{"id":1126,"date":"2009-01-21T16:50:16","date_gmt":"2009-01-21T23:50:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/?p=1126"},"modified":"2009-01-21T16:50:16","modified_gmt":"2009-01-21T23:50:16","slug":"timber-or-timber","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/2009\/01\/21\/timber-or-timber\/","title":{"rendered":"“Timber!” or “Timber?”"},"content":{"rendered":"

After attending today’s Urban Development Institute Luncheon<\/a> on “The Story Behind the Six Storey Mid-rise Initiative” (with speaker Trudy Rotgans, Manager, Building and Safety Policy Branch in the BC Government), I have some additional thoughts on the topic (first broached from another angle here<\/a>). As billed, the presentation\u2019s topic was this:<\/p>\n

You heard about it first back in September of 2008 when Housing and Social Development Minister, Rich Coleman, announced the province would increase the limit on wood-frame construction from four to six storeys by the beginning of this year. Since then, a detailed and intensive round of consultations and studies were undertaken looking at everything from seismic testing and wood shrinkage to fire fighting capacity. Also tied to this initiative is the government’s focus on finding ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Minister Coleman asserts six storey wood-frame buildings allow us to reap “the environmental benefits of density while preserving the character of [our] communities.”<\/p>\n

Come find out where the conversation started, what questions and answers popped up along the way, and whether or not six-storey wood-frame has been both safe and successful in any area comparable to Victoria.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

First, I found it useful to see the frame<\/em> (as it were) for building codes. Their roots lie in disasters – London\u2019s Great Fire<\/a>, or incidents<\/a> involving New York City\u2019s firefighters or earthquakes<\/a> up and down<\/a> the Pacific Rim of Fire<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Seeing that frame made me think about how building codes are reactive creatures, and how once they\u2019re in place, they stay in place. This happens even if they outlive their usefulness<\/em> because there\u2019s no apparent reason to shift them. Fires and earthquakes are never \u201coutlived,\u201d of course, which means that the only good reason for a code to outlive its usefulness is if building technology shifts in a significant way. But then it\u2019s a major effort to do the shifting because fires and earthquakes obviously don’t change their nature.<\/p>\n

For some silly reason, I had always thought about codes as something proactive (not reactive), as something that pushes us or builders toward better quality. Their reactive quality had escaped me. So, ok, reality check: codes are not<\/em> proactive, generally. They are essentially reactive creatures. That was the first part that made me go \u201chmm.\u201d<\/p>\n

For if it\u2019s the case that the code is reactive, there have to be equally compelling reasons to shift it. This moves the heavy lifting into the court of the proponents who want to revamp the code to allow for changes, in this case to allow six-story wood construction.<\/p>\n

Readers in other countries where more-than-four-story wood construction is already a given, bear with me. It\u2019s a whole new frontier here.<\/p>\n

Speaker Trudy Rotgans correctly noted that, given some of the hoarier aspects of our building code, some assumptions about the code are \u201cworth challenging.\u201d\u00a0 And indeed they were when Rich Coleman<\/a> (Minister for Housing, BC) approved the amendment for wood construction<\/a> on January 9, 2009 (effective April 6, 2009).<\/p>\n

As she delivered her presentation, questions regarding the government\u2019s motivation to change the code arose almost immediately, and Rotgans answered that certainly, the Canadian Wood Council<\/a> (an industry goup) has been working on these revisions for several years. There\u2019s nothing wrong, in my view, with admitting that BC\u2019s forest industry could benefit from the leveling of a playing field that currently favors one material over another (concrete and steel over wood) for mid-rise construction, or for the government to look for ways to help one our key industries.<\/p>\n

But by lessening some of the code\u2019s more reactive measures, the government hasn\u2019t simultaneously built into the revamped code anything proactive in my naive sense of the term: there\u2019s nothing in there, from what I could gather from today\u2019s presentation, to ensure quality<\/em>. When (in my May 13, 2008 entry<\/a>) I linked to E3 Kaden + Klingbeil<\/a>\u2019s Berlin project (7 storey wood construction, video here<\/a>), I was thinking of quality wood construction.<\/p>\n

No builder here would get any benefit – time, money – from building like they do in Berlin. It\u2019s more likely that the usual techniques – relatively slight wood-framing, plywood sheathing, fibreglass between the studs, and drywall to finish the interior – will be used. And if that\u2019s the case, then you have to wonder whether it\u2019s worth it.<\/p>\n

It won\u2019t necessarily be cheaper to build in wood with quality<\/em> craftsmanship and attention to the building\u2019s durability, its sound-proofing and fire-proofing aspects. (The Berlin building is certainly durable, it must be as good as sound-proof, and it doesn\u2019t look like fire could do much damage. It has LEED<\/a> or environmental advantages, but I wonder whether the financial bottom line was that much better than an equally good concrete building\u2019s.)<\/p>\n

Yet a desired cost-advantage was what had some of us wishing for the mid-rise initiative. We have a housing crisis, and many of us hoped that it would prompt builders to take advantage of savings to construct more housing at a lower cost, whether rental housing or condos.<\/p>\n

So that brings us back to code: the architects and builders I spoke to after the lunch were skeptical. As one of them put it, \u201cwho\u2019s going to go first?\u201d Who will build – using the North American West\u2019s notorious (imo) fast-food equivalent of suburban house construction techniques to build 6-story condos or apartments? Which insurer of home buyers<\/a> will back it? Which builders\u2019 organization<\/a> will?<\/p>\n

I\u2019m usually relentlessly optimistic, but today\u2019s presentation didn\u2019t convince me. By simply taking away some of the reactive aspects of the code, the framers of the new amendments didn\u2019t put anything proactive in place. It\u2019s left to the builders themselves to re-invent the wheel, and it\u2019s going to be an expensive wheel (so there goes the affordable housing hope) if they go the quality route.<\/p>\n

I think most builders want to build quality. The diehard cynics who think everyone is on the make 24\/7 will disagree, arguing that builders are waiting for a chance to throw up crap. That\u2019s untrue. From what I sensed in today\u2019s crowd – and it was a sold-out event – there was a real measure of disappointment that these building code amendments don\u2019t really show a way forward.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

After attending today’s Urban Development Institute Luncheon on “The Story Behind the Six Storey Mid-rise Initiative” (with speaker Trudy Rotgans, Manager, Building and Safety Policy Branch in the BC Government), I have some additional thoughts on the topic (first broached from another angle here). As billed, the presentation\u2019s topic was this: You heard about it […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":311,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2357,1061,1824,2071,2233,1418],"tags":[4347],"class_list":["post-1126","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-affordable_housing","category-architecture","category-canada","category-housing","category-land_use","category-victoria","tag-mid_rise_initiative"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1126","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/311"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1126"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1126\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1126"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1126"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/yulelog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1126"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}