• Sign In/Sign On
    • Register
    • Log In
    • Heights Observer main site login
  • Rules/FAQ
  • Heights Observer
  • About
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Heights Observer Blog

A community blog about life in the Heights

  • HOME
  • BLOGGERS
    • Emily E. Brock
    • Robert Brown
    • Patti Carlyle
    • Andrea Davis
    • Adam Dew
    • Deanna Bremer Fisher
    • Mike Gaynier
    • Tiffany Laufer
    • Anne McFarland
    • Fran Mentch
    • Jewel Moulthrop
    • David Perelman-Hall
    • Jan Resseger
    • Bob Rosenbaum
    • Kim Sergio Inglis
    • Jim Simler on Film
    • Richard Stewart
    • Allen Wilkinson
    • GUEST BLOGGERS
  • Quality of Life
    • Arts and Entertainment
    • People/Personalities
    • Shop Local
    • Things to do
  • Multimedia
    • Photo Blog
    • Video Blog
    • Podcast
  • Government
    • Schools
      • CH-UH School Facilities Conversation at The Civic Commons
    • Development
    • Public Safety
      • Citizens Police Academy
  • Cle Hts
  • U Hts
  • Regional
  • Show Search
Hide Search

Counterpoints to Heights Observer article on Renovated High School

Allen Wilkinson · October 4, 2016 · Leave a Comment

I noticed the recent Heights Observer article:
“Renovated high school on track for August 2017 completion”
http://www.heightsobserver.org/read/2016/09/30/renovated-high-school-on-track-for-august-2017-completion

The sentence “The building will be one of the most energy-efficient high schools in the nation.” is in error.

There is no evidence to support that sentence. The Sustainability Working Group (SWG) reviewed the design in July-August 2015 and found too many inadequacies to make any claim of remarkable energy performance for the building. The SWG used the highly respected ASHRAE high school building design guide for this climate zone to benchmark against, a document referenced in the original accepted Lay Facilities Committee (LFC) report to the Board of Education.

Examples of inadequacies:

1) R-20 insulation is in all the roofs is the design. R-30 is the recommended level per ASHRAE. That means 50% more heat will be lost through the roof in winter and gained in summer than recommended. Buildings that get remarkable “high performance” ratings will go to R-50 and higher.

2) The geothermal system is a hybrid design with a gas boiler to keep the building warm enough in winter and cooling towers to keep it cool enough in summer. ASHRAE recommends full geothermal systems that do not need the extra energy consumption or operating costs of boilers and cooling towers.

The original LFC budget plan accepted in the Issue #81 bond levy of 2013 included the cost for a full geothermal system. The BoE abandoned full geothermal while trying to make up for the Wiley enabling cost over-runs.

In addition to there being a hybrid system, that system is incorrectly designed per SWG consultation with an international Geothermal system designer. The details of this are technical. I am willing to share them with anyone interested.

3) A swimming pool by its very nature is the biggest energy consumer of any sub-system a building can have. The retired chief engineer and architect for CWRU evaluated the swimming pool design and found the insulation so poor (like the rest of building) that wall and ceiling condensation will be big trouble, and the high volume and velocity of dehumidified air designed to mitigate it is an extreme energy consumer.

4) There is no humidification system in the building as a whole. So in winter months rooms will likely have parched dry air similar to the old building. Teachers and students will open windows to try to mitigate that and large amounts of heat will go out the windows.

I can send you the record of the SWG evaluation if desired to understand more deeply the details of these examples and others.

The SWG researched the new Elyria High School design during 2013. That building’s performance is notably better than the HH design.

facebookShare on Facebook
TwitterTweet
FollowFollow us

Filed Under: School Facilities Progress, Schools, Sustainability

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Assignment: Life in the Heights

This community blog site is part of the Heights Observer community-building project in Cleveland Heights and University Heights. Anyone with a stake in the community is invited to contribute relevant content.

The Heights Observer is published by non-profit FutureHeights. Opinions expressed here are solely those of each author and do not reflect the position of the publisher.

Contact the webmaster to post a blog.

Register or login to comment. To maintain civility and accountability, register with your real name – first and last. Anonymous contributions will be deleted.

See Rules/FAQs for more detail.

NOTE: This blog site operates on a different platform than the Heights Observer’s main website and requires a separate login.

Please follow us and share

RSS
Follow by Email
Facebook
Facebook
fb-share-icon
Twitter
Visit Us
Follow Me
Post on X

Categories

Keyword search

Footer

Please follow us and share

RSS
Follow by Email
Facebook
Facebook
fb-share-icon
Twitter
Visit Us
Follow Me
Post on X

This website is part of the Heights Observer, a volunteer-based hyper-local community news project of non-profit FutureHeights.

excellence awards 20
Excellence in Journalism 2019

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in