News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.7K     0 

This is the type of thing that is a no brainer and Toronto needs to completely ignore the developers and just get some balls and mandate (with no exclusions for anyone). Oh no, $100 000 over 150 units - that's absolutely nothing to cry over. Charge $1000/unit and make money off of it - people will pay don't worry. The energy savings would pay for themselves in way less than 10 years and you'd have less pollution, heat island effect, longer roof life, etc. If a non-profit coop like Mountain Equipment can do it, then so can everyone else.

* Fraction of U.S. energy that goes toward cooling buildings: one-sixth
* Temperature of a conventional-roof membrane on a 95° F day: 158° F
* Temperature of a green-roof membrane on the same day: 77° F
* Heat loss of green roof as compared with conventional roof: 18% less
* Stormwater-retention rate of green roof as compared to conventional roofing material: up to six times greater
* Increase in sound insulation of a building: up to 8 decibels (ten decibels represent approximately twice-loudness).

The above doesn't even include heat retention rates either which will keep a building warmer in the winter!
 
simuls said:
This is the type of thing that is a no brainer and Toronto needs to completely ignore the developers and just get some balls and mandate (with no exclusions for anyone). Oh no, $100 000 over 150 units - that's absolutely nothing to cry over. Charge $1000/unit and make money off of it - people will pay don't worry. The energy savings would pay for themselves in way less than 10 years and you'd have less pollution, heat island effect, longer roof life, etc. If a non-profit coop like Mountain Equipment can do it, then so can everyone else.

* Fraction of U.S. energy that goes toward cooling buildings: one-sixth
* Temperature of a conventional-roof membrane on a 95° F day: 158° F
* Temperature of a green-roof membrane on the same day: 77° F
* Heat loss of green roof as compared with conventional roof: 18% less
* Stormwater-retention rate of green roof as compared to conventional roofing material: up to six times greater
* Increase in sound insulation of a building: up to 8 decibels (ten decibels represent approximately twice-loudness).

The above doesn't even include heat retention rates either which will keep a building warmer in the winter!
Click to expand...

Every time I've heard the green roof idea discussed for a project the expert advice developers are given is that it is not financially worth it. The money saved will not pay for the roof. So either the good stuff we read about green roofs is wrong, or the consulting industry is misinformed.

The other way to look at this is 20% of downtown residents drive to work versus around 90-95% in the suburbs. If you want to reduce carbon emissions maybe increasing the cost of urban development through additional costs (which will push development to the suburbs) will do as much harm as good.
 
* Fraction of U.S. energy that goes toward cooling buildings: one-sixth
* Temperature of a conventional-roof membrane on a 95° F day: 158° F
* Temperature of a green-roof membrane on the same day: 77° F
* Heat loss of green roof as compared with conventional roof: 18% less
* Stormwater-retention rate of green roof as compared to conventional roofing material: up to six times greater
* Increase in sound insulation of a building: up to 8 decibels (ten decibels represent approximately twice-loudness).
Click to expand...

Isn't there anything quoted on the internet that isn't American?
 
In our Canadian climate where roof insulation is required by the building code, green roofs provide a miniscule incremental increase in overall roof insulation value. It is very safe to say that green roofs do not save any energy in the winter, in Canada at least. In the summer, the aforementioned roof insulation will also protect the roof deck (though not necessarily the roof membrane, depending on the roof assembly) from scorching hot temperatures, which once again limits the benefit of a green roof from an energy perspective, in Canada.

A green roof will however reduce the air temperature at roof level, which reduces the air temperature at a building's fresh air intakes, which reduces the energy consumed to cool the interior air. However, this impact is once again quite small in the grand scheme of things.

Of equal importance is the fact that the taller the building, the less significance the roof plays in the overall energy performance of a building. This is because as building heights increase, so too does wall area, however roof area stays constant. For a tall office tower, the roof may represent less than 5% of the exterior envelope area, while this number could rise to 50% or more in a short building. In this regard, it is rather unfortunate that Toronto's green roof policy is geared toward skyscrapers, as they offer by far the least bang for the buck in the field of green roofs.

Having said all of the above, a green roof can still pay for itself. This is because a green roof will prolong the service life of the roof membrane by anywhere from 50-100%, which could save a building owner one entire re-roofing cycle. In terms of energy though, forget it.

Green roofs reduce stormwater run off, decrease the heat island effect, increase biodiversity, and clean they air. However, they do an awful job at reducing energy consumption, especially in taller buildings.
 
Green roof proposal faces withering criticism

Industry representatives said forcing new factories to include costly green roofs would drive investors away from Toronto and hurt the city's struggling manufacturing sector.

The biggest condo builders said the current version of the bylaw is simply unworkable, as it appears to conflict with zoning rules that require outdoor amenity space such as barbecue areas or swimming pools on their roofs.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090507.GREEN07ART2253/TPStory/TPNational/Ontario/
 
Ymca

The Central YMCA has a large greenroof proposal in it's lobby. To me the interesting aspect was how it increases the usable space of the overall complex by incorporating a rooftop studio as well as the already mentioned benefits. Also, there are tremendous benefits to the overall aesthetics of the city.
 
Although I'm against it, the City should use the $100,000 fine for green roofing their big ass facilities.
 
Council approves stringent green-roof rules
Toronto becomes the North American leader in requiring roofs that advocates argue save energy, developers say cost money

Jennifer Lewington
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail, Wednesday, May. 27, 2009 02:39AM EDT

Green roofs will be required on new buildings in Toronto starting next year after city council yesterday overwhelmingly adopted the most comprehensive rules of any city in North America.

By a vote of 36-2, with councillors Rob Ford and Doug Holyday the only dissenters, council approved measures that developers warn will add to costs and that green-roof advocates say do not go far enough.

The new bylaw catapults Toronto to the top of the heap in North America in terms of the comprehensiveness of its mandated rules, according to Green Roofs for Healthy Cities. But the advocacy group said that Toronto does not even rank in the top 10 of North American cities – with Chicago in Number 1 spot – in terms of square footage of green roofs installed in 2008.

“We would have liked it [the Toronto bylaw] to be more aggressive,†said Steven Peck, president of Green Roofs for Healthy Cities, though he praised council for “exercising leadership†on a tool to fight climate change.

Stephen Dupuis, chief executive officer of the Building Industry and Land Development Association, said the biggest concern for developers is the cost of adjusting to the new requirements during an economic downturn. “Cost is an issue,†he said. “The market is so price-sensitive now.â€

Mr. Dupuis cited a 50-per-cent drop in condo sales in Toronto last month, to 398 units from 798 units in the same month a year ago.

The new rules kick in for new residential buildings constructed after Jan. 31, 2010, that are at least 2,000 square metres – a tougher provision than the 5,000-square-metre threshold initially suggested by city staff – and at least 20 metres high (six storeys), down from the 23 metres originally proposed.

Mr. Peck said his organization would have preferred the measure to apply to low-rise buildings as well.

Industrial buildings were given a reprieve until Jan. 31, 2011, when they will have to set aside either 10 per cent of the roof or 2,000 square metres, whichever is less, for sod and other eco-materials.

Deputy mayor Joe Pantalone (Ward 19, Trinity-Spadina), who led the charge for tougher rules, called the new requirements for green roofs “an opportunity rather than a handicap.â€

He noted that roofs make up 21 per cent of Toronto's surface area, raising the temperature of the urban environment and pushing up demand for electricity in summer months. Garden roofs, he added, help conserve rainfall, reduce energy demand and add to the beauty of the city.

With yesterday's resounding vote, Mr. Pantalone said, “You will see other municipalities now looking to Toronto and emulating us for the greater good of humanity.â€

But dissenting councillors questioned the need for Toronto to be a leader in setting new environmental regulations.

“Why do we have to be first?†Mr. Holyday asked before voting against the measure. “Who are we? We can't even pay our bills.â€

But Councillor Norm Kelly (Ward 40, Scarborough-Agincourt) praised the decision as “a pretty darn good starting point.

“I ould rather be first than last,†he said.
 
Maybe a carrot would work better than a stick for this sort of policy. Instead of levying a fine for not building a green roof the city could offer incentives such as allowing a green roof to count as a Section 37 contribution, or offering increased density, or granting easements, or granting a property tax credit for x number of years, or something else of the sort
 
While Toronto wants green roofs, south of the border they want "white roofs"...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iAixjWKWV-AHltNFGYtdhMIUceUA

US wants to paint the world white to save energy

1 day ago

LONDON(AFP) (AFP) — US Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Tuesday the Obama administration wanted to paint roofs an energy-reflecting white, as he took part in a climate change symposium in London.

The Nobel laureate in physics called for a "new revolution" in energy generation to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

But he warned there was no silver bullet for tackling climate change, and said a range of measures should be introduced, including painting flat roofs white.

Making roads and roofs a paler colour could have the equivalent effect of taking every car in the world off the road for 11 years, Chu said.

It was a geo-engineering scheme that was "completely benign" and would keep buildings cooler and reduce energy use from air conditioning, as well as reflecting sunlight back away from the Earth.

For people who found white hard on the eye, scientists had also developed "cool colours" which looked to the human eye like normal ones, but reflect heat like pale colours even if they are darker shades.

And painting cars in cool or light colours could deliver considerable savings on energy use for air conditioning units, he said.

Speaking at the start of a symposium on climate change hosted by the Prince of Wales and attended by more than 20 Nobel laureates, Chu said fresh thinking was required to cut the amount of carbon created by power generation.

He said: "The industrial revolution was a revolution in the use of energy. It offloaded from human and animal power into using fossil fuels.

"We have to go to a different new revolution that can severely decrease the amount of carbon emissions in the generation of energy."
 
Solar Panels?

What I don't get is why not spend the money on better insulation thus reducing energy usage. And secondly to use that roof space for solar panels or solar-water heaters? How about tall buildings over a certain height are required to have south (or if economically and practical) east and west tilted wall mounted solar panels?

Green Roos may make the city look nice and perhaps will have a cooling effect, but let's not forget the bigger problems here. Opening up a new coal-fired power plant further away will still have pollution blowing our way...

This new regulation... greenwashing by City Council?:D
 
something like this would look cool for union station railways. Too bad we're too poor.
49637240.jpg
 
I thought they *were* planning to "green" the Union Station shed roof--albeit maybe not that pretentiously. (NB: I don't mean "pretentiously" as an insult.)
 
There are plans to green roof the shed roof, however it's not walkable. It's just there.

With a design similar to the Australia plan train shed, it can provide routes for trains at the trench, walking space on the surface and a highway on top. Above the highway there's a sky park. It will be expensive, but we could have a really long park running from east to west side of Toronto over the highway.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top