Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Toon Dreessen's avatar

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)

Toon Dreessen's avatar

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.

2 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?