<%BANNER%>

Evaluating Sustainable Design in Post-Hurricane Katrina Housing

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043804/00001

Material Information

Title: Evaluating Sustainable Design in Post-Hurricane Katrina Housing
Physical Description: 1 online resource (138 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Compton, Rachel J
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: construction -- design -- disaster -- green -- hurricane -- katrina -- louisiana -- orleans -- reconstruction -- recovery -- residential -- sustainability
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Hurricane Katrina battered the Gulf Coast in 2005, inflicting an unprecedented amount of damage in her wake, leaving life-long residents of New Orleans homeless and effectively submerging a beloved city. For a time following the storm, flurries of committees, organizations and councils attempted to plan how the city would collectively be rebuilt. While the initial plans focused on the successful recovery of the city as a whole, the reality is that in the last five years the different neighborhoods have each rebuilt in their own way and their own time. This study surveys six New Orleans neighborhoods that endured the worst of the flooding and analyzes the recovery through a photographic field study of the exterior envelope, focusing on the existence of sustainable elements. From there, a variety of analytical tools were developed and utilized to synthesize the information gathered to identify the material selections. Sustainability, life cycle cost, durability and historical vernacular were some of the characteristics identified in the quality modeling as factors that impacted the final decision making process. Quantifying physical characteristics allowed neighborhoods to be compared to each other and to an ideal model. Successful reconstruction of a region after a natural disaster is dependent on the community's ability to balance between the desire to rapidly reconstruct everything exactly as it was with the necessity to thoughtfully analyze the problems that the storm revealed and make the appropriate adjustments. This study aimed to provide some connection to the different factors in the decision making process.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Rachel J Compton.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Sullivan, James.
Local: Co-adviser: Ries, Robert J.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0043804:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043804/00001

Material Information

Title: Evaluating Sustainable Design in Post-Hurricane Katrina Housing
Physical Description: 1 online resource (138 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Compton, Rachel J
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: construction -- design -- disaster -- green -- hurricane -- katrina -- louisiana -- orleans -- reconstruction -- recovery -- residential -- sustainability
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Hurricane Katrina battered the Gulf Coast in 2005, inflicting an unprecedented amount of damage in her wake, leaving life-long residents of New Orleans homeless and effectively submerging a beloved city. For a time following the storm, flurries of committees, organizations and councils attempted to plan how the city would collectively be rebuilt. While the initial plans focused on the successful recovery of the city as a whole, the reality is that in the last five years the different neighborhoods have each rebuilt in their own way and their own time. This study surveys six New Orleans neighborhoods that endured the worst of the flooding and analyzes the recovery through a photographic field study of the exterior envelope, focusing on the existence of sustainable elements. From there, a variety of analytical tools were developed and utilized to synthesize the information gathered to identify the material selections. Sustainability, life cycle cost, durability and historical vernacular were some of the characteristics identified in the quality modeling as factors that impacted the final decision making process. Quantifying physical characteristics allowed neighborhoods to be compared to each other and to an ideal model. Successful reconstruction of a region after a natural disaster is dependent on the community's ability to balance between the desire to rapidly reconstruct everything exactly as it was with the necessity to thoughtfully analyze the problems that the storm revealed and make the appropriate adjustments. This study aimed to provide some connection to the different factors in the decision making process.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Rachel J Compton.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Sullivan, James.
Local: Co-adviser: Ries, Robert J.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0043804:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 EVALUATING SUSTAINABLE DESIGN IN POST HURRICANE KATRINA HOUSING By RACHEL JOANN COMPTON A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 Rachel JoAnn Compton

PAGE 3

3 To m y loved ones

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I would like to thank my parents, Dave and Pam Compton, my brother Reid and the ever amazing KB for their endless love, support and confidence in everything that I attempt. My accomplishments are by no means just my own Team Compton all the way. I would also like to thank my committee for their continual faith that I could produce what I had promise d. I am eternally grateful for their critique, guidance and constant encouragement. Lastly, I would like to thank Jessica Tomaselli, notice for a road tri ave been the same without her and there is no other person that I would have wanted to travel the roads of studio and thesis with.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENT S ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 9 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 10 LIST OF TERMS ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 12 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 15 Problem Statement ................................ ................................ ................................ 16 Research Objectives ................................ ................................ ............................... 17 Significance ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 17 Of the Place ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 18 Of the Storm ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 18 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 18 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 20 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 20 Types of Disasters ................................ ................................ ............................ 20 Consequences of Hurricanes ................................ ................................ ........... 23 Flooding ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 23 Wind ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 24 Impacts on the Individuals ................................ ................................ ...................... 24 Effects on Population and the Built Environment ................................ .............. 25 Insurance ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 27 New and Restorative Construction ................................ ................................ ... 29 Preservation of Historic Architecture ................................ ................................ 31 Impacts on the Construction Industry ................................ ................................ ...... 33 Sust ainable Construction versus Sustainable Design ................................ ...... 33 Integrated design ................................ ................................ ....................... 34 Sustainable design ................................ ................................ ..................... 35 Sustainable construction ................................ ................................ ............ 35 Traditional versus Sustainable Construction ................................ .................... 35 Design and Disaster Proo f Buildings ................................ ................................ 38 Building to More Stringent Code ................................ ................................ ....... 40 Case Study: Hurricane Katrina ................................ ................................ ............... 41 Events ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 41 Louisiana Architecture ................................ ................................ ...................... 43

PAGE 6

6 Reconstruction Process ................................ ................................ .................... 44 New Orleans Recovery ................................ ................................ ..................... 46 Make it Right ................................ ................................ .............................. 48 Global Green USA ................................ ................................ ..................... 49 Neighborhood Empowerment Network Association ................................ ... 49 Rebuilding Together ................................ ................................ ................... 50 Habitat for Humanity ................................ ................................ .................. 50 Analysis Tools ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 51 Geographic Information Systems ................................ ................................ ..... 51 Building Code ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 53 The Florida Building Code: Hurricane Andrew ................................ ........... 53 The International Residential Code: Hurricane Katrina .............................. 54 Sustainable Metrics ................................ ................................ .......................... 55 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design ................................ ...... 55 Florida Green Building Coaliti on ................................ ................................ 57 Green Globes ................................ ................................ ............................. 58 Quality Modeling ................................ ................................ ............................... 58 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 60 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 60 Process ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 60 Investigation of the Neighborhoods ................................ ................................ .. 62 Neighborhood selection ................................ ................................ ............. 63 Geographical information systems research ................................ .............. 65 New Orleans field study ................................ ................................ ............. 67 Develop Analysis Tools ................................ ................................ .................... 68 Define building envelope ................................ ................................ ............ 68 Review the Florida Building Code ................................ .............................. 69 Develop field study form ................................ ................................ ............ 71 Review sustainable metrics and develop sustainable index ...................... 71 Trend Analysis evaluation matrix ................................ ............................... 72 Life Cycle Cost analysis ................................ ................................ ............. 73 Quality modeling ................................ ................................ ........................ 74 Comparison: quality model and neighborhood field study .......................... 77 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 78 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 78 New Orleans Field Study ................................ ................................ ........................ 78 Navarre ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 78 Roof ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 79 Walls ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 80 Foundation ................................ ................................ ................................ 80 Lakeview ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 81 Roof ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 82 Walls ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 2

PAGE 7

7 Foundation ................................ ................................ ................................ 83 Gentilly Terrace ................................ ................................ ................................ 84 Roof ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 85 Walls ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 85 Foundation ................................ ................................ ................................ 86 Saint Claude ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 87 Roof ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 87 Walls ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 88 Foundation ................................ ................................ ................................ 89 Lower Ninth Ward ................................ ................................ ............................. 89 Roof ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 90 Walls ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 91 Foundation ................................ ................................ ................................ 92 Holy Cross ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 92 Roof ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 93 Walls ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 94 Foundation ................................ ................................ ................................ 94 Sustainable Index ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 95 Life Cycle Cost ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 97 Roof Systems ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 97 Exterior Walls ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 98 Foundation Systems ................................ ................................ ......................... 99 Quality Modeling ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 101 Comparison: Quality Model and Neighborhood Field Study ................................ 103 Navarre ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 103 Lakeview ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 103 Gentilly Terrace ................................ ................................ .............................. 104 Saint Claude ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 104 Lower Ninth Ward ................................ ................................ ........................... 104 Holy Cross ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 105 New Orleans as a Whole ................................ ................................ ................ 105 5 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 106 Factors In Decision Making ................................ ................................ .................. 106 Rapid Recovery Versus Productive Reconstruction ................................ ............. 107 Overall Process ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 108 Further Research ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 108 APPENDIX A BUILDING CODE ANALYSIS ................................ ................................ ............... 110 B SUSTAINABLE METRICS ANALYSIS ................................ ................................ .. 111 C LOUISIANA HOUSE SURVEY FORM ................................ ................................ .. 112

PAGE 8

8 D GIS NEIGHBORHOOD REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......... 113 E FIELD STUDY IMAGES ................................ ................................ ........................ 118 F NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY RESULTS ................................ ............................... 122 G SUSTAINABILITY INDEX ................................ ................................ ..................... 125 H LIFE CYCLE COSTS ................................ ................................ ............................ 126 I QUALITY MODELS ................................ ................................ .............................. 128 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 131 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 138

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Neighborhood street bou ndaries for field study ................................ .................. 65 3 2 Exterior elements from Florida Building Code: roofs ................................ .......... 70 3 3 Exterior elements from Florida Building Code: exterior walls .............................. 70 3 4 Exterior elements from Florida Building Code: foundations ................................ 71 3 5 A dditional envelope elements ................................ ................................ ............. 71

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3 1 Methodology flow chart ................................ ................................ ....................... 61 3 2 Map of New Orleans Parish with selected neighborhoods. ................................ 64 3 3 Series of images of the New Orleans neighborhood Holy Cross ........................ 66 3 4 FAST diagram for the exterior envelope ................................ ............................. 74 3 5 Characteristics for quality modeling ................................ ................................ .... 75 4 1 Two houses in the Navarre neighborhood ................................ .......................... 79 4 2 Navarre roof type and material results ................................ ................................ 79 4 3 Navarre exterior wall material results ................................ ................................ 80 4 4 Navarre foundation type and material results ................................ ..................... 81 4 5 Two houses in the Lakeview n eighborhood ................................ ........................ 81 4 6 Lakeview roof type and material results ................................ ............................. 82 4 7 Lakeview exterior wall material results ................................ ............................... 83 4 8 Lakeview foundation type and material results ................................ ................... 84 4 9 Houses from the Gentilly Terrace neighborhood ................................ ................ 84 4 10 Gentilly Terrace roof typ e and material results ................................ ................... 85 4 11 Gentilly Terrace exterior wall material results ................................ ..................... 86 4 12 Gentilly Terrace foundation type and material results ................................ ......... 86 4 13 Saint Claude houses. ................................ ................................ ......................... 87 4 14 Saint Claude roof type and material results ................................ ........................ 88 4 15 Saint Claude exterior wall material results ................................ .......................... 88 4 16 Saint Claude foundation type and material results ................................ ............. 89 4 17 Houses in the Lower Ninth Ward ................................ ................................ ........ 90 4 18 Lower Ninth Ward roof type and ma terial results ................................ ................ 91

PAGE 11

11 4 19 Lower Ninth Ward exterior wall material results ................................ .................. 91 4 20 Lower Ninth Ward foundation type and material results ................................ ..... 92 4 21 Holy Cross houses ................................ ................................ ............................. 93 4 22 Holy Cross foundation type and material results ................................ ................ 93 4 23 Holy Cross exterior wall material results ................................ ............................. 94 4 24 Holy Cross foundation type and material results ................................ ................ 95 4 25 Sustainable Index points by exterior envelope elements ................................ .... 96 4 26 Life Cycle Cost roof results ................................ ................................ ................. 98 4 27 Life Cycle Cost exterior wall results ................................ ................................ .... 99 4 28 Life Cycle Cost foundation results ................................ ................................ .... 100 D 1 Series of images of the New Orleans neighborhood Navarre ........................... 113 D 2 Series of images of the New Orleans neighborhood Lakeview ........................ 114 D 3 Se ries of images of the New Orleans neighborhood Gentilly Terrace .............. 115 D 4 Series of images of the New Orleans neighborhood Saint Claude ................... 116 D 5 Series of images of the New Orleans neighborhood the Lower Ninth Ward ..... 117 E 1 Images from the field study of the Lower Ninth Ward ................................ ....... 118 E 2 Images from the field study of the Navarre neighborhood ................................ 119 E 3 Images from the field study of the Lakeview and Gentilly Terrace neighborhoods ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 120 E 4 Images from the field study of the Gentilly Terrace, Saint Claude and Holy Cross neighborhoods ................................ ................................ ....................... 121

PAGE 12

12 LIST OF T ERMS Blig ht A deteriorated condition Building Envelope The entire volume of a building enclosed by the roof, walls, and foundation. Properly designed the envelope can minimize the gain or loss of heat and moisture First Cost The initial money required to take a material from purchase through installation. This includes actual price of material, shipping or delivery, labor and supplies to install and any inspections Floodplain Any land area susceptible to being inundated by floodwaters from any source Green Building A design, usually architectural, conforming to environmentally sound principles of building, material and energy use. A green building, for example, might make use of solar panels, skylights and recycled building materials Hierarchy of Needs needs. A level may not be attempted until the levels below it are attainted. The lev els are: physiological, safety, belonging and love, esteem and self actualization Hurricane An intense tropical weather system of strong thunderstorms with a well defined surface circulation and maximum sustained winds of 74 MPH (64 knots) or higher Life Cycle Cost The total cost to erect and maintain a structure for a given life period, including initial, maintenance and replacement costs Storm Surge A dome of water pushed onshore by hurricane and tropical storm winds. Storm surges can reach 25 feet high and be 50 1000 miles wide Sustainability Practices that would ensure the continued viability of a product or practice well into the future Vernacular R elating to, or characteristic of a period, place, group, or being the common building styl e of a period or place Wind Speed Wind speed is the measure motion of the air with respect to the surface of the earth covering a unit distance over a unit time

PAGE 13

13 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Flor ida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction EVALUATING SUSTAINABLE DESIGN IN POST HURRICANE KATRINA HOUSING By Rachel Compton December 2011 Chair: James Sullivan Cochair: Robert Ries Major: Building Construction Hurricane Katrina battered the G ulf Coast in 2005 inflicting an unprecedente d a m ou n t of damage in her wak e, leaving life long residents of New Orleans homeless and effectively submerging a beloved city. For a time following the storm, flurries of committees, organizations and councils attempted to plan how the city would collectively be rebuilt. While the initial plans focused on the success ful recovery of the city as a whole, the reality is that in the last five years the different neighborhoods have each rebuilt in their own way and their own time. This study surveys six New Orleans neighborhoods that endured the worst of the flooding and analyzes the recovery through a photographic field study of the exterior envelope f ocus ing on the existence of sustainable elements From there, a variety of analytical tools were developed and utilized to synthesize the information gathered to identify the material selections. Sustainability, life cycle cost, durability and historical vernacular were some of the characteristics identified in the quality modeling as factors that impacted the final decision making process. Quantifying physical characteristics allow ed neighborhoods to be compared to each other and to an ideal model.

PAGE 14

14 S uccessful reconstruction of a region after a natural disaster is d ependent o n the exactly as it was with the necessity to thoughtfully analyze the problems that the storm revealed and ma ke the appropriate adjustments. This study aimed t o provide some connection to the different factors in the decision making process.

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUC TION On August 29, 2005 Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast and altered not only the lives of hundreds of thousands of Louisiana residents, but the dozens of industries that respond to communities after disasters have struck. One storm changed the way a city operates, a state governs and a nation responds to natural disasters. The scope of the issues that must still be addressed, six years later, are extensive and overwhelming. A disaster is a sudden calamitous event bring ing great damage, loss, or Merriam Webster 2011). Disasters can be either natural or man made, but regardless, develop in the same basic stages: creation of a hazard, activation of hazard (disaster), aftermath where, through chain reaction, several additional systems may fail (McDonald 2003 ). The appropriate reactions to these stages are: preparedness, mitigation (anything that lessens the damaging effects) and both short and long term recovery management (McDonald 2003). The most difficult issue with disaster relief and reconstruction is that the process is multi faceted; therefore it is challenging to see each intricate part without losing sight of the whole picture. Supporting this pr emise, the following quote was written specifically about New Orleans post rehabilitation and improvement of the New Orleans Flood Defense System need to be addressed in an integrated way combining public and social, organizational and institutional, natural and environmental, and commercial and industrial considerations. ple facets, as related to design and construction are largely varied in topic, but when viewed together begin to piece

PAGE 16

16 together the whole picture of the role of sustainable design and construction in disaster relief. As more and more natural disasters occ ur there is an imminent need to evaluate how the reconstruction phase is handled and whether different procedures and practices would prove more beneficial to individual residents. Hurricane Katrina damaged an entire region of the United States, but the ef fects were felt on an individual level, by the people whose homes were lost, businesses destroyed, and loved ones separated. It is appropriate to analyze the impacts of a hurricane on the personal level, within the scope of the larger problem. The issues of an entire city or state are difficult to tackle, but the problems of one person, one neighborhood are manageable. New Orleans will not be rebuilt by forcing an entire city to accept new methods of construction, zoning and building codes, but rather by convincing one person at a time of the benefits of change. Problem Statement When a natural disaster of monstrous proportions occurs, there are typically two responses. Some are paralyzed by the sheer amount of work to be done, trying to wrap their head around the best possible solution while others react immediately, figuring that any solution is better than none at all. The opportunity to re evaluate the collective built environment in a region also provides the chance to incorporate sustainable measur es and practices into an y recovery and reconstruction. Sustainability may come in the form of environmentally friendly or local materials, sustainable construction practices, or incorporating measures that increase the durability and longevity of a struct ure. In the case of New Orleans post Katrina s ome neighborhoods were rebuilt so quickly that the lessons that needed to be learned from the storm were not, and should another storm

PAGE 17

17 strike, similar results will ensue. Other areas still sit in ruins, patiently awaiting the consensus of government officials and offices on the best practices for reconstruction. Research Objectives This study will analyze the areas of New Orleans that have been reconstructed with the intent of identifying the outcomes of design decisions. A photographic survey will provide evidence of the individual envelope systems and materials chosen Further, analysis of the building code and typical product information will allow for Life Cycle Cost Analysis to determine if a specific factor such as first cost hurricane readiness or sustainability was the underlying reason for the decision. Each of the different construction systems will then be compared to the hurricane provisions in the bui lding code and a sustainability index, with the intention of identifying if the best option for the region was chosen, or if a more suitable choice should have been selected. This will be accomplished by comparing the most frequently occurring systems in each specific With this information, the neighborhoods may then be compared to one another in terms of the overall success of reconstruction and how the individual resident s are recovering Significance The studies found on the topic of Hurricane Katrina and the New Orleans responses have predominately each focused on one portion of the recovery process be it population displacement, the reconstruction of one neighborhood o r house, or the hurricane requirements for building materials. This study attempts to bridge th e gap by viewing t he problem not a s a segmented one, but rather as a comprehensive and complicated one weaving between industries, genres, generations and soci al classes. The answers must do the same.

PAGE 18

18 Of the Place New Orleans is a city steeped in tradition and history, proud of who it is and how it got there. The city itself is built like a tapestry, with centuries of layers woven together to give it the cha ra cter it is widely known for. M any of its residents have lived there for their entire lives ; their families for generations. For the recovery process to be deemed successful, it must respect the history of the buildings, the city structure and the methods that the residents use to interact amongst themselves. neighborhoods were the setting where New Orleanians defined their identity, developed Of the Storm A city going through the massive reconstruction that Hurricane Katrina necessitated cannot help but have some threat of a crisis of identity. The ability to update and enhance the problematic features of the city threatens to alter its personality perman ently, as does the input of individuals from across the country, with their own opinions on the best methods to enhance the built environment. This study looks at a variety of neighborhoods in the New Orleans Parish, some of which have been reconstructed w ith only local assistance, others with national involvement. It should become apparent through the analysis which areas have further development. Limitations The scope of thi s study limits research to general topics concerning natural disaster recovery and reconstruction, with a specific focus on hurricanes. The only disaster thoroughly dissected and analyzed was Hurricane Katrina, while New Orleans,

PAGE 19

19 Louisiana was the only im pacted city reviewed in person. For research purposes, Hurricane Andrew was referenced in relation to the building code. For the purposes of this study, the Florida Building Code was used exclusively to not only set the standard for hurricane readiness b ut also as the criteria against which the New Orleans residences were compared. The reasoning for this is two fold. Firstly, as discussed below, the building codes in the United States are not nationally ratified, but rather determined and enforced on a city, county or state level. Louisiana does not enforce building codes statewide, which presented a problem since the focus zone was the greater New Orleans area. Secondly, since this study is only concerned with the building code in relation to hurrican e readiness, Florida is widely considered the strictest code concerning hurricanes. Reasoning followed that using it as the comparison benchmark would provide recommendations for building systems that would most hopefully hold up in future storms.

PAGE 20

20 CHAPT ER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Overview The purpose of this study is to conduct an analysis on the exterior envelope of residences in an effort to identify sustainable measures implemented after a natural disaster The background information needed to ac complish such an act is vast an d covers a variety of subject areas. The following review of the literature encompasses : Types of natural disasters and the potential impacts on the built environment Individual response to natural disasters including population disp lacement, new and restorative construction, preserving history and insurance Potential impacts on the construction industry such as a comparison of sustainable construction and sustainable design, the differences between traditional and sustainable constru ction designing disaster proof buildings and the necessities of building to a more stringent building code A case study of New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina, specifically focusing on the events of the storm, Louisiana architecture and the reconstruction r esponse to date The span of analytical tools that were utilized in the methodology to execute the field study and subsequent analysis Each section of the literature review was compiled for its relevance not only to natural disaster recovery, but for the Ne w Orleans area. Not all sections were explicitly related to sustainability, but in those instances the relation was noted and the connection identified. Types of Disasters As the built environment increases in complexity, so must the measures necessary to ensure the safety of the occupants in all weather situations. For the purpose of this

PAGE 21

21 hydrological (hurric anes) geological (earthquakes) and meteorological (tornadoes). Hurricanes are low pressure systems that form into tropical cyclones in the western hemisphere (cyclones in the eastern hemisphere are referred to as typhoons) (FEMA 2011). These storms occur close to the equator, in warm, tropical waters and are classified into five categories depending on wind speed, damage potential and central pressure (FEMA 2011). Hurricanes only occur in the Atlantic during a specific time of the year (June to November) when ideal conditions for the storms exist and are named for easy identification (McDonald 2003). These conditions include warm, humid ocean air evaporation, convergence of surface and high altitude winds, and the difference in surface and high altitude wind pressure (McDonald 200 3 ). The threats of a hurricane include flooding, tornados, storm surge and high wind speed (reaching up to 155+). Hurricanes that are generated north of the equator have an eye that spins counter clockwise, with wind bands that spin opposite. The factors of destructiveness are wind speed and storm surge, while the extent of damage is dependent on the angle the hurricane hits, the strength of the storm when it makes landfall and the side of the hurricane that comes ashore first (the right side of the storm is significantly stronger) (McDonald 2003). The threats of a hurricane include flooding, tornados, storm surge and high wind speed (reaching up to 155+). Earthquakes are defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2011). This movement occurs along faults, or cracks in the crust and releases energy that causes seismic waves, or vibrations (FEMA 2011). The earthquake itself can last

PAGE 22

22 fr om seconds to several minutes and occur year round. They are a result of the release of the stress that builds as a result of the friction between tectonic plates that attempt to m agnitudes on the Richter scale, from one to ten. An earthquake that measures a five on the scale will begin to cause damage to infrastructure (Richter Magnitude Scale 2011). People can be impacted in a multitude of ways: landslide, surface faulting, tsun logged soils temporarily lose flash floods (FEMA 2011). Tornados are the most violent of natural storms and occur wi th little to no warning. They are typically the result of thunderstorms, but may also accompany hurricanes. Winds can reach up to 300 mph and strike land arbitrarily, with a path that can reach one mile wide and fifty miles long (FEMA 2011). Tornados ty pically strike the middle of the eastern United States, in an area that is referred to as Tornado Alley. Th e only type of natural disaster addressed in this study will be hurricanes, specifically Hurricane Katrina. The purpose of examining other instances of natural disasters is to provide evidence of one simple fact: out of all types mentioned above, hurr icanes are the only instance when residents have warning. Not only can the National Weather Service provide a rather predictable path of destruction, but mathematics allows for the severity of the storm to be predicted prior to impact. As with all scienc es, nothing is guaranteed and hurricanes have in certain instances acted contrary to the norm, but the window of warning allows for preemptive measures to be

PAGE 23

23 taken to ensure the safety of the population and the survival of code compliant infrastructure. Additionally, the discussion s of earthquakes and tornadoes provide a frame of reference for the intensity of the scientific elements discussed in relation to hurricanes. Architects and construction managers have managed over time to develop methods to pro tect the built environment from the elements of tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes. Ideas generated to solve earthquake and tornado issues may be adapted to work for to make shelters more conducive to surviving hurricanes, which in turn makes them more durable and in some instances, sustainable Consequences of Hurricanes Flooding Flooding is one of the major dangers associated with hurricanes. Not only can the water present a danger of drowning, contaminated water spreads disease and destroys physical property. Flooding can be caused by a variety of means: hurricanes, melting snow, tidal activity and dams (or levees) breaking (McDonald 2003) and can occur either by slowly building up, or in a flash flood (FEMA 2011). Flash floods are defined by the F wall of roaring water that carries rocks, mud, and other debris and can sweep away breach in a water management system (like a dam or a levee) (FEMA 2011). Floods are the most frequently occurring natural hazard (FEMA 2011) and account for the most damage and highest death toll (McDonald 2003). All regions are at risk of floods, although the sev erity of the floods is determined by several factors: amount of water, absorbency of land, flood relief systems, presence of levees and dams, and

PAGE 24

24 excessive water occurring along the coastline (McDonald 2003). Damage to buildings can be created by mud and water residue, and unless properly air dried, mold can spread quickly and is only removable by replacing the impacted section of a structure. Two methods exist to protect structures from flood damage: dry proofing and wet proofing. Measures taken to keep water out of a building are considered dry proofing, while wet proofing aims to improve the ability of building components to withstand the effects of water (McDonald 2003). Wind Wind is the constant movement of air between high and low pressure areas (Mc Donald 2003). Wind by itself does not typically result in large scale damage, but the wind that is generated from hurricanes can create tornadoes as the storm makes wind on structures include pressure and suction on roofs and walls, lateral pressure on solid and framed walls and uplift forces on foundations (McDonald 2003). Wind da mage during hurricanes can often be avoided by following the most recent building code and paying additional attention to the fixings and fastening details (McDonald 2003). Impacts on the Individuals The research revealed that information relatin g to disaster relief and construction has been gathered and presented in two scopes: that of the individual and that of the industry. The aftermath of the disasters happens to people houses are destroyed, jobs suspended or eliminated and years of work ar e needed to restore the dynamics and character of an area.

PAGE 25

25 Effects on Population and the Built Environment r and permanent housing that is often overlooked (Levine et al, 2007). Post Katrina it became apparent that at times victims will have to recover far from the disaster site which can lead to greater feelings of displacement (Levine et al, 2007). Addition ally, each state is responsible for their own laws relating to emergency plans, which creates a wide disparity when trying to establish a universal plan for disaster management (Levine et al, 2007). Temporary housing is another concern when it comes to hur ricane recovery and reconstruction. Traditionally, temporary housing consisted of trailers, which leave residents vulnerable in the instance of an additional storm. Hurricanes are occurring more frequently and with more strength Reports indicate that t he losses suffered in the United States in the last twenty years are on the same scale as underdeveloped countries (Levine et al, 2007). The reality is that more people are displaced with each storm, and the desire for safe, quickly assembled housing has become a pressing necessity. The Katrina Cottage was established in 2006 as a small shelter that was strong enough to withstand hurricane strength winds, portable enough to reside on the owners land while the reconstruction occurred, and had the ability t o be repurposed as a guest house once recovery was complete (Levine et al 2007). Initially, the house was rejected by FEMA as a result of the potential permanency of the structure, until the decision was overturned by Congress (Levine et al 2007). The b uilt environment has a documented impact in the emotional and physical well being of an individual (Kopec 2006). A residence meets both physiological and

PAGE 26

26 safety needs in which are considered the most basic of needs (Kopec 2006 ). Interestingly, humans are notorious for forming emotional attachment to physical structures as well as the safety and security they provide (Kopec provides a sense of connect ion to other people, our pasts and our futures; provides both physical and symbolic warmth and safety ; and is physically suitable for our physical built environment and the ultimate impact of this interaction is known as environmental psychology. One theory that is applicable in the context of natural disasters is the interactional theory, which promotes that people and the environment are two individual entities that const antly interact with one another, while the organismic theory contends particular b ehaviors (Kopec 2006). People, who have been displaced by a natural disaster, tend to migrate as a Smith 2006). A tremendous amount of the population of New Orleans w as forced to temporarily relocate, but as of early 2011, the population was still down almost 30% from pre Katrina census numbers ( Saenz 2011). Many of the residents who have returned waited until 2009, when businesses began to reopen ( Saenz 2011). Two o f the concerns of planners and policy makers are that the return of residents prior to an executable city redevelopment plan will result in urban sprawl and premature re growth (Levine et at, 2007). Both of these issues can result in structures being buil t on ground

PAGE 27

27 that does not meet code requirements or in areas where the general infrastructure is already stressed (Levine et al 2007). The impact of these two factors is felt in more than just the built environment. One recommendation of Levine is to pr ioritize keeping communities together, to ensure that their social and economic networks remain intact (Levine et al, 2007). When analyzing the causation and end results of a natural disaster, it is easy to look only to the physical aspects of a region tha t fail. In the instance of Katrina, this would be the line of thought that the hurricane caused flooding, which breached the levees, thereby flooding the city and displacing residents. The problem that results from this type of thinking is that it ignore s the social issues that are magnified in times of involve the intersection of the physical process of a hazard agent with the local characteristics of everyday life in a pl ace and larger social and economic forces that Bolin 1998 ). In Hurricane Katrina this theory manifested itself in the disproportionate amount of rental and low income housing that was severely damaged or destroyed and the number of e lderly that lost their lives as a result of lacking the means to evacuate (Finch et al, 2010). For the purposes of this paper, the investigation will focus on the physical ramifications of the hurricane, but it would be remiss not to acknowledge that socia l factors contributed not only to the damage sustained but also to the pace with which the reconstruction efforts were executed. Insurance Perhaps one of the most worrisome aspects of dealing with the aftermath of natural disasters and reconstruction is th at of insurance. In recent years, the surge in

PAGE 28

28 disasters has all but decimated the insurance industry, leaving individuals unable to through Long Term Insurance and Mitig insurance is going through and offers some solutions and insights into ways to benefit both the industry and the individual alike. Prior to the 90s, the insurance industry averaged an annual payout of $4 billion rela ting to natural disasters (Kunreuther 2008). Katrina alone cost the industry an estimated $46 billion, while the four hurricanes that hit Florida in 2004 cost $33 billion (Kunreuther 2008). Hurricanes present a unique issue for both the insurance industry and the owner of the damaged property. Damage inflicted by hurricane wind is covered under the insurance is available through the National Flood Insurance program, which i s coordinated by FEMA (Pasterick 1998). Congress manages the insurance rates, but some restrictions do apply, such as the development of community flood maps and the enforcement of minimum building codes (Pasterick 1998). NFIP covers both coastal and rive rine floodplains, and offers reduced rates to communities that comply with additional protection and mitigation guidelines (Schwab et al, 1998). The article offers two factors for why the losses have seemingly increased so drastically: the degree of urbani zation (developing Florida for retirees) and value at risk seismic building codes were adopted and enforced and if individuals took protective measures in advance of possible di Kunreuther 1998). The insurance industry has had a difficult time convincing residents in disaster prone regions of the benefits of

PAGE 29

29 mitigation, due in part by the belief of residents that they themselves will not be the victims of this type of s ituation (Kunreuther 2008). In the case of New Orleans, many of the areas most drastically affected were in rent prominent neighborhoods. Most often the decision to insure or not, and to use mitigation measures or not is the product of balancing the anti cipated benefits with definite costs (Pasterick 1998). Individual beliefs and additional factors (probability, cost, lack of knowledge) contribute to individuals not analyzing the cost benefits of precautionary measures (Pasterick 1998). The recent influ x of severe storms has put strain both on insurers and residents. Some companies are experiencing difficulty recouping their losses, thereby increasing their costs and standards, making it more difficult for residents to qualify and afford insurance (Kunr euther 1998). The most plausible solution offered by Kunreuther is that of long term homeowners insurance, which would operate similar to a mortgage and be attached to the property rather than the occupant, allowing for transfers as necessary (2008). The bottom line is that if natural disasters continue with the intensity and devastation that has occurred in the last decade, then the insurance industry will have to make some changes to be able to continue to offer coverage to residents in high risk areas ( Kunreuther, 2008). New and Restorative Construction Many factors are involved in reconstructing a community after a natural disaster and often the focus is on action, progress, and getting things accomplished that the most important factor is forgotten: th e people. When focusing on the big picture, it is easy to forget that the picture is made up of thousands of individual lives, lives that will

PAGE 30

30 and Communities: Putting t involving community residents in the planning process (Miller, Pollack and Williams might be especially key fo r socially disadvantaged individuals, who have few opportunities to weigh in on such matters and cannot prevent undesirable events or specifically to socially disadvantaged i ndividuals, it is reasonable to make the connection to recent victims of natural disasters who have also lost a sense of control over their surroundings. The act of participating in the reconstruction allows for some normalcy to return. Often times, the individual will provide a better perspective on the importance of issues and be able to clarify for officials where the reconstruction focus should be directed. The issue of who to blame when buildings fail is complex and impossible to determine. Many fac tors enter into why a building fails and many different companies and entities participate in the construction of a city. Some individuals believe that it is not productive to access blame and while that is often true, it can in fact be a useful exercise engineering, but many of the conclusions the author arrived at are applicable to all parties inv olved in construction (Luegenbiehl 2007) Reviewing the parts of a project that failed often generate the most creative solutions to fix the problem, because the urgency that something different must be done spurs out of the box thinking (Luegenbiehl 2007

PAGE 31

31 about the physical structure, especially when rebuilding an area that has been lost; political, historical and cultural factors also need to be taken into account (Luegenbiehl 2007 ). Sustainability can be a factor in both new and restorative construction New construction projects provide ample opportunity to incorporate structural systems, material finishes and construction site practices that promote green design and a healthier environment. In contrast, restoring solidly built structures to increase their durability and longevity is another form of sustainability that will be further reviewed in the following section on historic preservation. Preservation of Historic Architectur e One component that must be considered when deciding between new and restorative construction is that of the historical significance of the site(s) in question. Historic preservation is defined by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) (201 conjunction with the governor appointed State Historic Preservation Officers, who are responsible for main taining the National Register of Historic Places (ACHP 2009). Historic buildings are particularly susceptible to damage caused by hurricanes. The force of the storm can weaken the structure, alter the ground conditions and morphologically alter the buildi ng materials (McDonald 200 3 ). Damage from floods can exist in four different forms: standing water results in mud residue and dampness inside the building, sudden bursts of water can result in mechanical damage, flowing water can carry foreign objects suc h as debris and oil inside and sea and brackish water often results in salt damage (McDonald 2003). The high speed winds associated with

PAGE 32

32 hurricanes can inflict roof damage by suctioning off the roof, or increasing pressure on the interior until the buildi ng in essence, explodes (McDonald 2003). The damages just mentioned are similar to the damage inflicted on a modern structure, the difference with a historic building lies in how it must be repaired. Typical modernizations can potentially compromise the structure of a historic building, but some measures can be taken to strengthen the building prior to a disaster including: underpinning foundations, increasing ties on roof, foundation and exterior walls, and strapping structural members (McDonald 2003). H istoric preservation is a critical issue to consider when reviewing the reaction and recovery of New Orleans post Katrina. The city has long been known for its unique architecture and city ambiance, a testament to the original roots of the first settlers. Louisiana was the first American region to explore the variations of the shotgun house that it is now synonymous with The specifics of the architecture will be discussed later, but it is important to note here that the late 19 th and early 20 th century architecture is as beloved and closely associated with the city as any of its other festivities. storm, the New Orleans mayor suspended the authority of Historic District Landmark s Commission, thereby allowing thousands of buildings in the historic district to be demolished without the proper review (Verderber 2009). In 2008 the city passed an health ordinance is understandable, however it seems that the precautionary thirty day waiting

PAGE 33

33 period necessary to discourage the abuse of the ordinance was not enforced (Verderber 2009) Impacts on the Construction Industry While the aftermath of the disaster impacts the individual, it is the industry that is responsible for putting the pieces back together. The re cent increase in yearly natural disasters as well as the global push for sustainability forced players in the construction industry to re examine their practices and methods in hopes of refining their processes for the benefit of both the companies and the individuals. Sustainable Construction v ersus Sustainable Design The differences between sustainable construction and sustainable design are subtle; sustainable construction deals with the methods, materials and processes that are involved in the physical construction of a structure while sustainable design occurs in the planning of the structure. This definition is based primarily on the pre determined responsibilities of designers and construction managers. That said, each party impacts the sustainabili matter, energy and process to meet a perceived need or desire. It is the hinge that inevit ably connects culture and nature through exchanges of materials, flows of energy and choices of land use. In many ways the environmental crisis is a design crisis. It is a consequence of how things are made, buildings are constructed and landscapes are u For the purposes of this paper, sustainability is typically thought of as environmentally friendly measures or systems that are installed on or into the building. In a broader sense, sustainability can also be thought of as the potential longevity of a

PAGE 34

34 disaster Okada 2007). Integrated d esign The difficulty of di stinguishing between sustainable construction and design is telling in itself. The responsibilities for these two processes have been split for decades, to the detriment of the built environment. Construction and design are both necessary to create one c ohesive building, which is difficult to accomplish when all participants are not on the same page. The green building movement has brought with it a resurgence of integrated design. Sustainability is accomplished by utilizing opportunities in buildings t most significant challenge to delivering a financially successful green project is Anantatmula, 2011). When a team that represents all major components of the building, i.e. architecture, construction, engineering, landscape, interiors, ecology, finance, and business is compiled at the beginning of the design process, then issues can be worked out early, while the design i s evolving. Traditionally, the design of a building has followed a linear structure, where each discipline does their work and passes the project to the next person. An integrated approach allows the design process to work at its best: in a cyclical mann er where continuous iterations allow for Once all issues are resolved, the process can resume a linear process which works best in construction. This method of integrated design is quite possi

PAGE 35

35 Sustainable d esign One aspect of sustainable design that sets the tone for the entire project is the site selection and the decision whether o r not to incorporate vernac ular design features (Oktay 200 1 ). Historically, different regions across the United States developed traditional building methods (also known as vernacular architecture) that responded successfully to the specific climactic con ditions that the region had to contend with (Oktay 200 1 ). Specific elements that relate to vernacular design include: aesthetics, over shading, self shading, vegetation, pollution and po sitioning of the sun (Oktay 200 1 ). Design should always relate first to the user and the environment because Pena 2002). Well designed buildings have been cited with increasing productivity and the general health of the users, thereby impac ting both the physical and psychological needs of humans (Van der Ryn and Pena 2002). Sustainable c onstruction Many sustainable construction techniques were mentioned in the previous section on traditional versus sustainable construction. In addition to the sustainable materials that were mentioned above, there are also sustainable practices (or ways to perform the construction without negatively impacting the environment) that may be implemented (Robichaud and Anantatmula 2011). Sustainable construction practices can reduce energy consumption and lessen the disturbance made to the natural systems that exist on and around the site (Robichaud and Anantatmula 2011). Tr aditional v ersus Sustainable Construction and maintaining a healthy built

PAGE 36

36 ways to build sustainably is by using alternative materials. Not only do buildings e also responsible for 40% of the processing of raw materials (Swan et al, 2011). Examples of alternative materials include straw bales, earthen construction and precast concrete. Both straw bales and earthen construction utilize material resources that are historically sound and the by product of another process (Swan et al, 2011). The main hindrance to these methods is public perception. As a result of ignorance, these methods are believed to produce inferior structures. This opinion can be changed b y the inclusion of these techniques in building codes (Swan et al, 2011). The instances in which alternative materials are applied are not always readily available but these unconventional materials may offer the increased structure necessary to withstan d storms, thereby increasing sustainability two fold: in the material itself, as well as in the longevity of the building. Precast concrete is an alternative to cement block that reduces the amount of waste generated by the project (Baldwin et al, 2009), s hortened construction time, increases productivity and improves safety records (Chen et al, 2010 ). Panels are cast in a factory and then transported to the building site. Precast panels are less labor intensive than traditional materials, allow for better quality control, are safer to produce, and allow for more intricate detail to be used (Baldwin et al, 2009). Downsides to this option are longer lead times and higher costs for smaller projects (Baldwin et al, 2009). Sustainable construction includes mor e than just the materials that are used in the structure. The construction and material industries often only look to the final product to occur before that final real ization. Emergy is a term used in construction ecology that

PAGE 37

37 Significant amounts of emergy are required to concentrate fossil fuels and no n renewable resources that are used to expand the built environment (Odum 2002). When working with emergy, the amount of energy used to extract, refine and transport materials to a construction site must be taken into consideration, which encourages a mor e holistic Utilizing local materials reduces emissions and the costs associated with transportation, but the materials are more likely to have be en harvested locally and be more apt to endure region specific weather con ditions ; vernacular architecture is a useful indicator of which materials are the best choices (Morel et al, 2001). Earthen construction was mentioned previously, as an alternative material choice. The structure can also be designed and built into the gr ound (this technique offers significant protection from natural disasters, such as hurricanes) with the earth being removed for the building utilized for the wall construction, therefore eliminating all waste and reducing costs (DOE 1997). Regardless of th e benefits to both occupants and the environment, sustainable construction is still dependent on the ability to be financially competitive when it comes to being chosen over traditional construction methods. Sustainability is often thought of solely for i ts environmental impact, but industries must also incorporate economical, societal and personal implications (Berns et al, 2009). Three factors that might hinder the acceptance of sustainability in construction include: benefits are experienced long term and often there is no immediate return on investment, effects of sustainability are wide reaching, over multiple systems and industries and therefore difficult to forecast,

PAGE 38

38 and lastly impending changes in national practices and regulations make strategic p lanning difficult (Berns et al, 2009). The natural materials utilized in sustainable building and construction are often low in cost, bu t labor intensive to install (P ie pkorn 200 5 ). Additionally, sustainable building techniques often have a difficult time meeting current building codes, simply because there are not often provisions for alter native construction methods (P ie pkorn 2005). The International Code Council had developed a code that provides performance provisions as opposed to outlining all owed m ethods and techniques (P ie pkorn 2005). The final say in whether a method is allowed, though lies in the local government and enforcement office, which retains the right to require materials testing by accredited facilities as well as engineering studies ( P ie pkorn 2005). Design and Disaster Proof Buildings The idea of a disaster proof building is rather an oxymoron. Referencing the earthquake in Haiti (in 2010) that devastated the country and was responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, Sarada Sarm but we can make sure that they fail safely. We can pinpoint the damage in different parts of the structure for example, the columns should not fail, let the beams fail instead. If the beams fail, people will have three issues with the current building standard in relation to designing for disasters ( Guikema 2009). The first was an assumption that the s tandardized code has struck the proper balance between benefits and costs of different alternatives for multiple types of buildings (Guikema 2009). Secondly, design decisions should not include the life

PAGE 39

39 cycle impacts of certain systems, and lastly, that t he incorporation of natural systems would not add protection to a design (Guikema 2009). With the recent increase of natural disasters several industries that are impacted have responded. Products and technologies have been developed to increase the stren gth of structures, including everything from high impact roofs to impact resistant glass to installable safe rooms ( Queena 2004). One material that is experiencing scrutiny right now in relation to New Orleans is concrete (ENR 2006). Since the devastatio n of Hurricane Andrew, concrete has found a lucrative market in Florida homes and may be the affordable, safe option that Louisiana is looking for (ENR 2006). The material has undergone some scrutiny because it cannot duplicate the vernacular aesthetic t hat New Orleans is known for, but according to the Home Builders up safe, cost effective and up to code, our mission is to provide affordable, safe housing (ENR 2006). The only factor that might prove challenging in dealing with New Orleans is the foundations, since the soil is not ideal for concrete construction (ENR 2006). No building will be completely disaster proof, and unfortunately the building code h as not always been written to preemptively avoid structural failure more often than not the necessary changes to the code are implemented during the recovery and restoration period after a disaster. Truly designing a disaster proof house incorporates fac tors from all of the previously mentioned sections, selecting the best options from each industry and insuring that the systems all work together to prevent structural failure. The recent surge in natural disaster occurrences has spurred state

PAGE 40

40 governments to heighten building code minimums and insurance companies to brainstorm on the best ways to proceed without going bankrupt. Building to More Stringent Code When dealing with tornadoes, very little can be done in advance to build a building that can withs tand the force that will be exerted on it. However, with hurricanes and earthquakes designing to stricter building codes can help the structures to endure. In the past, the thought process has been to focus designing codes to everyday issues, rather than focus on things that have a one in a million chance of happening. When this approach is taken with the majority of decisions, though, the chances begin to compound and instead of being a chance, the breakdown becomes inevitable. This is what unfortunate ly happened with the levees in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. An article published just after Hurricane Ivan struck in 2004 addresses the issue of Louisiana being potentially vulnerable to damage The question that was posed was if stricter codes w ould in fact decrease amount of damage when a hurricane hit (Sawyer et al, 2004) With large storms reported to be occurring more frequently, officials are being required to not only look at the evacuation plans of communities but also how future construc tion techniques need to adapt and where limits should be placed on costal building (Sawyer et. al, 2004). The article, which was written prior to Hurricane project manager The problem that the levees presented was that they were in fact adequate for up to 95% of st orms, making it difficult to justify the time and expense to repair them before there was an imminent need (Sawyer et al, 2004) Florida building codes are currently

PAGE 41

41 considered the strictest code relating to hurricanes, and the buildings that are being bu ilt to that code are surviving the storms with manageable damage (Sawyer et. al, 2004). The older buildings that were built prior to the code update following Hurricane Andrew in 1992, however, are sustaining devastating damage (Sawyer et. al, 2004). Spec ific techniques for hurricanes that are requirements in the Florida Building Code include impact resistant doors, windows and walls, connectors that allow the load from the wind to travel from the roof to the ground, and exterior lighting that is made from laminated, tempered, toughened glass to prevent shattering (Hadhazy 2011). For tornados, safe rooms made of steel or concrete can decrease injuries and deaths (Hadhazy 2011). The same connectors that are required for Florida houses are also applicable f or houses in the region most frequented by tornados, Tornado Alley (and in earthquake zones) but are not required by the building codes (Hadhazy 2011). Building codes in California are among the most stringent (in relation to earthquakes), not only requir ing the connectors and reinforcing of columns, but in some instances utilizing what 2011). Case Study: Hurricane Katrina Events Hurricane Katrina is one example of a recent natural disaster that decimated a region. The direct property losses were estimated at $30 Billion with 78% of the losses in residential areas (Link 2010) and econo mic losses have topped hundreds of billions of dollars ( Petterson et al, 2006). Eighty percent of New Orleans was under water, many depths reaching 20 feet (NOAA 2005). Over 1700 people were killed and hundreds of thousands were displaced for extended per iods of time ( Petterson et al,

PAGE 42

42 2006). While the direct consequences of the hurricane were overwhelming, the indirect loss of cultural heritage, and dramatically altered physical, economic, political, social 2010). Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama on the morning of August 29 th 2005, fou r days after initial landfall on the southernmost part of the Florida peninsula (NOAA 2005). At its strongest, Katrina reached category 5 status, while moving across the Gulf of Mexico, but had been downgraded to a category 3 by the time it made its secon d landfall (NOAA 2005). The storms intensity has been compared to Hurricane Camille (the second strongest storm in history) in wind speed and central pressure, but Katrina spanned a greater distance in width, and therefore affected a larger area (NOAA 200 5). Storm surge varied from 11 to 34 feet and federal disaster declarations were made over 90,000 miles of four states ( Petterson et al. 2006). been discussed since Hurricane An drew struck Florida in the early 1990s. Since Katrina, a flurry of reports and studies has been commissioned to analyze a variety of issues. Experts have looked into everything from why the existing infrastructure failed to the disaster preparedness of a t risk cities to the impact of the population and displacement factors in the aftermath. Much of the research gathered for this paper is the direct result of this action.

PAGE 43

43 According to Heinz Luegenbiehl ( 2007) in reference to damage caused by Hurricane Ka is determinable, making such assessments fraught with uncertainty and the tendency to reported by the Independent Levee Investigation Team, include the hurricane itself, (Luegenbie hl 2007). The damage inflicted on the residential sectors of Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi was staggering. Areas that were most impacted were disproportionately low income, rental and elderly, as were the deaths ( Petterson et al. 2006). The reaction of FEMA was to house displaced persons temporarily in hotels, funded by the national government, but in February of 2006 nearly a quarter of those people were still without permanent housing ( Petterson et al. 2006). The results of an on site analysis of the damage to 27 houses by van de Lindt et al., after Katrina revealed that much of the structural damage by wind was the result of building codes not being met in regards to roof sheathing, exterior siding and connection details (2007). Louisiana Architec ture Architecture is important in New Orleans. The city has long been synonymous with picturesque streets lined with trees and wrought iron, an image that is very realistically in danger of being altered forever with the reconstruction of the city after H (Upton 2006). A city is defined by its relationships and the interactions t hat occur

PAGE 44

44 because of those connections, architecture may be thought of the same way (Upton 2006). In a comparative analysis of Creole architecture, Jay Edwards mentions that the record that is being remembered might be biased as a result of large and well built houses maintaining priority over being preserved over smaller, more numerous structures. This selective preservation of structures can result in the impression of a (Edwards 2006). The area was originally s ettled by the French, a connection that remains imperative to maintaining the true character of New Orleans and the surrounding cities ( Petterson et al, 2006). Until recently, the concept that the French settlers had adapted traditional architecture to ac climate to the Louisiana heat and humidity, but more recent work has connected existing structures to ones in the Caribbean islands, with the idea that thought that regional accommodations were actually made by those who came to America from West Africa (E dwards 2006). Reconstruction P rocess Reconstruction typically pits two different ideals and sets of goals against each other: the desire to finish rebuilding quickly, for the sake of the displaced residents now, and the need to evaluate the problems that led to the mass destruction of infrastructure and right the problem for the sake of the residents in the future (Olshansky et al, 2008). Arguments for which is more important can be made from both camps, but in most instances, a type of combination prevails a frenzied evaluation that leads to a cautious rebuild. The aforementioned categories represent a wide range of professions, skills and knowledge. Many different systems must be incorporated to successfully recover a easy to look at the historical data that clearly reveals that the

PAGE 45

45 component of the recovery/reconstruction process, but lack continuity and the flow of information nece ssary to ensure the programs work. One systemic approach that attempts to incorporate all aspects of the situation is referred to as disaster management or DM (Sagun et al, 200 9 based study on information flow and encourage the use of information and communication technologies to navigate through the standard three stage disaster mod el (Sagun et al, 200 9 ). These stages are specifically: preparedness, response and reco very. Architects/designers and construction managers play vital roles in both the pre and post di saster phases (Sagun et al, 200 9 ). Construction managers have always been involved in the post disaster or recovery phase, but the key to the disaster managem ent theory is their involvement in the preparation. The model 9 ) is the Intelligent Disaster Collaboration System which operates on three levels: local, regional and national, with the focus on three types of collaboration: to ols for detection, decision making, and resources for implementation. It is important to note that the construction industry can continue to refine their response and approach to recovery on their own, but regardless of how well the reconstruction of infr astructure goes, the success of the recovery will be based on the weakest system. Therefore method that allows for open communication and collaboration to help navigate all the channels of the recovery process.

PAGE 46

46 New Orleans Recovery The goal in disaster recovery is to at least replace all that has been lost and at best to take advantage of the opportunity to better some of the following concepts : disaster mitigation, urban design, existing infrastruct ure, political reform and economic and social equity (Olshansky et al, 2008). In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, planning organizations of all kinds emerged, each with a differing opinion on the next course of action (Barnett and Beckman 2006; Olshan sky et al, 2006). One particular plan was presented to the city and state government by the firm Wallace Roberts and Todd, LLC after being commissioned by the Mayor of New Orleans (Barnett and Beckman 2006). Their entire plan was comprehensive, covering city framework, mass transit, and flood protection, but in this instance, their neighborhood component held the neighborhood based planning process to address the different rebuil ding opportunities across the city over time to level the playing fields in terms of expertise and resources (Barnett and Beckman 2006). One of the most important things that this particular plan acknowledged was the fact that each of the affected neighborhoods was going to need to be addressed individually, with attention placed on their particular needs for recovery (Barnett and Beckman 2006). Regardless of the plans, put si can be measured by its quality (the degree to which it returns the area to a state equal to or better than before the disaster) and the speed with which this occurs (Olshansky et al, 2008). The damage caused by Hurricane Katrina w as unfortunately focused in areas of the city that were less influential and tended to be minority populated ( Barnett and

PAGE 47

47 Beckman 2006 ). This brought to light racial and social issues that had been previously ignored. One of the largest issues that resid ents had with the recovery process was the determination of which neighborhoods would receive the financial help of the within the most impoverished areas, such as the Lower Ninth Ward, where residents rented rather than owned and many properties did not have insurance (Lubell 2005; Petterson et al 2006 ). According to Ed Blakely, who was formerly in the forefront of it became important to addres s the ramifications of the broken window theory, which is simply the theory that crime is more common in neighborhoods edge in neighborhood restoration, and you d rebuilding principles that were goals of the reconstructionists in the months following Katrina: Create a single, comprehensive an d compelling plan that offers leadership to everyone involved in restoring and rebuilding Improve infrastructure Promote economic growth Enhance public services Promote a healthy environment and healthy people Plan and design communities that advance liva bility Of the six defined principles, the last two relate specifically to sustainability Utiliz ing sustainable practices for the built environment not only benefits the natural environment, but also encourages health in the building occupants. Materiali ty is one of

PAGE 48

48 the easiest ways to reduce a negative environmental impact. The other aspect of sustainability that has been discussed but is not always employed is longevity. A structure that endures over a longer period of time may reduce the environmenta l impact more than a building that requires a complete renovation, whether it uses sustainable materials and building systems or not. Much of the successful reconstruction efforts have been led by nongovernmental and other grass roots organizations, such a s: Habitat for Humanity, Make It Right, Global Green USA, Rebuilding Together, and the Neighborhood Empowerment Network Association (Olshansky et. al, 2008). Each organization has tackled the issues in New Orleans in different but inventive ways. Make it Right The Make it Right Foundation is the brain child of actor Brad Pitt (Kennedy 20 1 1). After touring the Lower Ninth Ward in 2007 and noting the lack of recovery and organizational involvement, he founded the organization to build 150 green houses (Mak e It Right 2009). Pitt approached leading architects, who donated their services by designing the houses and the foundation subsidizes the construction costs (Kennedy 2011). Measures were taken to make the houses as disaster resistant (specially engineer ed walls, storm fabric for windows, raised elevations and metal roofs, among others) and sustainable (photovolatics, low flow plumbing fixtures, rainwater harvesting and pervious concrete) as possible (Home Features and Materials 2009). The architects inc orporated vernacular architectural features including a shot gun floor plan, deep front porches and pitched roofs (Kennedy 2011). As of May 2011, eighty of the houses had been completed (Kennedy 2011).

PAGE 49

49 Global Green USA Global Green USA focused much of the ir reconstruction efforts in the neighborhood of Holy Cross, which is adjacent to the south of the Lower Ninth Ward 2010), Holy Cross was one of the sections with the highest intersection of flood depth and social vulnerability. Global Green USA teamed up with actor Brad Pitt to sponsor a design competition to include five sustainable houses, an apartment complex and a community center (Blas 2007). The competition generated almost 130 entries, with the final selection being made on August 20, 2006 in favor of Matt Berman and Andrew Kotchen from Workshop/apd (Holy Cross Project 2011). As of August 2011, the five houses had been built with two occupied, and the community center was set to be constructed in 2012 ( Peters en 2011). Peters en 2011 ). Neighborhood Empowerment Network Association The Neighborhood Empowerment Network Association ( NENA ) is unique compared to the other organizations discussed here because it was formed after Katrina by Ms. Jones, a resident of the Lower Ninth Ward, to he lp other residents apply for disaster assistance and to guide them through the rebuilding process (Wallace 2008). The association is funded through donations and grants and does not provide construction services, though it has expanded to include a design studio with two architects (Wallace 2008). By 2008, the NENA had already assisted 1200 residents work through the recovery process (Wallace 2008)

PAGE 50

50 Rebuilding Together income, el 1000 Days Later 2008). All work is done by volunteers, and after Hurricane Katrina, the organization turned into a year round effort ( 1000 Days Later 2008). As a result of their involvement w ith the elderly community, Rebuilding Together focuses on rehabilitating entire neighborhoods, so to ensure that no particular resident is left in an isolated area ( 1000 Days Later 2 008). Rebuilding Together pledged to rebuild 1,000 homes in the Gulf Coas t region, with the original goal of completion in 2011 (About Rebuild 1000 2008). As of March 2010, 718 of the houses had been built (Rebuild 1000 Statistics 2010). Habitat for Humanity Habitat for Humanity is widely known for their innovative approach to provide housing for families in need. In addition to the work they do every day in communities all over the country, they have a focused disaster response plan, wherein they offer d disaster generate sustainable interventions for people vulnerable to or affected by disasters or Village in the neighborhood of Saint Claude (Habitat for Humanity 2011; Gordon, 2007). In 2006 Habitat for Humanity teamed up with musicians Harry Connick Jr., and Branford Marsalis to develop a small neighborhood comprise of seventy single family houses, five duplexes, a performance center and park (Gordon 2007). The area was originally envisioned to help recover the music scene in New Orleans, fair hous ing laws

PAGE 51

51 have dictated applicants of all professions must be considered (Gordon 2007). The design team strove to embrace the neighborhood vernacular, building elevated homes with traditional gabled roofs and wood siding that adhered to the traditional sho tgun lot dimensions (Verderber 2010) Each of the above mentioned programs works independently on their recovery effort s The main focus of some o f the reconstruction organizations is sustainability, while others focus on speed, ease of construction or in itial cost. The result is a variety of houses that span the spectrum of sustainability. Analysis Tools Several tools are required to analyze the exterior elements of a structure as well as the factors that contribute to the decision to use each element or system. G eographic information systems allow for preliminary site information to be gathered while detailed survey s and photographs document field information during stud ies Sustainability matrices identify and assign points to building features an d practices that are c total cost to erect and maintain a structure for a given life period. Quality modeling is a comparison method that incorporates all of the previous information mentioned, proc esses that information through a weighting system and allows all options to be compared using the factors that are identified as relevant for the project. G eographic I nformation Systems Geographic Information Systems (GIS) utilizes hardware, software and d ata to geographically referenced information which creates models that Information System GIS 2011). The heart of GIS is the science of mapping (Maantay

PAGE 52

52 a nd Ziegler 2006). According to Mark Monmonier, an authority on the subject of can historically be traced back to 500 BC, although localized versions were used prior to tha t time for hunting and gathering (Maantay and Ziegler 2006). Maps were not only used to describe physicality of the land but also as a means to organize groups of similar people be it by religion, philosophy, beliefs or as a means to increase political co ntrol over a region (Maantay and Ziegler 2006). As technology and science have advanced over time, the concept of mapping has as well. The invention of the Global Positioning System (GPS) bridged the two disciplines by demanding more and more precise tech nological measurements integrated system of components: information about the real world that has been abstracted and simplified into a digital database of spatial and nonspati al features, which in conjunction with specialized software and computer hardware, and coupled with the expert judgment of the GIS user or analyst, produce solution s to spatial ams are designed for the general public and include tools to disseminate the spatial results (Curtis e t al, 2006). This technology has a variety of applications including: gathering mortality information post Katrina, monitoring urban sprawl and assessing the potential damage that may be caused by a major earthquake in Iran (Curtis et al, 2006; Durieux et al, 2008; Hashemi and Alesheikh 2011).

PAGE 53

53 Building Code The Florida Building Code: Hurricane Andrew As previously mentioned, the Florida Building Code under went a major overhaul in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew. Andrew hit the Miami Dade area of Florida (the southernmost tip) on August 24 th 1992 causing an unprecedented amount of damage to Florida and later somewhat minimal damage to Louisiana (NOAA 2009 ). In addition to the costly damage that Andrew caused, it also revealed severe issues with inadequate construction methods and building inspections that was an ongoing problem in Florida (Stark 2002). Consequently, the state realized that something must be done to better protect the residents and infrastructure of Florida. The inevitable changes were long in coming, however, and met with resistance from all industry parties involved (State Legislatures 2001). Some preliminary changes had been passed to address mobile homes in 1994 and hospitals in 1997, but prior to the adoption of the Statewide Unified Building Code in 2000; the state had operated with some 467 local building codes (Chastain et al. 2004; Stark 2002). Many of the act new, according to Jack Glenn of the Florida Home Builders Association, but rather stricter enforcements of elements previously added to the code, just not adhered to (Stark 2002). The elements with the most changes related to reducing flying debris, b ut increasing the requirements for fastening exterior elements (Stark 2002). Inspections were also adjusted, requiring more specificity on plan review and inspections because, as stated by planning manager in the Department of Community Affairs, Mo Madani

PAGE 54

54 One specific problem that occurred in Florida with Hurricane Andrew was the consistent failure of gable end roofs (Bradford and Sen 20 04). As mentioned in previous sections, hurricane winds can cause damage for roofing systems through suction and internal pressure (McDonald 2003). Gable end roofs are configured in such a way that they terminate in a vertical plane at the end of a wall that is subject to inward pressure and outward suction by hurricane winds (Bradford and Sen 2004). The systems can lack the lateral bracing needed to counteract these forces, leading to structural collapse and exposure of the attic plenum (Bradford and Se n 2004). Updates to the building code in the years following Hurricane Andrew provided recommendations and methods to successfully utilize gable end roofs (Bradford and Sen 2004). The International Residential Code: Hurricane Katrina Prior to Hurricane Ka a state standard, but allow local government to decide whether to enforce it or not (Chittum and Francis 2005). In the months following Katrina, the governor of Louisiana signed legislation for the adoption of the International Building Code, allowing application to be delayed a maximum of 90 days, if the parish was without building enforcement officials (Bergeron and Sawyer 2006). Reportedly, 57 parishes were without a code office when Hurrican e Katrina struck (ENR 2007). Since that time, the updates provided by the International Construction Council have been adopted, as well as the addition of the International Residential Codes, with some amendments to increase high wind protection (Departme nt of Public Safety 2011). Some of the backlash to the strengthened building codes has been because of the belief that it will increase insurance and reconstruction costs to the point that some residents will not be able to rebuild (Bergeron and Sawyer 200 6). Another point is that

PAGE 55

55 the code mostly addresses wind issues, whereas most of the damage sustained in Louisiana was caused by flooding (Bergeron and Sawyer 2006). According to James ve that [flooding] is to raise the building off the ground and let the flood waters or storm surge pass not address the flooding issue per se, it will help to instill confidence in investors who blight ; they think there is going to be more crime in the area and they feel there is less public ays Ed Blakely, head of the Office of Recovery and Development Administration, which was formed post Katrina (Bergeron and Sawyer 2006; Holbein 2009). Sustainable Metrics The green building movement is gaining momentum, and with that a multitude of building rating systems have been developed, each different and with unique benefits. Reasons for s electing the different systems vary from cost to applicability but the most consistent and coherent form, so they may be utilized within the context of all other competing fac tors (aesthetics, economics, performance, safety, utility) in building L eadership in E nergy and E nvironmental D esign LEED or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design is the building metric developed by the United S tates Green Building Council in 2000 (USGBC 2011). The USGBC is a nongovernmental organization that is comprised of industry leaders from

PAGE 56

56 disciplines relating to the built environment (Scheuer and Keoleian 2002). Unique LEED rating systems are available for a variety of projects including: New Construction Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance Commercial Interiors Core and Shell Schools Retail Healthcare Homes Neighborhood Development LEED for Homes was the rating system that corresponded with t his study. The residences were single family homes experiencing significant gut/rehabilitation, which met with the rating system requirements (Scope and Eligibility 2008) The system is divided into five environmental categories, followed by two addition al categories: Sustainable Sites (SS) Water Efficiency (WE) Energy and Atmosphere (EA) Materials and Resources (MR) Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) Innovation and Design Process (ID) Regional Priority (RP) The environmental categories are used universa lly, the innovation credits address the regional priority credits vary by zip code, depending on which issues were voted most important (LEED FAQ 2011). One of the ben efits that LEED enjoys is its wide spread acceptance (Owens and Sigmon 2010). The International Code Council has released the International Green Construction Code, which can be easily used and adapted by jurisdictions with the LEED rating system (Owens a nd Sigmon 2010).

PAGE 57

57 Building ratings are based on a 100 base point system, with an additional ten points that may be earned (LEED FAQ 2011). The ratings are as follows: Certified (40 49) Silver (50 59) Gold (60 79) Platinum (80 +) The cost to certify a pr oject using LEED varies by situation, but according to the USGBC, a standard baseline is $2000 (LEED FAQ 2011). Florida Green Building Coalition helping builders, developers, con tractors, local governments, and consumers achieve a checklist is comprised of eight categories: Energy Water Lot Choice Site Health Materials Disaster Mitigation General Accord ing to the Standards and Policies document (2011) each category has both minimum and maximum points allowed, and the system has four levels of certification: Bronze (0 30) Silver (31 60) Gold (61 90) Platinum (91 +) There are two specific benefits to usin g the Florida Green Building Coalition rather than LEED and Green Globes First, the program was designed around the hot, humid climate of Florida, thereby setting the performance standards at a level that is attainable

PAGE 58

58 in the southern region (FGBC 2011). Also, the FGBC contains a section on disaster mitigation, specifically focusing on the additional codes for hurricane wind zones (FGBC 201 1) Green Globes Green Globes was originally released as a web based assessment tool for buildings in Canada in 2002 ( Green Globes Emerges 2005). Once it made the move to the United States, it was overseen by the Green Building Initiative, which is an is Green Globes 2011). The rati ng system works for projects of all sizes and incorporates seven different categories for analysis (Why Green Globes is Better 2011): Project Management Policies and Practices Site Energy Water Resources: Systems and materials selection Emissions, Effluent s and Other Impacts Indoor Environment The categories for Green Globes are broader the LEED and incorporates issues such as optimization of space, acoustical comforted as well as integrated design and life cycle cost analysis (which have also been recentl y incorporated into LEED) ( Green Globes Emerges 2005). Costs for Green Globes range from $500 for access to the assessment to between $3.000 to $5,000 for the third party verification ( Green Globes Emerges 2005; GG FAQ 2011). Quality Modeling Value Engineering (or Management) was developed by Lawrence Miles and is

PAGE 59

59 quality modeli clarified, the model may be used as a decision making tool (Kirk 1994). The process for generatin g a quality model consists of the key decision making personnel working together to define which characteristics are driving forces in the project (Kirk 1994). Examples of these factors include: First cost Aesthetics Life Cycle Cost Labor Intensity Susta inability Durability The exact definition of each factor is determined by the owner and provided in narrative form, as is the relative importance of each characteristic in relation to the others (Kirk 1994). When this tool is developed early in design de velopment, it is most useful as the decision making tool, but it can also be utilized later in the process to manage quality (Kirk 1994).

PAGE 60

60 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Overview The main objective for this research is to identify the materials being utilized in the reconstruction of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. The research was limited to the exterior envelope, or systems that could be observed and identified from the street. Visual images were utilized extensively in this study, not only as a means to gather information, but also to verify written data and document observations Once building system options were identified, supplemental information was used to attempt to explain why those particular materials were chosen Rather than to definitively de clare the best system, quality modeling was applied to each of the materials using nine different factors, to allow the results to be sorted based on a variety of characteristics. The options in roof, exterior wall system, and foundation type and materia option. This ideal was compared to the most frequently occurring combination in each neighborhood. Process Two methods were utilized to gather the necessary information for this rese arch: investigation of New Orleans neighborhoods and development and utilization of analytical tools. Work was done simultaneously in both areas, gathering information about and conducting the field study while developing the tools later used to analyze t he field information. As seen in Figure 3 1, the paths often converged Ultimately, both branches of research led to an evaluation matrix, which organized the data for further investigation into the s ustainability and li fe cycle cost of each option This was then

PAGE 61

61 Figure 3 1 Methodology f low c hart Utilize Ge ographical Information Systems to Gather Preliminary Pictorial Research Develop Field Survey Form Develop Sustainable Index Develop Evaluation Matrix for Data Conduct Life Cycle Cost Evaluation Apply Quality Modeling to all Systems Select Natural Dis aster/Region to Study Hurricane Katrina New Orleans, LA Investigate Neighborhoods Develop Analysis Tools Use Population Displacement Data to Select Neighborhoods Define Building Envelope Roof Foundation Exterior Walls Navarre Lakeview Gentilly Terrace Saint Claude Lower Ninth Ward Holy Cross Review the Florida Building Code System Materials Hurricane Codes Travel to New Orleans, LA to Perform Field Study Review Sustainable Metrics

PAGE 62

62 inputted into the quality model for comparison. In the figure below, steps in the methodology that produced a visual entity are shaded. Investigation of the Neighborhoods The first step in executing the study was to research the parishes in New Orleans, to determine which areas would prove most appropriate to study. In the case of New Orleans, as with most large cities, the metropolitan area is comprised of smaller neighborhoods that vary in wealth, race, age, profession and a variety of other social characteristics. It was determined for this study that the most comprehen sive results would be achieved by studying areas of New Orleans that had all had the same physical impacts of Hurricane Katrina, but experienced a variety of social characteristics. In the eans which was cited investigators Finch, Emrich and Cutter (2010) provide synthesized data identifying the level to which each neighborhood experienced flooding in comparison with their social vulnerability. This information provi ded the ground work for selecting looding (greater than four feet) were selected, while neighborhoods in all three social ly vulnerab le categories were chosen ( s ee Figure 3 2)

PAGE 63

63 Neighborhood s election Different neighborhoods in New Orleans suffered from different levels of flooding. In the interest of continuity throughout the field study and in an effort to only have one flooding, which was considered four feet of standing water or deeper were selected (Finc h et. al, 2010). These were purposefully chosen because areas of high flooding were more likely to have had similar damage and the need for major renovations for most houses T he range of social vulnerability would also allow for remarks to be made on ho w the different neighborhoods responded to the recovery process. The literature had revealed that social inequity became an issue post Katrina and this field study allowed for those issues to be observed. The following six neighborhoods were selected for further analysis : Navarre (high flooding, low vulnerability) Lakeview (high flooding, medium vulnerability) Gentilly Terrace (high flooding, low vulnerability) Saint Claude (high flooding, medium vulnerability) Lower Ninth Ward (high flooding, medium vuln erability) Holy Cross (high flooding, high vulnerability) These neighborhoods spanned the width of Ne w Orleans Parish (see Figure 3 2 ) and represented four districts: Lakeview, Gentilly, Bywater and Lower Ninth Ward ( GNOCDC 2003). The neighborhoods chos en for analysis may be seen in Figure 3 2. Each area : Low vulnerability: teal Medium vulnerability: blue High vulnerability: red Additionally, the neighborhoods are numbered one to six, occurring in the same order as mentioned in the list above.

PAGE 64

64 Figure 3 2 Map of New Orleans Parish with s elected n eighborhoods ( 2011 Google, 2011Europa Technologies) As seen in the figure above (Figure 3 2) the neighborhoods that were chosen spanned the width and length of the New Orleans Parish. This variance in location worked with the differing social vulnerabilities to provide the most holistic picture of the Louisiana For the purposes of the field study, the Greater New Orleans Communit y Data Center (GNOCDC) was utilized to define the cardinal boundaries of each neighborhood, as seen in Table 3 1. The se boundaries were then used during the field study to define the scope of each area. It was important to clearly define the zones analyz ed to allow for future replication of the study. 2 3 1 5 4 6

PAGE 65

65 Table 3 1 Neighborhood s treet b oundaries for f ield s tudy Neighborhood Direction Street Navarre North Florida Boulevard South City Park Avenue East Orleans Avenue West West End Boulevard Lak eview North Robert E Lee Boulevard South Florida Boulevard East Orleans Boulevard West Pontchartrain Boulevard Gentilly Terrace North Filmore Avenue South I 610 East Peoples Avenue West Elysian Fields Avenue Saint Claude North North Galvez St reet South Burgundy East Lessops Street West Franklin Avenue Lower Ninth Ward North Florida Avenue South Saint Claude Avenue East Dubreuil Street West The Canal Holy Cross North Saint Claude Avenue South The Mississippi River East Delery Street West Sister Street Geographical i nformation s ystems r esearch Once the neighborhoods had been selected via the displacement study, the information was verified using geographical information systems technology, specifically Google Earth. Each ar ea was reviewed separately, using the historical data option to look at the same image on four different dates, over the course of six years (See Figure 3 3). December 30, 2004 was the first date chosen for five of the neighborhoods, to provide context fo r the area prior to Hurricane Katrina. The exception to this is the review of Holy Cross, which begins on August 16, 2005, due to lack of available information. The second image was taken on August 30, 2005; one day after Hurricane Katrina struck New Orl eans. Water is clearly visible in all images, thereby verifying the

PAGE 66

66 finding of the displacement study by Finch et. al, (2010). The third image was taken on June 12, 2006, almost ten months after the hurricane made landfall. The disrepair is visible even from the aerial perspective, as are the FEMA trailers and blue tarped roofs. The final image was taken on March 22, 2010, the most recent information available, and shows each of the neighborhoods in their differing states of repair. A. B. C. D. Figure 3 3 Series of images of the New Orleans neighborhood Holy Cross collected from Google Earth. A) taken on August 16, 2005; thirteen days prior to Hurricane Katrina B). taken on August 30, 2005; one day after Hurricane Katrina C) taken on June 12, 2006; nine months after Hurricane Katrina and D) taken on March 22, 2010; four and a half years after Hurricane Katrina. ( 2011 Google, 2011 Europa Technologies, 2011 Digital Globe, Images: US Geologic al Survey, NOAA) For the images collected for the subsequent five neighborhoods, see Appendix D

PAGE 67

67 New Orleans f ield s tudy As evidenced in the methodology flow chart above (Figure 3 1), the Field Study Form (see Appendix C) was developed prior to traveling to New Orleans. The actual study was completed over the course of two days, surveying six neighborhoods, twenty houses apiece for a total of 120 houses. In an effort to select houses randomly, it was determined prior to the start of the surveying that tw o houses per street would be reviewed. The surveyors would move from one parallel street to the next, reviewing the third house on the right as well as the residence directly opposite. In some instances, the neighborhoods were not comprised of at least t en parallel streets to survey. In that case, streets were duplicated, though always a different block was reviewed. All survey information was gathered from the street, and every effort was made not to encroach on the privacy of the individual home owne rs. In the instance that surveying a particular house would have invaded personal privacy, the next residence, in factors of three was chosen (i.e. house three, six, nine). Along these same lines, only street names, not house numbers, were documented. In formation was document ed through the survey form and photographically and included: Neighborhood Street Name House Type Roof Type Roof Material Exterior Wall Material Foundation Type Foundation Material Hurricane Code Compliance Sustainable Measures

PAGE 68

68 Wea ther and neighborhood activity restricted the ability to take pictures of every residence surveyed, but photographs were obtained of each type of house, system material and neighborhood. Develop Analysis Tools Early in the research for this study, it becam e clear that several tools were needed to compile, organize and connect the information that came from multiple sources. Each of the matrices builds upon the previous ones, provides a holistic view of the current material trends in housing reconstruction. Define b uilding e nvelope The first step was to define the scope of study in relation to the built environment. As mentioned in the review of the literature, many problems relating to hurricane dama ge are the direct result of issues with the exterior envelope exterior envelope includes: Roof Type Roof Material Exterior Walls Foundation Type Foundation Material Only the outermost layer of the exterior envelope was considered thereby excluding the different structural elements that are necessary to ensure the s tructural integrity of a house. The general assumption was made that all systems were built according to

PAGE 69

69 Review the Florida Building Code As mentioned in the review of the li terature, the Florida Building Code is considered the most stringent code relating to hurricane provisions. Prior to Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana did not enforce a state building code, but rather allowed enforcement to occur at the local level. These two factors led to the decision to use the Florida Building Code as the guideline for this study Prior to dissecting the building code, the others. Review of the buildi ng code revealed that the standard for any material that was naturally less conducive for hurricane environments was written to include all of the additional provisions to make the material strong enough to endure during storms, rather than simply disquali fying it. V irtually every material system can be used in hurricane wind zones; some just require more advanced measures to ensure their The Florida Building Code was used as a reference to determine which materials may be used for the roof, exterior walls and foundations of a house (see Table 3 2) as well to identify exterior features that are necessary to comply with hurricane code provisions: Vents Gutters Fence Open porch Screened porch with exterior wall support Roof o verhang Metal flashing Grills of masonry Closed eaves Shutters

PAGE 70

70 In addition to being utilized for the field study form, the analysis of the building code was critical in later determining product selection for the Life Cycle Cost, as well as the means to a ccessing the difficulty of hurricane codes with a particular material or system. The analysis of applicable building codes for this study can be found in Appendix A. Table 3 2 Exterior e lements from Florida Building Code : r oofs Envelope Element System Material Roof Shingles Asphalt Slate Wood Tile Clay Shingles Spanish Barrel Metal Corrugated Sheet Other Built Up Green Sprayed Polyurethane Table 3 3 Exterior e lements from Florida Building Code : e xterior w alls Envelope El ement System Material Exterior Walls Masonry Brick Pre Cast Concrete CMU Stone Metal Steel Siding Aluminum Siding Shingles Copper Wood Shingles/Shakes Plywood Vertical Siding Horizontal Siding Other Glass Stucco Viny l Siding Fiber Board

PAGE 71

71 Table 3 4 Exterior e lements from Florida Building Code : f oundations Envelope Element System Material Foundation Cast In Place CMU Pressure Treated Wood Brick Stone Steel Develop f ield s tudy f orm The fie ld study in New Orleans required documentation, which eventually took the form of a field survey Once the building code had been reviewed and appropriate system options identified, the elements from Table 3 2 were o rganized into a format that allowed for quick notation. In addition to the material systems and the hurricane provisions from the previously mentioned section other categories of information that were identified as important for analysis included roof ty pe, foundation type (see Table 3 3) and any sustainable measures that were utilized. The full field study form may be found in Appendix C. Table 3 5 Additional e nvelope e lements Envelope Element System Roof Type Flat Shed Gable Hip Gambr el Foundation Type Piers/Stilts Slab on Grade Crawl Space Basement Review s ustainable m etrics and d evelop s ustainable i ndex A review was performed on three different sustainability metrics: LEED, Green Globes and the Florida Green Building Co alition. While the Florida Green Building Coalition is not applicable in all instances (and is not used at all) in Louisiana, it is the

PAGE 72

72 only metric that includes a section on disaster mitigation. Each system was reviewed individually for credits that wer e applicable for one or more o f the envelope systems, materials or hurricane provisions LEED produced seven credits from the categories of sustainable sites, materials and resources and energy and atmosphere, Green Globes had ten from project management, site, energy, resources and indoor environment al quality and Florida Green Building Coalition provided twelve in energy, site, health, materials and disaster mitigation. Each credit that was noted was further reviewed using the appropriate user guide and then summarized in the Sustainable Summary (see Appendix B). The credits were then input into a new sustainable index that allowed comparison between the credit and the elements of the building envelope (i.e. roof type, roof materials, exterior walls, fo undation types, foundation materials, and hurricane provisions). The number of credits that each envelope element qualified for were then calculated, both per original sustainable metric (LEED, Green Globes, FGBC) and then as a total for all three. The S ustainable Index may be found in Appendix G. Trend A nalysis e valuation m atrix Once the field study of the six neighborhoods in New Orleans was completed, a matrix was developed to organize all of the gathered informat ion and showcase building trends I t i ncorporated the following categories : Neighborhood Order of house evaluations Street location House Type Roof Type Roof Material Exterior Wall Material Foundation Type Foundation Material Hurricane Provisions

PAGE 73

73 Sustainable Measures The matrix was developed to allow for more than one material or feature to be selected, in the instance that multiple were used for one house. Six different charts were formed, one for each of the neighborhoods (see Appendix F). Life Cycle Cost a nalysis Once the data was collecte d from the New Orleans field study, it was synthesized and used as the starting point for conducting life cycle cost analysis. This analysis was broken into three categories: roof materials, exterior wall materials and foundation type and materials. Each of the materials included was identified on at least one house in New Orleans The information that impacted life cycle cost included: Initial cost Annual maintenance Repairs Replacement Life cycle cost evaluation was use d to calculate the cost of the material for a building with a life expectancy of 50 years. All initial cost information was collected from 2009 RSMeans Construction Cost Data, as were maintenance and repair costs, unless otherwise noted, and all costs wer e calculated at a discounted rate over time. To perform life cycle cost analysis, some assumptions were necessary. The LCC requires amounts of the material needed, so a general building was defined. A typical shotgun house is approximately 1000 square fe et, with dimensions of forty feet by twenty five feet. The wall height was nine feet, with a gable roof with a pitch of five to twelve. For pier foundations, twenty four five foot piers were used, for a crawl space, a wall with a height of four feet on g rade, and for a basement, eight feet on grade. For

PAGE 74

74 exterior walls, not openings were subtracted, rather that material was considered the extra waste needed. For other systems, ten percent waste was factored in. Quality m odeling The final step in the meth odology was to incorporate all of the information gathered into quality models to quantify the characteristics that influenced material and system selection. Figure 3 4 FAST diagram for the exterior envelope Design Objectives All the Time Functi ons Reduce Impact on the Environment Basic Functions Higher Function Scope of Study Secondary Functions Provide Shelter Protect Structure from Storms Meet Codes Properly install systems Design Storm Proof House Review Material Options Co llect Data Research Options Select Systems Review Precedents Critical Path Respect Historical Vernacular Durability Ease of Installation Resist Weather Protect House Structure Enhance Structural Stability Affordable to Maintain HOW WHY Ex terior Envelope

PAGE 75

75 Once the life cycle costing was complete, a FAST diagram was d esigned to understand the different functions of the exterior envelope. According to the FAST diagram, the main function of the exterior envelope is to provide shelter (on the far left). This is accomplished by the successful completion of each of the basic functions along the critical path to the right. These functions were Figure 3 5 Characteris tics for q uality m odeling Design Objectives All the Time Functions Reduce Impact on the Environment Basic Functions Higher Function Scope of Study Secondary Functions Critical Path Respect Historical Vernacular Durability Ease of Installation Resist Weat her Protect House Structure Enhance Structural Stability Affordable to Maintain HOW WHY Exterior Envelope Provide Shelter Protect Structure from Storms Meet Codes Properly install systems Design Storm Proof House Review Material Options Collect Data Research Options Select Systems Review Precedents Maintenance Life Cycle Cost Initial Cost Labor Intensity Historical Vernacular Sustainability Durability Schedule Hurricane Codes

PAGE 76

76 time functions act as guides in the decision making process. As seen in Figure 3 5, the characteristics for the quality model (shaded boxe s) were chosen directly from the FAST diagram, nine in total: Sustainability decided from the score on the Sustainable Index Durability the life expectancy of the material or system, compiled from various sources ; determined for LCC Hurricane Codes u tilized the building code analysis to determine how easily a material could be incorporated and still meet the necessary codes Initial Cost determined using RSMeans ; determined for LCC Labor Intensity what percentage of total initial cost is solely lab or ; an important factor when available labor is limited due to population displacement Historical Vernacular how well each system blended with historic architecture Maintenance total maintenance cost; determined for LCC Life Cycle Cost how much the mat erial will cost over the life of the building Schedule how many days is takes to install the system; this is critical when rebuilding homes for displaced persons Each of these characteristics represents one facet of the disaster relief process that is cr itical to the success of the reconstruction of New Orleans. Based on the conditions of New Orleans, the historical importance of architecture and the social and economic vulnerability of many of the individuals required to rebuild a weighted value was ass igned to each factor on a scale of one to five and incorporated into a RADAR diagram for ease of understanding. Next, a five point Likert scale was determined for each characteristic from the range of values present in the system options identified in the field study Finally, the Likert value for each characteristic was multiplied by the

PAGE 77

77 importance weight to determine an overall quantitative total for each exterior envelope element. C omparison: q uality m odel and n eighborhood f ield s tudy Once quality modeling was complete, the mode (or most frequently occurring) material in each category for each neighborhood was calculated. A total cost for the three systems was determined using the life cycle cost for each material option. The most frequently occurring material selections for each neighborhood was then compared to ideal model derived from the quality model results, using both points, total life cycle cost and the sustainab le index.

PAGE 78

78 C HAPTER 4 RESULTS Overview The following chapter is devoted to the results of the various studies performed using the analysis tools outlined in the methodology. The process used was to synthesize the data collected in the New Orleans Field St udy, compare the results to the newly generated sustainable index, the n perform life cycle cost calculations and quality modeling analysis on the information. Finally, the information that was generated from the quality model was compared to the original preferences from each neighborhood. New Orleans Field Study The information gathered in the New Orleans field study was organized into three overall categories for analysis: Roof Type and Material Exterior Wall Material Foundation Type and Material During the field study, it became apparent that several houses employed more than one option For instance, some houses utilized both gable and shed roofs, or stucco and brick for the exterior wall material. All of these options were documented in the study, so the numbers in all cases may add up to more than 100% or twenty houses. The full list of every house analyzed, with all of the individual house features and materials documented may be found in Append ix F, Neighborhood Survey Results. Navarre Navarre was the first neighborhood looked at during the field study. It was classified as high flooding, low vulnerability, and with the exception of a few residences

PAGE 79

79 under construction, looked to have been comp letely repaired. A variety of house types were present, including craftsman bungalow, colonial and Spanish style (see Figure 4 1). A B Figure 4 1 Two houses in the Navarre n eighborhood (photographs by author) Roof Four of the five roofs types we re found in Navarre: flat, shed, gable and hi p. Additionally the roof materials asphalt shingles, slate, clay tiles, and Spanish barrel til es (also documented as Mission t iles) were noted. The combinations of both the roof type and material may be seen below in Figure 4 2. Figure 4 2 Navarre r oof t ype and m aterial r esults

PAGE 80

80 Eleven houses had a gable roof with asphalt shingles, making the combination the most popular option, followed closely by hip roofs with asphalt shingles, which occurred eight times. In total, sixteen houses used asphalt shingles, while five used Spanish barrel tiles, the second most popular. Walls Navarre had the most variety when it came to exterior wall materials. Eight different options were documented, ranging from horizon tal wood to wood shakes to pre cast concrete panels (See Figure 4 3). Thirty eight percent of the houses used horizontal wood siding as the main exterior wall material. Stucco was also a popular option, with nineteen percent, while twelve percent utilized cement fiber board. Figure 4 3 Navarre e xterior w all m aterial r esults Foundation The final exterior envelope element investigated was foundation type and material. Navarre was the only neighborhood to incorporate basements into some of the house s

PAGE 81

81 surveyed. The most frequent foundation type used was slab on grade. The second most popular was a crawl space enclosed in brick (see Figure 4 4). Figure 4 4 Navarre f oundation t ype and m aterial r esults Lakeview Lakeview was the second neighbor hood investigated and was classified as high flood, medium vulnerability. Much of the Lakeview area was under construction when the field study occurred. A variety of house types were noted in the neighborhood, including bungalow and plantation, which ar e the historical vernacular for Louisiana, as well as modern, farmhouse and mission, which are not as prevalent (see Figure 4 5). A B Figure 4 5 Two houses in the Lakeview neighborhood (photographs by author)

PAGE 82

82 Roof The Lakeview neighborhood results revealed three roof types: shed, gable and hip, with the materials of asphalt shingles, Spanish barrel tiles and corrugated metal (see Figure 4 6). Seventeen houses used only asphalt shingles; one house combined both asphalt shingles with Spanish barrel tile along the seams, and two roofs utilized corrugated metal roofs. The most popular combinations were gable and hip roofs with asphalt shingles. Figure 4 6 Lakeview r oof t ype and m aterial r esults Walls Horizontal wood siding was the most preval ent exterior material chosen in Lakeview with a percentage of thirty three, followed closely by brick at twenty nine percent (see Figure 4 7) Together, these two materials were on seventeen of the twenty houses. Other materials that were noted included stone, aluminum siding,

PAGE 83

83 stucco and cement fiber board. Stone and aluminum siding were the least frequently occurring materials in Lakeview each exterior wall material occurr ed on only one house. A few houses incorporated more than one material, but only one utilized three: brick, horizontal wood siding and stucco. Figure 4 7 Lakeview e xterior w all m at erial r esults Foundation Basements were the only foundation type not found in the survey of the Lakeview neighborhood. Rather, foundations with an enclosed crawl space were the most frequent, with cast in place occurring slightly more frequently than brick. Two houses also used CMU for crawl spaces. Four houses still employed slab on grade as opposed to elevating the residences.

PAGE 84

84 Figure 4 8 Lak eview f oundation t ype and m aterial r esults G entilly Terrace The third neighborhood in the New Orleans field study was Gentilly Terrace. This area was categorized as high flood, low vulnerability. A few residences were in the middle of reconstruction but for the most part the neighborhood had been recovered from the flooding damage. This was one of the only neighborhoods surveyed that had begun to repair the city infrastructure, or roads, most were still cracked and difficult to navigate. Half of t he study subjects were cottages, making this the most popular house type in this neighborhood by far. A variety of other styles were employed by some of the larger houses including farmhouses and Greek revival. A B Figure 4 9 Houses from the Gentil ly Terrace neighborhood (photographs by author)

PAGE 85

85 Roof Gentilly Terrace was found to have houses utilizing four of the five roof types; shed, gable, hip and gambrel, although only three roof materials were documented: asphalt shingles, slate and Spanish barr el tile. Hip roofs were the most popular with eleven total, while gable roofs were close behind with nine (see Figure 4 10). Asphalt was the main material used on all but one of the houses, which utilized slate. The Spanish barrel tiles were used over t he seams and ridges of the roofs. Figure 4 10 Gentilly Terrace r oof t ype and m aterial r esults Walls The exterior wall materials documented were limited to four: brick, stone, horizontal wood siding and stucco. Horizontal wood siding was the most p revalent by far, at fifty nine percent. In both residences where stucco was used, it was paired with the horizontal wood. Fourteen of the twenty houses used wood, while seven had built with brick.

PAGE 86

86 Figure 4 11 Gentilly Terrace e xterior w all m ateria l r esults Foundation Piers was the most popular type of foundation method utilized, with brick as the most used material, for both piers and enclosed crawl spaces. Twenty five percent of the houses in this area were slab on grade, thereby refraining fro m elevating the structure off the ground. No residences with basements were surveyed in Gentilly Terrace. Figure 4 12 Gentilly Terrace f oundation t ype and m aterial r esults

PAGE 87

87 Saint Claude Saint Claude was the fourth neighborhood to be surveyed and t he first to have a significant portion of the area rebuilt by a not for profit organization. The area is 13) in the center of the neighborhood. The neighborhood was cla ssified as high flood, medium vulnerability. Most of the houses in the area were either cottages or shotgun style, and while portions of Saint Claude had been repaired, there were empty houses on every street that were falling deeper into disrepair. A B Figure 4 13 Saint Claude houses. A) t ypical shotgun house and B) o ne portion of Musicians Village (photographs by author) Roof In the Saint Claude neighborhood flat, gable, hip and gambrel roofs were used on the surveyed residences. The roofing t ype of choice was gable roof, with seventy five percent of the houses using this. All twenty of the houses reviewed used asphalt shingles, with three utilizing slate or Spanish barrel tiles for the seams and ridges. This was the only neighborhood where ev ery house surveyed incorporated asphalt shingles on the roof.

PAGE 88

88 Figure 4 14 Saint Claude r oof t ype and m aterial r esults Walls For the exterior wall materials, nineteen of the twenty houses used horizontal wood siding, either as the sole cladding or in combination with brick or stucco. One house utilized only brick as the exterior material. Figure 4 15 Saint Claude e xterior w all m aterial r esults

PAGE 89

89 Foundation The foundation type most documented in the Saint Claude neighborhood was piers/stilts, using either brick or CMU Three of the houses surveyed were built slab on grade, while the remaining four util ized an enclosed crawl space of either brick or CMU Saint Claude was the first neighborhood studied to introduce stone as a foundation materia l. Figure 4 16 Saint Claude f oundation t ype and m aterial r esults Lower Ninth Ward The Lower Ninth Ward was the fifth neighborhood that was surveyed for this study. This area was classified as high flood, medium vulnerability, but it was one of the areas that experienced the worst of the flooding; in the GIS study for the Lower Ninth Ward, it is possible to see the broken levees and the water pouring into the neighborhood. As a result of the extensive flooding and lack of overall income, this area was chosen to be

PAGE 90

90 the focus of the Make It Right Foundation. As a result of the stipulations for design that were mentioned previously, many of the houses were comprised of the same materials, though configured in completely different ways. The Lower Nint h Ward has also been the recipient of services performed by several other relief organizations. The most prevalent house style is the shotgun, which is classic vernacular in Louisiana. In some instances it has been reinterpreted, while still remaining tr ue to the defining characteristics. A B Figure 4 17 Houses in the Lower Ninth Ward (photographs by author) Roof All of five roof types were represented in the houses surveyed, though gable, hip and shed were the most frequently occurring. Only two roof materials were noted: asphalt shingles and corrugated metal. In the Lower Ninth Ward, the roofing material used was dependent solely on the organization that rebuilt the structure. The Make It Right houses all utilize metal roofs for sustainability and storm resistance while the other structures incorporated a sphalt. In the survey group there were fourteen metal roofs and six with asphalt shingles.

PAGE 91

91 Figure 4 18 Lower Ninth Ward r oof t ype and m aterial r esults Walls For the exterior wall ma terials in the Lower Ninth Ward, only three options were documented: cement fiber board, horizontal wood siding and aluminum siding. The most frequently occurring was cement fiber board, which was used on thirteen of twenty houses, or sixty five percent. Aluminum siding was only used in one instance. Figure 4 19 Lower Ninth Ward e xterior w all m aterial r esults

PAGE 92

92 Foundation All of the houses reviewed in the Lower Ninth Ward were elevated off of the ground, many to a height such that the space undernea th could be used to park cars. All but one of the twenty houses were built on piers, the single remaining house utilized an enclosed crawl space. Of the houses on piers, the most popular material was cast in place, with nine houses. The other options in cluded: CMU pressure treated wood, brick and steel. This neighborhood was the only section looked at that incorporated steel into the foundation systems. Figure 4 20 Lower Ninth Ward f oundation t ype and m aterial r esults Holy Cross The neighborhoo d of Holy Cross was the sixth and final area investigated for the New Orleans study. It was the only neighborhood that was categorized as high flooding, high vulnerability. Similar to the Lower Ninth Ward, it experienced some of the most intense flooding The reconstruction of Holy Cross was only partially complete at the time of the field study, some areas were in the midst of construction, but many

PAGE 93

93 houses had been abandoned and left to fall in further disrepair. As previously mentioned, this neighborh ood was also the beneficiary of a design competition to generate sustainable houses, an apartment complex and a community center. A B Figure 4 21 Holy Cross h ouses (photographs by author) Roof Four roof types were identified in the survey group: sh ed, gable, hip and gambrel. The most prevalent type was gable, with twelve houses, followed by hip with six. Both shed and gambrel occurred only once each. Asphalt shingles were used on seventeen of the twenty houses. Slate, corrugated metal and Spanis h barrel tiles made up the remaining roof materials noted. Figure 4 22 Holy Cross f oundation t ype and m aterial r esults

PAGE 94

94 Walls Horizontal wood siding was the most popular exterior wall material at fifty four percent, followed most closely by brick at twenty one percent. Holy Cross was the neighborhood with the second greatest variety in exterior wall material options, behind Navarre Many of the material were used in combination with the wood siding or brick. he style of house, such as horizontal wood siding on shotgun houses. Figure 4 23 Holy Cross e xterior w all m aterial r esults Foundation All but two of the study houses utilized elevated foundation types, in the form of piers or an enclosed crawl spac e. CMU piers were the most frequently occurring with eight houses, though cast in place, brick and stone were also documented. Three houses had crawl spaces in either cast in place or brick.

PAGE 95

95 Figure 4 24 Holy Cross f oundation t ype and m aterial r es ults The information that was collected and synthesized from each of the neighborhoods was then analyzed to determine the life cycle cost of each material, and later used in quality modeling. Sustainable Index The Sustainable Index was comprised of all of the credits from three leading rating systems: LEED, Green Globes, and the Florida Green Building Coalition that were dependent in some capacity on the exterior envelope. When the credits were than compared against each of the exterior envelope elements, it was determined that the roofing systems and exterior wall materials are eligible for potentially gaining the most credits overall as seen in Figure 4 25 The range of points for the index was zero to sixteen. For roofing materials category, both corr ugated and sheet metal earned the most points with thirteen. Wood shakes, slate, clay tiles and Spanish barrel tiles each have the potential of twelve points. The built up roof was deemed the least sustainable at seven points, for this index. For the e xterior wall systems, the potential earnable

PAGE 96

96 credits ranged from twelve to sixteen. The categories that scored the highest were the concretes: pre cast and CMU the metals: steel and aluminum sidings, and cement fiber Figure 4 25 Sustainable Index p oints by e xterior e nvelope e lements

PAGE 97

97 board. Stucco was deemed the least sustainable. The foundation materials that were most sustainable were pressure treated wood and steel, both with the potential to impact eight credits. The incorporation of the F lorida Green Building Coalition was aimed at analyzing how beneficial disaster mitigation measures would be in the goal of developing sustainable housing, but as seen in Figure 4 25 most of the hurricane measures may only earn one credit, with fences p otentially impacting four credits. Life Cycle Cost The life cycle cost was determined for each of the materials that were identified in houses in the New Orleans field study. The factors included were: Initial Cost Annual Maintenance Repairs Replacement The time value of money was also considered for the sake of accuracy. Three separate life cycle costs were performed for roof materials, exterior wall materials and foundation type and material. The full spreadsheets may be seen in Appendix H. Roof S ys tems Five roof systems were evaluated for life cycle cost: asphalt shingles, slate, clay tile, Spanish barrel tile (or mission tile) and corrugated metal. The annual maintenance for all systems was restricted to inspections and the only repair costs were noted for the three tile options, for replacement of broken tiles at some point during the life of the roof. All three tile options had life expectancies that exceeded the intended life of the house. Asphalt shingles required two replacements, while corr ugated metal needed one. Asphalt shingles had the lowest initial cost at $2 513.19, while Spanish tile was the

PAGE 98

98 highest at $11 554.89. Even with two replacements, asphalt shingles had the lowest life cycle cost at $9 551.10, while Spanish tile had the hig hest at $16 806.45 Figure 4 26 Life Cycle Cost r oof r esults Exterior W alls Life cycle cost analysis was performed for a variety of exterior wall materials, including: Brick Stone Concrete Aluminum Siding Shingles/Shakes Vertical Wood Siding Horizo ntal Wood Siding Stucco Vinyl Siding Cement Fiber Board The annual maintenance included professional cleaning and repainting for certain systems. Not all materials required annual maintenance such as: pre cast concrete, stucco and vinyl siding. Only two materials required replacing: aluminum siding and

PAGE 99

99 wood shingles/shakes. The material that had the lowest initial coast was vinyl siding at $3 160.30, while the highest was pre cast concrete at $44 122.00. These two particular materials did not incur ann ual maintenance, repair or replacement costs, so their life cycle costs were the same as the initial costs. They also maintained their respective positions as least and most expensive for life cycle cost (see Figure 4 27). Figure 4 27 Life Cycle Cost e xterior w all r esults Foundation S ystems The possible combinations between foundation type and material were numerous. Fourteen different options were documented in New Orleans: Piers, cast in place Piers, CMU Piers, pressure treated wood Piers, brick Piers, stone Piers, steel Slab on grade Crawl space, cast in place

PAGE 100

100 Crawl space, CMU Crawl space, pressure treated wood Crawl space, brick Crawl space, stone Basement, CMU Basement, Brick The annual maintenance calculated for the foundations included the necessary painting or sealant necessary. This was calculated by taking the number of times painting would need to occur (between five and ten years, depending on the material) and dividing the total cost by the life of the building. The materials without maintenance costs were: cast in place piers, steel piers, slab on grade, and cast in place crawl space. The steel piers would need to be re sealed, but the process needed to be done only once during the life of the building, so that cost was incorporated into repairs. The foundations utilizing pressure treated wood would need to be replaced after thirty years. Figure 4 28 Life Cycle Cost f oundation r esults

PAGE 101

101 CMU piers are the lowest in initial cost at $6 716.37, while cast in place concrete is the mo st expensive initially at $24 229.37. Life cycle cost for CMU piers is $7 147.11, which allows it to maintain its position as the most affordable. The LCC for cast in place crawl space is the same as the initial cost, but it remains the most expensive op tion. Quality Modeling Once the life cycle cost calculations were complete, all of the information gathered for that, plus the sustainable index and field study results were used to perform quality modeling on all material options. The nine characteristic s derived from the original FAST diagram were weighted from one to five based on perceived importance for the particular occasion of a natural disaster in the region of New Orleans, Louisiana. One was the least important, five the most. The weighting was as follows: Schedule: 2 Labor Intensity: 1 Initial Cost: 4 Life Cycle Cost: 5 Durability: 4 Maintenance: 2 Hurricane Resistance: 5 Sustainability: 3 Historical Vernacular: 4 Figure 4 29 Radar d iagram of c haracteristics for q uality m odeling

PAGE 102

102 Life cycle cost and hurricane resistance were identified as the most significant factors and were therefore awarded the highest weight. Durability is the actual life span of the building, which relates closely with sustainable design, while the sustainability characteristic represents how the system or material faired against the sustainable index. All of t he weighted characteristics may be seen in comparison to each other in the Radar diagram in Figure 4 29. Once the characteristics were weighted they were c ompared to each other factor to be given and overall weight, which was multiplied to each material option. The overall weights for each characteristic were as follows: Schedule: 2 Labor Intensity: 1 Initial Cost: 10 Life Cycle Cost: 15 Durability: 10 Main tenance: 2 Hurricane Resistance: 15 Sustainabilit y: 4 Historical Vernacular: 10 These numbers were multiplied by the values assigned to each material option via the Likert scales, to give an overall weight for each material option in each characteristic. These values were added together to give an overall total to each material that could be compared to all of the other material options. The top three options for roof material were: Metal: value (280), sustainable index (13) Slate: value (265), sustainab le index (12) Clay: value (258), sustainable index (12) For exterior wall materials: Brick: value (272), sustainable index (15) Cement Fiber Board: value (269), sustainable index (16)

PAGE 103

103 Horizontal Wood Siding: value (250), sustainable index (15) For founda tion types and materials: Cast in Place Piers: value (291), sustainable index (11) CMU Piers: value (282), sustainable index (11) Brick Piers: value (255), sustainable index (9) CMU Crawl Space: value (254), sustainable index (11) Sustainability and durab ility or longevity were incorporated into the overall quality model, but for ease of comparison the raw score from the sustainable index was also noted. ranking option in each exterior envelope category: metal roof, brick exterior walls, cast in place p iers, for a total of 843 points a total cost of $36,953.86 and forty two points on the sustainable index. Comparison: Quality Model and Neighborhood Field Study The final step i n analysis was to compare the ideal model to each neighborhood model for quality model values, total life cycle cost and sustainable index points. Navarre For the first neighborhood reviewed, Navarre, the most often documented roof was gable asphalt, exte rior wall material was horizontal wood siding and foundation was slab on grade. According to the life cycle cost calculations the total amount for these three systems is $30,944.22. This combination scored 722 points in the quality model, and earned thir ty five points on the sustainability index. Implementing the ideal model would cost an additional $6,009.64 and earn seven additional sustainability points. Lakeview Lakeview, the second neighborhood, most frequently utilized hip asphalt shingle roofs, ho rizontal wood siding for the exterior walls, and cast in place enclosed

PAGE 104

104 crawlspace for the foundation system. Collectively, this cost $33,462.95, earned a value of 708 on the quality model and thirty seven points on the sustainability index. Implementati on of the ideal model would cost an additional $3 491.91 and increase the sustainable p o ints by five. Gentilly Terrace The main roofing material chosen for Gentilly Terrace was asphalt shingles on a gable roof. Horizontal wood siding was chosen for the ex terior walls, while brick piers were employed for the foundation type and material. This material combination costs $33,334.01, has a quality model value of 740, and a sustainability index value of thirty five points. Switching to the ideal model would i ncrease costs by $3 619.85 but raise sustainability points by seven. Saint Claude The fourth neighborhood, Saint Claude, most frequently used asphalt shingles on a gable roof, horizontal wood siding for the exterior walls, and cast in place piers for the f oundation. Collectively, these materials earned a quality model score of 776, cost $ 30,824.59 and gained thirty seven points of the sustainability index. Converting to the ideal model would cost an additional $6 129.27 and earn five sustainability points Lower Ninth Ward The Lower Ninth Ward produced results that differed from every other neighborhood surveyed. The most frequently documented materials systems were corrugated metal gable roof, cement fiberboard walls and cast in place piers foundation. This combination cost $29,841.32 (the second to lowest amount), earned a value of 840 points in the quality model and garnered forty three sustainability points. Implementing

PAGE 105

105 the ideal model would cost an additional $7,112.54 and decrease the sustainabili ty points by one. Holy Cross The final neighborhood reviewed, Holy Cross used asphalt shingles on gable roofs, horizontal wood siding on exterior walls, and CMU pier foundations. Collectively, this combination cost $28,397.21, gained a quality model value of 765 and impacted thirty seven sustainability credits. The ideal model would increase costs by $8,556.65 and raise potential sustainability points by five. New Orleans as a Whole Collectively, the neighborhoods surveyed consistently used asphalt gable roofs with horizontal wood siding on the exterior walls and some sort of pier foundation. The most popular foundation type and material changed with each neighborhood. Not all of the houses or even neighborhoods strictly adhered to these options; some like the Lower Ninth Ward utilized many different materials and still came out as one of the most economical options The reaso ning for the material s select ed cannot be defined solely through this analysis and may only be determined with more informa tion from the designers, homeowners and builders.

PAGE 106

106 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS Factors I n Decision Making The final comparisons of the combinations of material systems by neighborhood revealed information on the decision making process when rebuilding after a n atural disaster. Five of the neighborhoods chose asphalt shingle roofs, even though they have the highest maintenance cost, lowest sustainability and only average hurricane resistance. Asphalt shingles do however have the lowest initial and life cycle costs. Horizo ntal wood siding and brick were significantly more popular than any of the other cheaper, more sustainable options. Wood siding and brick did both rank high with historical vernacular. The foundation systems were different from one neighbo rhood to another. The conclusions to be gathered from this information is that historical vernacular and initial cost are the most heavily weighted factors in selection of exterior envelope systems. The neighborhood that defied these conclusions was the L ower Ninth Ward. Many of the houses documented were rebuilt by the Make It Right Foundation, which defined an acceptable materials palette based on sustainability, durability and life cycle cost prior to engaging designers and architects for the projects (Home Features and Materials 2009). The result of this approach was a series of houses with a combination of materials that came within three points of the ideal quality model option, and beat the ideal model on the sustainability index, while costing app roximately $7,000 less. The only material option that was different than the ideal was cement fiberboard, which has a life expectancy of half what brick is, making it ideal in all by durability.

PAGE 107

107 Rapid Recovery V ersus Productive Reconstruction The consta nt struggle in a region after a natural disaster is between rebuilding with as much speed as possible and pausing to digest the issues that were revealed. Each person and organization involved in the reconstruction process has an opinion of the balance be tween the two, but another danger also exists: pausing for too long. In this case, issues are no longer being reviewed for improvement, but rather they are being pushed aside and not dealt with. Moving between neighborhoods during the New Orleans field st udy unveiled some interesting observations. For the most part, the neighborhoods that had a higher income (Lakeview, Gentilly Terrace) have been repaired successfully, or are currently in the process of reconstruction. These homes have been rebuilt as th e owners have had funds available, although some did posse s s flood insurance. There were no blatantly abandoned residences in these neighborhoods. Likewise, the neighborhoods with notably less income (the Lower Ninth Ward, Holy Cross) are moving more slo wly toward full recovery but making considerable progress. The literature revealed that the areas hit the hardest were typically rented, with little or no insurance to cover the expenses incurred by the residents as the result of flood damage. These area s were popularized by national media, and several non profit organizations arrived to help in addition to government funding. The surprising revelation was that areas that are still only medium vulnerability such as Saint Claude, but have significantly le ss disposable income than other neighborhoods, are falling in the cracks when it comes to reconstruction Several abandoned structures were observed as being in the process of crumbling and the overall atmosphere of the area was less than welcoming. Ther e is a great risk of the neighborhoods wh ich were at one point were in the middle of the social range falling

PAGE 108

108 into such disrepair that they become the new highly vulnerable neighborhoods. This relates back to the broken window theory, which basically clai ms that people in a neighborhood will maintain the status quo (Holbein 2009 ) Some neighborhoods such as the Lower Ninth Ward have used this reconstruction process as an opportunity to engage the community, feels both safe and inviting. It would be unfortunate to see in few years time that the vulnerable neighborhood did not in fact disappear, but rather relocated. Overall Process The process for gathering and synthesizing information provided inter esting insights into the sustainability and materiality of the recovering New Orleans neighborhoods. Each of the analytical tools processed separate information from the field study, but all worked together to produce the data needed for the quality model factors The quality model weights could also be adjusted for different situations or to explore other influences in decision making without skewing the original data. Overall, the tools provided a detailed comparison of six neighborhoods, in addition t o a general snapshot of the reconstruction of the New Orleans Parish. Further Research Several areas exist for further research. One option considers r unning the quality model additional times while a ltering the weights of the characteristics to relate to the specific needs of each neighborhood This would either produce entirely different results with each re weighting or it would reinforce the options selected for the ideal model Additional ly, t his would allow an ideal model for each area to be determined, based on what was most important for each group of residents. Another study looking at the most popular material selections for the six neighborhoods combined would

PAGE 109

109 reveal the standard f or the greater New Orleans area. More neighborhoods could always be integrated for wider diversity. Also the field study could be performed in other regions that have experienced natural disaster damage to showcase whether different factors influe nce the decision making of exterior envelope elements in other regions. One idea that was not explored in the review of the literature or through the analysis process is whether a model could be utilized in preparing for a natural disaster. One preliminar y idea is that the quality model could be used to select material options that would be ideal for the reconstruction process based on each city preparedness and recovery plans. This might reduce the lead time necessary to procure some materials as well as limiting the time required for planning prior to reconstruction.

PAGE 110

110 APPENDIX A BUILDING CODE ANALYS IS The analysis of the Florida Building Coded involved the line by line study of each chapter that pertained to the exterior envelope as it was d efined for this study (roof, exterior walls and foundations) and all of the chapters relating to materials included in the New Orleans field study. The information on the general systems was utilized to define the parameters for the model house for life c ycle cost analysis and quality modeling and the material information was imperative for selecting the material for life cycle cost analysis that could withstand a hurricane. For this study, only the regulations that pertained directly to the systems or ma terials were analyzed; the assumption was made that all systems and materials were built to manufacturers and inspectors specifications. The following chapters were analyzed over the course of this study: Chapter 3: Use and Occupancy Classification Chapte r 4: Special Detailed Requirements Based on Use and Occupancy Chapter 14: Exterior Walls Chapter 15: Roof Assemblies and Rooftop Structures Chapter 16: Structural Design Chapter 18: Soils and Foundations Chapter 19: Concrete Chapter 20: Aluminum Chapter 21 : Masonry Chapter 22: Steel Chapter 23: Wood

PAGE 111

111 APPENDIX B SUSTAINABLE METRICS ANALYSIS A preliminary review of the current rating systems that exist to measure the sustainability of a structure revealed that while each of the rating systems showcases diffe rent aspects of the exterior envelope, no one of these rating systems encompasses all of the ways in which this envelope may contribute to the overall sustainability of a building. The solution was to analyze three leading rating systems: LEED, Green Glob es and the Florida Green Building Coalition to compile all of the credits that may be impacted by the shell of the structure. Between the three, twenty nine credits were discovered, some shared between all of the rating systems and some unique to one.

PAGE 112

112 AP PENDIX C LOUISIANA HOUSE SURV EY FORM Neighborhood: House: House Type: Street Name: Roof Type: Flat Shed Gable Hip Gambrel Roof Finish Material: Shingles : Asphalt Slate Wood Tiles : Clay Metal : Corrugated Sheet Other : Bui lt up Green Sprayed Polyurethane Exterior Siding: Masonry : Brick Pre Cast Concrete CMU Stone Metal : Steel Siding Aluminum Siding Shingles Copper Wood : Shingles/Shakes Plywood Vertical Horizontal Other : Glass Stucco Vinyl Siding Fiber board Foundation Type: Piers/Stilts Slab on grade Crawl Space Basement Foundation Material: Cast in place CMU Pressure treated Wood Applicable Hurricane Codes: Sustainable Measures:

PAGE 113

113 APPENDIX D GIS NEIGHBORHOOD REV IEW A. B. C. D. Figure D 1. Serie s of images of the New Orleans n eighborhood Navarre collected from Google Earth. A) taken on December 30, 2004; eight months prior to Hurricane Katrina B). taken on August 30, 2005; one day after Hurricane Katrina C) taken on June 12, 2006 ; nine months after Hurricane Katrina and D) taken on March 22, 2010; four and a half years after Hurricane Katrina. ( 2011 Google, 2011Europa Technologies, 2011 Digital Globe, 2011 Sanborn, Image : NOAA )

PAGE 114

114 A. B. C. D. Figure D 2. Series of images of the New Orleans neighborhood Lakeview collected from Google Earth. A) taken on December 30, 2004; eight months prior to Hurricane Katrina B). ta ken on August 30, 2005; one day after Hurricane Katrina C) taken on June 12, 2006; nine months after Hurricane Katrina and D) taken on March 22, 2010; four and a half years after Hurricane Katrina. ( 2011 Google, 2011Europa Technologies, 2011 Digital Gl obe, 2011 Sanborn, Image: NOAA)

PAGE 115

1 15 A. B. C. D. Figure D 3. Series of images of the New Orleans neighborhood Gentilly Terrace collected from Google Earth. A) taken on December 30, 2004; eight months prior to Hurricane Katrina B). taken on August 30, 2005; one day after Hurricane Katrina C) taken on June 12, 2006; nine months after Hurricane Katrina and D) taken on March 22, 2010; four and a half years after Hurricane Katrina. ( 2011 Google, 2011Europa Technologies, 2011 Digital Globe, 2011 Sanborn, Image s : US Geological Survey, NOAA)

PAGE 116

116 A. B. C. D. Figure D 4. Series of images of the New Orleans neighborhood Saint Claude collected from Goo gle Earth. A) taken on December 30, 2004; eight months prior to Hurricane Katrina B). taken on August 30, 2005; one day after Hurricane Katrina C) taken on June 12, 2006; nine months after Hurricane Katrina and D) taken on March 22, 2010; four and a half years after Hurricane Katrina. ( 2011 Google, 2011Europa Technologies, 2011 Digital Globe, 2011 Sanborn, Image s : US Geological Survey, NOAA)

PAGE 117

117 A. B. C. D. Figure D 5. Series of images of the New Orleans neighborhood the Lower Ninth Ward collected from Google Earth. A) taken on December 30, 2004; eight months prior to Hurricane Katrina B). taken on August 30, 2005; one day after Hurricane Katrina C) taken on June 12, 2006; nine months afte r Hurricane Katrina and D) taken on March 22, 2010; four and a half years after Hurricane Katrina. ( 2011 Google, 2011Europa Technologies, 2011 Digital Globe, Images: US Geological Survey, NOAA)

PAGE 118

118 APPENDIX E FIELD STUDY IMAGES Figu re E 1. Images from the field study of the Lower Ninth Ward (photographs by author)

PAGE 119

119 Figure E 2. Images from the field study of the Navarre neighborhood (photographs by author)

PAGE 120

120 Figure E 3 Images from the field st udy of the Lakeview and Gentilly Terrace neighborhoods (photographs by author)

PAGE 121

121 Figure E 4 Images from the field study of the Gentilly Terrace, Saint Claude and Holy Cross neighborhoods (photographs by author)

PAGE 122

122 APPENDIX F NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY RESULTS

PAGE 123

123

PAGE 124

124

PAGE 125

125 APPENDIX G SUSTAINABILITY INDEX

PAGE 126

126 APPENDIX H LIFE CYCLE COSTS

PAGE 127

127

PAGE 128

128 APPENDIX I QUALITY MODELS

PAGE 129

129

PAGE 130

130

PAGE 131

131 LIST OF REFERENCES Anonymous (2011). "Geographic Information System GIS: Introduction." http://www.ccdmd.qc.ca/en/gis/before.html (10/05, 2011). Anonymous (2011). "Richter Scale Magnitude." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale (06/27, 2011). Anonymous (2009). "Home Features and Materials Make It Right." http://www.makeitrightnola.org/index.php/building_green/detail/materials/ (10/03, 2011). Anonymous (2009). "Make It Right." ht tp://www.makeitrightnola.org (10/03, 2011). Anonymous (2008). "1000 Days Later." Popular Mechanics, 185(9), 91 100. Anonymous (2001). "States Adopt Building Codes to Make Homes Safer." State Legis., 27(9), 7. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. (2009). "The National Historic Preservation Program." http://www.achp.gov/nhpp.html (09/28, 2011). Baldwin, A., Poon, C., Shen, L., Austin, S., and Wong, I. (2009). "Designing out waste in high ris e residential buildings: Analysis of precasting methods and traditional construction." Renewable Energy: An International Journal, 34(9), 2067 2073. Barnett, J., and and Beckman, J. (2006). "Reconstructing New Orleans: A Progress Report." Rebuilding Urban Places After Disasters: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina, E. Birch, and S. and Wachter, eds., University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, 288 304. Bergeron, A., and Sawyer, T. (2006). "Louisiana passes new statewide building code; critics say it ma y burden home repairs." Archit.Rec., 194(1), 34 34. Berns, M., Townend, A., Khayat, Z., Balagopal, B., Reeves, M., Hopkins, M., and Kruschwitz, N. (2009). "Sustainability and Competitive Advantage." MIT Sloan Management Review, 51(1), 19 26. Blas, L. "Pi tt tours New Orleans homes." USA Today, Bolin, R. (1998). The Northridge earthquake: Vulnerability and disaster. Routledge, London. Bradford, N. M., and Sen, R. (2004). "Gable End Wall Stability in Florida Hurricane Regions, 10 Year Review: Post Hurric ane Andrew (1992) to Florida Building Code (2002)." J.Archit.Eng., 10(2), 45 52.

PAGE 132

132 Chastain, B., Sawyer, T., Rubin, D., Powers, M., and Armistead, T. (2004). "New Florida Codes Bring Mixed Success." ENR: Engineering News Record, 253(8), 8 9. Chen, Y., Okud an, G., and Riley, D. R. (2010). "Decision support for construction method selection in concrete buildings: Prefabrication adoption and optimization." Autom.Constr., 19(6), 665 675. Chittum, R., and Francis, T. (2005). "Building Houses to Stand." Wall Str eet Journal Eastern Edition, 246(65), B1 B2. Curtis, A. J., Mills, J. W., and Leitner, M. (2006). "Spatial confidentiality and GIS: re engineering mortality locations from published maps about Hurricane Katrina." International Journal of Health Geograph ics, 5 44 12. Department of Public Safety. (2011). "Codes and Standards." http://lsuccc.dps.louisiana.gov/codes.html (10/03, 2011). DOE. (1997). "Earth Sheltered Houses." Energy Effic iency and Renewable Energy Clearinghouse, February 1 7. Durieux, L., Lagabrielle, E., and Nelson, A. (2008). "A method for monitoring building construction in urban sprawl areas using object based analysis of Spot 5 images and existing GIS data." ISPRS J. Photogramm.Remote Sens., 63(4), 399 408. Edwards, J. D. (2006). "Creole Architecture: A Comparative Analysis of Upper and Lower Louisiana and Saint Domingue." International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 10(3), 237 267. ENR. (2007). "Louisiana Gears Up To Enforce New Statewide Building Code. (Cover story)." ENR: Engineering News Record, 258(17), 24 24. ENR. (2006). "Concrete Homes Address New Orleans Housing Crisis." ENR: Engineering News Record, 257(10), 14. FEMA. (2011). "Disaster Information." http://www.fema.gov/hazard/index.shtm (06/27, 2011). FGBC. (2011). "Organization Background and Facts." http://www.floridagreenbuilding.org/files/1/File/FGBC_Organizational_Fact_Sheet2 011.pdf (10/3, 2011). Finch, C., Emrich, C., and Cutter, S. (2010). "Disaster disparities and differential recovery in New Orleans." Population & Environment, 31(4), 179 202. Global Green. (2011). "Holy Cross Project." http://globalgreen.org/neworleans/holycross/about/ (10/03, 2011).

PAGE 133

133 Global Green. (2011). "Rebuilding Ne w Orleans." http://www.globalgreen.org/neworleans/ (10/03, 2011). Gopalakrishnan, C., and Okada, N. (2007). "Designing new institutions for implementing integrated disaster risk management : key elements and future directions." Disasters, 31(4), 353 372. Gordon, S. H. (2007). "New Orleans musicians get sound new housing." Archit.Rec., 195(6), 24 24. Greater New Orleans Community Data Center. (2003). "Parish Data and Info." http://www.gnocdc.org/orleans/index.html (10/14, 2011). Green Building Institute. (2011). "Green Globes Frequently Asked Questions." h ttp://www.greenglobes.com/about faq.asp (10/13, 2011). Green Building Institute. (2011). "What is Green Globes?" http://www.greenglobes.com/about.asp (10/13, 2011). Green Building Institut e. (2011). "Why Green Globes is Better?" http://www.greenglobes.com/about why.asp (10/13, 2011). Guikema, S. D. (2009). "Infrastructure Design Issues in Disaster Prone Regions." Science, 323(5919), 1302 1303. Habitat for Humanity. (2011). "About Disaster Response." http://www.habitat.org/disaster/about/default.aspx (10/06, 2011). Habitat for Humanity. (2011). "Habitat for Humanity's Disaster Response." http://www.habitat.org/disaster/default.aspx (10/06, 2011). Hadhazy, A., (2011). "Extreme Building Codes: Protect Your Home from Natural Disasters." http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/improvement/outdoor projects/extreme building codes?src=soc_em (06/27, 2011). Hashemi, M., and Alesheikh, A. A. (2011). "A GIS based earthquake damage assessment and settlement methodology." Soil Dynamics & Earthquake Engineering, 31(11), 1607 1617. Holbein, A. (2009). "Building a Recovery Department." Planning, 75(2), 36 39. Kenn edy, S. (2011). "Update make it Right." Archit.Rec., 199(5), 46 46. Kibert, C., Zimmir, J., and Guy, G. (2002). Construction Ecology: Nature as the Basis for Green Buildings. Spon Press, New York, NY. Kingsley, K. (2007). "New Orleans Architecture: Build ing Renewal." Journal of American History, 94(3), 716 725.

PAGE 134

134 Kirk, S. J. (1994). "Quality Modeling: Defining Project Expectations." International Conference of the Society of American Value Engineers, Kopec, D. (2006). Environmental Psychology for Design Fairfield Publications, Inc., New York, NY. Krupa, M. (2008). "City's Demolition Review Panel Back in Business." The Times Picayune (New Orleans), B1. Kunreuther, H. (2008). "Reducing Losses from Catastrophic Risks through Long Term Insurance and Mitig ation." Social Research, 75(3), 905 930. Kunreuther, H. (1998). "Introduction." Paying the Price: The Status and Role of Insurance Against Natural Disasters in the United States, H. Kunreuther, and R. J. Roth, eds., Joseph Henry Press, Washington, D.C., 1 16. Levine, J. N., Esnard, A., and Sapat, A. (2007). "Population Displacement and Housing Dilemmas Due to Catastrophic Disasters." Journal of Planning Literature, 22(1), 3 15. Lin, G., Shen, G. Q., Sun, M., and Kelly, J. (2011). "Identification of Key P erformance Indicators for Measuring the Performance of Value Management Studies in Construction." Journal of Construction Engineering & Management, 137(9), 698 706. Lin, G., and Shen, Q. (2007). "Measuring the Performance of Value Management Studies in Co nstruction: Critical Review." J.Manage.Eng., 23(1), 2 9. Lindt, V. D., Graettinger, A., Gupta, R., Skaggs, T., Pryor, S., and Fridley, K. J. (2007). "Performance of Wood Frame Structures during Hurricane Katrina." J.Perform.Constr.Facil., 21(2), 108 116. Link, L. E. (2010). "The anatomy of a disaster, an overview of Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans." Ocean Eng., 37(1), 4 12. Lubell, S. (2005). "Louisiana conference sets priorities for rebuilding." Archit.Rec., 193(12), 29 30. Luegenbiehl, H. C. (2007). "Disasters as Object Lessons in Ethics: Hurricane Katrina." IEEE Technology & Society Magazine, 26(4), 10 15. Maantay, J., and and Zeigler, J. (2006). GIS for the Urban Environment. Esri Press, Redlands, CA. Malin, N. (2005). "Green Globes Emerges to Ch allenge LEED." EBN, 14(3),. Malin, N. (2005). "The Mindset Thing: Exploring the Deeper Potential of Integrated Design." EBN,

PAGE 135

135 Malin, N. (2004). "Integrated Design." EBN, 13(11),. McDonald, R. (2003). Introduction to Natural and Man Made Disasters and T heir Effects on Buildings. Architectural Press, Burlington, MA. Mehta, M., Scarborough, W., and Armpriest, D. (2008). Building Construction: Principles, Materials and Systems. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Merriam Webster. (2011). "Defin ition of Disaster." http://www.merriam webster.com/dictionary/disaster (09/05, 2011). Miller, W. D., Pollack, C. E., and Williams, D. R. (2011). "Healthy Homes and Communities: Putting the Pieces Together." Am.J.Prev.Med., 40 S48 S57. Morel, J. C., Mesbah, A., Oggero, M., and Walker, P. (2001). "Building Houses with Local Materials: means to drastically the environmental impact of construciton." Building and Environment, 36 111 9 1126. Myers, C., Slack, T., and Singelmann, J. (2008). "Social vulnerability and migration in the wake of disaster: the case of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita." Population & Environment, 29(6), 271 291. NOAA. (2009). "Hurricane Andrew." http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/satellite/satelliteseye/hurricanes/andrew92/andrew.ht ml (10/03, 2011). NOAA. (2005). "Hurricane Katrina." http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/special reports/katrina.html (09/16, 2011). Odum, H. T. (2002). "Material Circulation, Energy Hierarchy and Building Construction." Construction Ecology: Nature as the Basis f or Green Buildings, C. Kibert, J. Zimir, and G. Guy, eds., Spon Press, New York, NY, 37 28. Oktay, D. (2001). "Design with the Climate in Housing Environments: An Analysis in Northern Cyprus." Building and Environment, Oliver Smith, A. (2006). "Disaste rs and Forced Migration in the 21st Century." Understanding Katrina: Perspectives from the Social Sciences, http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/oliver smith Olshansky, R. B., Johnson, L. A., Horne, J., and Nee, B. (2008). "Longer View: Planning for the Rebuilding of New Orleans." Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(3), 273 287. Owens, B. (2010). "LEED & Green Building Codes." ASHRAE J., 52(6), S6 S8.

PAGE 136

136 Pasterick, E (1998). "The National Flood Insurance Program." Paying the Price: The Status and Role of Insurance Against Natural Disasters in the United States, H. Kunruther, and R. J. Roth, eds., Joseph Henry Pres, Washington, D.C., 125 154. Petersen, M., (2011). "B lessed Bounty: Reflections on the Sustainable Design Competition." http://globalgreen.org/blogs/global/?p=1890 (10/03, 2011). Petterson, J., Stanley, L., Glazier, E., and Philipp, J. (2006). "A Preliminary Assessment of Social and Economic Impacts Associated with Hurricane Katrina." American Anthropologists, 108(4), 644 670. Piepkorn, M. (2005). "The Natural Building Movement." EBN, 14(5),. Queena, S. K. (2004). "Industry Aims To Mak e Homes Disaster Proof." Wall Street Journal Eastern Edition, 244(64), D1 D6. Rebuild Together. (2010). "Rebuild 1000 Statistics." http://www.rebui ldingtogether.org/section/initiatives/drr/r1000about/drrstats1 (10/06, 2011). Rebuild Together. (2008). "About Rebuild 1000." http://www.rebuildingtogether.or g/section/initiatives/drr/r1000about (10/06, 2011). Robichaud, L. B., and Anantatmula, V. S. (2011). "Greening Project Management Practices for Sustainable Construction." J.Manage.Eng., 27(1), 48 57. Saenz, A. (2011). "New Orleans Population Shrinks By 1/3 In 10 Years." ABC News, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/orleans population shrinks 10 years/story?id=12856256 Sagun, A., Bouchlaghem, D., and Anumba, C. J. (2009). "A scenario based study on information flow and collaboration patterns in disaster management." Disasters, 33(2), 214 238. Sawyer, T., Korman, R., Post, N., Powers, M., Armistead, T., Rubin, D., and Chastain, B. (2004). "Deadly H urricane Trio Whips Up New Debate." ENR: Engineering News Record, 253(12), 10 13. Schawb, J., Topping, K., Eadie, C., Deyle, R., and Smith, R. (1998). Planning for Post Disaster Recovery and Reconstruction. American Planning Association, Chicago, IL. Sch euer, C., and Keoleian, G. (2002). "Evaluation of LEED using Life Cycle Assessment Methods." NIST, 15 21. Stark, J. (2002). "New Building Code Brings Cost, Confusion." St. Pete Times, Home(August 19, 2002),.

PAGE 137

137 Swan, A. J., Rteil, A., and Lovegrove, G. (201 1). "Sustainable Earthen and Straw Bale Construction in North American Buildings: Codes and Practice." J.Mater.Civ.Eng., 23(6), 866 872. Thomson, H. (2010). "How to build a way out of disaster." New Sci., 205(2750), 46 47. Upton, D. (2006). "Understandin g New Orlean's Architectural Ecology." Rebuilding Urban Places after Disaster: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina, E. Birch, and S. and Wachter, eds., University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, 275 287. USGBC. (2011). "LEED FAQ." http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1819 (10/08, 2011). USGBC. (2011). "Scope and Eligibility Guidelines: LEED for Homes 2008." www.us gbc.org (10/28, 2011). Van der Ryn, S., and and Cowan, S. (1996). Ecological Design. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Van der Ryn, S., and and Pena, R. (2002). "Ecologic Analogues and Architecture." Construction Ecology: Nature as the Basis for Green Buil dings, C. Kibert, J. Zimir, and G. Guy, eds., Spon Press, New York, NY, 231 247. Verderber, S. (2010). "Five Years After Three New Orleans Neighborhoods." Journal of Architectural Education, 64(1), 107 120. Wallace, N. (2008). "Katrina's Victims Pull Tog ether to Rebuild a Neighborhood." Chronicle of Philanthropy, 20(14), 16 16.

PAGE 138

138 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Rachel Compton was born and r aised in Clearwater, Florida, the eldest of two children. The desire to design developed early, when, at ten years old she announced her plans to transform the local abandoned meat packing warehouse into a homeless shelter. After successfully graduating valedictorian of her high school class, Rachel earned a Bachelor of Design in Interior Design in 2009 from the University of Florida summa cum laude Immediately following undergraduate graduation, Rachel was accepted and enrolled in the M.E. Ri nker Sr. School of Building Construction to begin working on a Master of Science in Building Construction. While there, she was privileged to be a Rachel pursued a career in the field s of interior design and natural disaster reconstruction.