News   Apr 19, 2024
45 and 61-Storey Towers Proposed near Oakville GO
 1.5K     0 
News   Apr 19, 2024
DRP Reviews Innovative Affordable Housing at Kennedy Station
 788     2 
News   Apr 19, 2024
Lifetime Helping Craft the Future of Toronto's Neighbourhoods
 1.2K     3 

Earth Hour... Earth Day... Construct ECO-Friendly Toronto for the Century

Lord Acton said:
http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&q=glaciers+melting&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn

Global warming is THE news.. glaciers melting after thousands of years is a very big sign.

Now back to the topic... and construction being #2 culprit... What are these projects doing to be less wastefull of our resources?
Click to expand...

"Oooh, so Mother Nature needs a favor?! Well maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys! Nature started the fight for survival, and now she wants to quit because she's losing. Well I say, hard cheese."

-Mr. Burns
 
Anyway, I think you are confusing methods with materials. As for the call to comment part, why have you neglected to provide any kind of practical or (C02 releasing) concrete solution in your post? It's easy to complain.
Click to expand...

Concrete solutions: (pun intended) :)

That is the $10,000 question... exactly! ....is the answer.

What materials are these projects using that will contribute to reducing CO2 emmissions and increase the retaining of CO2 in the solid materials used in these building?

Concrete and Gypsum are the two most widely used materials in buildings and they are also the two that release the most CO2 into the environment from production. Wood is the third most widely used and they cuts down trees that remove CO2 from the air.

So we produce more CO2 gas into the atmosphere than necessary in order to use concrete and gypsum related products and then chop down the trees that would capture CO2 from the atmosphere.

Reducing these three primary materials now used because they are the cheapest and using the available alternatives that may be more expensive will add to the reduction of overall CO2 emmissions and be an investiment in our environments future.
 
What would you replace them with? You have not provided any answer.


By the way, just to help you out in your little crusade, new growth trees take up far more carbon dioxide than mature trees.
 
Actually Lord Acton, I agree with you on some of these issues. One reason I would never buy a condo is all the toxic crap they use in construction these days. Then there's the environmental impact from all those dump trucks, production of concrete etc.

I grew up reading (the original, independent) Harrowsmith Magazine and thus have always been drawn to living simply and as environmentally friendly as possible. I am also a fan of John Seymour's philosophy/life style and ultimately want to build my own home out in the woods. A fantasy, perhaps, but do go to the TPL and read Seymour's Self-Sufficient Life (and how to live it.)

Then there's one of my favourite architects: Samuel Mockbee and his Rural Studio following.

So yes I agree with you that high rise construction is unsustainable in its current form--which is why I find the LEED system highly amusing.... But, how can the average family afford a home built from organic sustainable materials? That's the major challenge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrowsmith
 
If saving us from the terror of deadly hurricanes, tsunamis, and earthquakes means that we might have to sacrifice a couple 1000 fters for some 900 fters I, for one, will glady enjoy watching those tsunamis hammer Toronto from an extra 100 feet up.
 
Koz said:
If saving us from the terror of deadly hurricanes, tsunamis, and earthquakes means that we might have to sacrifice a couple 1000 fters for some 900 fters I, for one, will glady enjoy watching those tsunamis hammer Toronto from an extra 100 feet up.
Click to expand...

Since Katrina the predicted increase in hurricane activity has not happened. The idea that man-made greenhouse gases are increasing the earth's temperature is dubious, that it would increase storm activity is unproven, that it is affecting tectonics (earthquakes and tsunamis) is a paranoid fantasy.

If you really cared about the environment you would want everyone living in a 500 square foot box within walking distance of a subway. Does this not have a smaller environmental impact than living in a 2,000 square foot home in the suburbs with a two car garage?

Or will you not be happy until a declining population results in zero new construction?
 
The construction industry is highly energy intensive, but unfortunately that's just the nature of the beast. New materials, processes, and policies regarding material recycling are constantly being developed, but will only ever go so far.

A better approach for new construction is to enforce high efficiency windows, HVAC systems, lighting, and applicances. Don't forget that on a per resident basis, high rise developments likely use less concrete, gypsum, and wood than lower density housing, not to mention the benefits of having one central heating and cooling system for 500 people. They also mean less land being developed, less roads and highways being built, and less reliance on mechanized transportation.
 
Question: if many of the CBD's office towers could dim their lights or turn them off for Earth Hour, why don't they do it every night? It seems like a ridiculously simple thing to do, and it will also help to reduce light pollution and bird deaths
 
Well, Earth Hour did have a positive effect either way. I was looking at the Ontario market data, and it looks like the power saved when compared with the previous Saturday came entirely from coal and hydroelectric power. The hydro can be saved for the future by storing water in the reservoir that would otherwise have been released, meaning additional peaking coal and gas that don't have to be burned in the future. Basically, Earth Hour shut down at least one unit at Nanticoke, and possibly more over time as the extra hydro power is used.
 
I was at Elijah at the Weston from 7:30 to 10:00 pm. It was a miracle - the lights stayed on! Praise the Lord! The choir, orchestra, and soloists could read their parts! The audience could see them perform!

There was a cage match between deities to see who could get the barbecue lit first ( final score: God 1, Baal 0 ); a dead boy was brought back to life ( his Mom was thrilled ); there was a drought ... and then heavy rain; a boy soprano looking for rain clouds sang on high; Jezebel was real mean to Elijah; a chorus of bloodthirsty riff-raff taunted him; then, a fiery ascent to heaven ... and back on the subway to downtown.
 
Hydrogen said:
What would you replace them with? You have not provided any answer.


By the way, just to help you out in your little crusade, new growth trees take up far more carbon dioxide than mature trees.
Click to expand...


http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=alterternative+to+concrete&btnG=Search&meta=

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=alterternative+to+drywall&btnG=Search&meta=

There are plenty of alternatives... Just google for them. The problem is we are addicted to using the cheaper materials today and letting the next generation worry about their future costs and environmental problems. We have become a selfish race. This needs to change.

A hundred yeads ago we built for generations. A thousand years ago we built to last centuries. Today they build to make it past the one year waranty inspection and build with materials that won't last 20 years under normal wear so that we do renos and waste even more money and more energy fixing for wear and tear. (built in make work projects are everywhere).
 
Art Vandelay said:
Since Katrina the predicted increase in hurricane activity has not happened. The idea that man-made greenhouse gases are increasing the earth's temperature is dubious, that it would increase storm activity is unproven, that it is affecting tectonics (earthquakes and tsunamis) is a paranoid fantasy.

If you really cared about the environment you would want everyone living in a 500 square foot box within walking distance of a subway. Does this not have a smaller environmental impact than living in a 2,000 square foot home in the suburbs with a two car garage?

Or will you not be happy until a declining population results in zero new construction?
Click to expand...

Either you didn't actually read my post or your sarcasm detector is hyper-sensitive.
 
I'm looking out my window right now, and I'm noticing that Metro Hall and City Hall are both pitch black with not a single light visible. The big bank towers, on the other hand, are still three quarters lit, well after midnight. FCP tends to flash its lights around midnight, and a bunch of them (but not all) then turn off. That doesn't seem to have happened yet. I really think the city should start more programs to encourage buildings to switch off unneeded, non-decorative lighting, and penalize those who don't. RBP seems to be the worst offender. Sun Life and the Exchange Tower are rather better.
 
Lord Acton said:
There are plenty of alternatives... Just google for them. The problem is we are addicted to using the cheaper materials today and letting the next generation worry about their future costs and environmental problems. We have become a selfish race. This needs to change.

A hundred yeads ago we built for generations. A thousand years ago we built to last centuries. Today they build to make it past the one year waranty inspection and build with materials that won't last 20 years under normal wear so that we do renos and waste even more money and more energy fixing for wear and tear. (built in make work projects are everywhere).
Click to expand...

Did you bother to read any of this? For example, making steel (one of the materials cited) requires energy. As a matter of fact, making any of these materials requires energy. Besides, you are not going to be building many large structures like 10 to 20 story buildings, appropriate for a downtown, out of wood. Some of the example lend themselves to low-rise structures, the types of of structures presently being built on quality farm land. Fine materials for sprawl.
 
Koz said:
If saving us from the terror of deadly hurricanes, tsunamis, and earthquakes means that we might have to sacrifice a couple 1000 fters for some 900 fters I, for one, will glady enjoy watching those tsunamis hammer Toronto from an extra 100 feet up.
Click to expand...


Exactly how would canceling a couple of 900' or 1000' buildings stop an earthquake?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top