Queensland University of Technology working in partnership with

Queensland Government and Brisbane City Council

Report - Case Study 3

A Subtropical Urban Community
Investigating Medium to High Density residential typologies
By Design Charrette

Author
Rosemary Kennedy

Urban transect , from wetland to transport corridor, QUT Team

1 CSD Subtropical Urban Communities Charrette Case Study 3

Acknowledgements

The Centre for Subtropical Design, a QUT collaborative research centre in partnership with Brisbane City
Council, and the Queensland Government, acknowledges the Queensland Department of Infrastructure and
Planning as the principal financial partner for this project. The project would not have been possible without
the generous support of the Urban Land Development Authority (ULDA).

This report is the culmination of the collaborative efforts of many individuals and firms without whose
passionate pursuit of well-designed subtropical environments, this project would not have been possible.

Mitchell Brandtman Quantity Surveyors and Construction Cost Planners‟ involvement was invaluable in
providing valid estimates of the cost of construction of various concepts, based on known benchmarks.

Ecolateral Sustainability Consultants have provided a practical and comprehensive analysis of selected
concept designs regarding their climate-responsiveness, energy, water and acoustical performance.

The Centre for Subtropical Design and QUT unreservedly acknowledge Paul Sanders and the QUT School of
Design as the respective authors of their designs reproduced in this publication and published by QUT
through the Centre for Subtropical Design (“QUT”).

All other text © QUT.

Disclaimer

QUT makes no representations about the suitability of this information for any purpose. It is provided "as is"
without express or implied warranty.

QUT disclaims all warranties with regard to this information, including all implied warranties of
merchantability and fitness, in no event shall QUT be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages
or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract,
negligence or other tortious action or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance
of this information.

This information may include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors.

This publication, including the design concepts, is provided for information only. The images and drawings
are not suited for use in construction.

QUT may make improvements and/or changes in the information at any time.

List of Abbreviations
ABCB Australian Building Codes Board
ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics
ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-conditioning Engineers Inc.
BCA Building Code of Australia
BERS Pro An accepted simulation software program under the ABCB Protocol for House Energy
rating Software 2006.1.
EER Energy Efficiency Ratio
FECA Fully Enclosed Area
GBCA Green Building Council of Australia
QUT Queensland University of Technology
SEQ South East Queensland
TOD Transit Oriented Development
WSUD Water-Sensitive Urban Design

2 CSD Subtropical Urban Communities Charrette Case Study 3

CASE STUDY 3

Creative Team:
 Paul Sanders, (Team Leader) Senior Lecturer, Architecture, QUT School of Design
 Gini Lee, Professor, Landscape Architecture, QUT School of Design
 Leigh Shutter, Senior Lecturer, Architecture, QUT School of Design
 Mark Taylor, Associate Professor, Interior Design, QUT School of Design
 Rebecca Murphy (Architecture Student)
 Susi Blackwell (Architecture Student)

Urban Design Strategies

This team viewed the mitigation of noise and air pollution generated in the transport corridor that borders the
study site to be a paramount driver of the urban design solution. These key urban planning strategies were
adopted:
• Spatial separation from transport corridor pollution source.
• Open space forming the key structural principle for neighbourhood design.
• Urban blocks running on east-west axis.

 Spatial separation from pollution source

A linear green zone and environmental buffer is proposed adjacent to the transport corridor to mitigate the
environmental noise and air quality impacts of the corridor, and to offer residents opportunities for
recreation.

However, the main vehicular route through the site from south to north is also proposed to be located in this
zone, somewhat reducing the gains made by distancing development from the corridor noise source. This
may be mitigated if this connector road is designed as a low speed environment which passes through the
green corridors, with frequent crossings available for cyclists and pedestrians. As a traffic-carrying „boulevard‟
concept it will be less successful.

Early charrette proposals also investigated a built form transect with some taller mixed use buildings located
in the green zone, closer to the transport corridor, with lower scale buildings edging the conservation area.
These proposals seem contradictory to the concept of a buffer zone. The taller buildings would shield the rest
of the development, but may have little opportunity for noise reduction themselves, and reflected noise to
adjacent existing community on the other side of the rail is likely. See fig. (i).

Fig (i) Urban transect, from wetland to transport corridor, QUT Team

 Open space as a structural principle for neighbourhood design

A significant open space system underpins the planning and manages surface water flows. The system of
connected parklands has the following components:
• Existing conservation area is retained without encroachment.
• A linear park adjacent to the rail/busway corridor provides an environmental buffer between the
transport corridor and residential buildings.

3 CSD Subtropical Urban Communities Charrette Case Study 3

 • Green parkways running north-south connect the conservation area to the linear park both visually
and physically, and provide localised recreational amenity.
• A network of pathways runs throughout the neighbourhood, and new pedestrian bridges over the
transport corridor connect existing residential areas to the new public parkland system.
• Semi private courtyards are formed by the perimeter buildings on the proposed urban blocks.
• Corner pocket parks are formed at each end of the urban block by the pavilion type buildings.

 Urban blocks running on east west axis.

The open space rationale emphasises an east-west pattern for local streets. Street alignment allows for
predominantly north-south facing terrace type buildings which both face the street and overlook the green
courtyard formed by the perimeter buildings. Three-storey pavilion type buildings are positioned at the east
and west ends of the typical blocks and take advantage of the favourable aspect overlooking the green
corridor parks. The typical urban block is 160 m long by 60 m wide.

Fig (ii) Open space as Structural Principle for urban plan (transport corridor at bottom of image) QUT Team

 Summary – Urban Planning Strategies Case Study 3

These strategies achieve urban densities of approximately 130 du/hectare and deliver:
• A consistent housing form that faces the street, and is cross-ventilated.
• Restorative open space.
• A framework for vegetation to dominate the built form across the site, particularly in the public open
spaces.
• Allowance for the remnant conservation area to remain intact.

4.3.2 Buildings and shared spaces

The typical urban block generated by this team comprises 3-4 storey terrace buildings (Type A), and three-
storey pavilion buildings (Type B). The terrace typology includes a range of apartments from studios, and
one-bedroom apartments, to double-storey three-bedroom dwellings. The height of the individual terrace
buildings varies across the block from 3 to 4 storeys. In most cases, the Type A buildings are three storey
walk-ups, to a pair of three bedroom double-storey units on the top floors. Type A buildings sit atop an
underground car park which is accessed from the street and ramps at block ends.

The terrace building type takes advantage of the urban block‟s orientation to provide apartments with north
facing living rooms. A central void designed for ventilation and light penetration accompanies the shared stair
well. The roof is pitched to suit the provision of solar collectors.

4 CSD Subtropical Urban Communities Charrette Case Study 3

Fig. (iii) 3-4 Storey Terrace Type A Buildings, QUT Team

Fig. (iv) 3 Storey Pavilion Type B Buildings and pocket park, QUT Team

5 CSD Subtropical Urban Communities Charrette Case Study 3

Fig. (v) Typical Floor Plans Type A Building, QUT Team

6 CSD Subtropical Urban Communities Charrette Case Study 3

Table 1. below describes the parameters forming the basis of the concept cost estimate and ESD analysis for
the Perimeter/Courtyard Walk-up Apartments.

Typology Perimeter /Courtyard Walk-up apartments

Scope costed by Basement carparking below four-storey walk-up apartment buildings; and three-
MB storey pavilions, for a total of 42 apartments
Type A – Six buildings: Basement car parking. Levels 1 and 2 – Twenty four (24)
one bedroom apartments and common outdoor area to level 1. Levels 3 to 4 – Six
(6) three bedrooms double storey apartments.
Type B – Four Blocks: Level 1 to 3 – Twelve (12) three bedroom apartments.
FECA 8,538m2
Cost estimate $14,730,000.00 excl GST
Rate / sq m $1,725.20/m2
Comparable $1,522/m2 to $1,983/m2
range
Allowances $50,000 for hard and soft landscaping
overall
Allowances per $10,000 Solar hot water system
apartment $2,500 Whitegoods
$10,000 Kitchen cabinetry

Apartment types Building Type A: Single level studios, one bedroom units, and double level three
bedroom units, one bathroom, two wc.
Building Type B: Single level three bedroom units, one bathroom separate wc.
All are cross-ventilated.
Vertical access Walk-up – no lifts – central void for light and air to stair well.
Car park Basement car park.
External walls Block masonry insulated internally with polystyrene (R1.5), plasterboard on furring
and party walls channels. Variety of external wall finishes, including fairfaced blockwork and fibre
cement sheeting.
Roof Steel framed with coated steel roof sheeting insulated with R3 Polyester/ cotton or
construction wool ceiling batts.
Internal walls Timber frame, plasterboard lining
Windows Standard windows and sliding glass doors, aluminium framed.
Ceiling heights 2.7m approx
Typical finishes Floors: Tiles to living areas, wet areas, and bedrooms
Mechanical Exhaust fans with dampers to all bathrooms. Rangehoods to kitchens, vented to
ventilation exterior
Balustrades Steel, glass and timber battening to balconies and screens.
Fire Sprinklers Not required
Other A fall arrest system to roof is not required by legislation

Table 1. Parameters for concept cost estimate, Case Study 3 Typology, Perimeter /Courtyard Walk-up Apartments.

 Notes on construction costs

The concept estimate* for this scope of work is $1,725.20/m2 which is below the average compared with
other similar projects. As a series of walk-up apartment buildings, this concept is very affordable.

 Findings of the ESD Analysis

Several of the three-bedroom double storey apartments in the terrace buildings (Type A) were selected for
closer analysis. In floor area terms, this is the largest unit of all the case studies selected for analysis. Table 2.
below summarises the findings of the analysis**.

7 CSD Subtropical Urban Communities Charrette Case Study 3

 Factor Performance
Degree of thermal On average, conditions over the summer months are within the comfort range
comfort providing ceiling fans are installed throughout. Winter conditions may prove too
cool during overnight conditions.
Natural Breezes captured through the balcony areas are very effective particularly on the
ventilation upper living level. Appropriate window size and positioning is adequate to drive
air exchange even when there is little or no breeze.
Availability of A good balance between daylight access and solar gains is achieved. The central
daylighting void makes a significant contribution to the daylight levels in these upper units.
Predicted energy Despite having a lightweight roof structure, the adjusted energy rating achieved
rating for these units is 8.5 stars with ceiling fans. The low glazing-to-floor area ratio of
this unit is a factor contributing to its high performance. Bedrooms 1 and 3 are
very well insulated by other rooms and neighbouring units, and have very little
external wall or window area.
Energy Average annual energy consumption density per square metre for the overall
consumption building and site is calculated as 122kWh/m 2/annum. If air-conditioning was
used, a 16% increase in energy use to 142kWh/m2/annum would result.
Renewable energy The concept design suggests offsetting power consumption using solar power,
however, if approximately 9% of the site area is available for use to host solar
panels, a 5% offset of the site energy consumption would be achieved.
Alternatively, one solar hot water system per dwelling can achieve a 25% offset
of consumption with 10% of the site area or 5.7m2 per dwelling.
Acoustic amenity Units are quiet. The central courtyard zone is well shielded from external noise.
Average water Based on the number and type of dwellings in the development, the average
consumption annual water demand has been calculated as 98,590 L/dwelling per annum – an
average of 104L/person per day.
Other factors A review of the void design could improve daylight levels for apartments on
which affect lower floors, and could potentially be another opportunity to increase ventilation
overall rates.
environmental
performance The underground parking structure limits the ground-coupled environment for
substantial shade trees in the mid-block courtyards.
Table 2. ESD Evaluation of Case Study 3, Perimeter /Courtyard Walk-up terraces

 Liveability
Generous openings to balconies and patios from the indoors facilitate the indoor-outdoor relationship for
apartment occupants. If these outdoor living spaces are well-used, this will help to activate the street.
Balconies on the inner block edges assist to enable casual surveillance of this shared space. Most balconies are
compact with a maximum dimension of three metres, and minimum dimension of 1.5 metres. Street-facing
balconies on the upper-levels may need to be widened slightly to be sufficient to support a range of activities.

Entry doors to the ground floor units are through a shared entrance which faces the street. It may be possible
to adjust the design to provide direct street connection to these units. However, residents may tend to screen
off their terrace from the footpath unless the level is raised a few steps above the street for better privacy.

Strong articulation of the individual units within the building‟s massing adds visual interest and adds to the
sense of „eyes on the street‟. Entry doors to the pavilion type apartments (Type B) do not face the street but
rather are recessed into a side alcove off the mews-like parking area. However, the balconies and living areas
do face the corner „pocket parks‟ that are formed by these buildings.

A single compartmentalised underground parking structure services dwellings across a whole urban block.
The implication is that a body corporate may cover an entire block. Discussion of ownership structure is

8 CSD Subtropical Urban Communities Charrette Case Study 3

beyond the scope of this report. Overall, this design demonstrates a model for dense, affordable, urban
development balanced with green areas.

*Modelling – Construction Costs

Quantity Surveyors and construction cost consultants Mitchell Brandtman carried out concept estimates for
the selected designs prepared by each creative team, using the cost/m2 Fully Enclosed Covered Area (FECA)
as the methodology. Elemental areas for the various project components were calculated from the drawings
supplied. Assumptions and clarifications regarding the scope of work and quality of finishes were identified,
and appropriate costs per square metre were applied to the relevant quantities, utilising Mitchell Brandtman‟s
cost records for comparable developments. The cost estimates are based on procurement via a tendered lump
sum type building contract. The land component and development costs such as professional fees, and
authority fees, charges and contributions are not included in the estimate.
____________________________________________________________________________
**Modelling – ESD Analysis

Ecolateral Sustainability Consultants were engaged to model and undertake an integrated analysis of four
typical buildings (one concept selected from each creative team) and typical dwellings within them. All case
studies are mid-rise apartments, four to eight storeys high. Expected performance in terms of: thermal
comfort, natural ventilation, day-lighting, and energy rating based on predicted energy consumption;
acoustics; and water management was measured. Measures and benchmarks used in this analysis are provided
in Ecolateral‟s detailed report. The following information is provided for clarity.

Parameter Measure
Thermal comfort ASHRAE Standard 55-2004 Acceptable operative temperature ranges for naturally conditioned
spaces is used. An acceptability range where 8 out of 10 people are satisfied is used.
Natural ventilation Effective design ventilation rates for minimum and maximum external wind speed
conditions for Brisbane according to the Test Reference Year weather data are used.
Availability of Measurements are taken at the working plane (1.5m above floor level) for 12 noon
daylighting on 21 September under an overcast sky.
Predicted Energy This is an assessment of the capability of the fabric of the building to provide for the
Rating thermal comfort of the occupants. The BERS Pro software program is used, under
the conditions specified by the ABCB.
Star rating adjustment. Dwellings under 200m2 are given an area adjustment rating
that increases their star rating. The smaller the floor area, the bigger the adjustment
and the more the star rating is increased. For houses over 200m 2 the opposite is the
case.
Energy The Green Star Multi-Unit Residential Green House Gas Emissions Guide is used to
Consumption calculate typical energy consumption for typical units. Then the anticipated energy
density of the typology is calculated. This is not a measure of energy consumption
per square metre of living space, rather it is the energy density predicted for the
scope of development. Energy consumption of developments will vary based on the
number of dwellings per site area, and heating and cooling requirements as measured
by BERS. With a higher development density the energy density of the site increases.
However the developed design solution will influence the space conditioning
requirements, and can result in different energy densities between sites with the same
development density.
Renewable Energy Area calculations are based on Thin film Amorphous Photovoltaic solar panels –
these are the most shade tolerant, have least embodied energy, most power
efficiency, greatest insulation benefits, but are the least space efficient of PV panels
currently available on the market.
Acoustic Amenity Desktop review only of acoustics and environmental noise considerations.

9 CSD Subtropical Urban Communities Charrette Case Study 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND DISCLAIMER

Images and design concepts by © BVN Architecture Pty Ltd, Gall and Medek Architects Pty Ltd, and
Richard Kirk Architect Pty Ltd, published under licence by QUT through the Centre for Subtropical
Design (“QUT”).

All other text © QUT.

QUT makes no representations about the suitability of this information for any purpose. It is provided
"as is" without express or implied warranty.

QUT disclaims all warranties with regard to this information, including all implied warranties of
merchantability and fitness, in no event shall QUT be liable for any special, indirect or consequential
damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action
of contract, negligence or other tortious action or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with the
use or performance of this information.

This information may include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors.

This publication, including the design concepts, is provided for information only. The images and
drawings are not suited for use in construction.

QUT may make improvements and/or changes in the information at any time.

This web site contains links to other sites that are external to QUT. QUT takes care in linking web
sites but has no direct control over the content of the linked web sites, or to the changes that may
occur to the content on those sites. It is the responsibility of the user to make their own decisions
about the accuracy, currency, reliability and correctness of information contained in linked external
websites.