The Journal of Green Building
Daniel Russoniello, AIA ,LEED AP
01 April 2010
Swarthmore College has a long tradition of honoring the natural environment, a tradition that includes making sustainable purchasing, power, and construction choices. The new 5,200 sf Wister Education Center and Greenhouse of Scott Arboretum at Swarthmore is the most recent and far-reaching green building on campus and serves as a model for sustainable academic structures.
Located eleven miles southwest of Philadelphia, Swarthmore College's bucolic, 399-acre campus is a designated arboretum, complete with rolling lawns, creek, wooded hills and hiking trails. As the college has grown over the years, buildings were thoughtfully positioned to form quads or to frame views. The landscape has been designed to draw the parts together into a coherent whole with formal and informal paths and settings.
On this Quaker campus, founded in 1869 on a tract of former farmland, history and institutional values have been maintained and expressed through architecture in various periods of its development. In the beginning, simple, well-made buildings reflected the values of the founders to inspire, humble, and instruct the students. In the 1920s, Gothic architecture promoted the principles of faith, modesty, and a life of purpose through learning. In the 1940s, the modern campus emerged, formed on the ideals of equality, accessibility to all, and the ability of good, clean design to guide modern man to a better way of life. In materials and the subtle use of architectural language, even the modern architecture on Swarthmore’s campus blended with the horticultural context.
These eclectic yet complementary buildings are linked by the College’s idyllic landscape, which is purposeful, well-planned and composed, and beautifully maintained. This is the setting that had to be respected and reflected in the College’s new Education Center and Greenhouse.
What is the greenhouse as a building type? How did it become what we recognize today as a greenhouse? Northern Europeans, wanting to have their citrus in the winter, adapted it from the house form with more and larger windows. As greenhouse architecture developed, architects integrated classic architectural forms and language with the needs of a glass house. By the 1850s, when industrialization was taking hold, we see more of what we think of as today’s greenhouses. In Paxton’s Crystal Palace we see the repetition of units, which was the advantage of industrial manufacturing.
Over time the technology so improved that we had the ideal greenhouse – spectacular buildings of glass with repeated modules that go on forever. Soon, architects wanted to combine the efficiency of engineering with the proper language of architecture. The Biltmore Estate in North Carolina by Richard Morris Hunt is an excellent example. That tradition grew and became more formalized. Some of the nicest examples of this tradition are near Swarthmore: the Morris Arboretum’s Fern House and Kennett Square’s Longwood Gardens.
With this rich history in mind we began to design the new Education Center and Greenhouse. We started with the institutional values of Swarthmore College, the functional needs of the Scott Arboretum, and the clues and opportunities offered by the site.
It is hard to imagine a landscape that is simpler in appearance and beauty yet more complex in its rich variety of interrelated settings than this location. We developed three site plans. Each drawing studies the relationship between the building and the location, as well as how program components within the building relate to each other and the site. These studies were being done while we were developing the building program.
We examined the position of the greenhouse and the over-wintering room and the work room, classroom, public entrance, service entrance, and so forth. To access the most sun, the greenhouse always stayed to the south, naturally. At the same time we looked at how to put more than 5,000 sf of space onto this tight site.
What clues would the particulars of this site present? One was the variety and beauty of the landscape vignettes that surround the adjacent structures. This suggested that the building might be viewed as small landscaped moments rather than as a whole building. This helped us to understand what should be the appropriate scale of the building to the site. Then we observed the small details on nearby buildings that suggested how building detail could contribute to scale, context and vignette.
An excellent example of how small, creatively composed, landscape vignettes can affect perception is Fairsted in Brookline, Massachusetts. This is the home of Fredric Law Olmstead, the father of American landscape architecture. Artfully, the scale and character of each landscape setting changes as one walks around the house and grounds. Some settings are secluded, intimate and private, others are open with broad views, and some are paths, places for movement, while others are for pause and reflection. Some settings relate to the neighborhood street and some to the house. This all occurred in a very small area, a residential lot in suburban Boston. A number of sites on Swarthmore’s campus are similar, in that the building and the landscape are unique from different perspectives.
In conversations with the leadership of the Arboretum, we learned that they had a definite aesthetic leaning; they had a refined eye for the American Arts & Crafts period. Also, the scale, materials and texture that are characteristic of that style work well with the landscape strategy mentioned earlier. Exploring the building aesthetic with the client and showing examples of early and contemporary Arts & Crafts work, we identified the design strategies that were appropriate to this project. These included:
With regard to the interior of the building, again the style seemed to accommodate what we wanted to achieve. The client liked these Arts & Crafts elements:
Today’s standard greenhouse components do not easily fit into a particular architectural style; at least not without prohibitively expensive customization. Our strategy was to take the simple gabled roof form and make it a repeating element. This along with the standard two-foot glass module provided a modestly scaled greenhouse component. A component or module can be easily added in order to expand the greenhouse without disruption to the established building scale.
Along with the aesthetic considerations we very closely and diligently studied and tested the Arboretum’s programmatic requirements. Accommodations had to be made for more than 100 volunteers and approximately 35,000 visitors annually. We simultaneously studied floor plan arrangements and their effect on massing and scale. It was through this process that we determined that the building program could not fit on the site in a single floor building. Here is where the topography of the site provided a solution.
The sloped aspect of the site allowed us to design a more compact building footprint and appropriately segregate building activities. The public programs and greenhouse horticultural activities were designed to occur on the first floor. The service, storage and grounds activities were designed to occur at the lower level. This included separate vehicular access, trucks, skids, equipment, bulk material storage deliveries all occurring without conflict to public parking and building access at the first floor.
Along with the big picture we sweated the details. We studied individual rooms like the work room or head house. We listed each item, including furniture, counter, sink, storage cabinet, work table, soil bench and so forth, and tested a variety of arrangements until the one that provided optimal advantage for how Swarthmore planned to operate the greenhouse was found.
While the building was evolving, the consultant team worked with College facilities personnel, Arboretum staff and the architect to define utility and system requirements and sustainable design opportunities. While it may be true that “form follows function,” in the case of green design this is not always desirable. Sustainable technology and innovation has a way of taking over, of supplanting location, culture and history.
In fact, the original Wister Greenhouse reflected this. It was a 1970s aesthetic of what green design should look like - cutting edge for its time. It had a steep-sloped south roof, useless north clerestory windows above the workroom, and large, intrusive hydro tubes inside that were intended to capture solar heat by day and provide warmth by night. The technology led the design, making it more functional than well-formed.
We took a more subtle approach. We wanted a very green building without it necessarily looking green. We wanted a holistic method that allowed quantifiable measurement of energy savings, material conservation, recycling, and responsible waste tracking. It was agreed that LEED provided the guidelines and tracking system that we wanted. Swarthmore is well versed in the program and, for example, maintains approximately 14,300 sf of green roof on campus, with plans for more.
In the case of the Wister Center, the project is certified under the criteria for LEED for New Construction, version 2.2. This point-based system has a maximum allotment of 56 points, although there is now a newer version based on a 100-point system. To attain LEED certification a project must fulfill meet some basic prerequisite points plus a minimum of 26 points. If the project gets a minimum of 33 points, it will be certified LEED Silver, 39 points – LEED Gold, and 52 points – LEED Platinum. As of this writing, the Wister Center is between 37 and 40 points; it will achieve LEED Silver and possibly Gold.
The LEED process is guided by a checklist that represents a holistic approach to planning, design and construction. It addresses pre-design decisions such as site selection, design decisions such as material and system selections and engineering, construction issues like tracking and recycling construction waste, and post-construction evaluation such as building system commissioning. It tracks, assesses and quantifies the full process.
LEED for New Construction addresses six areas of sustainable design focus:
To provide examples of the variety of point categories that are included in these six categories, I will use specific sustainable design features found in the Wister Center.
The Sustainable Sites category guides the design team in making sustainable choices and decisions related to the building site. The Wister site takes advantage of:
The Water Efficiency category rewards the design with points when water use and water conservation is maximized. At the Wister Center we achieved a number of points in this category by integrating the following:
The Energy and Atmosphere category provides point incentives for maximizing building system efficiency and minimizing energy use. The engineering consultants in cooperation with the College’s facilities group were extremely innovative.
The Materials and Resources category encourages the prudent use of building materials and natural resources. In this category the Wister Center took advantage of several strategies.
The Indoor Environmental Quality category awards points for strategies that enhance the environmental quality of the space. Points in this category really promote environments that support the health and well-being of building occupants. The Wister Center fared well in this category by:
The sixth category, Innovation and Design offers the project team the opportunity to explore other creative ways to promote sustainable design. Some points obtained in this category include:
There are more than twenty sustainable design features in the Wister Center. Several additional features include the following:
In the end, the success of any work of architecture depends on how these issues are reconciled and brought together to form a cohesive whole – the owners expectations, architect’s vision, context of the campus, values of the institution, history of the building type, history of the campus, architectural precedents, complexity of the program, technics of construction, and the rigors of sustainable design. These are quite a few conditions to be placed on one small building.
We tried to keep it simple, allowing a modest material palette to provide texture, scale and form. The walls are Douglas fir panels. Douglas fir has a straight and even grain yet modulation of color and warmth. It is a wood that tends to be used where the structure and finishes are exposed to the natural finish. These materials, details and scale are very much related to the context of the site, and this contiguity is apparent whether viewed by day or at night.
Wister is detailed to give it a feeling of being handcrafted, nurtured into being like a garden. As the landscape plan is implemented and the vegetation matures, pieces of the building will become part of the smaller landscape vignettes that give the site is character. Raw materials like the concrete foundation walls of the greenhouse were given color and depth with simple details like the arched niches. Natural lighting and the flexibility of movable worktables, potting benches and soil mixing bins make the space very user friendly.
The interior and exterior of the building share common details. The vibrant color of the site was picked up in paint and tile colors. The fly ash concrete floor was stained, then ground again and polished to give it a deep, earthy, almost leathery appearance. The depth of the finish was controlled by how many coats of stain were applied. It will wear well over time but it really is simply an environmentally safe concrete floor.
The introduction of color, decorative light fixtures and furniture selection were not afterthoughts or left to chance. Color palettes were carefully selected and coordinated among paint colors, floor finish colors (whether concrete, ceramic tile or vinyl tile), wood species and other building accessories. The color scheme works with the fabrics on the furniture and the whole is intended to recall the colors of changing seasons and natural elements like water and flowers. We tried to create a setting that would display art and flower arrangements well.
Even in the more technology-rich spaces like the classroom, the man-made is underplayed and the natural world is emphasized. Elements from the exterior are recalled on the interior, such as the wood slatted bris-soleil in the gable. The inspiration for that detail was an old slat house on the grounds. Wood slats the let light in while protecting plants from the sun. At night the building glows from within.
The design of the building includes dedicated sorting and recycling areas for trash, plastics, glass, metal and paper. As with most buildings on Swarthmore’s campus, these areas are planned to be integral to the building from the onset to ensure continued management of recyclable materials. Similarly, the cleaning and maintenance of the building will include the use of “green” detergents and cleaning agents.
Lastly, the Wister Center will be largely powered by renewable energy: a large portion of the electricity consumed by the College is “green” power generated by renewable energy facilities. These are all College-wide programs that ensure this facility will encourage ongoing conservation of natural resources.
Wister Education Center and Greenhouse has been selected as a Green Building of America Award-winning project and will be featured in the upcoming Real Estate & Construction Review-Northeast Green Success Stories edition. Planned for late 2010, the Green Success Stories edition will include interviews with owner, architect and contractor to explain how the team worked together to design and build one of the region’s most innovative sustainable facilities.
Wister Education Center and Greenhouse
Scott Arboretum of Swarthmore College
Swarthmore College, Pennsylvania
Client: Claire Sawyer, Director of the Scott Arboretum
Architect: Archer & Buchanan Architecture Ltd., West Chester, PA
Structural Engineer: George Weaver, PA, West Chester, PA
M/E Engineer: Bruce E. Brooks & Associates, Philadelphia, PA
Civil Engineer: Gilmore & Associates, New Britain, PA
Landscape Architect: Jonathan Alderson, Wayne, PA
Greenhouse Consultant: Rough Brothers, Cincinnati, OH
General Contractor: W.S. Cumby, Inc., Springfield, PA
A West Chester architect shares ways to turn land and building restrictions into design opportunities - 27 March 2017
AIA Philadelphia - 25 November 2013
AIA Philadelphia - 25 March 2015
Archer & Buchanan Architecture Feature - 1 May 2013
Architectural Products - 1 July 2008
Architizer - 3 March 2015
Associated Press - 12 December 2012
Associated Press Video - 12 December 2012
Bucks Life - 1 September 2013
Building Design + Construction - 1 July 2013
Chester County Town & Country Living - 1 October 2001
Chester County Town & Country Living - 1 June 2005
Chester County Town & Country Living - 1 April 2005
Chester County Town & Country Living - 23 October 2008
CNN Money - 28 November 2011
CODAmagazine - 13 April 2015
Collector’s News - 1 October 2006
Cottages & Bungalows - 1 February 2009
County Lines - 1 March 2013
County Lines - 1 February 2013
County Lines - 1 February 2010
County Lines - 1 September 2011
County Lines - 1 September 2013
County Lines - 1 September 2012
County Lines - 1 September 2012
County Lines Magazine - 31 January 2017
Covertside - 1 December 2007
Daily Local News - 24 May 2012
Delaware Community News - 16 August 2009
Delaware County News Network - 1 June 2013
Delaware Today - 8 January 2013
Dexigner.com - 20 September 2012
Electronic House - 1 May 2008
Fine Homebuilding - 1 May 2007
Fine Homebuilding - 1 April 2005
Fine Homebuilding - 1 March 2005
Fine Homebuilding Magazine - 1 March 2017
Fine Homebuilding Magazine - 24 September 2015
Garden Design - 24 February 2010
Gardening Australia Magazine - 1 June 2015
Greater Philadelphia Gardens - 20 August 2009
HD Living - 1 January 2008
HGTV - 23 February 2017
HGTV Front Door - 9 December 2013
HGTV Magazine - 1 April 2013
Hooked on Houses - 5 September 2013
Houzz - 20 January 2017
Houzz - 23 January 2017
Houzz.com - 1 January 2013
Houzz.com - 2 August 2013
Houzz.com - 7 January 2016
Houzz.com - 19 January 2015
Houzz.com - 17 June 2012
Houzz.com - 6 June 2012
Houzz.com - 31 January 2015
Houzz.com - 20 May 2012
Houzz.com - 6 June 2013
Houzz.com - 14 August 2012
Houzz.com - 10 May 2012
Houzz.com - 28 November 2013
Houzz.com - 1 December 2012
Houzz.com - 3 May 2012
Houzz.com - 11 December 2013
Houzz.com - 1 December 2012
Houzz.com - 29 April 2012
Houzz.com - 10 November 2012
Houzz.com - 7 November 2012
Houzz.com - 31 October 2012
Houzz.com - 21 January 2013
Houzz.com - 20 March 2012
Houzz.com - 16 January 2013
Houzz.com - 27 February 2012
Houzz.com - 1 January 2013
Houzz.com - 28 August 2013
Houzz.com - 2 January 2013
Houzz.com - 16 August 2013
Hybrid - 1 December 2009
Lower Merion Historical Society Milestones - 1 April 2009
Luxury Home Quarterly - 1 April 2011
Main Line - 1 October 2009
Main Line Suburban Life - 1 September 2010
Main Line Today - 25 January 2011
Main Line Today - 5 February 2016
Main Line Today - 14 January 2009
Main Line Today - 1 December 2006
Main Line Today - 1 June 2008
Main Line Today - 22 January 2010
Main Line Today - 1 March 2008
Main Line Today - 1 December 2003
Main Line Today - 1 December 2003
Main Line Today Magazine - 1 March 2015
Main Line Today Magazine - 1 April 2015
Mix - 1 August 2002
Montco Homes, Gardens, & Lifestyle - 1 November 2016
Natural Lands Spring/Summer 2013 - 1 June 2013
NBC 10 Philadelphia - 14 December 2012
New Old House - 1 January 2008
New Old House - 1 April 2009
NPR - 14 December 2012
Period Homes - 1 January 2007
Period Homes - 1 November 2009
Period Homes - 1 September 2006
Period Homes - 1 May 2013
Period Homes - 1 January 2011
Period Homes - 1 July 2007
Period Homes - 1 March 2006
Period Homes - 1 July 2005
Philadelphia - 1 June 2009
Philadelphia Business Journal - 8 June 2007
Philadelphia Home & Garden - 1 January 2007
Philadelphia Home & Garden - 1 October 2003
Philadelphia Home & Garden - 1 June 2006
Philadelphia Inquirer - 6 July 2013
Philadelphia Inquirer - 22 March 2015
Philadelphia Inquirer - 24 July 2011
Philadelphia Inquirer - 24 June 2011
Philadelphia Inquirer - 24 May 2014
Philadelphia Magazine - 9 February 2017
Philadelphia Style - 1 November 2007
Press Release - 1 May 2009
Press Release - 1 August 2012
Press Release - 1 July 2013
Press Release - 1 November 2010
Press Release - 1 June 2012
Press Release - 1 November 2013
Press Release - 1 February 2012
Press Release - 1 November 2011
Press Release - 1 May 2012
Press Release - 20 December 2013
Press Release - 23 September 2013
Press Release - 4 February 2014
Press Release - 1 September 2013
Press Release - 10 March 2014
Press Release - 1 October 2012
Press Release - 1 November 2008
Society of American Registered Architects, Pennsylvania Council honors firm and new project - 30 November 2015
Suburban Life - 1 March 2012
The Business Journal - 9 February 2011
The Hunt - 1 December 2012
The Hunt - 1 April 2008
The Hunt Magazine - 1 December 2013
The Hunt Magazine - 12 August 2016
The Hunt Magazine - 22 July 2013
The Hunt Magazine - 4 May 2016
The Hunt Magazine - 12 August 2016
The Hunt Magazine - 19 January 2017
The Journal of Green Building - 1 April 2010
The Philadelphia Inquirer - 11 December 2015
The Suburban and Wayne Times - 13 March 2008
The Unionville Times - 18 June 2013
Traditional Building Magazine - 23 June 2014
Traditional Building - 1 October 2010
Untacked Magazine - 4 May 2015
Veranda - 1 January 2013
WHYY - 13 December 2012
www.marvin.com - 30 June 2013