Case study 9: Corso Mazzini, Ascili Piceno, Italy

The residential building, this case study deals with, was built in the XVII century and it is located in historical city centre of Arcola Piceno, 51000 inhabitants, city of art in the eastern part of central Italy. The case study was selected because of the peculiarity of the situation. For such buildings it exists a high protection of the Historical Heritage Authorities that cause strong restraints for refurbishment activities: no works can be done aiming at modifying the envelope with, hence energy efficient solutions for opaque and transparent surfaces cannot be adopted.

In this case, other aspects are taken into account. The building in en exam is part of a larger built organism. The refurbishments of this portion of ancient neighbourhood aimed at the qualification of the area, with new shops, at the ground level, specialised in arts and craft works and renting the renovated flats, belonging to Social Housing of Ascoli Piceno Province, to disadvantaged people, especially elder ones.

Features & Systems

• PV modules ( the generated electricity is used by the lighting system)
• Shading (automatically controlled blinds)
• Ventilation (chimneys enhance natural ventilation in office spaces)
• Flour heating system
• Building Management System (BMS)
• Specialist Facility Management Company

Using Matrix Tool to assess building Intelligence

The impact of people is positive for all the performance indicators (between 3 and for), but for suitability. This depends on the fact that the case study is an ancient and protected building, in the city centre of an historical town, where is is almost impossible to eliminate the architectural barriers or integrate dedicated systems as lifts or other mechanical devices needed for disabled people.

The impact of systems is sufficient for the performance of the indicators. This mainly due on the fact that the building is a residential one and it is not easy to change the use, as well as changing the energy sources.

The impact of critical issues is sufficient for the performance of the single indicators. As above the poorest impact of for economic and responsiveness. Both indicators are affected by the limited budget available for the Social Housing institute. As a consequence minor features were available for the safety/security and other resources (water, waste, etc.) management.

The impact of process is good for all the performance indicators, except for the functionality. This depends on the fact that residential buildings, and the social housing in particular, generally have part time facility managers.

The impact of design is generally good, but not for all the performance indicators. The impact on the built environment is limited due to the fact that, for protected building, it is impossible the integration of renewables, as well as the change of the architectural appearance. The budget did not allow the implementation of a detailed life cost analysis in order to select the optimised energy effective solutions for the building

Overall score: 75

The rating of the building is 75, good according to the matrix tool evaluation. The limited budget, the architectural restraints, the structure of the matrix (implicitly developed for not residential building) lead to a positive refurbishment, even if not excellent, of an historical building.