News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.6K     0 
Don't we already allow this in places? King street for sure, but when I worked on Elm street nearly a decade ago there was something similar built there.
 
picard102 said:
Don't we already allow this in places? King street for sure, but when I worked on Elm street nearly a decade ago there was something similar built there.
Click to expand...
Local BIAs can, sometimes get the OK to maintain street flowerbeds - St Lawrence / Old Town is quite good at it - see posts by @NorthernLight on this site a few weeks ago. I think in most cases the City pays them to do it and the beds themselves were built by the City during a street upgrade..
 
There were parklets on Church Street (in the Village) about 10 years ago. Some were commercial while others were spaces similar to those along the King Street.
 
The City has a survey open on Maximum Temperatures in rental units.

Next Steps – Maximum Indoor Temperature for Rental Units and Coo

ca.mar.medallia.com ca.mar.medallia.com

Its unusually short and to the point.

After asking for some postal code info and whether you're a tenant/landlord etc.

They want to know if you support a near term requirement (as soon as next summer) for landlords to provide at least one common space in a building that is air conditioned.

Then they want to know if you support the broader idea of a compulsory maximum indoor temperature for units (26c) which would likely require landlord's to install air conditioners unit by unit in most buildings (as opposed to central HVAC or heat pumps) and whether you would be okay with landlord's being able to obtain an Above Guideline Increase to cover those costs.

The target they have in mind is 2030.

****

I am very supportive of the goal here, though I think the timeline is likely aggressive, there are literally thousands of buildings that would require extensive electrical upgrades and other changes (depending on things like direct venting) I am suspicious of the 2030 deadline.

But I do think we need to ensure that no one is dying of heat stroke in their own apartment, and a by-law is a right step in that direction. Its a matter of details as to how and when we get there.

The interim step of finding a party room, a lobby or somewhere else, with seats, that tenants can cool down for an hour is a good first step.

I think 2034 is a more likely target date for full delivery though.
 
A lot of questions about this.

Will tenants have control of the AC in their units? Or will tenants still need to have their own AC units?
Will they be individual units or a single building unit with the average temperature being used or some random space in the building with a thermostat?
Who pays for the electricity to run the units?
 
picard102 said:
A lot of questions about this.

Will tenants have control of the AC in their units? Or will tenants still need to have their own AC units?
Click to expand...

As currently envisioned, the solution to compliance is not prescriptive.

So it would be up the landlord to decide how to comply.

picard102 said:
Will they be individual units or a single building unit with the average temperature being used or some random space in the building with a thermostat?
Click to expand...

The proposed regulation is at the unit level. It would be enforced the same way the minimum temperature by-law is in winter. You would be expected to complain to your landlord, in writing, if they are not compliant.

If they fail to respond in a reasonable period of time, you 311 for by-law enforcement, an inspector comes by and if they agree the landlord is non-compliant an order to comply would be issued.

As with other residential minimum standards by-laws these can be enforced in a number of ways, including fines, and ultimately, the City performing needed work and billing the landlord back.

picard102 said:
Who pays for the electricity to run the units?
Click to expand...

If the landlord chooses a central option, via HVAC or Heat Pumps, then the landlord.

If individual units are installed in apartments, if they are sub-metered, then the tenant; if not, the landlord.
 
Northern Light said:
You would be expected to complain to your landlord, in writing, if they are not compliant.
Click to expand...

Which is kind of what I'd be concerned with if units don't have the ability to control the temperature of their individual units. Not that they aren't doing it, but that they are doing too much.

In our building the heat is centrally provided by radiator, with no means to control the amount of heat provided, so as a result we are leaving our windows open most of the winter to avoid it getting too hot.

So with this new cooling bylaw, I can imagine a situation where units are being blasted with AC indiscriminately, wasting quite a bit of power in doing so.
 
picard102 said:
Which is kind of what I'd be concerned with if units don't have the ability to control the temperature of their individual units. Not that they aren't doing it, but that they are doing too much.

In our building the heat is centrally provided by radiator, with no means to control the amount of heat provided, so as a result we are leaving our windows open most of the winter to avoid it getting too hot.

So with this new cooling bylaw, I can imagine a situation where units are being blasted with AC indiscriminately, wasting quite a bit of power in doing so.
Click to expand...

While possible, most buildings that lack a/c are on some variation of radiator and lack HVAC. Installing a retrofit would exceedingly disruptive and pricey and is unlikely.

Heat Pumps less so, but still lots of work, and a lengthy project.
 
DSCToronto said:
Just the kind of 'modern nonsense' that Mr Holyday would be expected to oppose - probably by sending telegrams to someone. https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/re...cle_fe435f9e-9252-419e-803a-51d6dc371030.html
Click to expand...
1755516241937.png
 
PL1 said:
Microwave and radiowave radiation are non-ionizing and therefore not dangerous to people or animals. We have access to all the world's knowledge in a device in our hands, and people believe the conspiracy theories and anti-science. It's frustrating
Click to expand...
To be fair “non-ionizing” does not mean harmless (though 5G fears are unfounded).
 
zang said:
To be fair “non-ionizing” does not mean harmless (though 5G fears are unfounded).
Click to expand...
Sure, Infra red can cause burns. But the fears these people have are effects caused by ionizing radiation (beyond blue)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top