Olympic Village & Southeast False Creek Updates Discussion

[jlousa]

Section 3.1(d)
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/Guidelines/S012.pdf

No natural gas fireplaces are permitted. Ornamental non-combustion fireplaces are permitted if they are not heat-producing. A letter from a professional engineer outlining provisions for ornamental fireplaces is required to be submitted at the time of application for a Building Permit.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Section 3.1(d)
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/Guidelines/S012.pdf

🞵🞵🞵, whats the reasoning behind no more gas fireplaces?

(edit: I guess its not energy efficient enough, that 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 I love fireplaces )

[jlousa]

I should note this is only for SEFC but the rest of the city is also under new fireplace requirements that make it very unlikely to see any fireplaces in new condos and rare in any new development expect sfh.
I would not be surprised to see them outlawed in all new construction shortly though. The reason is even with all the recent advancements like electronic ignition and direct venting they still are not in the same league in efficiency as other heating methods.

[zivan56]

That is ridiculous...it shouldn't be up to the city what people "want". If I want to heat my apartment with coal, that is my prerogative on how efficient it is. Stuff like this and the Strata Act, which gives essentially dictator like powers that most likely violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is why people live in their own homes in the suburbs instead.

For example, in my strata, pets aren't allowed except 2 birds or fish in an aquarium (yes, that's the exact phrasing). Now I understand why this is the case on common property, but nobody has the right to tell you what you can have inside your own apartment. Same goes for heating methods.

[jsbertram]

What you also get is the Smoke Scar on the side of the building when someone decides the fake logs in the NatGas fireplace aren't quite right, and decides to use real wood instead.
Which is not a good idea when the fireplace chimney is only rated for the cooler & cleaner NatGas exhaust, not the hotter & combustible wood smoke.
Oh yea, and the still-smoldering particles flying around the side of the building, the creosote buildup, and flammable soot are not what you want to make it easier to burn down a condo building.

It doesn't help that this is across the street from City Hall ....

Google Streets view:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s...AjYAUcL-JEFh0N37w&cbp=12,313.93,,3,-7.79

Notice the unit below also has the side-mounted exhaust vent for their fireplace & they still have a clean outside of the building:

[jlousa]

Guess you believe the government doesn't have the right to impose catalytic converters, non-incandescent light bulbs, and non-plasma tvs either. We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I don't appreciate government intervention either, but I understand it. I might not always agree with it, but I understand it.
Weather or not one believes in global warming, I don't see a downside in using as little as energy as possible, for nothing else it makes economic sense.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by zivan56

That is ridiculous...it shouldn't be up to the city what people "want". If I want to heat my apartment with coal, that is my prerogative on how efficient it is. Stuff like this and the Strata Act, which gives essentially dictator like powers that most likely violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is why people live in their own homes in the suburbs instead.

For example, in my strata, pets aren't allowed except 2 birds or fish in an aquarium (yes, that's the exact phrasing). Now I understand why this is the case on common property, but nobody has the right to tell you what you can have inside your own apartment. Same goes for heating methods.

Except in condos and apartment buildings, where a furnace or water boiler provides the heated air and hot water for use by all tenants in the building. Having a fireplace to heat each room of the building is unnecessary and expensive and inefficient, and dangerous (ever heard of Carbon Monoxide Poisoning?)

I won't prevent you from installing a decorative fireplace for those romantic evenings, but regulations (National, Provincial, City and Strata) are there so that your vanity won't compromise the safety of the rest of people living in your building.

When you have your own home ("a man's home is his castle") I'll defend your right to have a fireplace in every room like any other mansion.

[zivan56]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Guess you believe the government doesn't have the right to impose catalytic converters, non-incandescent light bulbs, and non-plasma tvs either. We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I don't appreciate government intervention either, but I understand it. I might not always agree with it, but I understand it.
Weather or not one believes in global warming, I don't see a downside in using as little as energy as possible, for nothing else it makes economic sense.

Banning something just because it is "inefficient" (highly subjective) is just wrong. Safety is as far as I'm willing to compromise.
I recently bought an EnergyStar fridge and dishwasher. All I can say is that they are garbage and don't even come close to my previous appliances from 1993. The fridge constantly spoils food, and the dishwasher has to be run 2 times at the heaviest cycle to match a normal cycle of the previous one. These are top of the line appliances, which were rated at the top by Consumer Reports, not cheap junk. But I guess by wasting more water, electricity, and food I am more "energy efficient."

It's funny how people think all these minor things will help stop climate change, when thousands of people in China/India are buying brand new cars without catalytic converters, incandescent bulbs, and plasma TVs *every single day*

Anyways, the point was the people buying the apartments should decide what type of heating and features they want. A fireplace is a luxury that many want, and we have plenty of natural gas to burn minuscule amounts even if only for decorative purposes.

[zivan56]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Except in condos and apartment buildings, where a furnace or water boiler provides the heated air and hot water for use by all tenants in the building. Having a fireplace to heat each room of the building is unnecessary and expensive and inefficient, and dangerous (ever heard of Carbon Monoxide Poisoning?)

I won't prevent you from installing a decorative fireplace for those romantic evenings, but regulations (National, Provincial, City and Strata) are there so that your vanity won't compromise the safety of the rest of people living in your building.

When you have your own home ("a man's home is his castle") I'll defend your right to have a fireplace in every room like any other mansion.

Funny, my ~1993 built condo has its own boiler, floorboard heaters, and a gas fireplace. No central heating or boiler at all except for the pool/sauna. Still has the original fireplace which has a sealed negative vacuum system from back then that is leak free (tested this year). But I guess I am in constant danger of dieing daily

You are not understanding my point. I am taking about choice to use any type of safe heating by the developer because they clients want that. I am against anything unsafe....as I am against being forced to use whatever the city decides is good for you.

[jsbertram]

A friend of mine brought a brand-new condo ten years ago, and as part of the 'upgrade package' was allowed to get a NatGas fireplace installed. He didn't want one, so that area of the living room has built-in bookshelves and a TV alcove. He did think ahead and had the contractor build it so the rough construction and NatGas piping for the fireplace would be hidden by the bookshelves.

Recently he changed his mind and wanted to put in the NatGas fireplace, but found that regs had changed. Even though the NatGas fireplace could have been built as part of the original construction, doing it now would be a renovation - and not permitted under today's regs.

The gotcha is that if he had put in the hearth during the original construction but left the rest of the fireplace unfinished and covered it up with the bookshelves &tc. he could have removed the bookshelves and finished the fireplace today because the hearth -although unfinished and unusable- would have been 'original construction' and therefore fall under the regs from ten years ago.

[nova9]

Originally Posted by zivan56

Banning something just because it is "inefficient" (highly subjective) is just wrong. Safety is as far as I'm willing to compromise.
I recently bought an EnergyStar fridge and dishwasher. All I can say is that they are garbage and don't even come close to my previous appliances from 1993. The fridge constantly spoils food, and the dishwasher has to be run 2 times at the heaviest cycle to match a normal cycle of the previous one. These are top of the line appliances, which were rated at the top by Consumer Reports, not cheap junk. But I guess by wasting more water, electricity, and food I am more "energy efficient."

It's funny how people think all these minor things will help stop climate change, when thousands of people in China/India are buying brand new cars without catalytic converters, incandescent bulbs, and plasma TVs *every single day*

Anyways, the point was the people buying the apartments should decide what type of heating and features they want. A fireplace is a luxury that many want, and we have plenty of natural gas to burn minuscule amounts even if only for decorative purposes.

The fuel efficiency and pollution of Chinese cars per car is well below North American standards - it is just through sheer numbers that they pollute more. So please learn something about another country before spouting false examples.

And if you really felt that strongly about a fireplace or whatever, say, a flag, then you have every right to go and buy a detached home. But if you live in a complex with OTHER people where your individual choices affect those around you, well then, there should be restrictions. It's easy as that. No one's rights are infringe since you have the choice to live elsewhere.

It's the price you pay.

[zivan56]

Originally Posted by nova9

The fuel efficiency and pollution of Chinese cars per car is well below North American standards - it is just through sheer numbers that they pollute more. So please learn something about another country before spouting false examples.

You expect me to believe that?
A Tata Nano produces 100 g/km of CO2 compared to a 4 cylinder Toyota Corolla at about 150 g/km. The Tata Nano has half the cylinders and 1/3 of the horsepower. So please learn about emissions related to cars before commenting. North America has among the strictest standards in the world, beat only by some European countries. Ever wonder why you can't easily buy a diesel car here?
Regardless of which have less emissions, people in India/China buy the most amount of new cars in the world...and lead by a huge margin. Hence they produce more greenhouse gases while we are producing less by simply buying newer cars.

Originally Posted by nova9

And if you really felt that strongly about a fireplace or whatever, say, a flag, then you have every right to go and buy a detached home. But if you live in a complex with OTHER people where your individual choices affect those around you, well then, there should be restrictions. It's easy as that. No one's rights are infringe since you have the choice to live elsewhere.

It's the price you pay.

My choice of what I do inside my apartment doesn't affect anybody else. Outside walls (and balconies to some extent) are not part of my unit, and hence have restrictions. Whether I have a cat or a flag inside my apartment, as long as it doesn't affect anybody, I have full rights to keep such things. Likewise, neither do any renovations as long as its not related to noise, dust, etc. It is a fundamental right to keep what you want inside your own home if it is safe/sanitary/etc.
What you are suggesting, having to "buy" your rights (in terms of a house), isn't what we do in democratic society. Perhaps in China that is the norm?

[cornholio]

The way I look at it is the more it costs the less efficient it is to use or produce, the less efficient it is to use or produce the more it pollutes.

[nova9]

Originally Posted by zivan56

My choice of what I do inside my apartment doesn't affect anybody else. Outside walls (and balconies to some extent) are not part of my unit, and hence have restrictions. Whether I have a cat or a flag inside my apartment, as long as it doesn't affect anybody, I have full rights to keep such things. Likewise, neither do any renovations as long as its not related to noise, dust, etc. It is a fundamental right to keep what you want inside your own home if it is safe/sanitary/etc.
What you are suggesting, having to "buy" your rights (in terms of a house), isn't what we do in democratic society. Perhaps in China that is the norm?

Specifically to you example, how is coal burning something that doesn't affect those around you?

What I'm trying to say is, people can't just do whatever they want. People have to live together so concessions have to be made. And if one lives in a complex in close association with their neighbours, often, more concessions are made compared to if you live say, in your own acre of land.

And this is nothing like China, we've had a say in this. We have actual rights. But you have to realize if it was such a huge deal, you'd think we'd have revolted and prevented them from putting these laws/by-laws in.

Think what kinda place we'd live in if everyone just did everything they wanted to do.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

um ......

closest McD's to the Athletes Village?

I'm a bit late on this but there was (is?) a McDonald's in the olympic village.

When I lived on Main street I went to that drive thru super late all the time. It was standard for bums to ask you for money as you waited, and even got a few prostitutes coming up to the car a few times. The good ol' days.

[zivan56]

Originally Posted by nova9

Specifically to you example, how is coal burning something that doesn't affect those around you?

What I'm trying to say is, people can't just do whatever they want. People have to live together so concessions have to be made. And if one lives in a complex in close association with their neighbours, often, more concessions are made compared to if you live say, in your own acre of land.

And this is nothing like China, we've had a say in this. We have actual rights. But you have to realize if it was such a huge deal, you'd think we'd have revolted and prevented them from putting these laws/by-laws in.

Think what kinda place we'd live in if everyone just did everything they wanted to do.

You are taking my first post out of context to our current discussion. That related to the city of Vancouver decreeing that fireplaces should not be allowed in future buildings and SEFC. My argument was that if the customer wants to have it, or any other form of heating, the developer should have the right to implement it. Not to be forced to use something the customer does not want and that the mayor decided is best for us.

As for my post to which you quoted, you will see that your argument makes no sense since I am not referring to common property, rather, limited common property (1 owner limited). Perhaps you think I want to retrofit my gas fireplace to use coal? That's not the case, see above paragraph.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by Pinion

I'm a bit late on this but there was (is?) a McDonald's in the olympic village.

When I lived on Main street I went to that drive thru super late all the time. It was standard for bums to ask you for money as you waited, and even got a few prostitutes coming up to the car a few times. The good ol' days.

there was a mcdonalds inside the village that was temporary for the duration of the games

[WarrenC12]

I'm very surprised to learn about the fireplace ban (it can only be described that way).

There is a line, and I think this passes it.

When will city hall start handing out fines for driving a car rated below 40mpg in city limits?

[SpongeG]

the city counciil is elected voters can change it - but most of these kind of things are not known by the general public

the same council has banned drive thrus among other things

[mr.x]

I'm surprised this hasn't caught the attention of the media...someone needs to let 'em know so that they can rip this up. They've definitely gone too far.


BTW, with regards to those new bulbs...I absolutely hate them. Even the higher watt bulbs aren't as bright as the old "non-green" models, you end up having to turn on more lights in the middle of the night when you're studying.