Winnipeg Construction VIII

[Biff]

Originally Posted by Jack1983

Does anyone have any idea what is getting built on Goulet at Kenny? Precast piling has gone in the last few weeks.

I have not seen signs at the site saying what it is. Looks like the Marion/Goulet stretch slowly filling in.

The new 4 storey Access St Boniface.

[drew]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

There's absolutely no rationale for R30 walls; none whatsoever.

If anybody is wondering why there's no affordable housing, you can thank your friendly neighbourhood bureaucrat.

I am not sure I agree with you here. Energy prices are only going up, and winter is not getting any warmer.

Designers should be considering the long term ramifications of their buildings (especially in climates like Winnipeg). What good is a building designed now, that no one can afford to keep heated in 30 or 40 years time? Buildings need to get insulated in Canada, and I think the general public would be quite surprised to learn that up until December of 2014, there was NO insulation requirement for the majority of commercial, industrial and large scale residential buildings.

According to the powers that be, the payback period to cover the assumed higher costs for the insulation requirements is somewhere between 15 and 20 years. Not great, but there is a long-term savings associated with these new rules, that will only increase as time goes by.

And just so we are all aware, similar minimum R-values (although not effective R-values) have been enforced for part 9 buildings (houses, etc.) for a number of years in Manitoba. These new rules don't affect residential unless we are talking larger multi-unit construction.

[trueviking]

^ its the effective part that is the issue....that is the game changer...if it was merely a case of adding an inch of insulation that would be fine.....it isn't....book R30 isn't anything close to real R30.

no house has ever been built to meet this code in Winnipeg....no building has.

in a city with the highest construction costs in the country, with the lowest residential, commercial and hotel rental rates, it just got a whole lot more difficult to make the economics for development work.

and limiting every building to 30% glazing will have a major impact of the way buildings look.

[trueviking]

I thought winter was supposed to be getting warmer....why did I buy all those aerosol cans then?

[drew]

Originally Posted by trueviking

^ its the effective part that is the issue....that is the game changer...if it was merely a case of adding an inch of insulation that would be fine.....it isn't....book R30 isn't anything close to real R30.

no house has ever been built to meet this code in Winnipeg....no building has.

in a city with the highest construction costs in the country, with the lowest residential, commercial and hotel rental rates, it just got a whole lot more difficult to make the economics for development work.

and limiting every building to 30% glazing will have a major impact of the way buildings look.

I guess it depends what kind of buildings we are talking about.

And again, there is a trade-off allowance available. We have done numerous 3 and 4 storey wood framed stuff over the years - and they all meet the new requirements...except for the foundation.

[drew]

Originally Posted by trueviking

no house has ever been built to meet this code in Winnipeg....no building has.

Correct - but you have to agree that no commercial buildings have been built to nearly the insulation values that newer houses are built to.

I guess I am trying to point out that houses are WAY closer to meeting these new guidelines than commercial buildings ever were.

[trueviking]

what's your wall construction? has it been tested for effected R value?....

again....our typical wall detail tests at half what the book says.

how many houses use rigid insulation? if you use batt in a cavity, cut your effective R value by 2/3 at least.

[drew]

Originally Posted by trueviking

what's your wall construction? has it been tested for effected R value?....

again....our typical wall detail tests at half what the book says.

Trade offs!

Yes you are screwed if your glazing is at or above the max allowed. But if it isn't, and windows and doors are of a higher U-value, you may still be able use typical 2x6 wood stud walls with batt insulation.

[drew]

Originally Posted by trueviking

how many houses use rigid insulation? if you use batt in a cavity, cut your effective R value by 2/3 at least.

It can't be 2/3. Rough and dirty you get max value for the area of the batt insulation, and reduce it for the stud area. Studs don't make up 2/3 of your wall assembly.

I think an R-22 wood stud wall is around R16.5 effective. A 25% reduction.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by trueviking

absolutely, we are shitting too....this is not about just doing it right or weeding out the bottom feeders....the building industry has no idea what's about to hit it.

even an 8" stud wont help....the issue is the 'effective' part.....we get tested values of 6" batt in a steel stud wall of R8....R8!....its not a case of just adding an inch of rigid to a typical wall to get to R30....our typical R20 wall detail with added insulation to get to the R30 value is testing at about half that value...we are not sure which way to turn...one thing is for sure, its going to cost developers a lot more money....and its going to change the way buildings in Winnipeg look....its a massive issue in our climate zone of the code.

Yeah, you've hit it. And that's why it's going to be strange. Are we going to keep looking past the total R-value of the assembly provided we continue to use the right materials, or are we going to actually be held to it this time around? Even on low-rise combustible with just a fibre cement panel or stone veneer of sorts, at 16" on center, we've only ever tested R13. At 24" on center in what everybody believes is "cheap" construction, it's better, but not by much. Still, in either case, as long as you're packing the R20 with a vapour barrier and some tuck, you're good to go from an inspection standpoint.

And this is kinda what I'm wondering about. As you say, are we now going to be held to the actual R30 standard, or are we going to be held to the appearance of an R30 standard. Because if we have to increase our actual R-value by more than double, there's almost no feasible means for doing so without significantly increasing wall thicknesses or significantly impacting structural strength.

Somebody around here has to know how the city and province intend to apply this...

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by drew

And just so we are all aware, similar minimum R-values (although not effective R-values) have been enforced for part 9 buildings (houses, etc.) for a number of years in Manitoba. These new rules don't affect residential unless we are talking larger multi-unit construction.

Part 9 buildings only have an R20 wall assembly. That's been as simple as R20 batts @ 16" o/c with a vapour barrier on top of 7/16" OSB.

That's going to change if they want effective or even the appearance of R30. And that change is going to be very expensive.

And given that building a Part 3 residential rental/hotel in this city is nearly impossible as it is (Heritage Landing is a very exceptional circumstance given the developer), you'll effectively nullify that build type. It'll never pay for itself.

[drew]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

And this is kinda what I'm wondering about. As you say, are we now going to be held to the actual R30 standard, or are we going to be held to the appearance of an R30 standard. Because if we have to increase our actual R-value by more than double, there's almost no feasible means for doing so without significantly increasing wall thicknesses or significantly impacting structural strength.

Again, designers are going to do what they need to do to avoid this situation. Which means keeping windows below the max allowable percentages and trading off. to keep the effective requirement below R-27 (not R-30).

Somebody around here has to know how the city and province intend to apply this...

The city will require the prime consultant (or someone qualified that is retained by the prime) to sign off and submit documents indicating that the building meets the energy code standards. There is some confusion as to how it affects multi-tenant developments in terms of final fit-out, lighting mechanical etc. The next year will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[drew]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Part 9 buildings only have an R20 wall assembly. That's been as simple as R20 batts @ 16" o/c with a vapour barrier on top of 7/16" OSB.

That's going to change if they want effective or even the appearance of R30. And that change is going to be very expensive.

And given that building a Part 3 residential rental/hotel in this city is nearly impossible as it is (Heritage Landing is a very exceptional circumstance given the developer), you'll effectively nullify that build type. It'll never pay for itself.

Again the trade-offs you are allowed have shown (for projects I have worked on) that the simple 2x6 wood stud wall is still allowed when glazing percentages are lower and window/door quality is higher. I am not sure why a hotel or rentals would be so affected. Especially the stuff built around here. Glazing percentages certainly aren't high. It will be similar when effective R-values are required for Part 9. Houses don't typically have a large glazing area.

Just to be clear it's R-27 effective not R-30.

I would also think for projects like rentals and hotels, the long term payoffs would be appealing - at least compared to cash-in cash-out condo developments where you don't care about long term ramifications.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by drew

I am not sure I agree with you here. Energy prices are only going up, and winter is not getting any warmer.

Designers should be considering the long term ramifications of their buildings (especially in climates like Winnipeg). What good is a building designed now, that no one can afford to keep heated in 30 or 40 years time? Buildings need to get insulated in Canada, and I think the general public would be quite surprised to learn that up until December of 2014, there was NO insulation requirement for the majority of commercial, industrial and large scale residential buildings.

According to the powers that be, the payback period to cover the assumed higher costs for the insulation requirements is somewhere between 15 and 20 years. Not great, but there is a long-term savings associated with these new rules, that will only increase as time goes by.

And just so we are all aware, similar minimum R-values (although not effective R-values) have been enforced for part 9 buildings (houses, etc.) for a number of years in Manitoba. These new rules don't affect residential unless we are talking larger multi-unit construction.

You have to understand that heating the building isn't my problem - it's the tenants. I'm just the guy taking the risk to build the housing at an incredibly low margin. If housing becomes more expensive, that gets passed to the consumer. All you'll affect is how many consumers can afford housing. It's great that the government thinks they're going to somehow shunt those costs on to the developer, but that isn't how it works. I work on a rate of return basis - the consumer pays until I get my rate of return and that isn't going to change.

The payback period for me is not going to change because I'm not going to let it - it's going to hit the bottom line and the people who are going to pay for it are going to be the people who are already stretched when it comes to housing.

You can't have it all. If the government thinks this is a worthwhile endeavour, then they should be subsidizing the costs of the upgrade.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by drew

It can't be 2/3. Rough and dirty you get max value for the area of the batt insulation, and reduce it for the stud area. Studs don't make up 2/3 of your wall assembly.

I think an R-22 wood stud wall is around R16.5 effective. A 25% reduction.

I agree....we are as shocked as you....even the simple girt system to support insulation and siding is completely out.

We are getting less than R8 effective for 6" batt in a stud cavity.

[drew]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

You have to understand that heating the building isn't my problem - it's the tenants.

And there you have it.

[Winnipeg Architect]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

You have to understand that heating the building isn't my problem - it's the tenants. I'm just the guy taking the risk to build the housing at an incredibly low margin. If housing becomes more expensive, that gets passed to the consumer. All you'll affect is how many consumers can afford housing. It's great that the government thinks they're going to somehow shunt those costs on to the developer, but that isn't how it works. I work on a rate of return basis - the consumer pays until I get my rate of return and that isn't going to change.

The payback period for me is not going to change because I'm not going to let it - it's going to hit the bottom line and the people who are going to pay for it are going to be the people who are already stretched when it comes to housing.

You can't have it all. If the government thinks this is a worthwhile endeavour, then they should be subsidizing the costs of the upgrade.

100%

This code is good for New York City where utilities are 400% + higher than here. And people pay over $1000 per square foot for a condo.

This energy code makes no sense in Winnipeg.

Some jack-*ss with the government makes this crap up to justify his crummy job. And then the civil servants at PP & D will enforce the h*ll out of it and make developers quit building. Oh I can seen the abuse to the poor builders.

One more nail in the coffin for affordable housing in Winnipeg. It is over.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Somebody around here has to know how the city and province intend to apply this...

this is exactly it....some architects will just assume that adding insulation and keeping glazing below 30% works....others will test and see that it doesn't....who will enforce it? We are afraid of having people who don't give a shit specifying things that we cant in good conscience and then having developers confront us about it.

Simplicity is right...on very few building types do developers care about long term payback of added insulation...its all capital cost.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by drew

Again the trade-offs you are allowed have shown (for projects I have worked on) that the simple 2x6 wood stud wall is still allowed when glazing percentages are lower and window/door quality is higher. I am not sure why a hotel or rentals would be so affected. Especially the stuff built around here. Glazing percentages certainly aren't high.

Just to be clear it's R-27 effective not R-30.

I would also think for projects like rentals and hotels, the long term payoffs would be appealing - at least compared to cash-in cash-out condo developments where you don't care about long term ramifications.

Hotels are the only people left who pay their tenants electrical bills. Everybody else has gone to a model that has either an individual electric furnace or baseboard heat and every unit is separately metered. Almost nobody uses central HVAC anymore. It's already become too expensive because of fire separations...

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by drew

And there you have it.

its fine to be altruistic about it but there are economic realities....who will pay for this?...most development in Winnipeg is already on razor thin margins.

you will see...its not as simple as you think...this is a holistic change to how we build....