I’d also add that seeking LEED silver is about as low a sustainable target as you can get; it’s basically code minimum (with $35k in paperwork). Actually seeking sustainable targets would be aiming for zero operational carbon, net zero or net positive energy, high performance etc; typical ottawa RFPs aim for these low targets and its a shame as doing better isn’t hard, isn’t much more $ and is possible (I’m doing this sort of thing in many harsh locations)
Agree that this is a good move and glad to see that you’re concerned about the landfill. Comments like this “ Ottawa residents are already sending substantially less to the landfill…” are something we should all consider. To highlight this point, however, your vote to proceed with Lansdowne 2.0 sends tons of embodied carbon into the landfill, as well as adding to the physical landfill capacity; this is driven by a decision to sole source the project to 1 design idea, spending $22m of tax dollars (a design competition would have cost max $2m) to sell the public 1 idea; the most sustainable building is one that already exists: more creative approaches would have saved the buildings (which still have decades of life left on them), saved landfill costs, saved money, and resulted in better sustainability. So while it’s nice to think about packaging waste and all, the L2.0 vote undermines that lofty goal.
On sustainability - I could point out that despite attempted renovations, the current arena and north side stands do not come close to meeting today’s sustainability requirements or standards for efficiency, comfort, health, etc.
Poor sealing and water infiltration ((mold, corrosion, material degradation) and can’t be fully resolved by surface-level fixes or sealants.
Lack of insulation and outdated window glazing - requires entire replacement of facades and roof.
HVAC and ventilation limitations.
High energy and operating costs.
We can keep putting band-aids on but the performance of the existing building but there is not a feasible renovation option - especially when you look at other structural and mechanical challenges.
Agreed that there’s a ton of work to do (driven by decades of underinvestment and austerity budgeting) but there’s a lot of options that could be explored to address these issues, as well as accessibility; but we’ll never know what our options were because we only ever saw one design idea. I do work like this on aging buildings across the country for an enlightened client who gets that investment, sustainability and lifecycle value matter; we’ve reinvested new hvac, accessibility, roofs, envelope systems etc and it’s more cost effective especially when the bones of the asset are still good, as has been reported, and are still good for decades. Sure L2 will make financial sense if all the numbers work, but the deal only shows a profit a decade after the team has agreed to stay: we could be in a position to have no team, no profits, and nothing but debt in 17y and still have an asset to maintain.
What’s done is done. But let’s make this a lesson that investing in maintenance is key; that sole sourcing to 1 idea isn’t good for anyone; and that austerity budgeting and P3 projects cost more in the long run.
I’d also add that seeking LEED silver is about as low a sustainable target as you can get; it’s basically code minimum (with $35k in paperwork). Actually seeking sustainable targets would be aiming for zero operational carbon, net zero or net positive energy, high performance etc; typical ottawa RFPs aim for these low targets and its a shame as doing better isn’t hard, isn’t much more $ and is possible (I’m doing this sort of thing in many harsh locations)
Hi Glen:
Agree that this is a good move and glad to see that you’re concerned about the landfill. Comments like this “ Ottawa residents are already sending substantially less to the landfill…” are something we should all consider. To highlight this point, however, your vote to proceed with Lansdowne 2.0 sends tons of embodied carbon into the landfill, as well as adding to the physical landfill capacity; this is driven by a decision to sole source the project to 1 design idea, spending $22m of tax dollars (a design competition would have cost max $2m) to sell the public 1 idea; the most sustainable building is one that already exists: more creative approaches would have saved the buildings (which still have decades of life left on them), saved landfill costs, saved money, and resulted in better sustainability. So while it’s nice to think about packaging waste and all, the L2.0 vote undermines that lofty goal.
We will disagree on this one Toon.
On sustainability - I could point out that despite attempted renovations, the current arena and north side stands do not come close to meeting today’s sustainability requirements or standards for efficiency, comfort, health, etc.
Poor sealing and water infiltration ((mold, corrosion, material degradation) and can’t be fully resolved by surface-level fixes or sealants.
Lack of insulation and outdated window glazing - requires entire replacement of facades and roof.
HVAC and ventilation limitations.
High energy and operating costs.
We can keep putting band-aids on but the performance of the existing building but there is not a feasible renovation option - especially when you look at other structural and mechanical challenges.
Agreed that there’s a ton of work to do (driven by decades of underinvestment and austerity budgeting) but there’s a lot of options that could be explored to address these issues, as well as accessibility; but we’ll never know what our options were because we only ever saw one design idea. I do work like this on aging buildings across the country for an enlightened client who gets that investment, sustainability and lifecycle value matter; we’ve reinvested new hvac, accessibility, roofs, envelope systems etc and it’s more cost effective especially when the bones of the asset are still good, as has been reported, and are still good for decades. Sure L2 will make financial sense if all the numbers work, but the deal only shows a profit a decade after the team has agreed to stay: we could be in a position to have no team, no profits, and nothing but debt in 17y and still have an asset to maintain.
What’s done is done. But let’s make this a lesson that investing in maintenance is key; that sole sourcing to 1 idea isn’t good for anyone; and that austerity budgeting and P3 projects cost more in the long run.