Simplistic solutions will result in disastrous outcomes

 “Build up, not out.” I could train a parrot to say that because it really doesn’t take much intelligence to spout that kind of simplistic rhetoric. Yet if you asked the parrot how high or dense, he wouldn’t be able to answer because that requires a lot more gray matter. Like our parrot, Michael Pitwirny of the Okanagan Sustainability Insitute (Kelowna Capital News, Oct. 17, 2008) also has a simplistic reason for advocating highrises — they save land. Yes, indeed they do, but what about all the other resources consumed by the occupants of those towers like water, energy, and the additional resources that support the high consumptive North American lifestyle? Will the occupants use less of those? Not likely. (Pitwirny should check his facts if he thinks that highrises units consume less energy than other housing types because they don’t!). Our ecological footprint includes all of the resources we consume and not just land.  With or without increased density it continues to grow beyond the capability of the environment to support our numbers  moving us further down the road to an environmental collapse; and the higher the density, the greater the size of our ecological footprint.

People like Pitwirny with their simplistic reasoning are really very dangerous types. They lull us into a false sense of security that all we have to do is densify and, voila, we will become sustainable while they distract us from the real cause of our unsustainability which is population growth. Simply put, the more people we have locally or globally, the more resources we consume, the more pollution we emit, and the more unsustainable we become. Densifying just reduces the consumption of one resource — land, and that’s all, and we pay a heavy price for that in terms of a decline in our livability. As Al Bartlett put it, densifying is like buying a first class ticket on the Titanic — the trip may be better but the outcome is still the same. And I’m sure that those first class passengers on the Titanic were also feeling very secure at the onset.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LEED is a long way from sustainability

 

 I would like to commend Jennifer Smith and the Capital News for the excellent article “The higher cost of building green” (Aug. 3, 2008), which dealt with some of the challenges of constructing environmentally responsible buildings. The article suggested that LEED Gold is quickly becoming the standard for buildings and will likely be made a requirement for all new structures by the new B.C. Building Code.

 

But LEED is not without its critics who say that although well-intentioned, it has many shortcomings in its execution such as that the LEED point system motivates developers to look for the easiest and most inexpensive way to accumulate enough points to get a certification for public relations purposes rather than to build structures that are genuinely best for the environment. Some other criticisms of LEED that have been made are that the benefits that come with LEED certification remain uncertain and that buildings that earn more LEED points than other buildings do not necessarily provide more environmental benefits.

 

Yet perhaps the most compelling criticism of LEED is that it does not contribute to the goal of environmental sustainability because LEED certified buildings are merely less harmful to the environment than non-LEED buildings and, for example, still result in a net increase in energy use at a time when we should be reducing our energy demand altogether. Despite these shortcomings, some local bodies such as the Advisory Planning Commission unquestioningly accept that LEED buildings are good for the environment, and thereby are regularly hoodwinked by developers into voting for some pretty dubious projects because they come with LEED certification.

Also see: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/13/CMGA7PCMDH1.DTL

My presentation to the APC on the downtown CD Zone proposal

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission:

I would like to make some general remarks about the CD Zone proposal and then spend the remaining time addressing the issue of environmental sustainability as it relates to the proposal. If implemented this proposal will result in a dramatic change in our present city character of being a friendly, livable small to mid-size city to that of becoming a big-city overnight with the introduction of a big city downtown. The major factors that would lead to this change are the excessive building heights and densities found in the CD Zone which are far beyond what is presently found in the downtown.

Thank you.

Our Downtown Plan which is the basis of the C-7 zone allows for building heights in the four block area under consideration of 6 storeys along the periphery of the area with a smaller portion along Lawrence and Leon Avenues at 12 storeys. The C-7 Zone allows a building height of 44 metres or between 12 and 14 storeys and a maximum density of 9.0 FAR. In a report on the Doyle Avenue highrise presented to the Commission last week, the Planning Department acknowledged “The FAR [in this zone] was intentionally set high with the expectation that no development would ever approach this upper limit.” In other words, it was never intended that any proposal be built out to an FAR of 9.0. The City and its consultant have shown you diagrams comparing the appearance of the proposed CD Zone to a representation of what the C-7 Zone would look like built to a density of 9.0 FAR. Given, what I have just reported, I would like the Commission to disregard this comparison because it is based on the faulty assumption of an unrealistically high density that was never intended for zone.

The present Downtown Plan remains in force until it is revised which has not yet been done. Accordingly, the public has every right to expect the proposed CD Zone to conform to the present Downtown Plan until City Council decides to revise it which it has not yet done. Therefore, it does not follow proper planning procedures to consider this CD Zone which is inconsistent with the existing DT Plan until the latter is revised with the full participation of the public. I would urge the Commission to instruct City Council to revise the Downtown Plan prior to considering the CD Zone.

Because of the time restriction that I am under, I would like to use the remaining time to address the issue of whether or not this project is environmentally sustainable particularly from the perspective of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. The City claims that the proposed CD Zone is sustainable because it is near shopping and transit, is of high density, and incorporates green construction and technology. Let’s look at the claim that being of high density contributes to sustainability.

A recent study by CMHC revealed that a typical high rise apartment unit consumes more energy than any other type of housing unit including mid-rise apartments and single family homes. A study by the Australian national government showed similar results. Furthermore, the Australian study showed that highrises were responsible for 40% more greenhouse gas emissions than mid-rise units, 60% more than low-rise units, and about twice that of townhouses and villas.

The City claims that this project is sustainable in terms of energy because it is incorporating green building techniques and that the project is to a LEED gold standard. But how much does this mean in practical terms? The reasons given for why highrises use so much energy are because of the extraordinary heating and cooling needs of these buildings due to their unprotected exposure to cold winds in the winter and the hot sun in the summer. Many LEED points are given for things such as the fact that the project is near employment and shopping, but this will not by itself reduce the energy consumption of the building.

Montreal-based planning consultant Martin Laplante has said of LEED, “More and more architects are coming out and saying out loud what a lot of people have thought all along. Getting LEED certification is good PR but not necessarily a good way to preserve the environment. … The fact that the building is of a form that wastes huge amounts of energy is not a big deal as long as you have a long list of things that save energy, like bicycle racks. Having solar panels is a huge publicity boost and LEED points getter, even though it makes less impact to energy use than, say, the design of windows. Building two ordinary four story buildings is a lot more environmentally friendly than one 8 storey one, but it doesn’t get you LEED certification. You get that by building the inefficient building then adding gimmicks until you collect enough points.”

As an average highrise unit uses more energy and is responsible for more GHG emissions than low-rise or mid-rise buildings and if we dramatically increase densities as is proposed in the CD plan, that would then allow more of these inefficient units to be located in a given area. For example, this project with its approximately 1900 residential units would emit twice the GHG emissions as a project of one half the density and three times the emissions as a project of one-third the density. So with get hit with a double whammy of energy inefficient units and lots of them.

The City is applauding itself for its “smart growth” design and the fact that energy is being saved as residents are closer to shopping and employment. But what is the relative contribution of residences and transportation to overall energy consumption and GHG emissions? For 2005, Natural Resources Canada reported that the total energy used in that year for space heating in homes was greater than all the energy used by cars in the country and that doesn’t even include the energy used for water heating, appliances, lighting and space cooling. In a presentation to Kelowna City Council on April 7 of this year, Sustainability Action Plan committee member Randy Cleveland reported that buildings are responsible for 50% of all energy consumed in North America and estimated that here in Kelowna buildings are responsible for almost double the GHG emissions from transportation fuels. Therefore, it is apparent that we should be paying at least as much attention to the type of structures that we build as to their spatial organization.

And I haven’t even begun to address the topic of the urban heat island effect which is caused by packed concentrations of concrete, asphalt, steel and glass, concentrations such as found in highrise structures. The heat island effect has been said to be a contributor to global warming. Considering their impact on energy use, GHG emissions, and the urban heat island effect, can highrise structures be said to be sustainable? Definitely not!

The environmental problems posed by highrises have caused environmentalist James Howard Kunster and world-renown architects Susan Roaf and Nikos Salingaros to become harsh critics of highrises and high density cities and advocates that building height be kept to a maximum of between 6 and 8 storeys. But I don’t want the Commission to just take my word for it. I would like to ask the APC to request that the City commission a study on the energy consumption and GHG emissions of the proposed CD Zone and to compare that to the energy consumed and GHG emitted by buildings of between 6 and 8 storeys height. Last week the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research for the State of California issued a technical advisory instructing approving authorities in that state to quantify or estimate GHG emissions for all proposed plans and projects and to identify project alternatives or impose mitigation measures. California’s environmental policies have become a model for those of the Campbell government in British Columbia and it’s just a matter of time before the same requirements will be found here. I ask the Commission to be proactive and recommend that such a study be done now.

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.  

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.  

 

Kelowna’s sustainability — a local version of the emperor’s new clothes

I find it most amusing how lately the City is trying to create the illusion that Kelowna is on the path towards sustainability by using that word to describe just about all of its activities. The latest example of this is the departmental reorganization at City Hall whereby three divisions will be created with two, Community Sustainability and Corporate Sustainability, bearing that term.

 

My amusement turned to a guffaw upon learning that the City Planning Department will be part of the Community Sustainability Division.  That department is presently undertaking a review of the Official Community Plan, wherein the public deception continues in regards to the population projections that are being used to calculate our growth between now and 2030.  The assumption in the OCP is that the city’s population will grow at an average annual rate of 1.57% over that period.  That certainly sounds sustainable if it were true, but it’s not. The truth is that for the past three years Kelowna’s population has grown by at least 3% per year with BC Statistics estimating that the city grew by 4.2% in 2007.  If that rate of growth continues, our population will be closer to 250,000 by 2030 than to the 160,000 that is being projected in the OCP.  So how do our planners figure that our growth will magically slow to a modest 1.57%?  The same way that the city administration is making Kelowna sustainable – by just saying it will.

 

The master propagandist Joseph Goebbels said that “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” Such is the case with the lie of Kelowna’s sustainability — a lie that sharply contrasts with the reality of increasing traffic congestion, a high crime rate, a critical shortage of affordable housing, and diminishing community character and social capital. The City can try to dress up Kelowna’s uncontrolled growth in the finest garment of sustainability, but I think the public is smart enough to see that the emperor has no clothes.