1. Green roof: Turf adds to the dead load and retains moisture facilitating energy transmission both ways. Maintained green planting may absorb in-out energy but when not maintained it is counter productive: strata councils seldom are prepared to budget, long term, for maintenance unless the owner is a large organisation with surplus labour.

2. Energy systems. The immediate on site effect may be measurable but it is impossible to assess the energy consumed in manufacture, transportation, of these very complicated systems. In total tracing energy consumption back to the source is impossible and conveniently left out to the equation.

3. Proper window shading. Architectural styling influences the shape and size of windows: that damn view again. The current style is most certainly not energy efficient and appearance apparently rules.

4. Better envelope. Moisture in moisture out used to be the rule. It is impossible in this climate to keep moisture out during construction ergo a sealed cavity hold moisture that may not appear for months after completion.

5. Six storey wood frame. Poorly constructed wood frame is the original source of the leaky condo crisis. Badly conceived building codes allowing untested material, i.e. OSB, ignoring temperature sensitive movement. Again the traditional moisture in moisture out old way of building has no equal.

6. Siting. Currently Eco-density, Climate Charter apparently requires multi-storey: facilitating vertical heat transmission. However large buildings, especially in an urban context, have very restricted siting options. Sun orientation, shadows cast, proximity of neighbours (i.e. party walls), reflective surfaces are all germane and very difficult to control, ergo ignored, in confined dense inner city locations.

Huge developments, ostensibly convenient to TX (i.e. Marine Gateway) are looming and ante social. The one or two year +/- building process inherent in such structures is hugely wasteful of energy and disruptive of tradition patterns: the latter being very energy consumptive yet immeasurable.

The current mode of GIANTISM may expand the developer’s bank account. It most definitely is not, LEED responsive energy efficiency.

In conclusion LEED certification IMO is a marketing technique, a fad, expensive, and essentially counter productive.

Actually LEED certification is the last choice for an architect when designing a sustainable building: but it is the only straw she can grasp in a highly competitive business. Yet, of itself, as I explained in, 2, it is unsustainable.

We show ourselves to be petty, vindictive and mean when we rationalize sincere attempts at housing our less fortunate as detrimental to successful marketing to the well off while feigning sustainability.

Or, indeed, we squabble relentlessly among ourselves, insulting each other, over bike lanes and petty business while hypocritically pretending sustainability.

Of course these are issues that have an immediate impact on us individually.

But there is a massive, huge, unspoken elephant in the room that no one, no government, civic, provincial or federal dare speak its name: “fractional reserve banking” . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oguCNqCE0Kc

FRB is so destructive to our way of life, so inimical to anything we value and believe in, yet we fight wars to preserve it.

The rest is little people trying to look big!

Universities are afraid to confront it, most practitioners have not a clue that it is even an issue and we are all afraid and up out yings in debt. So we pretend it doesn’t exist . . .

. . . yet, FRB is the absolute in unsustainability.

I agree with Wayne. Busby has years of performance data to take to the bank and it should be given due consideration. In fact, it should be published.

Rennie’s bottom line attitude pisses me off. He is a marketeer of predominantly luxury or higher-end-than-average units and has less concern for the long-term happiness of buyers than pleasing his short-term developer clients.

There is no difference in his attitude and a builder’s from Langley who works on volume and uses cheap materials like OSB which, in our wet climate, should be a banned material (thanks for that, Roger) .

Marketing practice does not traditionally look to the future and is not concerned about environmental values. That should change.

Four things missing from this discussion so far:

> Operating costs. Even though “building life” was mentioned, no one has addressed the cost of energy consumed by a home over its lifespan. A condo in a tower with a thermal bridge problem in it’s floor-to-ceiling window frames and uninsulated slab edges, that is heated by cheaper electric baseboard heaters will always cost more to operate than one without these basic considerations. But it will cost less to purchase, of couse.

> Resiliency. Building a home to last will always cost more initially, but the maintenance and energy costs over its life will usually produce very significant savings. You don’t need to be a technophile to realize energy efficiency. This can be accomplished by common sensical techniques like designing for additional insulation and passive solar gain / loss. On average two solar domestic hot water panels will pay for themselves in about 8 years, depending on the cost of the fuel they’re replacing. Even in our wet winters they achieve about 50% efficiency, 75% in the shoulder seasons, and 100% in summers.

> Urban context. Though emissions from buildings comprise a big chunk of overall emissions, the per capita overall emissions in denser neighbourhoods where one doesn’t drive everywhere are measurably less.

> Energy type. Natural gas is the most common fuel to heat building space and domestic water. Though it’s reasonably-priced now, can anyone out there in Fabula Land predict what its price will be in 10 years? 15? 25? I didn’t think so.

Keep in mind 25 years is not even half of an average building’s lifespan. But one thing for sure, the price of NG will trend upwards, perhaps precipitously when it becomes a substitute fuel for transportation, and those solar panels, triple glazing and extra thick insulation will no longer be cavalierly classified as ‘greenwash’.

This is perhaps when the resiliency and long-term energy efficiency of a condo will become a standard marketing item for people like Bob. Money talks. Saving the planet doesn’t … yet.

Fractional Reserve Banking, fiat currency, credit default swaps – indeed.
Is it just coincidence that our engines of endless growth are teetering on the brink of the abyss at the same moment that we’re enjoying the man-made sixth great extinction and transforming the very chemical balance of the entire planet’s oceans and atmosphere?
We talk about sustainable building strategies (LEED is just one example – albeit a pretty well thought out one), as though they were just another cost factor, whereas it is really just one of many economic, social and ecological changes required to save the world.

@ Bill 9.

The problem with resources is that their supply limitations aren’t accounted for by the typical economist.

One example: They feel that oil will magically appear with new investments once demand and prices are high enough, but that is without regard to the geological constraints. And they are poor at predicting future price trends.

Conservation and efficiency (e.g. housing) in the context of higher energy and product costs will prove to be remarkably useful. But that also means consumers will consume less (or should I say consume only what they really need and dump the rest?), and that will limit economic growth.

But then you have to factor in ongoing maintenance too.

Green roofs will need to be maintained and replaced in time (i.e. Robson Square is being fully re-membraned 35 years after construction).

It’s not the passive features that create risk – it’s the techie items that create the uncertainty.

The Olympic Village has capillary mats in the ceilings and walls – I can imagine that they’ll be a source of maintenance issues. Note the “Energy Centre” installed in the ceiling of each suite shown at this link (note the abundance of plastic tubing):

http://www.thechallengeseries.ca/chapter-05/energy-implementation/