Viability of the car parks above ground to the underground

Chapter II – The construction and demolition waste, its recycling and reuse opportunities 222 VIABILITY OF THE CAR PARKS ABOVE GROUND TO THE UNDERGROUND 1 *Guzmán Carrizosa, Inmaculada; 1 Lucas Ruiz, Rafael; 1 Guevara García, Fco. Javier 1 ETSIE / CAII. Avda. Reina Mercedes, 4A. 41012. Sevilla e-mail: *inmagu[email protected] ABSTRACT This writing is intended to highlight the differences and economic resources between a parking lot built in two different situations; underground and above ground. To do so, is designed a model more integrated as possible in a specific urban reality with benefits and same construction characteristics, except those bound by its situation, so that they can be compared according to the theory of the global cost in construction area. So, has been implemented the model designed in two situations, underground and above ground, and studied and compared the costs of investment, exploitation, demolition and recycling, as well as a first assessment evaluation of the resources needed for the implementation of the same ones, with a 50-year life cycle. Keywords: transport, urbanism, works underground, construction, urban planning Proceedings of the II International and IV National Congress on Sustainable Construction and Eco- Efficient Solutions 223 1.- Introduction The use of vehicles has dragged always with it the problem of storing them when they are not in use. We know the importance that has had from the antiquity this question and the determinant influence in the construction of buildings, the stables, the alighting-places and stores of carriages form a part of the domestic, bourgeois architectures, palace and defensive of all the times. With the appearance of the car, specially in cities, it continues appearing the problem of his temporary warehouse or storage in the intervals of time in what it is not in use, being named parkings to the spaces or buildings destined to such goal. According to countries and moments different solutions have been adopted for the matter. In any place of the world, the problem of parking will exist or not depending on the design of the city that in general will have an occupation and intensive use in the centers and more distended and extensive in the peripheries. The problem therefore will appear principally in the centers of the cities and places where the building is very intensive and does not have these spaces reserved. In the centers or congested sectors it is solved by timerestricted parkings, which they are usually being regulated by hourly zone, extensive on above ground spaces enabled for it, them underground located in basements of buildings or of exclusive use to park and the placed ones in buildings constructed on low designed for it. This range of solutions has been diverse variants and associated costs of implantation and operation. It is obvious and generally admitted that a parking on low has minor costs that underground one of similar characteristics, as well as fewer pollutant emission nevertheless, we do not know that there have been realized up to the date studies that with some methodologically accepted procedure it determines or comes closer the value of these costs. Fig. 1 “Image of the parking of Düsseldorf's airport, Germany”. Source: Internet In this occasion, we are interested particular in the study of the buildings of parkings constructed above ground and placed underground. Studies that are considered to be indispensable both for the survival of the existing ones and for the future interventions. In this work in I make concrete, we are interested in investigating the Chapter II – The construction and demolition waste, its recycling and reuse opportunities 224 nature of these differences with a view to a major future sustainability always supporting the hypothesis of which the particular vehicle is going to have an important presence in the transport inside the city. The analysis is going to be realized in three successive areas; first from the theory of necessary resources to execute the works, later there will apply to themselves models derived from the theory of the global cost, that is to say studies where it is analyzed I complete of the life cycle of the building, finally, to integrate the information obtained in the most recent models of ecological footprint. There are made two hypothesis of construction of the same parking, one buried and other one in surface with the same conditions of environment, legal services, legislation, qualities and services so that later the obtained information is compared. 2.- Objectives It is considered to know closely the existing differences between the parkings above ground opposite to them underground. This work is the first dip in the topic of the sustainability of parkings, with ecological criteria of vital importance for the future, in the hypothesis of which the private vehicle continues having an important leadership in the transport. The analysis was realized in the light of the theory of the global cost, that is to say of the life cycle of the building, known as: Global Cost = Investment Cost + Exploitation Cost + Demolition and Recycling Cost GC = IC + EC + RC (1) From the experience of design and construction of numerous parkings in Andalusia (Spain) as well as in the analysis of the viability of the same ones there is approached the accomplishment of a comparative study of economic costs as the first step towards a major area in which there are quantified the energetic costs as well as the emission of pollutants. 3.- Methodology To be able to make a comparative model of costs considers to establish a theoretical parking in a supposed location, developed the project above ground and underground. For it the following methodology has been established: 3.1.- Location of the scene of the investigation A plot will be looked in a known city, and where seemingly it were viable and suitable the building of a new parking 3.2.- Analysis of urban development viability It will be verified the urban development viability of the parking, though it is not basic for the object of the study, since many urban development regulations do not foresee parkings above ground. 3.3.- Fundament and design of the models of parking There will develop two models as similar as possible, one above ground and another underground, according to the regulation in force. There will never be able to be absolutely alike due to the constructive different characteristics. Proceedings of the II International and IV National Congress on Sustainable Construction and Eco- Efficient Solutions 225 3.4.- Cost studies models The cost study will be made for each one, including the total cost of the life of the building (Global cost C G ): - Investment Cost C I - Exploitation Cost C E - Demolition and Recycling Cost C R Proceed to make a comparative analysis of the costs of both models. 3.5.- Viability studies of the models A viability study of income and expenses that show the models studied may be able to. 3.6.- Comparative study of costs A comparative study of the data obtained in the following areas will be done: - Investment Cost C I - Exploitation Cost C E - Demolition and Recycling Cost. C R - Global cost C G 3.7.- Estudio comparativo de recursos. - Supplies. M t - Equipment M q - Manpower M o 3.8.- Tools used For the comparative study we have used the following tools: - Price Database of the Junta de Andalucía 2013. - Software of budget and measurements Presto 8.8. - Memory of the Banco de Precios, Junta de Andalucía 2013. Indirect Cost counting itemized. In the process of valoration and quantification have proceeded to develop a single database composed of sections common to both models. In the specific sections of each model are valued at zero those who do not correspond to the specific model. Thus has been made a base price of epigraphs and only allow a comparative analysis. 4.- Model of parking studied 4.1.- Definition and justification of the models of parking proposed for the study. - Location Chapter II – The construction and demolition waste, its recycling and reuse opportunities 226 The location is chosen in Seville, where it has a large amount of data to perform various assessments. The location corresponding to a site where there is now a parking irregular surface and is usually saturated, indicating lack of parking space for cars, and the demand for it. - Number of levels Parking below ground is raised with four floors underground because it is the maximum allowed by the General Plan of Seville, demand is high and the geotechnical study suggest reinforced concrete retaining wall from level -3m approximately, so is decided to go to the fullest. Therefore to carry out a logical comparison, it will be four levels at the parking above ground too. In this sense, a priori in a model with the maximum number of the impact of roof spaces and covers foundations is lower, which makes both models are similar. - Number of places The experience in this area tells us that a rotation parking lot to make it profitable must have spaces between 200/600, since a higher number causes access problems. For parking of cession (towards their residential surroundings) the maximum number of spaces must be about 300 spaces, as the population density of the area, a larger number of spaces are not needed for surrounding users. - Typology A very common, simple, linear type, which are available wealth of data on costs is chosen. Within the city there are several similar car parks which data are available, f. e. Paseo de Colón, Virgen de Lujan, Argentina, Avenida de Roma, Dr. Fedriani, etc. 4.2.- Design fundamentals of models parking Firstly, in order to do the comparative study of both models of parking lots, we have to establish a set of general design features for both in order to have the closest thing as possible comparable models. Then the particular characteristics of each model are established. 4.2.1.- Common features of both models 1. Location: street address C/ Luis Rosales after the stop train Virgen del Rocio and near the neighborhood of Porvenir and Bami. 2. Number of parking spaces: 412 4-wheeled vehicles and 50/51 2-wheeled vehicles. 3. Number of floors: four floors. 4. Structural system chosen: by slab foundation, pillars and floor slabs, all in reinforced concrete. 5. Building system chosen: according to regulations brick masonry envelopes, brick partitions, carpentry, locksmith and surface coatings. 6. Installations according to regulations: in each case are adapted to building model chosen; elevators, etc. 4.2.2.- Specific features of parking underground 1. Reinforced concrete retaining wall: For perimeter containment lands. 2. Urbanization. It is urbanized entire plot of action. 3. Installations. Specific of ventilation, fire protection, water evacuation. Proceedings of the II International and IV National Congress on Sustainable Construction and Eco- Efficient Solutions 227 Fig.2 “Underground Parking. Implementation and the plot”. Source: Author. Fig. 3 “Underground parking. Distribution floors”. Source: Author. Fig. 4 “Underground Parking. Sections”. Source: Author. Chapter II – The construction and demolition waste, its recycling and reuse opportunities 228 Superficie (m²) construida Sótano 1 3.213,24 Sótano 2 3.109,76 Sótano 3 3.109,76 Sótano 4 3.109,76 TOTAL APARCAMIENTO. 12.542,52 Nº Total de plaza de vehículos de cuatro ruedas (coches) 412 Nº Total de plaza de vehículos de dos ruedas (motos) 51 Nº Total de plaza de aparcamiento 463 Repercusión por plaza (m²/plaza coches) 30,44 SUPERFICIES DE APARCAMIENTO. Table 1 “Underground Parking. Parking Surface” Superficie (m²) construida SUPERFICIES OCUPADA SUPERFICIES OCUPADA EN SÓTANOS 3.213,24 SUPERFICIE OCUPADA POR ACCESOS 638,03 Accesos rodados 546,25 Accesos peatonales 91,78 TOTAL OCUPADO 3.851,27 SUPERFICIE AREA DE ACTUACIÓN 7.795,15 SUPERFICIE LIBRE DE URBANIZACIÓN ( NO OCUPADA POR ACCESOS) 7.157,12 SUPERFICIES DE URBANIZACIÓN. Table 2 “Parking Underground. Surface of urbanization”. 4.2.3.- Specific features above ground parking 1. Envelope: construction characteristics indicating that it is an open parking. 2. Urbanization. Part of the plot of action, since the building occupies part of it. 3. Cover. Designed as non-trafficable roof, just for maintenance. Assume improve indoor parking costs this model and would not be comparative with the other model. Fig. 5 “Parking above ground. Implementation and the plot”. Source: Author. Proceedings of the II International and IV National Congress on Sustainable Construction and Eco- Efficient Solutions 229 Fig. 6 “Parking above ground. Distribution floors”. Source: the author Fig. 7 “Parking above ground. Sections”. Source: Author. Superficie (m²) construida Nivel 1 2.813,28 Nivel 2 2.813,28 Nivel 3 2.813,28 Nivel 4 2.813,28 TOTAL APARCAMIENTO. 11.253,12 Nº Total de plaza de vehículos de cuatro ruedas (coches) 413 Nº Total de plaza de vehículos de dos ruedas (motos) 51 Nº Total de plaza de aparcamiento 464 Repercusión por plaza (m²/plaza coches) 27,25 SUPERFICIES DE APARCAMIENTO. Table 3 “Parking above ground. Surface parking”. Chapter II – The construction and demolition waste, its recycling and reuse opportunities 230 Superficie (m²) construida SUPERFICIES OCUPADA SUPERFICIES OCUPADA EDIFICACION SOBRE RASANTE 2.813,28 SUPERFICIE OCUPADA POR ACCESOS 591,86 Accesos rodados 591,86 Accesos peatonales 0,00 TOTAL OCUPADO 3.405,14 SUPERFICIE AREA DE ACTUACIÓN 7.795,15 SUPERFICIE LIBRE DE URBANIZACIÓN ( NO OCUPADA) 4.390,01 SUPERFICIES DE URBANIZACIÓN. Table 4 “Parking above ground. Areas of urbanization”. 5.- Cost global study. comparative analysis of costs We focus in this section on valuations of the two models, demand forecasts and economic viability of the development nor the justification for each building systems, installations and exploitation chosen, are not the subject of this article, that are developed in detail in the study of Ms. Dª Inmaculada Guzmán Carrizosa 3 . 5.1.- Investment costs CALCULO COSTE INVERSION APARCAMIENTO BAJO RASANTE APARCAMIENTO SOBRE RASANTE DIFERENCIA % COSTE DIRECTO 4.563.119,14 € 3.275.558,54 € 1.287.560,60 € 39% COSTE INDIRECTO 538.904,37 € 410.755,04 € 128.149,33 € 31% PEM 5.102.023,51 € 3.686.313,58 € 1.415.709,93 € 38% P.A. Reurbanización Zona Actuación 420.930,00 € 237.060,54 € 183.869,46 € 78% Subtotal1 5.522.953,51 € 3.923.374,12 € 1.599.579,39 € 41% COSTES GENERALES 13% 717.983,96 € 510.038,64 € 207.945,32 € 41% BENEFICIO INDUSTRIAL 6% 331.377,21 € 235.402,45 € 95.974,76 € 41% COSTE INVERSION 6.572.314,68 € 4.668.815,20 € 1.903.499,47 € 41% Table 5 “Comparative analysis of annual investment cost”. 3 Viabilidad de los aparcamientos sobre rasante frente a los bajo rasante. Cuantificación. Autora: Inmaculada Guzmán Carrizosa. Sevilla, diciembre 2013. Desarrollado como Proyecto Fin de Master del Master en Gestión Integral de la Edificación.