks southwest of the site is the only park in the immediate neighborhood. Recreational opportunities there are limited. Plans for another small park directly across from St. Patricks Church at 33rd and Pecos St. are awaiting impliment-ation funds. The nearest sport recreation site (tennis, soft-ball, etc), is North High School, 10 blocks to the west.
SCHOOLS
Bryant Webster elementary is located four blocks to the north at 36th Ave. and Quivas St. North High School is 10 blocks west, near Speer Blvd. and Federal Blvd. Both are in the Denver Public School system.
ENTERTAINMENT
The proximity of the site to the CBD provides for easy access to a multitude of cultural activities. There are several local cultural entities as well, most being the result of the emergence of a large artist population making use of formerly


run down buildings located within the neighborhood, also are a suprising number of restaurants and small in the immediate vicinity of the site.
There
markets


SUMMARY
Denver's climate is characterized by mild temperatures, low relative humidity, light to moderate winds, light precipitation, and abundant insolation. The average monthly temperature varies from 30.4 F in January to 73.3 F in July. Occasional chinook winds help to moderate winter temperatures somewhat. Annual snowfall averages 62 inches but persistent snowcover is not typical. March is usually the snowiest nomth. Precipitation averages 15.5 inches per year, with more than 50 percent of it occuring from April through July. Thunderstorms occur fairly frequently on afternoons during the summer months.
DESIGN TEMPERATURES
summer winter
percent T(dry) T(we t) T(dry)
1 .0 92 64 -4
2.5 90 62 -1
5.0 88 61
(Ref. NOAA 1979]
SOLAR ACCESS
There presently are no obstructions off-site which obscure usefull direct sunlight to the sight at any time of the year. However, anticipated redevelopment of properties to the south of the sight will make solar access rights and laws an important issue for the future development.


Latitude: 39*45
Longitude: 104.52 Elevation: 5225 (@ site)
TYPICAL METEOROLOGICAL YEAR
(Ref.: TMY/DOE-2.1)
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC YEAR
Avg temp (F) (drybulb) 29.0 30.9 38.4 48.8 57.3 64.7 72.8 70.1 62.3 49.1 38.3 30.7 49.5
Avg temp (F) (wetbulb) 23.6 24.5 30.5 38.5 47.1 51.7 56.1 57.1 48.0 38.6 32.4 25.4 39.5
Avg daily max temp 42.0 43.5 51.9 60.3 69.1 77.2 85.8 83.1 78.0 64.6 50.0 44.3 62.6
Avg daily min temp 18.1 19.0 26.0 35.9 44.7 51 .2 60.3 58.0 47.0 35.8 27.8 20.2 37.1
Heat DD (base 65) 1114.9 953.7 832.3 505.5 298.5 150.7 36.3 52.6 208.4 524.3 802.3 1062.0 6541.7
(base 60) 960.6 813.8 685.7 379.4 190.5 81.9 7.9 14.5 128.5 396.3 655.6 908.1 5222.7
(base 55) 809.0 676.7 546.0 267.2 104.4 35.8 .4 1.5 66.3 282.4 513.7 755.5 4058.7
Cool DO (base 70) 0.0 0.0 3.3 5.9 27.0 81.3 180.4 126.5 77.2 12.9 .1 0.0 514.6
(base 75) 0.0 0.0 .9 .8 3.8 40.0 108.1 69.3 41.7 2.4 0.0 0.0 272.0
(base 80) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .9 16.6 57.3 30.4 17.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 122.3
Max temp 64 63 81 78 83 92 95 93 92 80 72 67 95
Min temp -11 -7 6 21 29 39 52 50 34 24 14 -2 -11
Days max 90 and above 0 0 0 0 0 4 13 6 4 0 0 0 27
Days max 32 and below 8 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 25
Days min 32 and below 29 26 28 10 2 0 0 0 0 9 22 30 156
Days min 0 and below 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 10
Avg wind speed (mph) 10.6 9.7 9.0 10.1 9.1 11.0 9.0 7.5 7.6 8.2 7.8 8.1 9.0
Avg wind speed (day) 10.3 11.0 98 10.6 9.8 11,1 9.4 7.6 7.9 8.8 3.4 9.7 9.5
Avg wind speed (night) 10.8 8.7 8c 2 9.5 8.0 10.9 8.4 7.5 7.2 7.6 7.3 7.0 8.4
Avg temp (day) 34.8 37.0 44.9 53.0 60.9 68.5 77.2 74.8 67.4 55.4 42.3 36.3 56.6
Avg temp (night) 25.4 26.5 32.4 43.6 51.9 58.6 66.3 64.1 56.8 43.2 34.8 27.1 42.3
Avg sky cover (day) 5.1 5.7 5.8 5.7 5.8 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.1 4.2 5.8 5.3 5.1


JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC YEAR
Avg rel hum @ 4 AM 64.8 63.3 66.2 62.6 74.3 69.5 53.9 70.1 60.3 60.9 76.3 72.8 66.7
10 AM 50.0 47.3 43.1 41.6 50.3 44.0 34.9 47.4 41.6 45.0 61.5 57.3 47.0
4PM 47.1 39.5 36.8 33.7 37.6 33.8 27.0 35.7 24.2 29.0 46.3 42.7 36.1
10PM 67.6 57.3 62.1 52.9 50.2 52.2 47.8 56.2 45.8 54.2 70.7 63.7 57.9
Avg day dir norm sol 1795.6 1743.3 2119.1 2050.3 2151.1 2346.6 2426.6 2175.7 2239.3 2141.6 1650.5 1667.1 2044 .4
Avg day tot horiz. sol 834.2 1030.1 1608.6 1909.5 2206.0 2344.9 2324.4 2014.5 1776.6 1333.6 880.9 744.8 1591.2
Max day dir norm sol 2506.0 2716.0 3102.0 3139.0 3290.0 3230.0 3133.0 3029.0 2950.0 2724.0 2539.0 2175,0 3290.0
Max day tot horiz sol 1129.0 1561.0 2179.0 2569.0 2834.0 2349.0 2727.0 2544.0 2236.0 1774.0 1232.0 895.0 2849.0
Min day dir norm sol 9.0 9.0 9.0 48.0 78.0 172.0 121.0 124.0 48.0 80.0 71.0 7.0 7.0
Min day tot horiz sol 137.0 187.0 260.0 626.0 362.0 375.0 888.0 355.0 5S1.0 333.0 324.0 138.0 137.0
Max hr dir norm sol 362.0 327.0 323.0 315.0 306.0 296.0 304.0 302.0 313.0 322.0 333.0 325.0 362.0
Max hr tot horiz sol 105.0 231.0 235.0 310.0 326.0 326.0 319.0 307.0 290.0 249.0 194.0 155.0 326.0
Avg max hr dir nor sol 291.1 257.3 272.1 245.7 239.4 259.4 275.4 258.9 267.5 288.6 259.6 275.5 266.0
Avg max hr tot hor sol 143.0 173.4 226.5 251.5 272.4 200.3 292.4 262.7 247.0 207.1 148.6 131.5 221.0
Hourly temp 000 24.4 24.3 30.7 42.0 50.2 57.2 64.8 62.9 55.7 41.6 33.9 25.3 42.9
100 24.0 23.5 29.9 41.0 49.1 55.5 63.5 61.6 54.5 40.7 33.3 25.1 41.9
200 24.0 23.1 29.7 40.2 48.0 54.1 62.4 60.6 52.7 40.2 32.6 24.6 41.1
300 24.7 22.9 29.5 39.3 47.1 53.3 61.4 59.6 51.3 40.4 32.1 24.3 40.6
400 23.5 22.3 29.3 30.6 46.2 52.5 61.0 53.6 50.0 39.8 31.6 23.7 39.9
500 23.2 23.4 31.6 38.6 45.2 54.2 62.4 61.0 49.7 38.7 30.9 23.5 40.3
600 23.4 24.4 33.8 41.8 49.0 57.8 66.5 64.0 48.5 38.4 32.0 24.5 42.1
700 23.6 25.3 35.9 44.9 52.9 61.7 70.4 67.0 53.0 40.5 33.1 25.3 44.6
000 27.5 29.5 39.6 48.2 56.7 65.0 74.4 70.4 58.7 46.1 34.1 27.0 43.2
900 31.8 33.8 43.4 51.0 59.6 67.9 77.3 73.8 63.3 51.8 38.2 31.3 52.1
1000 34.6 37.3 47.0 53.7 62.5 70.9 80.3 77.3 67.8 55.8 42.3 35.5 55.6
1100 37.1 39.4 48.3 56.1 65.4 73.1 02.4 78.9 70.8 59.6 46.3 39.0 58.1
1200 30.8 40.9 49.5 57.3 66.3 74.1 83.8 80.5 73.3 61.5 47.3 40.7 59.6
1300 39.9 42.3 50.6 58.5 66.9 75.3 34.3 81.9 75.1 62.3 48.5 42.3 60.8
1400 39.5 41.4 49.2 50.9 67.8 75.5 33.8 01.0 76.0 63.0 49.6 43.2 60.9
1500 37.1 40.4 47.6 58.2 67.2 74.9 32.6 79.8 76.1 62.3 47.2 40.2 59.6
1600 34.2 39.4 46.1 57.5 66.4 74.4 30.5 78.6 75.3 61.7 44.7 37.2 53.1
1700 30.5 36.5 42.8 56.2 65.8 72.5 79.5 75.8 73.7 58.2 42.3 34.2 55.8
1800 28.7 33.7 39.5 53.7 63.1 69.2 77.2 73.2 69.6 50.3 40.3 32.5 52.7
1900 27.4 30.5 36.1 51.0 60.2 66.4 74.3 70.5 65.1 47.4 38.0 30.4 49.9
2000 26.1 29.1 34.7 48.6 57.6 64.2 71.7 68.8 62.3 46.3 35.7 23.6 47.9
2100 24.0 27.6 33.5 46.7 55.7 62.6 69.1 66.9 59.3 44.9 35.4 27.7 46.3
2200 24.1 25.9 32.2 44.8 53 8 61.0 67.3 65.3 57.9 42.3 34.9 26.6 44.9
2300 24.0 25.3 31 o5 43.3 51.8 59.4 66.2 64.1 56.0 42.7 34.5 25.5 43.8


/
CALM
I 0%
mph
i 13-18 19-24 25-38
Average wind speeds vary from about 3 mph in early autumn to 11 mph in April, There is a distinct diurnal variation in wind direction throughout the year with S winds prevailing at night while NW-NE winds prevail during the day. S winds dominate through out the year but especially during late fall and winter. The strong est winds are the mountain induced downslope winds from the W-NW and occur most frequently during winter and early spring. (Denver Stapleton Airport wind data)
24


APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES City Denver Co. Denver 2. ZONE 3. FIRE ZONE 4. OCCUPANCY GROUP
Fire Marshall Denver R-2;B-4 3 H-3;J-1
OTHER REGULATIONS State Bd. of Health State Dept. of Ed. Sign Code Elev. Other
6. FLOOR AREA
Const, type ____V_
Occupancy
Basic allowable area Fire Zone 3 increase Added stories increase Side(s) sep. increase Fire ext. syst. increase
Total allowable area
ACTUAL BUILDING AREA exist.
H-3 J-1
unlimit. "icoO1
JTT/3% 33 l/3?o
100 % -
- sec. 506
- 3x
unlimit. 2000 max.
proposed future total
7. FIRE RESISTIVE REQUIREMENTS
Construction type V
Exterior bearing walls 1 -hr.
Interior bearing walls 1-hr.
Ext. non-bearing walls 1-hr.
Stuctural frame 1 -hr.
Permanent partitions
Shaft enclosures 1 -hr.
Floors 1 -hr.
Roofs 1 -hr.
Ext. doors and windows 5 ft. se tback req.
Inner court walls nm etback req.
Parapets required not req. by exception
Attic draftstops required NA
Attic ventilation required 1/300 of attic areG
8. WALL & OPENING PROTECTION
Fire resistance of ext. walls 1-hr._____________
Openings in exterior walls 5ft. setback req.
9. BUILDING HEIGHT
Allowable stories 3 (H-3) 1 (J-1)_____
Fire sprinkler increase _________
Total allowable stories 3 (H-3) 1 (J-1)_____ Maximum height 50 ft.


10, OCCUPANT LOADS
Occupancy group H-3 J-l (greenhouse)
Area allowed unlimited 1000
Sq. ft./occupant 3C0 loo
Total persons/flr. unlimited 10
Number of floors 3 1
Total load unlimited 10
11. EXIT REQUIREMENTS
Occupancy group H-3 J-l
Number of exits required each floor 1 1
Number of exits required total bldg. 1 1
Required exit width - -
Ramps required - -
Corridor widths 44" 44"
Corridor construction 20 ft. 20 ft.
Dead-end corridor limit 1-hr. 1 -hr.
Stairway widths 30" 30"
Stairway landing depths 30"" 30"
Stairway to roof - -
Exit signs required - -
Exit sign separate circuit - -
12. UNIT LIVE LOADS
Occupancy group H-3_____________J-l _________
Unit live load 40 lb./sq. ft. 125 lb./sq. ft.
13. OTHER REQUIREMENTS
Separation between occupancies _______1 -hr.
Occupancy group H-3 _______________J-l
Enclosure of vertical openings 1-hr. -
Light see sec. 1305 -
Ventilation see chap. 52 no vent, to sL
Sanitation 1 w.c./l sink/l shower -
Fire ext. system required - -
Dry standpipes required - -
Wet standpipes required - -
Combination standpipes req. - -
Special hazards and req. 1 gar. disp./2 hr. prty. . walls
Exceptions and deviations - -
14. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
Group H-3 shall meet the following conditions:
A. Shall consist of 3 or more atteched dwelling units, not more than 3 stories in height, with each unit having independent access to the exterior of the building in the ground story.
B. Shall be provided with separate sewerage, water supply, heating, electric and plumbing systems together with all other housing utilities and equipment.
C. Each dwelling unit shall be separated by a 2-'nour fire-resistive wall
rm.
27


extending from the foundation to the highest point of the building, to the underside of the roof sheathing or decking, and to the exterior walls. Voids or openings shall not be permitted. Common utilities including plumbing, electrical, heating, air conditioning, telephone and etc., shall not be permitted in the 2-hour fire- resistive assembly.
D. If living quarters are located in a basement, the basement shall be considered a story.
E. The second story or basement shall not be utilized to house another family.


DISCUSSION
The design of a housing development on the site described will strive to solve many problems encountered site specifically, as well as by housing in general. Of local (neighborhood) importance are issues of context, density, community, and the interface between the old and new dwellings and residents. Of more general importance are issues of energy use, land availability and cost, higher density housing, privacy, water scarcity, waste disposal, crime, displacement, transportation--all of which affect our daily lives .
Two primary concepts have developed from personal study of these problems, and they themselves are intertwined. Firstly, there is a need to establish a sense of community between the old and new residents of the block and between the new residents themselves. This can only be accomplished if the residents are working together toward a common interest. Successful communities seem to get that way by dealing with some sort of adversity, toward some goal. Historically, this has come in many forms: defense, food production, racial oppression, etc.--any problem which requires the participation of the community as a whole to deal with it effectively. Roles and rituals naturally then develop, forming the fabric which keeps the community held together .
The second primary concept actually becomes the source of this common need within the community. It has its roots in fossil fuel resource scarcity and the price escalation these fuels have undergone in recent years. This inflation is bound to increase as fossil fuels become increasingly scarce. A need to use alternative sources of energy has arisen.
Space heating, the primary energy end-use for residences, can rcther easily be satisfied, for the most part, by the implementation of passive solar design and construction. This is most feasibly accomplished with each unit having its own system that is not dependent on other units for overall performance. This allows for individual control, fire and building codes, etc. Thus space
30


heating does not provide the common need described above, with the possible exception of back-up heat requirements. Cooling is not perceived as a problem in this climate, if, again, proper passive techniques are applied.
The other household end-uses of energy are domestic hot water heating and electricity for appliance and lighting needs.
It is these needs which can be the driving element required to develop a strong community. The are seveal reasons for this, the primary one being that of appropriate scale and the relative economies associated with it. Large scale (district) energy systems are inherently inefficient and thus unecesscrily costly.
As stated by Amory Lovins (1978, pages 86-87):
"...economic advantages of small scale:
1. virtual elimination of the capital costs, and losses of the distribution infrastructure;
2. elimination of direct diseconomies of large scale, such as the increased need for spinning reserve on electrical grids;
3. major reductions in indirect diseconomies of large scale that arise from the long lead times of large systems;
4. scope for greatly reducing capital cost by mass production if desired."
The other extreme, i.e., individual dwelling unit systems, are also relatively inefficient and costly due to large capit 1 expenditures for equipment and the duplication of components for each independent system. To again quote Lovins (197S( pcge 100):
"Neighborhood solar heating systems for single or cluster housing can clearly offer substantial economies over single house systems through freer collector siting and configuration, reduced craft-work, reduced surface-to-volume ratio in storage tanks, more favorable ratio of variable fixed costs, and perhaps even a bit of user diversity (different people not all demanding heat or hot water in exactly the same pattern at the same time)"
The same basic concept should hold true with any energy source.
Neighborhood scale systems are advantageous in tnafc they can allow for partial or total freedom from utility grids.
They also allow for flexibility and adaptation. For instance, it
31


may be most economic to phase out dependence on the district utility grids as their products increase in price; the neighborhood systems capacity can be incrementally increased. Also, innovations in energy producing systems are bound to occur, at all scales. Large scale systems cannot readily adapt to these innovations due to the huge costs and lead times required to retrofit old power plants or build new plants which make use of new technology. The high cost of an individual dwelling unit system relative to total household income makes it relatively non-adaptable as well. The capital cost of a neighborhood scale system is lower relative to the collective income of the neigh-bohood, thus enhancing adaptability. Also, the distribution system need not change with changes of or additions to the energy source.
A neighborhood scale DHW system seems to be logical and easily implemented. Electricity generation is another story.
It requires the ability to satisfy constant demand, and to generate the peak demand of the users at any given time. This is difficult to achieve in any system utilizing unpredictable renewable resources such as the sun or wind. Fortunately, there is a federal law titled the "Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1973, Section 210 (PURPA 210), which requires that the utility pay a 'fair and equitable* price for excess electricity generated by the utility's customers. The price paid for this excess electricity by law is based on the 'avoided costs', in other words, the amount of money the utility saves by not having to generate the elecricity the customer is producing. The avoided cost is based on future, or anticipated, costs, and is thus related to the construction of new power generating facilities.
It is very possible that the utility will have to pay more for customer-generated electricity than it may charge the customer for the electricity it generates, It would be simply a matter of economics to determine how much capital should be expended on equipment, for instance, to generate an optimum amount of electricity relative to the utility's charges and payments. PURPA 210 should allow for a smooth transition off of the electric grid


as the price of fossil fuels continues to rise, provided the neighborhood generating facility has the ability to adapt.
Contemplation of these concepts and the background information presented previously has led to many conclusions about
how this project should generally be developed:
1. Dwelling units shall be of medium density (15 DU/ac+) and
in a cluster configuration, using party walls wherever possible, but preserving of privacy. Units shall be a maximum of three stories high. Passive space heating and cooling shall be implemented, with a solar savings fraction goal of 80?io, while maintaining human comfort levels. An emphasis shall be placed on the transition of spaces from public to private, both indoor and out.
2. Land directly adjacent to each unit shall be privately owned to preserve the importance of that land to the respective residents and to allow for individual expression.
3. There shall be land alloted for community use; the use to be determined by the community. This land is intended for recreational and garaening/food production. In addition, a community solar greenhouse shall be built to provide year-round gardening/food production.
4. The community shall include all dwelling units on the site block, existing and new.
5. A common sanitary sewer system shall service all dwellings within the community, with the effluent being transported to a bio-gas producing digester. Other organic waste (garden residue, leaves, etc.) may also be added to the digester.
6. The bio-gas produced shall be used to power a small cogeneration unit. This unit shall supply electricity to the electric grid cs allowed by PURPA 210. Heat generated by the unit shall be used to charge a community DHW system. Active solar collection shall be used to augment the heating of this system as required. The system shall be connected to the


utility gas grid for back-up energy needs.
7. Water conservation shall be practiced stringently.
Some explanation is in order. The development of community land, facilities, and power generation capability will provide the impetus for the creation of a strong community. While there is certain to be resistance to this idea, particularly from residents of the existing dwellings, I believe that ultimately people will do that which is in their own self interest. Rising energy costs will present a persuasive argument for joining the community. However, it is certainly the perogative of the existing residents not to do so. Community space for gardening/ food production is to be provided largely due to the sucess of the community garden idea currently being implemented in many urban Denver neighborhoods, including Highland, Similarly, the idea for a community greenhouse came from the success of the Cheyenne Community Solar Greenhouse, located in Cheyenne, Wyo.
The medium density and 3-story limits specified were considered as being the most appropriate scale of housing for this particular site when considering context, market, etc. The provision fo private land adjacent to each unit stems from personal observation of condominium associations in their management of common grounds.
The use of windmills and/or solar photovoltaics for electricity generation was disregarded. I felt that windmills would set the site block apart from the surrounding neighborhood too strongly by introducing a very visible and animated element which is not commonly encountered there. Also, windmills pose a certain danger in well-populated areas as they have been known to throw a propeller from time to time. Photovoltaics currently have large surface area requirements due to low efficiencies; contextural issues again arise. They also are presently too costly to consider for this use. However, as photovoltaics become more efficient and less costly, their use should be considered. Therefore, provisions for adapting the system described earlier to accomodate future photovoltaic use are necessary.
34


SPECIFIC BUILDING PROGRAM
It is not possible to determine the actual number of units to be placed on the site without further site analysis. However, with 3.26 acres and an assumed density fo 15 dwelling units/acre, a working number of 49 units is established. Preliminary room, area, and cost data for four different unit types are as follows:
Unit Type 1 BR 2 BR-A 2 BR-B 3 BR
Area (ft^) 764 1256 1067 1272
Common Areas
Entry/Mud Room 48 48 48 48
Dining 117 117 117 130
Kitchen 64 96 96 . 96
Seating - 48 48 48
Living 168 168 168 196
Powder Room - - - -
Private Areas
MBR 168 192 168 196
M-Bath - 80 60 60
BR - 120 120 120
Bath 48 40 40 40
BR/Multi-Purpose - 114 - 114
Circ/Structure @ 20% 127 209 178 212
Const. Cost 0 48.00/ft2 36672.00 60288.00 51212.00 61056
Land Cost @ 1.45/ft^ 2832.42 4653.27 3965.39 4774


Development Cost 3748.94 6158.97 5348.52 6319.64
Greenhouse/Systems 3280.00 3280.00 3280.00 3280.00
Total Real Cost 46533.36 74380.24 63709.91 75430.00
Profit @ 33% 15356.00 24545.48 21024.27 24892.00
Sale Price 61900.00 99000.00 84700.00 100000.00
(Ref. Emery 1981)
36


COMMUNITY GREENHOUSE
Number of units = 49
2/3 assumed to use greenhouse = 33 plots Plots @ 75 ft2/ea. = 2475 ft2 planting space Circulation/structure 0 25% = 620 ft2
Total = 3095 ft2; use 3500 ft2 (including cogeneration equipment room and laundry)
Crop yield
2
summer: 1/3 lb. food/ft growing space/month winter: 1/4 to 1/3 1b./ft2/month
Organic Waste
summer: 3/4 to 1.0 lb./ft2/month
2
winter: 1/16 to,1/8 lb./ft /month Note: winter crops are mere leafy.
(Ref. Smith 1981)
LAUNDRY
One washing machine per 15 dwelling units and one dryer per 2 washing machines are required in this type of development.
37


DESCRIPTION
Relatively high density, low scale, contextural compatibility, social groupings and connections, energy consevation, renewable energy usage, views, and a hierarchy of public and private spaces all were considered important design determinants in the proposed solution. An attempt was made to use the entire site to the fullest extent possible while retaining amenities and desirable social groupings. The configurati and size of the site made this difficult; traditional housing schemes proved unworkable.
A total of fifty-seven units, fifty-three new and four existing, are proposed, along with a community building consisting of greenhouse, meeting/day care, laundry and cogeneration facilities. A central plaza adjacent to the community center is the core of the site plan. Two pedestrian paths lead away from the plaza, one toward a new neighborhood park (an important neighborhood link); the other to community garden space, forming a terraced slope which.enhances the view of downtown Denver. Connected to the paths, or to the plaza itself, are a series of pedestrian/auto courts. These provide transitional access to entries and garages. They are intended to be active, protected, and interactive spaces for the residents of the units clustered around them. Entry gateways, brick pavers and landscaping contribute to the character of the courts. Small cluster social groupings are formed which have access to the neighborhood via the existing street grid, as well as to community facilities and to other clusters. Most units have only one entry, off the court. However, units at the north and south edges of the site have dual entries, to the court as well as to the street, an acknowledgment


of existing neighborhood patterns. Parking requirements are satisfied by the single-car garages of each unit and by street parking at the perimeter of the site (also in keeping with neighborhood patterns).
The clustering of units along the courts required the development of two types of units, north facing and south facing, which typically back up to each other. Solar access and views are preserved through the use of grade differences between courts, about nine feet, and by level changes within units themselves. Thus, north facing units back up to, yet overlook south facing units.
Individual units are organized in a linear pattern. A circulation spine, with the entry at one end, runs through the middle of each unit. Social rooms (living, dining, kitchen, interior courtyards) are adjacent to the central spine on one side. An intimacy gradient is established, with the more active spaces (i.e. kitchen) near the court, and the more private spaces (i.e. living room) to the rear of the unit. Private spaces (bedrooms, baths, storage, garages, private decks) are on the other side of the spine. The actual layout of each unit is variable and is generated by site conditions and available space as determined by the site analysis and plan. Semi-public porches are implemented adjacent to entries, facing the court, to encourage social interaction. Entry porch roof forms conform to common neighborhood types. The contrast with the building forms developed emphasize their importance and function.
Front porches, kitchen and dining areas are one-half level above the courts. Living rooms are another one-half level up, at the same level as the bedrooms, which are placed atop garage and storage spaces. Private interior courtyards are placed to the south of living rooms.


Thus, in the north facing units they are located at the south end; in the south facing units, they are in between living and kitchen/ dining rooms. This multi-level scheme is typical except for units at the north and south edges of the site. There the units have social spaces all on one level, one-half level above the court. This serves to reduce the scale of buildings at streets. The two-story configuration of bedrooms over garages is retained. Another exception to general patterns is the use of a few west facing units which further define clusters around courts.
The tight configuration of units minimizes heat loss by exposing relatively few surfaces to the outside. This makes passive solar heating feasible without large amounts of south glass. However, glazing to the south is emphasized over other orientations. Another energy conserving feature is the inclusion of a cogeneration system. Household blackwater, greenhouse waste, and newspaper provide the input for the production of bio-gas. This gas is then used as fuel for on-site generation of electricity and also hot water for laundry use. Site wastes are thus converted to a substantial amount of usable energy, (see "Systems")
Construction is to be primarily of reinforced concrete, with timber/ v/ood deck flat roofs. The units are to be well insulated, with walls insulated on the outside using a rigid insulation/synthetic stucco system. In this way a large amount of interior mass is available for the absorption of solar radiation, and a finish compatible with neighborhood
materials is created.


DRAINAGE ANALYSIS
Area: 150064 ft^; 3.44 acres
Maximum rainfall: 6.3 inches/hr (5 min. duration) Q = A I R Q existing
roofs: 28749.6 X 0.85 x (6.3/12 x 5/60) = 1069.13 ft3
asphalt: 19602.0 X 0.90 x (0.04375) 771.83
walks: 1089.0 X 0.89 x (0.04375) 45.26
ground: 100623.6 X 0.35 x (0.04375) 1540.90
TOTAL 3427.02 ft3
q proposed
roofs: 61855.2 X 0.85 (0.04375) 2300.24 ft3
paving: 35980.6 X 0.95 (0.04375) 1495.42
planted: 52227.8 X 0.035 (0.04375) 799.74
TOTAL 4595.40 ft3
q increase
Q proposed Q existing = 4595.4 3427.02 = 1168.40 ft3
Retention is possible on the built-up tar and gravel roofs at a depth of only 0.23 inches (1168.4 x 12/61855.2 = 0.23). The low retention requirements can be attributed to the amount of improved surface with low absorption rates currently existing on the site.


STRUCTURE
The structural system chosen consists of drilled piers supporting concrete grade beams which are to be poured monolithically with a oneway concrete slab floor system. The beams also support concrete block bearing walls which in turn support a timber beam/wood deck roof system. Floors for garages and storage rooms are concrete slab on grade. This structural system was chosen for four primary reasons:
1. need for a high-mass building (passive solar heating)
2. site and unit development dictated a flexible, linear system
3. moderately expansive soils led to the use of drilled piers rather than spread footings, and the one-way slabs as opposed to slabs on grade.
4. the longevity of the buildings and increased life-cycle costs reinforced the choice of a concrete system.
The only non-concrete element in the system, the timber/wood deck roof system, was chosen for aesthetic reasons.
Each unit works off a basic twelve foot--six foot--twelve foot linear systems, resulting in typical spans of twelve feet and eighteen feet.
55


aihtATiorJ fW
I ll


>0"

cmjn
W i |MtfN dxsHe>i>^7AesLlt. 2ijf' 2.. SATi < ^ j2.^j1 P>.
__&£* jA | dA^ ^
dd d x ^AiL-=2-
*> dAN*f

Aid

o
57


Structural summary: drilled piers: concrete grade beams: one-way concrete slab: bearing walls: roof timber: roof decking:
8" dia. w/ 2-#5 vert. min. h = 13", b = 8" w/ 2-#14, ontegral w/ cone, s 5 1/4" w/ #3 @ 9" O.C.
6" and 8" cone, block.
5 1/8" x 7 1/2" glu-lam (16F V.3) @ 4'-0" O.C 1 1/2" tongue and groove


PASSIVE SOLAR HEATING
All units depend on a direct gain passive solar system for the major portion of heating requirements. The massive construction, insulated on the outside, is particularly suited to this type of system.
It will provide greater comfort in the summer as well. The private courtyards give the potential for a sunspace option, to replace some of the direct gain, in many of the units. Destratification systems will be required in the north entry units as most of the solar glazing is located at the upper end, presenting a heat distribution prolem.
Annual heat loss/solar gain calculations are shown below for an average two bedroom unit of both north and south entry types. The Solar Load Ratio method developed recently at Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory is used.
North Entry Unit
Building Heat Loss Coefficient (HLC) Btu/DD
Wal1s: (24) x (A = 631)/(R = 24) = 631
Roof: (24) x (A = 800)/(R = 30) = 640
E,W,N windows: : (26) x (A = 50)/(N = _2) = 650
Perimeter: (100)x (L = )/(R = ^ + 5) =
Basement: (256)x (L = )/(R = 8) =
Floor: (24) x (A = 665)/(R = 25) = 639
Infiltration: (0.432) x (V = 7000 ft3) x (ADR = (ACH = 0.82) x 0.50) = 1239
HLC = 3798


Load/Collector Ratio (LCR)
LCR = (HLC = 3798)/(Ac = 150) = 25.3
Solar Collection Area
Type ( DG ): (A = _75) x (SSF = 52) = 3900 Type (DGMI): (A = _75) x (SSF = 72) = 5400
where
DG = direct gain
DGNI = direct gain w/ night insulation SSF = solar savings fraction
Auxiliary Heat
(DD = 6016) x (HLC = 3798) x (1 (SSF = 0.62))/106 = 8.68 MMBtu/year
V 120
SSF = 9300/(Ac= 150) = 0.62
(Ref. Balcornb 1981)
Estimated Annual Heating Cost (1982) back-up heat source: electric current cost: $0.0498/Kwh; $14.59/MMBtu (Aux. = 8.68 MMBtu/yr.) x 14.59
126.64
service charge = 12 x 3.28
39.36
factor = 12 x 1.00+
12.00
TOTAL =$178.00
(Ref. PSCo. of Colo. 1982)
60


South Entry Unit
Building Heat Loss Coefficient (HLC) Btu/DD
Walls: (24) x (A = 800)/(R =24) = _800
Roof: (24) x (A = 831)/(R =30) = 665
E,W,N windows: (26) x (A = 60)/(N = _2) = 780
Perimeter: (100)x (L = 75)/(R = JL5_ + 5) = 373
Basement: (256)x (L = 14)/(R = lj5 + 8) = 156
Floor: (24) x (A = 156}/(R =25) = 150
Infiltration: (0.432) x (V = 7628) x (ADR = 0.82) x
(ACH = 0757 = 1351
HLC = 4275
Load/Collector Ratio (LCR)
LCR = (HLC = 4275)/(Ac= 175) = 24.2
Solar Collection Area
Type ( DG ): (A = 90) x (SSF = 53) = 4770 Type (DG.MI): (A = 85) x (SSF = 74) = 6290
Ac=175 SSF =11060/(AC= 175) = 0.632
Auxiliary Heat
(DD = 6016) x (HLC = 4275) x (1 (SSF = 0.63))/106 = 9.51 MMBtu/year
Estimated Annual Heating Cost (1982) back-up heat source: electric current cost: $0.0498/Kwh; $14.59/iMMBtu (Aux. = 9.51 MMBtu/yr.) x 14.59 = 138.75
service charge = 12 x 3.28 = 39.36


factor = 12 x 1.00+
12.00
TOTAL = $190.11
Both unit types have an auxiliary heating requirement of less than 10 MMBtu/year. This compares quite favorably with the current average Colorado house heating requirement of approximately 50 MMBtu/year. The south entry unit has a higher auxiliary heat requirement than the north entry unit despite having a larger SSF, due to a greater heating load.
This is due to the difference in unit configuration. The south entry units have the court placed in the middle of the floor plan rather than at the end, as is typical of the north entry units. The south entry units thus have a less compact plan and more exposed surface area. The auxiliary requirements for all units is low enough to justify the use of electric back-up heating systems, saving the developer a substantial amount of front end cost.


COGENERATION
A cogeneration system is employed to produce electricity and heat from site generated wastes. Wastes collected are black water, garbage, and newspapers from dwelling units and organic waste from the greenhouse. Black water and garbage are collected from the units in a standard gravity flow plumbing system, which is separate from the system connected to city lines. The waste flows down collector lines to a storage tank located under the community garden, at the low end of the site. A pump is activated for a few minutes per day to transfer the collected waste up to an equipment room located in the community building. Here it is received at a mix tank. Also connected to the mix tank is a shredder, to which newspapers and organic greenhouse wastes are added. The waste then is introduced to a digester which produces bio-gas (60% methane content) and effluent, which is suitable for fertilizer. The gas produced is scrubbed, compressed, and stored in a standard gas storage tank. It is then used as fuel for the cogeneration unit. This unit produces electricity, which is sold to Public Service Company of Colorado as provided by federal legislation known as PURPA 210. Production should occur at hours bringing the most advantageous rates (normally peak hour). Waste heat is recovered and used to maintain digester temperature and heat water for the,laundry facility.
As is shown below, all laundry hot water requirements are met, as is 34% of projected non-heating domestic electrical requirements.


Technical Data (preliminary)
57 units; 180 users assumed
Supply Volatile solids/day
Black water 45 lbs
Garbage 135
Greenhouse organics 50
Newspaper 70
TOTAL 310
Electrical Generation
(310 Ibs/day) x (6 ft3 CH./lb) / (60% = CH4 content in bio gas) /
(14.5 ft3 gas/Kwh) =
214 Kwh/day; 73110 Kwh/year
Average residential use = 4000 Kwh/year/D.U.
Total domestic use = 57 x 4000 = 22800 Kwh/year (non-heating)
34% generated
214 Kwh 0 $0.08/Kwh = $17.12/day = sale at current rate Heat Recovery
16.2 Kw Cogeneration unit (Perennial Energy, Inc.)
214/16.2 = 13.2 hours/day generation
13.2 x (97,000 Btu/Hr = unit waste heat) = 1,280,400 Btu/day less 250,000 Btu/day to digester = 1.03 MMBtu/day
Laundry: 57/(15 dwelling unit/washing machine) = 4 machines 0 25 gal/fixture/hr = 25 x 4 x 14 = 1400 gal/day avg. use
Qf,w= 1400 x 8.33 x (130 60 temp, diff.) x (1.2 = standby loss)
=0.98 MMBtu/day
100% Laundry hot water supplied from waste heat recovery Digester Volume
4 ft3/1b VS = 4 x 310 = 1240 ft3 Gas Storage
310 x (10 ft3 bio gas/1b) x 1/2 day /(18 = factor) x 7.48 gal/ft3 = 644 gallon storage tank
(Ref. Shellenbach 1981)
64


use
t:~Uc.33ZJU

cr~E£-t>=>.
i
/ \
J


IB
-z? eutu.Uf-Z)
6&S\r*K&&7CJU *SVs*MJ£. Z-tsi&ZG'U.
Pltes/re-'
£ runr
lauHpkt
6tJ4EM^ric
i


Cost Data (preliminary)
Item Cost
Pump and grinder, 10 Kp 5000.00
Pumping station/mix tank 2000 gal 1500.00
Piping for blackwater, 2800 ft 5120.00
Feed pipe 200.00
Digester vessel 7000.00
Insulation 3000.00
Generator 13000.00
Heat exchangers 3200.00
Heat pump 150.00
Temperature control 250.00
Overflow pipes for effluent 900.00
Gas safety valve 200.00
Compressor 2200.00
Storage tank 1300.00
Pressure switch 200.00
Gas filters for compressor 400.00
Hydrogen sulfide scrubber 2900.00
Hot water tank 1300.00
Controls 2000.00
Subtotal 60820.00
Contingency @ 15% 9123.00
Electricity hookup 1000.00
Installation 18000.00
Profit and overhead 10000.00
TOTAL $98943.00
(Ref. Shellenbach 1981)
Computer models
The following computer printouts were produced at Bio-Gas of Colorado. They show the economic feasibility of the cogeneration system for this development. Four different scenarios are shown using different economic assumptions. Variables include system cost (and amount subsidized), natural gas price, and gas inflation rate. This preliminary analysis shows the system to be marginally feasible except with a large grant and a high gas inflation rate. However, it appears to meet or exceed the feasibility of other renewable energy systems at this time.
(Ref. Shellenbach 1981)


SYSTEM PRICE = i 98943. ITC = 20% GAS PRICE ESC = 15.% BY-PROD ESC = #**%
INITIAL GAS PRICE 0.08/HH BTU YEARLY GAS PROD = 121322.MCF COST ESCAL = 10.%/YR
INITIAL BY-PRODUCT PRICE = $ O.OO/DRY TON YEARLY BY-PRODUCT PROD = 0.0 TONS TAX RATE = 10.%
DEPRECIATION = 3/4 OVER 5 YEARS* 1/4 OVER 20 YEARS AFTER 10 YEARS SYSTEM SOLD FOR 12.5% OF ORIGINAL VALUE
HIGHLAND HOUSING PRO FORMA INCOME STATEMENT
YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10
INCOME
GAS 9706. 11162. 12836. 14761. 16975. 19522. 22450. 25818. 29690. 34144,
BY-PRODUCT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
TOTAL 9706. 11162. 12836. 14761. 16975. 19522. 22450. 25818. 29690. 34144.
OPERATING COSTS
LABOR 900. 990. 1089. 1198. 1318. 1449. 1594. 1754. 1929. 2122.
CHEN ELEC MAINT 2000. 2200. 2420. 2662. 2928. 3221 . 3543. 3897. 4287. 4716.
OVERHEAD . 989. 1088. 1197. 1316. 1448. 1593. 1752. 1927. 2120. 2332.
MANAGEMENT FEE 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0,
TOTAL 3889. 4278, 4706. 5176. 5694. 6263. 6890. 7579. 8336. 9170.
OPERATING INCOME 5817. 6884. 8130. 9585. 11282. 13258. 15560. 18239. 21354. 24974.
DEPRECIATION 16078. 16078. 16078. 16078. 16078. 1237. 1237. 1237. 1237. 1237.
LOSS CARRYFORWARD 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 12022. 14324. 12349. 0. 0.
PRETAX INC -10261. -9195. -7948. -6493. -4797. 0. 0. 4653. 20117. 23737.
INCOME TAX 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 465. 2012. 2374.
NET INCOME -10261. -9195. -7948. -6493. -4797. 0. 0. 4188. 18105. 21363.
CASH FLOW
NET INCOME -10261. -9195. -7948. -6493. -4797. 0. 0. 4188. 18105. 21363.
P DEPRECIATION 16078. 16078. 16078. 16078. 16078. 1237. 1237. 1237. 1237. 1237.
+ LOSS CARRYFWD 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 12022. 14324. 12349. 0. 0.
+ INVEST TAX CRED 19789. 0, 0, 0, 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
+ NET SALVAGE 0. 0. 0. 01 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 12368.
NET FLOW 25605. 6884. 8130. 9585. 11282. 13258. 15560. 17774. 19342. 34968.
AFTER TAX RATE OF RETURN = 8.9%


SYSTEM PRICE = $ 80000. ITC = 20% GAS PRICE ESC = 17.X BY-PROD ESC = 10.X
INITIAL GAS PRICE $ 0.08/HN BTU YEARLY GAS PROD = 121322.MCF COST ESCAL = 10.X/YR
INITIAL BY-PRODUCT PRICE = $ O.OO/DRY TON YEARLY BY-PRODUCT PROD = 0.0 TONS TAX RATE = 10.X
DEPRECIATION = 3/4 OVER 5 YEARS, 1/4 ODER 20 YEARS
AFTER 10 YEARS SYSTEM SOLD FOR 12.5X OF ORIGINAL VALUE
HIGHLAND HOUSING PRO FORMA INCOME STATEMENT
YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10
INCOME
GAS 9706. 11356. 13286. 15545. 18187. 21279. 24897. 29129. 34081. 39875.
BY-PRODUCT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0, 0, 0, 0.
TOTAL 9706. 11356. 13286. 15545. 18187. 21279. 24897. 29129. 34081. 39875.
OPERATING COSTS
LABOR 900. 990. 1089. 1198. 1318. 1449. 1594. 1754. 1929. 2122.
CHEH ELEC HAINT 2000. 2200. 2420. 2662. 2928. 3221. 3543. 3897. 4287, 4716.
OVERHEAD 989. 1088, 1197. 1316. 1448. 1593. 1752. 1927. 2120. 2332.
MANAGEMENT FEE 0. 0. 0, 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0, 0.
TOTAL 3889. 4278. 4706. 5176. 5694. 6263. 6890. 7579. 8336. 9170.
OPERATING INCOME 5817. 7078. 8581. 10369. 12494. 15016. 18007, 21551. 25745. 30705.
DEPRECIATION 13000. 13000. 13000. 13000. 13000. 1000. 1000. 1000. 1000. 1000,
LOSS CARRYFORWARD 0. 0. 0, 0. 0. 14016. 6647. 0. 0. 0.
PRETAX INC -7183. -5922. -4419. -2631, -506. 0. 10361. 20551. 24745. 29705.
INCOME TAX 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1036, 2055. 2474. 2971.
NET INCOME -7183. -5922. -4419. -2631. -506. 0. 9325. 18496. 22270. 26735.
CASH FLOW
NET INCOME -7183. -5922. -4419. -2631. -506. 0. 9325. 18496. 22270. 26735.
+ DEPRECIATION 13000. 13000. 13000. 13000. 13000. 1000. 1000. 1000. 1000. 1000.
+ LOSS CARRYFWD 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 14016, 6647. 0. 0, 0.
+ INVEST TAX CRED 16000. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0, 0. 0.
+ NET SALVAGE 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 10000.
NET FLOW 21817. 7078. 8581. 10369. 12494. 15016. 16971. 19496. 23270. 37735.
AFTER TAX RATE OF RETURN = 14,2X


SYSTEM PRICE = $ 80000. ITC = 20% GAS PRICE ESC = 17.% BY-PROD ESC = 10.%
INITIAL GAS PRICE i 0.10/HH BTU YEARLY GAS PROD = 121322.MCF COST ESCAL = 10.%/YR
INITIAL BY-PRODUCT PRICE = t O.OO/DRY TON YEARLY BY-PRODUCT PROD = 0.0 TONS TAX RATE = 10.%
DEPRECIATION = 3/4 ODER 5 YEARSr 1/4 OVER 20 YEARS AFTER 10 YEARS SYSTEM SOLD FOR 12.5% OF ORIGINAL VALUE
HIGHLAND HOUSING PRO FORMA INCOME STATEMENT
YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10
INCOME
GAS 12132. 14195. 16608. 19431. 22734. 26599. 31121. 36412. 42602. 49844.
BY-PRODUCT 0, 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
TOTAL 12132. 14195. 16608. 19431. 22734. 26599. 31121. 36412. 42602. 49844.
OPERATING COSTS
LABOR 900. 990. 1089. 1198. 1318. 1449. 1594. 1754. 1929. 2122.
CHEM ELEC MAINT 2000. 2200. 2420. 2662. 2928. 3221, 3543. 3897. 4287. 4716.
OVERHEAD 989. 1088. 1197. 1316. 1448. 1593. 1752. 1927. 2120. 2332.
MANAGEMENT FEE 0, 0. 0. 0. 0, 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
TOTAL 3889. 4278. 4706. 5176. 5694. 6263. 6890. 7579. 8336. 9170.
OPERATING INCOME 8243. 9917. 11902. 14255. 17040. 20336. 24231. 28833. 34265. 40674.
DEPRECIATION 13000. 13000. 13000. 13000. 13000. 1000. 1000. 1000. 1000, 1000.
LOSS CARRYFORWARD 0. 0. 0. 1255. 4040. 3643. 0. 0. 0, 0.
PRETAX INC -4757. -3083. -1098. 0. 0. 15693. 23231. 27833. 33265. 39674.
INCOME TAX 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1569. 2323. 2783. 3327. 3967.
NET INCOME -4757. -3083. -1098, 0. 0. 14124. 20908. 25050. 29939. 35706.
CASH FLOW
NET INCOME -4757. -3083. -1098, 0. 0. 14124. 20908. 25050. 29939. 35706,
+ DEPRECIATION 13000. 13000. 13000. 13000. 13000. 1000. 1000. 1000. 1000. 1000.
+ LOSS CARRYFUD 0. 0. 0, 1255. 4040. 3643. 0. 0. 0. 0.
+ INVEST TAX CRED 16000. 0. 0. 0, 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
+ NET SALVAGE 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 10000.
NET FLOW 24243. 9917. 11902. 14255. 17040. 18767. 21908. 26050. 30939. 46706.
AFTER TAX RATE OF RETURN = 19.9%
V


SYSTEM PRICE = 40000. ITC = 20% GAS PRICE ESC = 15.% BY-PROD ESC = 10.%
INITIAL GAS PRICE $ 0.08/HM BTU YEARLY GAS PROD = 121322.MCF COST ESCAL = 10.%/YR
INITIAL BY-PRODUCT PRICE = i O.OO/BRY TON YEARLY BY-PRODUCT PROD = 0.0 TONS TAX RATE = 10.%
DEPRECIATION = 3/4 OVER 5 YEARS* 1/4 OVER 20 YEARS AFTER 10 YEARS SYSTEM SOLD FUR 12.5% OF ORIGINAL VALUE
HIGHLAND HOUSOING PRO FORMA INCOME STATEMENT
INCOME YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR 8 YEAR 9 YEAR 10
GAS 9706. 11162. 12836. 14761. 16975. 19522. 22450. 25818. 29690. 34144.
BY-PRODUCT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
TOTAL 9706. 11162. 12836. 14761. 16975. 19522. 22450. 25818. 29690. 34144.
OPERATING COSTS
LABOR 900. 990. 1089. 1198. 1318. 1449. 1594. 1754. 1929. 2122.
CHEM ELEC HAINT 2000. 2200, 2420. 2662. 2928. 3221, 3543. 3897. 4287. 4716.
OVERHEAD 989. 1088. 1197. 1316. 1448. 1593. 1752. 1927. 2120. 2332.
MANAGEMENT FEE 0, 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
TOTAL 3889. 4278. 4706. 5176. 5694. 6263. 6890, 7579. 8336. 9170.
OPERATING INCOME 5817. 6884. 8130. 9585. 11282. 13258. 15560. 18239. 21354. 24974.
DEPRECIATION 6500. 6500. 6500. 6500, 6500. 500. 500. 500. 500. 500.
LOSS CARRYFORWARD 0. 384. 300. 0. 0, 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
PRETAX INC -683. 0. 1331. 3085. 4782. 12758. 15060. 17739. 20854. 24474.
INCOME TAX 0. 0. 133. 308. 478. 1276. 1506. 1774. 2085. 2447.
NET INCOME -683. 0. 1198. 2776, 4303. 11483. 13554. 15965. 18768. 22026.
CASH FLOW
NET INCOME -683. 0. 1198. 2776. 4303. 11483. 13554. 15965. 1B768, 22026,
+ DEPRECIATION 6500. 6500. 6500. 6500. 6500, 500. 500. 500. 500. 500.
+ LOSS CARRYFWD 0. 384. 300. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
+ INVEST TAX CRED 8000. 0. 0. 0. 0, 0. 0, 0. 0. 0.
f NET SALVAGE 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 5000.
NET FLOW 13817. 6084. 7997. 9276. 10803. 11983. 14054. 16465. 19268. 27526.
AFTER TAX RATE OF RETURN = 25.9%


PEOPLE
Cohen, David
A1 Cohen Construction Company Denver, Colorado
Collins, Jerry
Perennial Energy, Inc.
Dora, Missouri
Emery, Lee
Huntington Properties, Inc.
Denver, Colorado
Shellenbach, Susan
3io-3as of Colorado Denver, Colorado
Smith, Shane
Cheyenne Community Solar Greenhouse Cheyenne, Wyoming
Wren, Peggy
Former Director, Colorado State Office of Energy Conservation Denver, Colorado
ORGANIZATIONS/GOVERNMENT
Denver, City and County of Planning Office Traffic Engineering Wastewater Management Water Department Zoning Administration
Public Service. Company of Colorado Denver, Colorado
Regional Transportation District Denver, Colorado
PUBLICATIONS
Alexander, Christopher (1979) The Timeless Way of Building Oxford University Press. New York.
Balcomb, J.D.; Mazria, E; Nichols, S.; Nichols, W. (1981.) "Passive Solar Associates Seminar Notebook". Sante Fe, N.M.
72


Bockenkamp, Anne, et al (1980) "North Denver Community Attitudes and
Housing Survey". North Denver Workshop/Center for Community Development and Design, University of Colorado at Denver.
Denver, City and County of (1979) Building Code
(1980) Zoning Ordinance
Denver Planning Office (1976) Highland Neighborhood Plan City and County of Denver.
Johnson, Warren (1978) Muddling Toward Frugality Shambala Press. Boulder, Colo.
Leckie, Jim, et al (1981) More Other Homes and Garbage Sierra Club Books. San Francisco.
Lovins, Amory (1978) Soft Energy Paths i
Harper. New York.
Morris, David; Hess, K. (1975) Neighborhood Power: The New Localism Beacon Press. 3oston
Morris, David; Plunkett, J. (1981) "Facing the Grid: PURPA 210"
New Shelter, May/June.
New Alchemy Insitute (1973) "Methane Digesters for Fuel Gas and Fertilizer" Cape Cod, Mass.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (1979) Local Climat-atological Data: Denver, Colorado. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.
O'Neill, R.W. (1979) "MIUS and You--The Developer Looks at a New Utility Concept. U.S. Dept, of Housing and Urban Development. Washington D.C.
Untermann, Richard; Small, R. (1977) Site Planning for Cluster Housing Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. New York.


GRAPHICS
site 20th St. 1-25
site location
42


CO
site section
site plan
i* vd-cP
3Z AVE-^Ut




Ui
south elevation


pecos street elevation
north elevation



axonometric

CD


47


48


49


Ol
o


51


52