5833 replies to this topic

[spanky123]

Meh, whatever. Victorians were fine when their $60 million bridge turned into a $120 million bridge (still unfinished).

 

Victoria just added it to their debt. Little bit different if you have to write a cheque from operating funds and that cheque is equal to all other municipal expenses in the year!

 

Now I am not saying that Langford is on the hook for anything but it is not like the City has been transparent about this project first telling us they had no liability at all.

[punk cannonballer]

, and how inefficient it is to heat hundreds of individual units. 

Have you ever lived in a decent building? My condo in Vancouver was so well insulated that I never once turned on the heat or the a/c over the years I lived there. Not once.

[Mike K.]

And you get this from where? Anecdote from 'everyone in the industry'? Any peer-review backing that up? There are studies that say that in some cases individual cities can be less green because they don't have proper infrastructure. However, all things and building practises being equal, density is more efficient. There will never be a case where sprawl to accommodate the population of somewhere like Manhattan in a suburban land use will be more efficient than the city.

 

BC's Step Code is an attempt to fix this issue, but it comes at significant cost to the homebuyer, and still falls short in many ways. Physics dictates more than political grandstanding or political agendas, let me tell you.

 

You can look this up for yourself. Highrise, high-density requires significant energy to maintain comfort for occupants. There are pluses and minuses to everything, be it highrise buildings, single-family-dwellings, and everything in between.

[sebberry]

GHG emissions, for one, are huge in apartment complexes. Think of all the empty space that is lit and heated 24/7, think of all the ducts drawing air in and out of parkades, think of the elevators, the HVAC units, the heating and cooling required just for the passive spaces (like lobbies and hallways). Now consider how many windows those buildings have compared to houses, and how inefficient it is to heat hundreds of individual units. And that's even before we factor in the construction, with vast sums of concrete, steel, excavation, etc.

 

But virtually everything you mention is hydroelectric powered.  

 

Besides, why heat hallways?  There's enough heat coming from all the individual units to keep common spaces warm enough for the few minutes you're in them.

 

What I do think is ridiculously inefficient though is not having central hot water in typical 3-4 story ~ 40 unit building.  

[punk cannonballer]

BC's Step Code is an attempt to fix this issue, but it comes at significant cost to the homebuyer, and still falls short in many ways. Physics dictates more than political grandstanding or political agendas, let me tell you.

 

You can look this up for yourself. Highrise, high-density requires significant energy to maintain comfort for occupants. There are pluses and minuses to everything, be it highrise buildings, single-family-dwellings, and everything in between.

One building to house 40 people does not use up the same energy as all the land, road, servicing, individual buildings, surface area of houses, etc. that suburban development does. 

[Mike K.]

Have you ever lived in a decent building? My condo in Vancouver was so well insulated that I never once turned on the heat or the a/c over the years I lived there. Not once.

 

Yes, thank you. In a brand new highrise, top floor, southwest exposure with 180 degrees of glass. Lots of heat used in the winter, lots of A/C in the summer. Units 15 floors below me likely had far less exposure to sunlight (need for AC) and wind (heat loss). Every unit is going to be different.

 

Speaking of anecdotes, we know anything of your condo building's location, its height, it's height relative to other buildings, its passive heating of common areas, or with respect to your unit, the heating/cooling from your neighbouring units, your unit's direct exposure to sunlight, your unit's orientation relative to sunlight, your unit's direct exposure to wind, your personal tolerances for heat and chill, your personal preferences for ambient temperature, how much glazing your unit had relative to your living space, etc, nor the building's total energy consumption on a per-capita basis.

[punk cannonballer]

https://www.eia.gov/...il.php?id=11731

[punk cannonballer]

You have this idea in your head, but it's not correct. 

[Mike K.]

Besides, why heat hallways?  There's enough heat coming from all the individual units to keep common spaces warm enough for the few minutes you're in them.

 

What I do think is ridiculously inefficient though is not having central hot water in typical 3-4 story ~ 40 unit building.  

 

Modern buildings have positive pressure in the hallways. This means unless they're heated, each unit will have a cold draft flowing in 24/7.

[Mike K.]

You have this idea in your head, but it's not correct. 

 

It is. Highrise, high-density buildings remain a serious challenge for GHG emissions. And the taller we build, the more challenging GHG emissions become.

[punk cannonballer]

...and yet you have not provided one scrap of evidence for that.

[sebberry]

Modern buildings have positive pressure in the hallways. This means unless they're heated, each unit will have a cold draft flowing in 24/7.

 

Indeed, but most suite doors have decent weather-stripping on them anyway.  

 

Interestingly, as I learned in the Wade thread, some (all now?) buildings now have exhaust fans that run 24/7 with no switch to turn them off.  Amazing how they found fans rated for a 100% duty cycle for 30+ years considering how much dust they suck through.

[Mike K.]

...and yet you have not provided one scrap of evidence for that.

 

It's all over the place. Here's one brief overview from the University of the City of London's research.

 

These are serious dilemmas, and will require a great deal of investment/policy changes to address.

 

Researchers at UCL's Energy Institute have found that electricity use, per square metre of floor area, is nearly two and a half times greater in high-rise office buildings of 20 or more storeys than in low-rise buildings of 6 storeys or less. Gas use also increases with height, by around 40%. As a result, total carbon emissions from gas and electricity from high-rise buildings are twice as high as in low-rise.

The 'High-Rise Buildings: Energy and Density' project, funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) analysed data from 610 office buildings in the UK. The research team looked at energy consumption 'in operation' and not 'embodied energy' (energy used to produce building materials and in the construction process).

 

[Mike K.]

Indeed, but most suite doors have decent weather-stripping on them anyway.  

 

Interestingly, as I learned in the Wade thread, some (all now?) buildings now have exhaust fans that run 24/7 with no switch to turn them off.  Amazing how they found fans rated for a 100% duty cycle for 30+ years considering how much dust they suck through.

 

Weather stripping is not permitted in order to maintain the flow of air from positive to negative. And that's a common rule now among new-builds. I actually inserted weather stripping once as the hallway ambient temp was lower than mine, and there was a slight chill coming from the hallway on a very cold winter day. Several months later an inspection team was working its way through the building and checking suites for something or other. When I came home that day, the weather stripping had been removed and I was asked not to re-apply it.

 

And yes, new-builds include automatic exhaust. It keeps the air circulating through the unit, with the air drawn in from the hallway. It helps when you have a unit that emits odours, like with homes where people cook with a lot of grease or very pungent ingredients.

[MarkoJ]

I made a YouTube video in my condo last year -> Are high-rise condos guzzling electricity/horribly energy inefficient?

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=sRJmrEZkhvc

 

So yes, many inefficient princiapals in my condo; however, when you look at something tangible such as my BC Hydro bill it is 1/5th of what my custom-built efficient home was. My BC Hydro is between $40 to $45 every two months (I have A/C too). 

Edited by MarkoJ, 19 October 2021 - 11:22 AM.

[sebberry]

I made a YouTube video in my condo last year -> Are high-rise condos guzzling electricity/horribly energy inefficient?

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=sRJmrEZkhvc

 

So yes, many inefficient princiapals in my condo; however, when you look at something tangible such as my BC Hydro bill it is 1/5th of what my custom-built efficient home was. My BC Hydro is between $40 to $45 every two months (I have A/C too). 

 

Weird.  Last year I spent $788 on Hydro averaging $66/mo.

[punk cannonballer]

It's all over the place. Here's one brief overview from the University of the City of London's research.

 

These are serious dilemmas, and will require a great deal of investment/policy changes to address.

 

The link there is talking about building height, not building density. You're citing the wrong variable. Try again.

Edited by punk cannonballer, 19 October 2021 - 11:39 AM.

[punk cannonballer]

Even in the article you cite it states that high-rise buildings are up to 40% less efficient than low-rise. This, posted earlier, indicates that even at a 40% increase in energy consumption apartment buildings are far more efficient: https://www.eia.gov/...il.php?id=11731

 

It's really damaging to have someone such as yourself mistaking 'tall buildings use energy' as 'tall buildings are less efficient per household than detached houses'. That's, again, simply false. The data is clear. Every planning principle adhered to relies on a progression to compact development. Note that this is not 'progression to high-rise', as high-rise can be less dense than an evenly distributed low-rise environment such as the London in your example. This isn't even taking into account the sprawl (roads, pipes, cable, etc) required to support detached houses. This is just a building to building comparison. 

Edited by punk cannonballer, 19 October 2021 - 11:58 AM.

[MarkoJ]

Weird. Last year I spent $788 on Hydro averaging $66/mo.

Maybe because your building is 40 yrs old? When I lived at the 834 (one bedroom non-corner unit) I was averaging around $17-$18 per month. I never turned on the heat and I didn't cook a lot, but I do quite a bit of laundry. Now I am around $22 a month in my 2 bedroom but once again A/C only a few days every summer. I do heat in winter from time to time but heatpump is efficient.

[MarkoJ]

Even in the article you cite it states that high-rise buildings are up to 40% less efficient than low-rise. This, posted earlier, indicates that even at a 40% increase in energy consumption apartment buildings are far more efficient: https://www.eia.gov/...il.php?id=11731This isn't even taking into account the sprawl (roads, pipes, cable, etc) required to support detached houses. This is just a building to building comparison.

Think Dockside green development currently under construction versus trying to fit that many people in SFHs on the Westshore and the clearcutting and infrastructure required, not to mention the commuting. I would say the towers are much more friendlier.