Home is where the heart is

I recently returned from an extended stay in San Diego County, California where I visited the cities of Encinitas and Carlsbad before concluding my travels with a trip to Santa Barbara in the central part of that state. Not unlike Kelowna, each of these cities is in an incredible natural setting with an abundance of beauty, but their urban planning and response to growth has been markedly different from that of our city.

Rather than capitulate to the mindless notion promoted by the development community and its allies in the city administration, the media and at UBC-O that growth is inevitable and that the only logical response is to channel growth to high density urban centres, each community has successfully controlled growth in its own way. Encinitas has limited the number of building permits issued annually, Carlsbad has required that adequate infrastructure and public services are in place before allowing growth to occur, and Santa Barbara has controlled growth by adhering to strict zoning regulations. Furthermore, each of these cities has imposed sensible building height restrictions and has said “no” to highrises.

As a result, each has retained its community character and quality of life while Kelowna is losing its. Encinitas, for example, has recently built a new library with a magnificent panoramaic view of the Pacific Ocean. At one time, one could enjoy a splendid view of the mountains to the east from Kelowna’s downtown library, but now you cannot see the mountains from there for all of the highrises in the way. The construction of highrises would never be permitted in activist-oriented Encinitas as the majority of the public there is concerned about the preservation of its community character. In apathetic Kelowna, the majority of the public doesn’t care enough to vote in a civic election.

In Santa Barbara there presently is a vigorous debate over building heights but not over raising them as one might expect, but rather of lowering allowable heights from the present limit of 60 feet to 45 feet as many feel that even allowing too many 60 foot buildings threatens their community character. Although tourism is an important industry in both Santa Barbara and Kelowna, in the former city the business community is supportive of strict restrictions on development because it realizes that preserving community character is in its best interests. In Kelowna, however, the business community is short-sighted and blinded by its greed unable to see that the construction of highrises along the lakefront will kill the golden goose of tourism.

I am deeply disappointed by the lack of concern in Kelowna for preserving its community character and quality of life as it marches on seemingly hell-bent on destroying its uniqueness and becoming just another generic city full of highrises. One can only blame politicians for so long before one has to point the finger at those self-serving or ignorant residents who keep re-electing the people who are responsible for this state of affairs or electing others who are basically no different from them.

I am looking forward to spending more time in the future in the cities of Encinitas, Carlsbad, and Santa Barbara as the values of its residents are closer to my own. And when I’m there, I will make sure to spend lots of my retirement dollars to help support business people who appreciate their community character and have taken steps to preserve it. Although I will continue to reside in Kelowna, if there is any truth in the adage “home is where the heart is,” then my real home is elsewhere

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ImagineKelowna website creates false image of future downtown

They say that marketing is more about the packaging than it is about the product, and that is certainly the case with marketing expert Tony Payton’s glitzy ImagineKelowna website which is designed to promote the proposed downtown Comprehensive Development Zone. And as with many marketing efforts, this one also is somewhat misleading as to what you will actually get once you open the box.

 

Billing the CD Zone as “the changing face of downtown Kelowna ,” this website attempts to give the impression that the plan will make the downtown a more youthful place with countless images of young adults and children on its home page. But will this project actually deliver on that promise? Not likely.

 

As only about five percent of its units will be designated as affordable housing and the remainder likely to be luxury condos, who will actually be living there? Well, it certainly won’t be the average working family as they won’t be able to afford the hefty price tag of these units. And there may be very few families with children there at all, as how many people would want to raise their children in a highrise? I wouldn’t.

 

No, these units will likely be occupied by childless professionals, empty nesters, retirees, and seasonal residents. So where will all the young people and children come from? They won’t. They are just part of the glossy image that Peyton is trying to create of the CD Zone, but they will be mostly absent from the reality of it.

 

A similar thing happened to Portland, Oregon in its attempts at revitalization by building lots of highrises there, which have earned Portland the dubious distinction of being a “childless city”. In a 2005 article in the New York Times, Timothy Egan described how dense vertical housing and fashionable shops were driving young families out of the downtown by making it too expensive for young families to live there. A similar thing also happened in San Francisco.

 

Does Kelowna have the sense to avoid making the same mistake that these two cities made in their revitalization efforts? Perhaps. But only if we come to grips with the real facts instead of being deceived by the image-making marketers.

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.  

 

Santa Barbara residents move to lower allowable building heights

“smart growth” — Kelowna in 50 years

 

At a time when building height restrictions seem to mean nothing in Kelowna and government bodies such as City Council and the Advisory Planning Commission are only too happy to comply with developers’ requests for taller and taller buildings, there is a movement underway in one North American city to go in the opposite direction and to reduce some already modest building height standards.

 

For decades Santa Barbara, CA (pop. 90,000) has had a 60 foot height restriction in place, but recently, following the construction of numerous buildings in the downtown that have pushed the limits of those heights, residents have decided to take action. A group by the name of Save El Pueblo Viejo, a term for their historic downtown meaning “the old village,” has been organized in an attempt to preserve the heritage of the downtown, its aesthetics, and the small town atmosphere of the city which residents see as being threatened by allowing buildings that are even 60 feet tall. And the group has met with considerable success having gotten 4,000 signatures on a petition to reduce those buildings heights to 40 feet downtown and 45 feet elsewhere and the support of some city councillors.

 

Are Santa Barbara residents a bunch of radicals who are out of touch with modern urban realities? No, they just are just dedicated citizens who appreciate their beautiful city nestled between the mountains and the Pacific Ocean and the Spanish architecture found in their historic downtown, the value of which was being compromised by the large, bulky buildings going up there. What a contrast to Kelowna where money is the only thing that seems to matter and people who care about their city character are said to be obstructing “progress” and are labeled as NIMBYs!

 

I think that Kelowna residents might have something to learn from what is happening in Santa Barbara, hopefully being inspired to renew their appreciation of our own considerable assets in terms of Kelowna’s natural beauty and community character and to take action before what makes our city unique is gone forever.