MATCH- Midtown Arts and Theater Center Houston

Presentation given by Bill Neuhaus, Lisa Osbourne, and Jill Jewett at Gulf Coast Green 2016

2. Project Mission
• Mission
– The mission of the MATCH is to provide an affordable home for a broad
spectrum of Houston’s arts organizations, and create an accessible
destination that will bring Houstonians together to enjoy art and enliven a
neighborhood.
• The MATCH will be:
–A destination for all Houstonians
–A creative hubfor small and mid-sized arts organizations
–A catalystfor retail, residential, and other economic development in
Midtown

3. The Arts in Houston
• Houston is home to over 500 arts and cultural
organizations
• The City of Houston annually funds over $3M in grants
to more than 200 organizations through Hotel
Occupancy Taxes
• According to the Houston Area Arts Survey done by
the Kinder Institute at Rice University, the Houston
arts industry generates almost $869 million annually.
It is estimated to support more than 19,000 full-time
equivalent jobs

4. Background / Need
• Project Began in 2005 by four
arts organizations
• Challenges
– Difficult to find affordable
spaces
– Existing venues: overbooked
and low quality
– Poor locations: Isolated and
not collaborative

5. • 3400 Main Street was purchased for $2.5 million from the City of Houston in
June 2011.
– Centrally located
– Across the street from the HCC/Ensemble Rail Stop
– Between Museum District and Theater District
– Close proximity to six university campuses
• 129,000 students in a 3 mile radius
– Accessible by freeway
Location

6. Location

7. • Midtown History
– Until recently, very underdeveloped
– Blight, lack of direction, no cohesiveness
– HGAC commissioned Livable Centers Study in
2010
• How to make area more walkable, active,
economically vital?
• Midtown Now
– Study recommended MATCH as “catalytic
project”to spur development in Midtown
– Since 2011, new multi-family development,
retail, additional non-profit and for-profit creative
enterprises
Economic Development

8. • Strong committee involvement
• Partnership between Lake + FlatoArchitects & Studio Red Architects
with Collaborative Engineering Group & Office of James Burnett
• Goals:
– Create a place, not a building
– Inviting and welcoming to all
– Flexibility for now and in the future
• The LEED rating system was considered for deployment for the Match
project.
Architect Selection/ Design
Sustainability Experience
•COTE Top 10-Lake Flato
–2
nd
highest rated LEED Platinum Office Building-SRA & CEG
–With City of Houston Green Resource and Permitting Center-SRA

9. • 2 Goals:
– Affordable rental rates
– Minimal annual fundraising after construction
• Roughly 65% of budget from earned income
• Public/private partnership created to subsidize operations
• 380 Agreement with City of Houston to capture incremental Sales & Mixed
Beverage taxes in Midtown area
• Annual operating support from Houston First Corporation
Business Model

10. Level 1-Plan

11. Level 2-Plan

14. Section Diagram- View from Main Street

15. Budget

16. • “It is important to distinguish between the construction budget, which typically
includes only hard costs (building constructi on costs, furniture, fixtures, equipment
costs, purchase of property, etc.) and total project budget, which includes both
hard costs, and soft costs, such as profe ssional fees, construction financing, etc.
Soft costs related to administration of the LEED certification process and
provisions of specific services r equired by LEED should be included in any
analysis of the LEED premium.”
• “Classifying soft costs or “added costs” due to LEED certification will vary
depending upon project type. Administration of the LEED certification process and
documentation of LEED credits is an added cost directly associated with LEED
certification. The USGBC estimate s these fees from $20,000 to $60,000
depending upon project size, complexity and project team experience.
Commissioning fees, which can range from $2.50 per square foot on smaller
projects with specialty commissioning.”
Nicolow, Jim: Citing Sources: (http://www. facilitiesnet.com/gr een/article/Measuring- The-Cost-To-Become-LEED-Certified-Facilitie s-Management-
Green-Feature--10057) : November 2008)
The difference of a voluntary rating system versus code requirements in the
Development of Match.

17. • “The cost for energy modeling services can range from $15,000 on
smaller projects to more than $50,000 for larger, more complex projects.
Theses fees are driven not just by proj ect size but also by complexity of
the building design and the mechanical system.”
• “So, the answer to what the LEED premium really is just depends. If LEED
certification is pursued at the beginning of the project, teams can
conservatively budget 2 percent for construction costs and $150,000 in
soft costs for Certified through Gold level certification on most projects.” • Let’s not forget TIME = MONEY

18. Source: Chris Mundell, Gensler
• With this the project architect, project engineer, and the owner’s representative
viewed the application of the LEED rating system for the MATCH project.
• Another item that you will learn is the difference of a voluntary rating system
versus code requirements in the development of this project. Environmental Outcomes

19. Energy
•Energy Efficiency is an ROI issue, not a
points issue
•Energy Models are not reality
•Under-Promise, Over-Deliver
•Better internal analysis & action on building
performance

20. Challenge •Design Team Chase LEED points & don’t
focus on ‘Integrated Project Management’
•Clients have difficulty balancing desires
with budget
•O&M staff are reluctant to accept new
building elements & systems
•Applying lessons learned to the next project Benefit
•Transformation of the “Market”
•Growing in-house engagement with high
performance

21. Energy Modeling
What is it? Computer simulation of building
components and systems
performed over 8760 hours Why we do it? •Guide design decisions
•Performance comparison
•Certifications What is can’t do? Predict the future…
Or your actual energy COST!

22. Energy Modeling
How do we build it? •Define goals
•Gather Information
•Determine systems & alternatives When do we build it? •As early as possible!
(refine throughout the design)

23. Energy Modeling
How long does it take to build? •It depends on complexity of the
building and systems How accurate is it? •It depends on the level of detail in
the model, skill of the modeler,
quality of input data, limitations of
software, and actual quality of
construction

24. Energy Modeling
Goals •Beautiful, Healthy spaces
•Minimize maintenance costs
•Low EUI
•Lowering your utility Owner’s Input •Schedules: Occupancy, equipment &
utilization
•Electronic equipment
•Campus standards & utilities
•Design Criteria: Temperature &
humidity

25. Energy Modeling
Architect’s Input •Building Orientation
•Building Envelope
•Lighting
•Glass & Shading Devices floor plan

26. Energy Modeling

27. Energy Modeling
Weather Data •Typical Meteorological Year: TMY is not
necessarily a good indicator of conditions over
the next year, or even the next five years.
Rather, it represents conditions judged to be
typical over a long period of time, such as 30
years.
•Because they represent typical rather than
extreme conditions, they are not suited for
designing systems and their components to
meet the worst-case conditions occurring at a
location.

28. Energy Modeling

29. GIVE CREDIT
• LEED RAISED THE BAR
• ESTABLISHED THE BRAND
• CODE REPSONSED AS DID THE
DESIGN COMMUNITY
“The camels nose was in the tent as
LEED programmed ratcheted up”
Case of the day, Wrongful trees, (Sept. 9, 2015)
won3

30. GOAL
SUSTAINABLE PLACES ARE BEAUTIFUL,
LASTING, AND MEMORABLE