To investigate the impacts of an energy efficiency retrofit, indoor air quality and resident health were evaluated at a low‐income senior housing apartment complex in Phoenix, Arizona, before and after a green energy building renovation. Indoor and outdoor air quality sampling was carried out simultaneously with a questionnaire to characterize personal habits and general health of residents. Measured indoor formaldehyde levels before the building retrofit routinely exceeded reference exposure limits, but in the long‐term follow‐up sampling, indoor formaldehyde decreased for the entire study population by a statistically significant margin. Indoor PM levels were dominated by fine particles and showed a statistically significant decrease in the long‐term follow‐up sampling within certain resident subpopulations (i.e. residents who report smoking and residents who had lived longer at the apartment complex).

The aging apartment blocks (nicknamed “khrushchyovka”, or plural “khrushchyovki” for Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev) of the former USSR are facing demolition, despite the fact that many low income families still depend on these units for housing. This paper researches the development of the khrushchyovka and its estate leading up to the post-Soviet period and examines case studies to assess how these buildings can be modernized to spare them from demolition and to continue to serve as a reliable low-cost housing option. Studying how other projects have addressed similar problems in their architecture, these findings will be synthesized to present a full but minimally invasive khrushchyovka retrofit prototype, with improvements that will culminate in a more energy efficient, sustainable, and comfortable living environment for residents. This prototype provides a standardized template of services and improvements to be made, and can be adjusted to include specific features that meet the needs of a certain climate or location. In the early 1960s during the Khrushchev administration, these housing blocks made from prefabricated insulated concrete panels were constructed all over the USSR to alleviate housing shortages. A lot of them have an in practice service life of 150 years, meaning that many are incredibly durable with millions of people still living in them today. With their small size (ranging from 323 to 646 ft² depending on the number of bedrooms), they continue to be a suitable housing choice for low income small families and young people (Aliashkevich 31). Amid the threat of demolition to make way for cheaply made luxury-priced condos, many residents in the former USSR contend that their beloved khrushchyovki should be preserved (Watson), as they still have the capacity to be renovated in the interest of energy efficiency, cost savings, and community comfort.

This study documents and explores the process of designing a device to decrease the indoor temperature and particulate matter concentration in the air of corrugated steel homes in sub-Saharan Africa. The device, named the Roof Tube, generates power from a solar panel that goes towards powering a motor that rotates blades to output a desired airflow to draw air out from the inside environment. Excess power generated goes towards charging a battery pack during the day that then powers the motor and a light (to improve indoor living quality) during the night when the solar panel cannot collect any more energy. Calculations were done to estimate the ambient indoor temperature of a model home based on the heat transfer from the sun. From this, a rough airflow was determined to offset the temperature difference between the indoor and outdoor environment. A computational fluid dynamics test was performed to determine the effectiveness of the housing design. Results from all tests displayed a low difference between outdoor and indoor temperatures leading to a low prediction of outlet airflow. The designed device prioritized effectiveness, it displaces air at 2700 cfm and charges a 54000mAh battery pack that, when solar energy generation is cut off, can power the motor and light simultaneously for on average 3.02 hours, the motor alone for 8.88 hours, and the light alone for 4.57 hours.