Halifax should build with wood, says Watts

[Keith P.]

Of course, what she doesn't say is that building with wood automatically means she would get no building more than 3 floors tall, which is probably her real objective here. But this is about the most ridiculous thing I have heard out of her in some time, which is something considering the nonsense she often spouts. How do these people get re-elected time after time? Is this really what her residents want? A policy that increases cost, produces an inferior building, and runs counter to every principle of commercial building best practice?

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/met...s-staff-report

City hall’s environment committee should recommend Halifax council consider “wood first” guidelines for municipal structures being built or renovated, city staff say.

There are economic and environmental benefits to using wood, provided it’s feasible for such projects, says a recent report to the environment and sustainability standing committee.

“Wood building materials have lower energy, water and air quality impacts than alternatives,” the staff report says. “Wood has a low carbon footprint (and) it is a renewable product.”

Regarding economics, using wood will help Nova Scotia’s forestry and lumber sectors, which “are mainstays” of the provincial economy, says the report, submitted by Peter Stickings, the municipality’s acting director of planning and infrastructure.

Coun. Jennifer Watts (Peninsula North), the committee’s vice-chairwoman and member who requested the report, said Saturday the environmental and economic arguments are equally strong.

[resetcbu1]

Watts is a NUT JOB!

[cormiermax]

I can just picture municipal structures going up vinyl siding and all!

[worldlyhaligonian]

[ILoveHalifax]

Maybe we could redesign the convention centre so we could make it out of wood. Is it too late to build the library out of wood?
We kept the smart one; at least she can form a sentence, unlike the one who 'you know, I mean, like you know, I think, you know, like it'. and the one with a million questions 'why don't we? what are we doing?'

[coolmillion]

I don't see why this is such a far fetched idea. The environmental and economic benefits are explained pretty clearly and it is only being proposed for municipal buildings "where feasible".

As for the argument that this is about building height, I sense a knee-jerk reaction related to Watts more than anything else. For the record, it is possible to build high-rises out of wood (using emerging engineering techniques and other materials). This is idea is catching on in Vancouver and Europe and should reach Halifax in about 20 years.

[someone123]

The wood story is actually pretty interesting, although this article does not do a good job of explaining it. The reason for renewed interest in Sweden is that construction technology has changed. In the past wood buildings had a bad reputation for being creaky and noisy, more prone to burning down, and weaker structurally. Today it is possible to overcome those problems to a large degree. This isn't what we're seeing now with cheap Clayton Park style 4 story buildings, but it is in principle possible to build a nice building similar in size to, say, the RIM HQ that uses a combination of wood and steel.

While that's all interesting and I'd actually like to see more high-quality small wood buildings in HRM, my concern is that this would be yet another guideline added to the list of guidelines that either add complexity to new capital projects or are a liability. I can see it now; a St. Pat's-A style train wreck followed by a lawsuit from the lumber industry.

[Phalanx]

Wood doesn't have to mean short with engineered lumber.
http://inhabitat.com/michael-green-u...for-vancouver/
http://inhabitat.com/lifecycle-tower...ing/new-21-15/
http://inhabitat.com/delta-tower-car...passive-house/

While these are all just plans as of right now, an 8-story version of the LifeCycle tower was built this March as a proof-of-concept for the 30-story version.
• Video Link

[worldlyhaligonian]

Wood is a great material, its just the execution that I see being a problem with these folks espousing such ideas... much like most of their ideas.

[Keith P.]

Yes, it is possible to make engineered wood members that can replace structural steel in certain applications. Unfortunately we do not have that technology locally, which is one of the stated advantages of the policy. Nor do we have the expertise to build such structures. Finally, we do not have the surplus of funds required to pay for such expensive new tech. If a private developer wishes to experiment with such things, fine. But for HRM to mandate it for municipal structures is patently absurd.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Unfortunately we do not have that technology locally, which is one of the stated advantages of the policy.

Presumably we'd build new wood processing facilities, which would be a much better investment in the lumber industry than say the recent paper mill "investments".

Finally, we do not have the surplus of funds required to pay for such expensive new tech.

If this was going to be an expensive endeavour, I'd expect that the province would chip in, along with Dal and NSCC and/or NSCAD. It's also possible that the wood wouldn't necessarily be used structurally (as a replacement for steel) but rather would be used cosmetically (as a replacement for say brick or precast or spandrel glass). This is actually increasingly common in BC and has resulted in some excellent architecture. In either case I don't think the objective is to prevent the use of steel, concrete, plastic, brick, etc, just to increase the amount of wood used, where feasible. It's quite possible that this will result in some really creative, attractive buildings. Although I agree that if this becomes reflected in HRM policy, they need to choose their words very carefully to avoid legal complications.

But for HRM to mandate it for municipal structures is patently absurd.

Would you prefer they mandated red brick?

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by coolmillion

The environmental and economic benefits are explained pretty clearly and it is only being proposed for municipal buildings "where feasible".

Exactly.

As for the argument that this is about building height, I sense a knee-jerk reaction related to Watts more than anything else.

Exactly.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Would you prefer they mandated red brick?

They don't have to mandate any particular material. Instead they could just focus on the characteristics they want from a good bid (X amount of space, affordable, environmentally-friendly, etc.) and then let construction companies and architects come up with the best designs that satisfy those requirements. That strategy seems more likely to be successful than one where a city councillor tries to anticipate what will be best for new construction for however many years the guideline is on the books.

HRM still has tons of rules kicking around that were implemented in the 1970s or 80s or so and don't make much sense today (many of them directly undermine newer planning goals) but have not been updated. The city just got sued for violating one of their own (arguably half-baked) policies that was put on the books a decade ago and then forgotten about. And of course council wasted countless hours debating trivial issues like cat bylaws; there is little guarantee that a newly-introduced policy won't get blown totally out of proportion and derail much more important issues.

I would rather Watts focus on, say, concrete transit proposals rather than abstract requirements for hypothetical future projects.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Hali87

It's also possible that the wood wouldn't necessarily be used structurally (as a replacement for steel) but rather would be used cosmetically (as a replacement for say brick or precast or spandrel glass).

A lot of condo buildings are now utilizing masonry or cosmetic wood. I think, slowly, the glass curtain-wall look is falling out of favour. Or at least is not longer so ubiquitous.

Then again...

[Dmajackson]

^ Here's the thread for that proposal.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=198335

Also the project is featured in a section of this month's National Geographic!

Personally I think if insurance and fire issues can be resolved conclusively then these could make for some nice buildings. A few "woodscrapers" mixed in with the concrete, glass, and steel in downtown would make Halifax's great skyline even better!

As for municipal buildings these could be a slightly cheaper and eco-friendlier solution for places like community and recreation facilities.

[sdm]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

^ Here's the thread for that proposal.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=198335

Also the project is featured in a section of this month's National Geographic!

Personally I think if insurance and fire issues can be resolved conclusively then these could make for some nice buildings. A few "woodscrapers" mixed in with the concrete, glass, and steel in downtown would make Halifax's great skyline even better!

As for municipal buildings these could be a slightly cheaper and eco-friendlier solution for places like community and recreation facilities.

The biggest issues with wood construction is meeting the national building codes for fire ratings. I mean you can build just about anything out of wood, however the money you would need to spend to fire rate emergency exits and hallways would negate any savings.

I think the use of wood as a cosmetic material is becoming more exciting and hopefully be embranced here locally.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by sdm

The biggest issues with wood construction is meeting the national building codes for fire ratings. I mean you can build just about anything out of wood, however the money you would need to spend to fire rate emergency exits and hallways would negate any savings.

I think the use of wood as a cosmetic material is becoming more exciting and hopefully be embranced here locally.

I agree. An example of your point would be fire-rated wood doors. About the best fire rating on a wood fire-door is 1-1/2 hours, which is really only about 5% wood and the remainder (that can't be seen) is incombustible mineral core (covered with wood veneer and thin wood edges). I think it would be considerably more costly than a steel fire-door, which can obtain fire-ratings of over 2 hours.

Maybe it would be somewhat practical to use wood studs in partition walls but use concrete/steel for the load bearing elements and floors(?)

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by sdm

The biggest issues with wood construction is meeting the national building codes for fire ratings. I mean you can build just about anything out of wood, however the money you would need to spend to fire rate emergency exits and hallways would negate any savings.

I think the use of wood as a cosmetic material is becoming more exciting and hopefully be embranced here locally.

True enough. However if these problems can be overcome then I think the private-sector should be able to build large buildings with them.

Publicly though I would limit any wood buildings to small ones. So instead of something the size of the Central Library I'm thinking something like a new community hall for North Dartmouth or a small P-9 school for Timberlea. Basically something that is one-storey and is easy to install ample doors and windows.

I think a good test-run would be a new transit terminal say at Cobequid Terminal. Nothin' fancy just a small wood building with a heated waiting area and facilities.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by someone123

I would rather Watts focus on, say, concrete transit proposals rather than abstract requirements for hypothetical future projects.

Exactly... They would probably end up sourcing out of province for the wood or something crazy like that anyway

The climate in NS can mean massive rot and cyclical replacement of wood unless it is treated in certain ways... which has negative environmental impact.

Things aren't as basic as they make them out to be.

[Nilan8888]

I think what gives Watts away is she jumps straight to saying these should be guidelines. A trend that's "catching on" in a couple cities, and suddenly we're going to use it as a GUIDELINE?

I mean, come on. She clearly doesn't care about if the building is made out of wood, concrete, or styrofoam. She wants to take what's being done elsewhere and frame it in such a way as to further her own agenda.

If there are good buildings being made of wood, styrofoam or cardboard, by all means: build some of these. Halifax is strengthened by the mere fact there's a variety of buildings. I think it actually serves the city that not every building is warm and inviting, that not every tower is brick, or glass. A vinyl-sided skyscraper? Hey if you can actually make something like that look good (though I doubt it), why not?

But don't make it a guideline. You build one or two of these things to make something cool and different, then move onto the next project. You don't let the new building fad dominate new construction.