• Miller casts a wistful eye south to Obama’s urban boosterism [ Globe and Mail ]
• Mayor banking on new zoning to help retrofit aging high-rises [ Globe and Mail ]
•
Monday’s headlines
Read more articles by Monika Warzecha
Canadian Urbanism Uncovered
2 comments
‘With energy-use rates 20 per cent worse than single-family bungalows, high-rises represent “an enormous challenge in our fight against climate change,” Mr. Miller said last week in announcing his Mayor’s Tower Renewal project. “But they also provide us with an incredible opportunity.”‘
Is this supposed to mean 20% worse per inhabitant, and does anyone know whether that is true? I thought that living in an apartment (even an old one) was supposed to have a smaller carbon footprint than living in a house!
I believe it’s per inhabitant (or per square foot, or some reasonable measure), though I assume the stat doesn’t take into account side-effects like apartments allowing more people to live closer in with shorter commutes.
You’re right that apartment buildings should be more energy-efficient, and (ironically) the older ones may be. But Toronto’s wave of concrete high-rises from the 60s and 70s were incredibly energy-inefficient, with almost no insulation, poor quality windows, and motel-style heating units that have to run constantly to make the space habitable.