Here's an unproven hypothesis that you can all challenge me on: many or most people only care about the environment while it is convenient to do so. Said oppositely, once it becomes inconvenient to care about the environment, we tend to start prioritizing other objectives.
The example I have in my mind right now is parking. Now, to be clear, cars are not the best mobility solution for the environment. But let's assume for a minute that you need parking and you have only two available options: below-grade parking or above-grade parking.
The former is worse for the environment. If you were to look at the embodied carbon in below-grade parking versus above-grade parking, it would be higher. So from an environmental perspective, you want above-grade parking.
It also makes for more flexible spaces. It's hard to convert below-grade parking to much else. Again, this strengthens the environmental case, because now you're building something that can be repurposed in the future.
However, unless you're forced to only build above-grade parking (as is the case in Miami), many/most cities tend to shun it. The most common objectives are (1) that it's unsightly, and therefore needs to be wrapped with occupiable spaces, and (2) that it kills street life.
What this suggests is that (1) and (2) are seen as being more important than the environment. And I think this is noteworthy in its own right. But here's the other thing: this is arguably a false dichotomy. I mean, does above-grade parking necessarily kill street life?
The above two street view images are from 1111 Lincoln Road in Miami Beach. It's a parking structure and area of the city that I have visited many times. And I have to say, the street life seems fine to me. What do you think?
Here's the thing:
Nationwide, the biggest single source of emissions is transportation, dominated by low-occupancy cars and trucks. But in New York, most people use mass transit instead of driving. That means buildings “are by far the largest source” of climate pollution in the city, said Christopher Halfnight, senior director of research and policy at the Urban Green Council, a nonprofit focused on energy efficiency in buildings. Gas- and oil-burning furnaces and water heaters are together responsible for 40% of NYC emissions, according to Halfnight.
In response to this, New York City has been passing laws that restrict greenhouse gases and that by and large incentivize electrification. One of these is Local Law 97, which will generally require buildings over 25,000 sf to reduce their GHG emissions by 40% (relative to 2005) by 2030.
Already the market is responding. Alloy Development has just completed the city's first all-electric tower at 505 State Street in Brooklyn. Tenants began moving in on April 5.
When team members asked what the complex would look like absent gas, the answers were fairly straightforward. “Instead of a gas boiler, an electric boiler; instead of a gas cooktop, it was an induction cooktop. And literally that was it,” said Pires, noting that they had to revise the design of the electrical room to allow for higher amperage, since more incoming electricity would be needed for a larger electrical load.
Some, or perhaps many, in the industry are fighting these new laws. In 2022, a co-op in Queens apparently went to the New York Supreme Court. But directionally, this certainly looks to be where we are headed. So you can either fight it, or you can try and get ahead of it, as Alloy has done here.
For more information on 505 State Street, go here (Bloomberg) and here (project website).
This is not a post about laneway housing. Okay, it sort of is. But there's a broader point to discuss. Recently, a local Toronto newspaper ran this article talking about how a bunch of people are upset that their neighbor is building an as-of-right garden suite. Here's an excerpt:
“The members of the community know that they can’t stop the building of this ‘garden suite’. However, they want to change the bylaw to ensure that future ‘garden suites’ can’t be built without community consultation and an environmental assessment,” said a news release from a number of residents in the area that was sent to Toronto media outlets including Beach Metro Community News last week.
This raises some interesting questions.
For one, what would be the purpose of this community consultation? Is it just a "Hey, I'm going to be building a garden suite" and then homeowners go do it exactly how they want anyway? Or, would it be an extensive community engagement process where homeowners would be expected to gather feedback, submit a report to the city, and consider design changes?
And, would this apply to all low-rise housing? In other words, would all homeowners need to consultant their neighbors and do an environmental assessment before pulling a building permit? What if someone just wants to build a small extension or a shed? Or, are we only talking about laneway and garden suites?
I'm not really sure what the exact intentions are here -- besides delaying new housing -- but I can tell you that it's a terrible idea.
Laneway and garden suites should never require community consultation and/or an environmental assessment. I mean, this is the whole point of allowing them as-of-right. It's so you don't have to do these things and you can go straight to a building permit. This is way too small of a housing type to burden with obstacles.
In fact, the same is true of larger housing types. In my opinion, conventional mid-rise buildings should not have to go through a full rezoning and they should not have to consult with the community. We already know what these buildings look like. We know that they make for great homes. And yet they're our most expensive housing type to build.
Removing barriers (and reducing project durations) is a sure-fire way to make them cheaper. Especially in a higher interest rate environment.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog