Green buildings are more than brick and mortar | Bryn Davidson | TEDxRenfrewCollingwood
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 ноя 2014
- This talk was given at a local TEDx event, produced independently of the TED Conferences. Creating 'greener' buildings will help address climate change... right?
Green buildings can make a difference, but only if we start asking the right questions. If we can start to see the whole story of how our buildings impact the climate then we can start to make strides toward real 'net-positive' change. The technology isn't new, the strategies aren't rocket science - the hard step is shifting our thinking about what it means to build 'green'.
Bryn Davidson wears many hats. Sure, he’s a LEED-accredited building designer, sustainability consultant and small business owner with degrees in Architecture (UBC) and Mechanical Engineering (UC Berkeley). But he doesn’t stop there. He’s also one of the co-founders of Lanefab Design / Build; a Vancouver-based design and construction company that built the city’s first laneway house in 2010. Since then, Lanefab has continued its specialization in energy efficient green homes and infill ‘laneway houses’ by completing over 40 of the small infill homes. Bryn Davidson has been on the leading edge of the laneway house industry, and we don’t see him slowing down anytime soon.
Twitter: @lanefab
Facebook: Lanefab
Email: bryn@lanefab.com
Website: www.lanefab.com
About TEDx, x = independently organized event In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)
My dream job is being an architect and I feel like I will go the green way on my career. I want to make a positive change on the world and also make a name for myself and my beliefs
That's absolutely fantastic, it's the path I took and I do not regret it, it's such a fascinating area.
How is it going?
Same!!
sooo, u did?
Best of luck, I hope it's going well
as someone who grew up in a brooklyn brownstone that we shared with two other renters the suggestion that we should tear them down and replace them pisses me off. These buildings have immense history and cultural value. And even though they're still "leaky" the lifestyles that are proliferated by the access to transportation through its density, the sharing of heat through shared walls, and walkability lead to 5x greener lifestyles then suburban, car dominated suburbs. Those aren't the buildings we need to replace. Why not target vacant lots and unused industrial buildings and outdated infrastructure. Targeting historic brownstones... how about learning about the community and gaining some regional context before proposing something so destructive
Very good presentation. Interesting use of the words "Green Bling"
Bryn asks us to ask 3 questions:
1) How good is it?
2) Where is it located?
3) What does it replace?
I'd like to add a 4th, the Zero'th question if you will - how does it make people think & behave greener?
That's very subjective so it can't be scored.
It hooked me for a whole good 19 minutes! Pretty comprehensible, thoughtful and interestingly written!
Really interesting presentation ! Keep going on Lanefab
Yes plz. I live in SC and we need this everywhere.
It's also important not to forget infrastructure!
Here in Auckland the national government is really pushing (against the local government) for more greenfield development under the pretext that developers will pay for new infrastructure. But what about all the infrastructure that needs to be upgraded! Roads & transit coming into the city, power, water, etc - even though they're not on your property these are serious costs both monetary and environmental.
I think that Earthships can also easily be net positve, as the recycling of materials is even more positive impact
Yes! He really went for the jugular. Its time to get real about sustainable design. No more abstract dreaming!
Traditional architecture is the way, they are sustainable as well and as well have beautiful interiors and exteriors.
Great presentation, thank you for sharing!
Nice talk, Bryn.
Very good presentation, thank you.
Wonderful presentation!
Well delivered
Thanks
I don't disagree with this, but it's a fact of the market that in many regions around the globe buying/owning/renovating residential property with a good 'walk score' (i.e. urban or suburban close to a relevant urban centre) is unaffordable for many people due to property values out-pacing incomes. For the most part, ultra-green buildings are reserved for the rich only.
13:05 you had my undisputed attention, at the thermals.. :D
I like the idea of including accessibility and impact on land but I didn't hear how the environmental impact of materials used (throughout the whole life cycle) are factored in. Without it this score is very incomplete.
Great presentation and insights ! Your holistic approach considering not only buildings, but also their environment/surroundings with the transportation issues, and its impact compared to previous construction/infrastructures are really interesting ! Regarding the wording "zero impact", I believe some caution is needed though. For buildings to exists we extract raw material (provided for free by the earth), which transformed by energy (mostly fossil fuels) allow us to build buildings (which therefore are not zero impact). Similarly, solar panels are produced through metallurgy and others industrial processes (in majority from economies heavily dependent on fossil fuels such as China, India...) and therefore are not zero impact neither. While it seems physically and mathematically difficult for buildings to have "zero impact", by having a broader approach like you explained, we will be able to reduce their impacts and increase emissions less :) Thank you
Great building, great location, replaces an inefficient building. But also the inputs (materials) either need to be sustainably made, or the building is only net positive after it pays down the embodied energy.
Pretty good for 2014. I'd say leading edge but now we've got Phase Change Materials, Carbon capture strategies and even more efficient and well purposed appliances and electric cars. Did I mention batteries? In the race to build a Net Positive house without using ''bling" with moving parts, one should allow induction heaters, solar panels, Phase Change materials, and natural Heat Recovery systems like fireplaces. And now batteries, electric, chemical and thermal. This is 30 months later. What will we have in another 30 months? If the dangerous fools deciding our futures now get their way, Coal.
Can they provide any kind of internship program
A wonderful video that explains how deep energy retrofit is the best solution to reduce our carbon footprint, better than new built buildings on a field.
Thanks for the contribution!
Great talk. So, embodied energy is where things are going right now, or more like heading...They're doing studies on embodied energy of cement at the UW, and there's lifecycle, etc...And yes to your response; "small portion compared..." as in embodied energy, but I think we need to know the real cost of doing business, not the perceived cost, especially of those items that have to travel from other lands, when we almost as easily could get them closer, or another likeminded material to replace. Wouldn't this be somewhat be compared to "walkability"?
I think, like everything else, these building point systems have to be vetted! Like Lions and tigers and Bears, oh my. LEED, Zero, Passive House, Built Green, USA's New Wall System, oh my!
Where does it end? Its better than the old ways...
Embodied energy is definitely a part of the conversation... but hard to fit into 15 to 18 minutes...
Is there a way to turn this into carbon offset credits? Like, it would be a lot easier to verify than if a forest would have been cut down.
Damn Good.
Septic tanks needs to be design like that the black water( toilet) should be seperated from the gray water( sink, shower). Black water tank will drain to the gray water tank then the to the drain field. This design is the best way to be efficient.
Instead of green residences why not work on green commercial buildings within a sustainable environment .
Seems odd that the speaker neglected to account for the embodied energy already present in the "inefficient" buildings that he is comfortable sending to the landfill. Surely that has to be part of the green calculation.
Embodied energy is a pretty small portion compared to the ongoing operating energy wasted by an old building. That said, we argue for replacement (or) renovation. We're doing a variety of deep energy retrofits where the foundation (high embodied energy) and framing are mostly retained. We've also developed strategies for doing inward insulation on projects with exterior heritage value.
Yeah, but it isn't just the energy that was used to build the old house that is now undone, it is the new building as well. Building a house is really bad for the enviroment, just think of all the cement and iron that goes into most super energy efficient houses.
I agree. Embodied energy plays a significant role. Not the same as operational energy as Bryn Davidson mentioned, But still a game changing factor, especially when the demolition phase and transfer of the waste is also considered.
I think he majorly meant to retrofit the existing buildings (which keeps most of the materials). But when it comes to replacement of a not efficient house, then, considering all embodied energy of materials, transportation and devices used for demolition, one must be waaay more careful in what to suggest. Because often times, in a 60 year period of a building's life, refurbishment has less mean carbon footprint than new construction of a house (kg CO2/ 60 years/m^2 floor area).
Building location is most important
Was a very informative one but now I'm into thought that what happened after this in these 9 years ??🤔🤔 Does anyone know ?
I hope someone replies 🥹
I did Absolutely LOVE this, however, wanted to add a thing or two...
Your location issue & the cars/transport side of it. For the right now, yes, that is an issue Unless you currently have a zero emission vehicle... with zero emission cars being mentioned though, hopefully we'll all have them sooner rather than later.
I was a bit taken back by the 17" exterior walls in the Vancouver house. I hope it was hempcrete or concrete orrr metal? That's a Whole Lot of lumber otherwise, talking about emission/world impacts.
I myself am in construction & hope to get renovating/building Net 0 & + homes.. hopefully it happens sooner rather than later, we need to change! But being in the industry, there is just So much waste all together. I live off Hwy 6 in Vernon & it would disgust you the number of logging trucks that go by in a day... our forests!.. all to have Joe Blow not measure twice & ruin a 2"x12"x14' & several 2x4s & 2x6s & & &. We just waste, endless waste. Whether the lumber or any part of our building, "Put'er in the bin, take'er to the dump." We Definitely need to be looking into how we're building... every single step/process along the way. We need to be looking into alternative energies like solar, wind, geothermal, water, anything ..we need to be looking into alternative building materials, hempcrete, bamboo, mud! We need to be planning the homes better from the start so every trade along the way knows what's up & there is as little waste as possible. We need to be greening as well which I kept waiting for him to bring up. Trees & shrubs & flowers. Flowers for the bees!!! Every aspect matters.
Great talk!
Regarding 17" walls, that's never solid wood or concrete. It's mostly insulation with a shell on each side.
Zero emission cars are not enough because they still possess embodied energy - it takes a great deal of energy to manufacture cars. Although there is more renewable energy being produced today, the vast majority of electricity is still produced by power plants that burn fossil fuels.
We have to compare apples to apples: That means we can't compare building footprints to the land that was there before; we have to compare building footprints to those of the buildings that would have been built otherwise.
We have to fight climate change. Stopping soil sealing is one of the most important steps.
At least compared to what corporate greed driven company would do.👍
The more you leave for interpretation the more developers would find loopholes to get great ratings by cheating the system
How about you Open source a consumer Viable General Housing Formula....
doesnt he looked like Steve Jobs from d far view... the TED just open up new ways of out of the box thinking thank you
thankyou for sharing it!
And all of the volcanoes going off around the world is a natural process and does more for changing our climate more then man causes the warming. We will be going into a cooler time ahead so enjoy the warm weather while you have it.
USGBC is there my friend
I would like to see Royal families in country move out of their old homes, down size to tiny homes and have all green homes also eliminate any use of old energy i.e. oil, gas, coal, nuclear eliminate the use of cars, planes and yachts. Leaders lead by example.
Ya good
When creating a net-positive building, one needs to avoid using foam products if embodied energy and measured performance are taken into account. For instance, most closed cell spray foam has a 40-80 year "greenhouse gas payback" given it performs to specification. However, it is nearly impossible to install spray foam properly outside of laboratory conditions. Even if this is achieved, the seismic/drying/thermal movement of the building is sure to pull foam away from it's substrate and ruin the air sealing properties. Foam is NOT a durable air barrier and is almost always a BIG net negative for environmental impact. Not a big surprise considering foam is a fossil fuel product. I was tricked by the marketing and installed millions of square feet of foam before I learned the truth about installed performance vs. upfront impact. I was trying to help save the world; turns out I didn't achieve my goal. Foam guilt is tough to swallow.
+Lucas Johnson Yes, foam is unreliable as an air barrier when trying to achieve passive house levels of air tightness. In terms of GHG impact, some foams are worse than others. XPS and 1st generation 2lb foam both have bad climate impacts. 2nd generation 2lb foams (using Solstice, or similar, blowing agents) are much much better, though the embodied energy of cellulose and wood fibre products is still much lower.
I strongly disagree...
Its all about the compostion of the Material.
The emission footprint of the secluded super green house might have bigger actual gross emission impact on the environment than the downtown-accessible-by-foot-transit-or-whatever-greener method but you don't take into account that other homes in the same area are probably not as green and also need a car per person so house that is green is always better than house that is not green.
What we need to think about is how we are going to transform existing non green houses to green houses, that is the challenge we are facing today
Absolutely. A rural project can be net-positive if you're improving an existing building. If/when we build in rural locations we should be looking for opportunities to improve/remove existing carbon loads vs. building on the tempting green field sites.
My Walk Score is 94
Replace the old design of housing step by step, add important transportation devices and start replacing the old way to live aswell as the old type of towns, which are almost no good at all.
Earthship buildings are the best buildings I have seen.
Except for Huricanes, Floods, Fires, Earthquackes, Lighting... I wish it was nice, but it isn't.
It's good for sustainable living. No argument against it, but I think they are way off the grid.
The Venus Project for youth, free old. Tech/society in infancy. TVP -education, health, Earth, Universe. Free?, no surplus. ALL feasible.
Towns,,you nailed it!!!Forced inefficient to support old broke(n) infrastructure. Carbon farmed slave populated infrastructure, maims, kills, orphans, inefficient.. Cars money distribution,,,yes even so called jobs producing junk.
bit simplistic about rural life.. and carbo footprints via cars... what about the growing of own food and not relying on processed foods? or utilizing local fuels and products cutting out other massive transport costs... see... you can tell when an urbanite considers rural life, and assumes one cannot live without the cafe and cinema...
one step at a time bruh, he's probably an architect and can only solve problems related to designing buildings in allowable places. He cant really impact stuff like urban planning and zoning of where he can build. Some other person with a different and more Related job on your topic might do better job at that though
How about the Orange zone
The building replacing the brownstone is horrible from an aesthetic point of view. There has to be a better way than destroying historic areas.
Welcome to EVs and 2021 :)
this man knows da wey
good ideas but it's very common sense so i think the video could've been a lot shorter.
green green green, climate climate climate change, greenhouse emmissions, oooooohh; faulty premise cannot lead to good end. But it's so cooool. and no "green bling", wow!!
We can use e-bikes to solve some transportation problems. I know ebikes have their carbon footprint but are better than cars and have far longer range that bycicle. We can charge them from our solar panels if we have.
Love the Content, but wow that was painful to sit through.
to me, green building & all d pretty ideas it won"t be in its completion until like in case of a house out in green area) is linked with the whole implementation of grading drive paths (unfortunately for logical cautions) fencing all highway or rural driveway (for wildlife animals safety, protection of risky runover (all the times)), and the recycling of the water at the home and reusable of the plastic bottle and other harmful materials that aren't biodegradable. Until then, Green building is incomplete and just (besides solar and insulation) is just pretty and pricey according to these luxurious homes except for tiny homes. On top of that Wood should become an exclusivity and the high price demand, it'll be fair just to END the exploitation of trees and palms. SOL't AR SOLAR SOLAR. But Republicans & Democrats keep fracking fracking fracking and until everyone doesn't unite in same cause defending the only gorgeous blue planet we all live, all these green buildings seem anyways FOCUSED on greedy builders and ego selfish architects and designers bc is all about $$$ like it or not. I hope the video producer of this video hear this advice and ideas and implement 'em sooner than later.
Some of this just screams privilege. Specifically, the part about moving to more walkable neighborhoods does. Such areas are artifically scarce (and artificially expensive) thanks to zoning laws that make building new, dense, walkable areas mostly illegal. People are being economically compelled to live in auto-dependent suburbs because they cannot afford anything closer in. Until it becomes easy to build walkable, energy-efficient suburbs (and to retrofit existing suburbs to be more efficient), solving the energy problems of the built environment will be impossible.
look up earthship
The Venus Project. Perfect time to do-over. TVP for the youth, do some of this(free ) the old.
Create more and more expensive simple houses. And what about China and India? And how about this guy using a car to move around? And this guy is also trying to convince that he would turn down any Investor that wants to have a house in a remote location?
He could be more interesting if he would say all this just once and don't take 19 minutes.
Little GREEN House on the Prairie, Sucks Energy. Become a Leader. not a LEED'r.
Go Green, Go broke
Wow 3 families living were one family used to live? Talk about destroying quality of life. You are Insane
And that is the heart of the climate hoaxers' movement. To completely destroy quality of life and to create dependence upon Chinese companies.
Is it ironic that a kermit the frog sounding guy is obsessed with going green!!! XD HAHAHAHAHA *sips tea*
The annoyed blowgun scilly imagine because shark concordingly challenge plus a skinny newsstand. big, sophisticated bladder
Ever heard of electric bikes? Cars? You don't "have to drive" fossily.
+tzenophile Power plant burn fuel... Electicity is not something magic from nothing.
Wind, solar, hydro. Even nuclear. My house runs on solar, it produces 8KWh a year. My electric bike or car would use from that, if I had them. So my point stands.
Yes, the tech will always get better and greener, but some energy (active or embodied) will always have more impact relative to walkable urbanism - even if renewable. If you are building in a rural site and want to be 'net zero' then the energy for your transport has to be part of that conversation.
I agree. And my next house, which will be off-grid and net zero, will be rural as well. The idea is to use electric bikes to the nearest shop and train station (5-10 miles). When you don't drive cars, like me, then your fossil transport footprint is effectively reduced to near-zero by default.
Nonsense; I was talking about the transportation footprint. The production footprint should be negated by the transportation footprint saving in about two months or so, if I bike 20 miles a day, 5 days a week.
The typical passenger automobile puts out 99.999% water. A car is not dangerous
Oil/gas is made-up (mostly) from carbon and hydrogen. Therefore burning oil/gas creates CO2 (carbondioxide) and H2O (dihydrogen monoxide --> water). So I would not say it is almost completely water.
i think this talk is useless.... sorry