Image via Wikipedia
I will now take this opportunity to give my two cents regarding
Vancouver's attempt to be the
Greenest City by 2020, particularly after watching
David Ramslie's talk at the Pecha-Kucha event.
First, I found Mr. Ramslie's vision to be very innovative and one of the more enjoyable ones at the event. I had never heard about the analogy of the transition we are living in the
green building movement to the idea of computers being transformed by the internet. I am confident he is right: the future of green buildings will be regional based and heavily aided by buildings communicating with each other.
Image via Wikipedia
However, as much as we like to hear the statement that Vancouver has the greenest building code in North America, I have my doubts. In fact, I would have appreciated if the speakers had stated exactly why they say this is so. If we are talking about promoting
LEED buildings, then yes, Vancouver is doing plenty, but there are still some things that must change if Vancouver will be the greenest city.
Vancouver should not be a island of green in a sea of sprawl. Therefore, Vancouver must get its suburbs on board ASAP, North Vancouver, Surrey, Burnaby, ... It is assumed from the wording of the city vision that a "one planet footprint" is being used as a measuring stick. If so, I assume that they are talking about the
Ecological Footprint tool, and we must begin to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of this assessment tool. Being a "one planet footprint" city is hard for a port city that imports resources from all over the world.
The problem of housing affordability needs to be addressed and discussed. The city keeps saying that the more condos that spring up, the lower rents should theoretically be. By now, we understand that this is not working.
Bing Thom Architects has published
articles calling for more family friendly buildings (i.e. less one bedroom and studios). If we want Vancouver to be green, we need to retain people here and have them build a life they can afford.
We also know the benefits of mixed-use buildings but what policies are in effect to promote this, particularly in retrofit situations? What is the
laneway housing equivalent for promoting mixed use livability and not mere densification?
New funding mechanisms should be developed to support lowest life cycle costs which often have a higher initial cost. Developers are here to make money, and with the exception of a handful, don't care about making their buildings energy efficient. They will cut corners because they know people will buy and be fooled by the fancy looking but poorly built residences they purchase. This is something that has to be mandated through policy, and this is why other neighboring cities must be in the loop, so that the whole region can truly prosper.
Overall, we need life cycle thinking in how the built environment is managed. Reduced energy use during building operation is very important, but it is not everything. The regional aspects are more important. Green buildings alone won't do it. We need community building, neighborhood flourishing and citizen empowerment.
Image via Wikipedia
I feel that the city is taking a lot of reasonably good decisions (perhaps even bold) in the right direction, but it will take more to reach the targets the city has set. If we are living responsibly, I think the processed satellite image shown will look more green and less like a purplish virulent disease.
Nonetheless, the fact that we are talking about our city for the next couple of decades is amazing and encouraging in a world where politicians are primarily worried about the next election.
Remember to keep an eye on the city's
public forum where people are posting and voting for their favorite ideas on how to reach Vancouver's goal.
Image by Argonne National Laboratory via Flickr
