Professor sees red over green building claims
By Globe and Mail
High Voltage Maintenance Training Online
Our customized live online or in‑person group training can be delivered to your staff at your location.
- Live Online
- 12 hours Instructor-led
- Group Training Available
Renewable energy? Wind turbines? A joke, the University of Toronto environmental studies professor says at least, until we can start reducing our energy footprint in a significant way.
A lot has been made of the citys attempts to green its buildings, which suck up the lions share of Torontos energy consumption. But they dont go nearly far enough, he insists. And the problem isnt the citys huge supply of old, crumbling towers: Its the shiny new buildings going up we should be worried about.
To a degree, Torontos hands are tied when it comes to messing with Ontarios building code. But the key to greener buildings, Prof. Harvey insists, is bringing in laws with teeth.
What should we be doing?
We suffer from braindead building design. Were building allglass condominiums, allglass office buildings. The office buildings are hermetically sealed they have entire glazing sections facing west with no external shading devices. These buildings are uninhabitable without massive airconditioning systems.... Its really pointless to do anything else until you address this issue. I say youve got it all backwards. And the problem is, these buildings were stuck with for 50, 100, I dont know how many years. I mean, even a coal power plant is only going to last 40 years. A braindead building and thats almost all were building is going to last 100 years.
The citys been touting its green building standards, things like the mayors tower renewal. Do those help?
Tower renewal involves retrofitting existing old buildings. Those buildings from the sixties and seventies, those are salvageable. I dont know how were going to salvage whats being built right now. The most important thing is to stop what were doing right now with new buildings.
So the existing codes arent helping?
Theres no way you can make an allglass building green. Theres no such thing as a green SUV. You shouldnt be building SUVs in the first place you shouldnt be building allglass buildings in the first place. And no amount of hightech or fancy stuff can turn an inherently bad design into a green building.
So things like requirements for green roofs no good?
Well theyll help a little, but thats a small part of the picture. If you put a green roof on top of an allglass building, its a bit of a joke. Its not a green building.
Apart from the glass, what is the problem?
Theyre hermetically sealed, they dont have shading. If you want an allglass building, okay, you should have adjustable, external shading at least on the west side. On the south side you can have a fixed overhang because in the summer the sun is high enough that you can shade it. You need adjustable shading and to protect it from the wind and the elements you need a second glazing over top.... If youre going to design with nature, the four sides of the building are probably not going to look the same.
We thought wed be really cute at the University of Toronto and put in a building with a doubleskinned facade but since we wanted everyone to see it and we could only afford one side, we put it on the south side. It doesnt do very much. On the west is where you need it. So you look at this building, this centre for cellular biology and research on College Street, and its a joke. I mean its a gesture towards green and sustainability but its done all wrong. Go inside it and go walk along the west side on an afternoon day the west side is all glazing and hermetically sealed.
From the citys perspective, what do you think should change in terms of building regulations?
I dont know if the city has the power. I think its the province. If its the city, fine. You have to say, Okay, we need performanceoriented standards. And none of the buildings right now even come close to it.
What would you need?
You have to say, Okay, this is the maximum allowable energy per square metre, per year, for air conditioning, energy, ventilation and heating. Its got to be a consumptionrelated standard. And the larger the building, the tougher the standard has to be. Its easier to meet it if its a larger building, because its a surfacetovolume ratio. We need standards with teeth, and we dont have anything right now that has teeth in it.
Are there any cities that have done that?
Frankfurt, Germany. The Germans blow us away. It is a disgrace, the difference. The Germans have something called a passivehouse standard.... For heating, its a [maximum] requirement of 15 kilowatt hours per square metre of floor per year. The average heating requirement of all residential buildings in Canada for existing buildings is 150. Ten times.
