Central Green proposal fails the test of energy sustainability

The City’s final plan for the Central Green (old KSS site) has many desirable features, such as an abundance of open space and a moderate amount of affordable housing, but environmental sustainability isn’t one of them. Touted as a showcase for sustainability, this project falls far short of what is desirable and necessary, particularly from the standpoint of energy consumption, because it has high-rise buildings as part of its plan.

 

It is a little known fact, but one that has been revealed by studies in Canada, the U.S., Great Britain and Australia, that high-rises consume more energy than any other type of housing, In a recent study, the CMHC estimates that the annual energy consumption of a typical high-rise unit is about 25% greater than that of an average single family house and more than 50% greater than an R2000 house on a per unit basis. Therefore, the 445 high-rise residential units proposed in the Central Green plan would consume more energy than 445 single family homes.

 

High-rises use an excessive amount of energy because of extraordinary heating and cooling needs posed by the exposure of their large building envelopes to cold winds in the winter and the hot sun in the summer without the protective presence of any natural sheltering. They also have wasteful lighting that is on 24/7 in hallways, stairwells, lobbies, and elevators.

 

In 2006 the Strategic Sustainability Planning Committee of the Vancouver City Planning Commission established a 4 to 8 storey range for building heights in order to optimize sustainability. This incorporates the desirability of compactness in urban form while avoiding the energy wastefulness of high-rise buildings. If the City is genuine about making Kelowna sustainable from an energy standpoint and not just using that term as an empty slogan, it shouldn’t be building any structures higher than 8 storeys.  

Prohibit smoking on public beaches and parks

 

I think that it would be an excellent idea if the City of Kelowna would explore banning smoking at all public beaches and parks like Vancouver is presently doing. More and more North American municipalities are taking such steps in order to protect the health of the public from the dangers of second hand smoke, not to mention the nuisance of cigarette butts found all over the place. My personal experience with the San Diego, CA area informs me that most coastal cities in that region such as the City of San Diego, Solana Beach, Encinitas, Carlsbad, and Oceanside have all passed bylaws prohibiting smoking at public beaches and parks.

 

As a non-smoker who frequents public beaches in Kelowna, I find it most annoying to have cigarette smoke wafting across my face from a smoker who may be as far as 20 feet away. I am sure that other residents and tourists feel the same way. It is time for our city council to also take action on this front.

Letnick should choose which office he’s seeking

It disturbed me to read that Councillor Norm Letnick is going door to door in our city while campaigning for re-election to city council this fall also telling people that he might run in next spring’s provincial election. Does this mean that if he gets re-elected to city council that he might only hold that office for six months if he decides to run provincially and wins?

 

I think that Letnick owes it to the voters of this city to make up his mind which seat he is running for and stick with that choice. It was bad enough having Carol Gran on council missing about 20% of all city council meetings, but Letnick’s indecision could create the need for a by-election at the taxpayers expense to fill his council seat if he is elected to the provincial legislature. Letnick should choose one or the other, and if he is serious about running for MLA, as he has told many people he is, then he should not be running for city council.

 

 

Brian Given disengenuous about demanding better development

Councillor Brian Given recently commented that he is getting tired of developers offering some affordable housing in order get approval for residential projects that don’t meet all the city’s planning criteria saying “We have to start demanding better development.” As a close observer of the scene, I agree that a lot of this has been going on, but it has been going on with Councillor Given’s consent as he has voted for quite a few less than desirable projects that had an affordable housing component as a sweetener. He has also been a supporter of the city’s policy of density bonusing which has been used by developers to get higher densities often beyond that permitted by the OCP and the Zoning Bylaw in exchange for providing a token amount of affordable housing. For Given to be complaining now about a practice that he has gone along with for years is disingenuous of him and smacks of electioneering. I can attest that despite his outcry on the Brandt Avenue development application that Councillor Given is usually much less fussy about voting to approve development applications as he typically ends up voting for most of them.

 

High-rises do not contribute to sustainability

I am glad that B.C. Forest Minister Pat Bell said something that a few of us already knew when he stated at a recent appearance in Kelowna that “Wood is the most environmentally friendly and has the smallest carbon footprint of any building material.” This basic fact should cause many of those who equate highrises, which are made mostly of concrete and steel, with sustainability to question that commonly held but erroneous assumption. The fact is that buildings that are less than six storeys in height and whose foundations are made of wood use both less embodied (used in making construction materials) and operational energy, and are responsible for fewer greenhouse gas emissions than highrises on a per unit basis as studies have shown. And the combined embodied and operational energy of buildings accounts for more energy used in our society per year than does the private automobile.

 

At a recent presentation to the Advisory Planning Commission on the proposed downtown Comprehensive Development Zone with 13 highrise structures up to 30 storeys in height, city consultant Graham McGarva was pitching the notion that this project contributed to the goal of environmental sustainability when, in fact, it detracts from it compared to erecting an equal number of wood frame buildings on that site with heights limited to six storeys. This is not only because wood frame buildings use less embodied energy, as Bell observed, but also less operational energy. Six storey wood frame buildings can be sheltered by trees which shield them from cold winds in the winter while providing shade from the hot sun in the summer. The same cannot be said of a 30 storey highrise which is much more exposed to the elements. It is because of the higher energy requirements of highrises that environmentalist James Howard Kunstler advocates a 7 storey limit to building heights.

 

When residents of Kelowna evaluate the merits of the proposed downtown Comprehensive Development Zone from the perspective of sustainability, they should consider not only the usual “smart growth” argument made by developers that highrises reduce transportation needs as they bring large populations closer to places of work and shopping. They should also look at the energy used by these structures in their construction and operation, and if they do, they will likely conclude that highrises aren’t very sustainable at all.  

 

Social impact study needed for Milroy plan

I agree with Ron Seymour (“Where will Mission fit in redeveloped downtown?,” Daily Courier, July 4) where he says that not enough attention has been given to what will happen to the Gospel Mission if the proposed Comprehensive Development Zone is approved. The City has said that it doesn’t think that it is out of the question that the Mission could remain at its present location, but I think that by saying that the City is just trying to side-step an issue that it really doesn’t want to deal with.

 

I, for one, think that it is incomprehensible that the Mission and the many other social service agencies in the Lawrence and Leon Avenue area will be able to co-exist with the luxury condominiums being planned there, and that it won’t be long before their new residents start pressuring city council to move these agencies somewhere else. That is, if the property owners where these agencies are located, such as the Mission, don’t just decide to cash in on the windfall profits that they will realize upon the sale of their now much more valuable land and move on their own. Either way they won’t be staying.

 

This brings me to one of the stated major purposes of the downtown redevelopment, which ostensibly is to clean up the area of its social problems. If the Mission and other social service agencies are likely to move elsewhere, why couldn’t the City have done this long ago? Kelowna City Council received a study years ago which recommended that the Mission be moved, but never had the courage to act on it because they knew that they would have had to make a politically unpopular decision regarding where to relocate it. So when Phil Milroy came along with his scheme for redeveloping the area, City Council decided to toss him this political hot potato which they didn’t have the courage to handle. Presumably, he will now take the rap for whatever happens and Council will just shrug their shoulders and say that it was a free market decision. What a gutless cop-out that will be!

 

Before the Comprehensive Development Zone is approved, there should be a thorough study of the social impacts that this project will have, such as what will happen to the many social service agencies in the area. Approving the CD Zone and then sticking their heads in the sand may be a convenient strategy for Kelowna City Council, but it won’t solve the many social problems that exist in the area which may soon be coming to a neighbourhood near you.