U OF T ADVOCATES A GREEN DEVELOPMENT FUTURE FOR TORONTO

---

TORONTO, ON. – It’s going to be much easier being green because escalating energy and water prices make it very cost effective for the City of Toronto to move forward with its green development standard, say researchers at the University of Toronto. But Toronto must step up its efforts to promote energy and water conservation, solid waste and stormwater management, consumer education, and energy labeling, if it hopes to achieve the objectives of its green development plan.

The study conducted by Ted Kesik, an associate professor of building science, and Anne Miller, a graduate architect from the John H. Daniels Faculty of Architecture, represents part of a larger process to develop, implement and evolve the Toronto Green Development Standard (TGDS).  TGDS is among a number of instruments being fashioned by the City of Toronto to address the negative impacts associated with urban growth.  The Standard contains performance targets and guidelines for site and building design to better promote environmentally sustainable development.

According to Professor Kesik, “Green development has the potential to improve our quality of life, the environment and the economy, at very little or no extra cost.  The recent economic downturn signals the end of unsustainable building development that was subsidized by questionable financial practices. Conservation is the necessary antidote, but this will require a partnership between political will and social imagination. The benefits far outweigh the costs and failure to act means succeeding generations will live in an unhealthy city burdened by waste and inefficiency.  If the public and their elected politicians are interested in a sustainable future, they must realize society must elect the green development path.  It’s not about doing without, it’s doing better with less.”

The study explores the issues and trends in green development across Toronto and its neighbouring regions by identifying the key opportunities for the development or improvement of practices, products and services that enable cost effective green development, while enhancing the competitiveness of Ontario’s building industry.  Kesik and Miller also make recommendations to all three levels of government, the development industry and consumers.

---

Key findings of the study include:

Investments in green development are affordable and cost much less in the long run because the energy and water savings pay for the higher initial costs. Toronto can easily cut the ecological footprint of new development in half while paying back the additional investment in less than 10 years.  After that everyone reaps enormous environmental and economic dividends.

In some cases, like condominiums, the monthly expenditures on principal, interest, taxes and energy are actually lower for a green condo than the kind that are normally built. That means green development is more cost effective than conventional developments right from the outset.

Green development reduces the need to expand water and sewage treatment facilities, and build more electricity generation capacity.  These ‘avoided costs’ improve economic competitiveness.  Instead of going up the chimney or down the drain, tax dollars can be directed towards other priorities, like health care and education.  There is also capacity remaining in the infrastructure to sustain ongoing green development and economic growth.

Ontario has the opportunity to advance its renewable energy and energy efficiency (RE&EE) industry by promoting green development.  Looking at the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton (GTAH), it is estimated that by 2030, the RE&EE industry has the potential to create 838,000 jobs and generate annual revenues of $95-billion, not including export opportunities. These are jobs that cannot be outsourced and strongly suggests green development deserves at least as much government support as the auto industry.

Significant improvements to the quality and performance of building development are achievable with current technologies.  However, there is a potential for even greater improvements through strategic investments in research and development (R&D) by the building industry, which continues to have the most dismal record of R&D across all of Canada’s industry sectors, despite more than a decade of record profits.

Buildings account for a significant portion of air pollution, both from heating fuel combustion and fossil-fueled electricity generation, and this causes air pollution related illness.  Over the next 25 years, green development in the GTAH has the potential to save Ontario’s health sector more than $10-billion by improving air quality.  These avoided health care burdens can be better spent on the inevitably higher health costs expected with an aging population.

Consumer education and energy labeling are essential to advance green development. Consumers know more about the performance of a $1,000 computer than a $350,000 house or condo.  If a washing machine can be labeled to inform consumers about its energy and water efficiency, why not a building?  It’s all about consumer education and access to information. The computer and home electronics industries have led the way in improved energy efficiency and performance simply by educating consumers and providing comparative performance information.  Building codes are minimum requirements for health and safety.  Mandatory energy and water efficiency labeling will drive a competitive green development marketplace that far exceeds minimum standards cost effectively.

There is no green development future without the appropriate training and education of Ontario’s trades, builders, designers and regulatory officials. Green building technology is in global demand and we risk losing our best talent to more progressive jurisdictions unless we develop lifelong learning strategies.

Recognition of green development as a societal priority must be extended to the retrofit and renewal of existing buildings.  It is technically and economically feasible to improve the durability and performance of existing buildings, while exerting fewer adverse impacts on the environment, compared to demolition followed by new construction.

---

Green development represents on average a 2 to 7% premium over conventional practices, part of that being devoted to more intelligent design. The very best building practices represent about a 15% premium, but this is recoverable in less than 10 years. “For years, developers have been saying the market cannot bear a 5% premium, let alone a 15% premium,” notes Professor Kesik, “but somehow life goes on for the average Canadian after stock markets suffer more than a 20% decline.  Developers have misled consumers while racking up record profits because they are unwilling to challenge the building industry status quo.  Owners and tenants should realize that investing in green development will certainly yield a better return than what the stock market promised, but failed to deliver.”   

The Study was undertaken for the City of Toronto, in partnership with the Ontario Centres of Excellence.  Funding for the study was also provided by a grant from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ Green Municipal Fund.

---

For a full copy of the study, please visit: http://kesik.daniels.utoronto.ca/files_kesik/TGDS_CB-Study_Oct2008.pdf 

The six appendices supporting the study findings are available at:
http://kesik.daniels.utoronto.ca/content/publications

---

For more information, please contact:

Ted Kesik, John H. Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design
416-987-0849
ted.kesik@daniels.utoronto.ca

Joe D’Abramo, City Planning, City of Toronto
416-397-0251
Jdabramo@toronto.ca

Media Relations, University of Toronto
416-978-0110
media.relations@utoronto.ca