Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123
This is quite interesting.
Often there's a lot of focus on say LEED certification but not on embodied carbon. While a new LEED building will have better operating characteristics than an old building, it's not a clear win on net if you're tearing down an old building; analysis is needed as well as assumptions about the future life cycle of buildings. I wonder what this sort of calculation would have looked like for the Ralston Building or Shannon Park, and if it was done, or if there was just a desire to start from a blank slate.
|
I think so as well! LEED definitely has a place. and incorporates some embodied carbon elements. Embodied carbon generally reflects renovations as preferable to new build, and wood structural plans over concrete (similar to LEED's points being biased to densification, active transit, recycled materials etc...). I'd love to know the embodied carbon of new developments as then we can start weighing pros and cons of taller/dense vs more carbon intensive lifestyles, like of suburban development. This is my eyes is where the conversation gets really interesting!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saul Goode
So, how did the public hearing go?
|
It went well! My push was for 3D modeling. Of the 4 asks from DoH, mine was the only one council has the power to change and seemed well received. I now have meetings scheduled with councilors to present this modeling tech and talk about next steps getting it required/making it a productive part of the public engagement process. Totally a success from my pov.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pblaauw
Right, sorry. My bad, as the kids say.  |
I'm learning! thanks for your help!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P.
Having never heard this term before, I looked it up:
So essentially any new development is "bad" and will be decried by those inclined to wrap themselves in the climate change flag. It matters little if it is a large development like this, or a new house made of sticks. New = bad. An ideal thing for anti-development types like Cameron and her ilk to trumpet.
But the calculation of it is highly theoretical and complex, to the point where I would question if whatever results are trotted out actually mean anything.
Of course if your objective is to have Western society devolve back to living in caves (or as in this case, in run-down rotting wood frame Victorians), it is right up your alley.
|
I don't quite understand your tone in this reply. No one has implied we ought to live in rotting buildings hahah. Embodied carbon is well researched and measurable. New developments contribute to it, some more than others. Ignoring it's contribution to a project is like ignoring traffic impacts, or servicing requirements. It's another significant impact, like operational carbon, which ought to be accounted for. I'm glad you looked into it and I'm happy to talk more!
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark
I can't tell if you were being sarcastic or not, but at least know I was genuinely trying to help.
My second comment that you quoted was just referring to the fact that I appreciate your putting both projects on the same rendering, which I had not seen in the past. Not sure why it was included in your post is all.
|
Happy you liked them! I think they help better inform the way the block is changing ,that was my whole point in making them. Also, no sarcasm! I honestly felt bad that I caused confusion over such a simple oversight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saul Goode
Has the Rouvalis group given any indication of when they intend to get this project underway?
Hadrian? Bueller? Anyone....?
|
Not yet, and I don't think they will build both phases. Personally, I think the Robie Street Prominade is a "get approved-then sell" kind of deal. I don't think Rouvalis group is going to build it themselves - a Willow Tree in the making. There are a few elements that don't quite add up, like Zzap not having ever built something of this scale, or the parkade going down 6 stories through bedrock. That's just my opinion though.
Prev
Linear Mode
