Dedicated to sustainable,
high performance building

Builders are going to shape the future. Here’s how.

By: Chris Ballard

We are pleased to participate in the Passive House issue of SABMag. Builders, and the building industry, have a crucial role to play in the struggle to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change, and I foresee that Passive House is going to play a big part in addressing that struggle.

Our built environment is a major contributor to climate change. In large urban areas, emissions from buildings contribute over 50 per cent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and over 30 per cent globally. As governments set ambitious targets to reduce GHGs, builders are going to be increasingly called upon to deliver higher performance buildings.

At the same time, Canada is grappling with a national housing crisis. In Ontario alone, the provincial government has promised no less than 1.5 million new homes by 2031. We know we can’t build our homes to previous standards because of climate change – and governments at all levels are beginning to insist new buildings be built to increasingly high-performance standards. Still, it’s those on the ground — architects, contractors, skilled trades and developers, as well as lenders — who will ultimately become the gatekeepers for better, low energy consumption builds.

Industry players are key to educating homeowners and the public as to the standards that will deliver on the promise of high-performance buildings that achieve net-zero or near net-zero carbon without relying on carbon offsets or renewable energy add-ons. We see “green” standards everywhere, and there are numerous claims as to the efficiency of each.

While I’m not here to make claims for or against other standards, I will say that “green washing” is a major problem — and not just our industry. Still, it is an issue we need to address head on, and tackle collectively, through education and verification.

There are, currently, enormous burdens on our power grids. As extreme weather events escalate, our cities and towns face ever greater risks of blackouts and grid failures. We need to enter this into the equation and build homes that will reduce those burdens by ensuring cooling and heating loads are minimized through good design and construction. We need buildings that can keep people safe and comfortable at home, even in the event of power outages, or extreme heat and cold. Passive House provides one such solution. The alternative is stark. Take, for instance, the horrifying situation arising from B.C.’s 2021 heat dome, which caused the deaths of 619 people. 

People in our industry are often stymied due to the very simplicity of the Passive House standard, because it advocates for passive energy consumption — through airtight building envelopes, superior ventilation, and other passive conservation techniques. Buildings that consume far less to heat and cool than the average home, rather than more, can be a difficult concept to grasp, but that is precisely what Passive House delivers.

We now have nearly 50 years of science-driven data to back up these claims, and Passive House has been recognized as the standard to meet for affordable, high-performance buildings.

And, as our industry moves further into discussing the role of operational carbon and embodied carbon, Passive House is likewise evolving. The Passive House community can employ a new PHRibbon tool that helps calculate embodied carbon over the life of the building, a tool which also models future increases to average temperatures.

Passive House Canada is likewise poised to support the building industry, as financial institutions and governments more and more make investment decisions based on Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) policies of the developer, and of its design, engineering and construction companies. Passive House is perfectly suited to address the “Environment” in ESG, and we would be delighted to explain how.

Resilient buildings which keep people safe and comfortable should be the norm, not the exception, and that is precisely where I want to leave this thread. As builders, you have enormous power to transcend building policies and their real-world impacts. Get educated. If you haven’t already been trained and certified in Passive House, I urge you to do so. If price is an issue, know that government grants are available, and we offer competitive pricing for Passive House members.

Become an advocate of better buildings. Educate your clients, your manufacturers, and your government. Insist on high performance projects that live up to their promise — not just in five years, but in 25 or 50. Finally, I urge each of you to simply build better. We’ll all feel better, and live better, for your efforts.

Chris Ballard is a former minister of both housing and environment and climate change for Ontario, and is currently the CEO of Passive House Canada, a national non-profit professional association that advocates for high-performance buildings using the Passive House standard.


Insurance Pricing For Mass Timber Buildings Compared to Concrete/Masonry

Sponsored by Frank T. Came and associates

By Frank Came

It has long been known that insurance costs for wood frame buildings are higher than the rate for comparable structures built with masonry, concrete, or other non-combustible materials. The cost differential could be seven to ten times higher for low to midrise wood buildings.

Questions have arisen as to whether the same pricing differential exists for ensuring taller buildings constructed with more advanced engineered wood products such as cross-laminated timber (CLT) or glue-laminated timber (glulam) are promoted as being more robust and more fire-resistant than concrete or steel.

Tall mass timber buildings, some approaching skyscraper heights, have been constructed in various parts of the world to demonstrate that building with wood can be faster, less costly, and more environmentally friendly than comparable concrete or steel structures.

Extensive research has been undertaken to test the real-world performance of these structures in terms of resistance to extreme weather events and their ability to withstand fire or water damage in times of emergency. In several jurisdictions, fire and building codes have been adjusted to accommodate the greater use of engineered wood products in the construction sector.

And while efforts have been made to have mass timber reclassified for insurance purposes as a building product distinct from conventional wood frame construction, insurers have been doubtful about moving in this direction.

While it is accepted that tall mass timber structures represent a distinct segment in the construction market and that new technologies are involved, from an insurance perspective, the risk factors are viewed as higher than for buildings constructed with concrete or steel.

Recent research in the Canadian construction sector suggests insurance the costs to insure tall wood buildings could range from five to seven times higher than for comparable structures built with non-combustible materials. Not only are premiums higher, but securing full coverage for mass timber structures is more complex, as underwriters are reluctant to assume total exposure to the risks involved.

The simple fact that wood burns and will continue to do so until extinguished introduces safety and property protection issues that must be accounted for. Despite tests demonstrating that mass timber walls and beams provide fire resistance performance comparable to concrete or steel is of little consequence to underwriters.

Allowing a building’s occupants time to escape is essential, but from the underwriter’s perspective, the question is what happens beyond that escape window. Will the fire extend through compartment walls, service ducts or other spaces and consume different parts of the building, adding to the extent and costs of property damage? What measures are in place to extinguish fires, not simply contain them?

These issues are difficult to quantify, and the golden rule of insurance is that you cannot insure what you can’t quantify. Factors influencing the pricing differentials go far beyond the combustibility issue. Mass timber buildings involve new technologies in building materials and designs, as well as just-in-time construction methodologies and skill sets that are not as widespread as conventional construction methods.

While underwriters will look at combustible void protection, fire suppression and extinguishment measures, they will also look at water exposure risks not only from fire fighting but also from flood and extreme weather perils. Indeed, water damage remains the most significant risk factor affecting insurance pricing, followed by risks of damage from fire, extreme weather events, or other incidents such as earthquakes.

Other factors considered are the scale of the building and the extent of material damage to property or from business interruption exposure; design features that could affect access or egress and the spread of water; and the location of the building relative to first responders’ capabilities. Also considered by underwriters are the track records of building contractors or property managers in building construction and post-construction operations.

The high costs to repair, remediate, or deconstruct wood structures partially damaged by fire or water are of particular concern to insurance providers. While masonry and concrete structures are relatively easy to assess, processes to verify the structural integrity and other features of mass timers are costly, time-consuming, and sometimes inconclusive.

The fact that wood building projects are more vulnerable to all these risks has prompted some insurance companies to vacate or severely limit their involvement in the wood frame or mass timber markets. This is why most wood construction projects require multiple insurers, each limiting their risk exposure.

Risk exposure policies of the world’s major reinsurance companies are also influenced by losses arising from natural or artificial disasters. In ‘harsh market conditions, local insurance companies have little flexibility to circumvent these industry-wide policies, which contributes to the need for many insurance companies to be involved in providing coverage for tall wood construction projects.

To sum up, insurance is based on indemnifying against risks. Risks and uncertainties are not the same.  Uncertainties stem from a lack of knowledge, and reducing risks involves reducing those doubts. Pricing insurance coverage is based on the probability that certain risks will not occur.

The more significant the chances that such risks will happen, the higher will be the premiums. In this regard, ensuring tall mass timber structures currently involves more uncertainties than conventional construction. Hence premiums will continue to be higher.

Mass Timber Buildings are a niche design practice in today’s construction market, but they are evolving. The trend in several countries suggests more tall timber projects will rise over the next decade. What the next generation of projects will look like depends on what designers and other industry stakeholders can and will do to resolve the insurability and the many other issues discussed in this article. 

References: The findings are an update of research undertaken by Globe Advisors in 2016 entitled Study of Insurance Costs for Mid-Rise Wood Frame and Concrete Residential Buildings. Frank Came was the Project Director for the original study.

Frank Came, Principal, Frank T. Came and Associates, an Independent Consultancy based in British Columbia.

Download the Full Study at:


Design practice: Rethinking Multi-Unit Residential Design

Optimizing flexibility, affordability and construction efficiency

By Michelle Xuereb, Dev Mehta, Adryanne Quenneville and Tiffany Wong of BDP Quadrangle

The world is in a period of increased urbanization. In 2018 the United Nations estimated that by 2050 68% of the global population will be living in an urban area. Urban population growth has driven up land value and the costs associated with residential building construction. For most, living in an urban area means residing in a multi-unit residential building (MURB).

As the costs related to urban residential development have increased, the average unit size has decreased. For example, a typical two-bedroom-plus-den unit in one of Toronto’s older stock of residential buildings is usually around 1,000 square feet. Current residential developments fit the same program into roughly 750 square feet.

This squeezing of the floor plans, however, has reached its breaking point. Residential units can only be tightened so much without sacrificing the quality and functionality of the space. When every room is competing for floor area, designers need to get creative.

In March, BDP Quadrangle held a studio-wide ‘Shrinking Spaces Charrette’ to come up with innovative solutions for small units. We took a typical residential unit apart – examining every inch of space from the master bedroom to the pantry shelf – to find creative new ways of maximizing square footage within a limited space.

The future MURB unit does away with fixed rooms with set programs. Isolating in response to the pandemic has prompted all of us to find more flexibility in our living spaces, and also to question how MURB design can go further to support a sense of community and foster interaction with others while still maintaining privacy and a safe distance if required.

This pandemic experience has equipped us with a direct and immediate understanding of the specific desires for an improved at-home wellness experience – such as a need for both togetherness and separation from other family members; having a place to stow away a computer at the end of the day; the possibility to grow vegetables on a balcony; and the benefit of socializing with neighbours. We identified a need for more resilient, sustainable, flexible, and healthy spaces – all within a small footprint in order to maintain an affordable unit.

We began rethinking MURB units by asking: what would happen if we reduced or eliminated set programs? In order to optimize flexibility, we propose blurring the lines between rooms, rather than delineating them with demising walls.

To accommodate this, the building is designed with a structural column grid instead of shear walls, as is typical of Toronto construction. This structural system also uses less concrete – thereby reducing the building’s carbon footprint. For other elements that are typically fixed in place, such as the plumbing stacks and mechanical shafts, we arranged them in a manner that allows for an open plan: the kitchen, bathrooms, and laundry closets are consolidated on the perimeter of the unit. These shifts allow for a more flexible floor plan.


Design practice: Building a New Culture of Care

By Farshid Rafiei

The South-Central Foundation, an independent health authority responsible for the health and wellbeing of 65,000 Native Americans throughout the state of Alaska, was established back in the mid-1980s.  This was a time when our own federal government still controlled not only operating budgets for healthcare services on First Nations reserves, but also ‘designed’ and delivered the built infrastructure these services required.

The South-Central Foundation healthcare system is based on a holistic approach to treatment that, rather than responding to the visible symptoms a patient presents at a one-on-one consultation with a doctor, uses a multidisciplinary team-based approach to uncover the underlying causes behind a patient’s medical condition.  This approach resonates with the holistic view most Aboriginal people have regarding the relationship of the individual to family, community and more broadly to nature.

While the rules around the design of healthcare facilities on First Nations reserves in Canada changed in the late 1980s, changes to the delivery model for healthcare services took much longer. The First Nations Health Authority (FNHA) with provincial jurisdiction was established in British Columbia in 2013 and only now is the traditional service delivery model being re-examined and reinvented to better suit the needs of Aboriginal communities.

Gone is the clinical model, by which a patient accessed a physician in an institutional environment – the typical sequence being a stark waiting room with upright chairs lining the walls; a reception counter with a sliding glass panel at which one stands and delivers personal information; a long walk down a grey and featureless corridor; a hurried conversation with a white-coated doctor in a small and windowless consulting room; and the usual result –  walking away with a prescription to fill.

In its place comes a very different healthcare experience in which architecture plays a significant role, by interpreting community needs and cultural values, while acknowledging the social sensibilities and stigma that may surround the act of accessing health services.

Under construction in the magnificent and expansive archipelago of Haida Gwaii (population 5,000) is the Skidegate Health and Wellness Centre, which not only creates a very different physical environment for healthcare services, but also an emotionally supportive one.

Skidegate itself has only 900 inhabitants, so privacy can be hard to come by and rarely does a visit anywhere (never mind to the doctor) go unnoticed. Young adults in particular are sensitive – and to some degree secretive – in this regard, preferring that their parents do not discover they may be struggling with substance addiction, or mental health challenges.

However, in Haida culture, where respect for Elders remains strong and the matriarchal structure of society places grandmothers, in particular, in a position of trust, influence and power – these same young adults are much more comfortable sharing personal information with them.

Equally important in its influence on the design, the Haida place enormous importance on their association with and proximity to the ocean, and favour buildings that offer a sense of openness and connection, rather than enclosure and confinement.

We have approached the design of the Skidegate Health and Wellness Centre with this physical and cultural context in mind. On the side of a hill overlooking the ocean, the building follows the slope rather than the contours running across it, enabling all public areas and frequently occupied private spaces to have a view of the water. The road to the Health and Wellness Centre extends a little further to another building – an Elders housing complex.


New (Temporary) Home of the House of Commons

Hidden solution controls a glaring problem

Any long-term renovation project comes with issues, and the recent conversion of the West Block courtyard in Ottawa to the new home of the House of Commons for the next 10 years, is no exception. In this case, a hidden solution was found to one of the most glaring problems.

By Terry Coffey

To convert the exterior courtyard to an indoor space, architects AFGM designed a multilayer roof structure comprising a supporting steel structure, outer glazing, an access catwalk, and an inner laylight. This plan would create an impressive space, full of light.

Impressive but problematic.

As the proceedings of the House of Commons are televised, control of light through the roof structure is critical to prevent glare. Draper, a U.S.-based manufacturer of custom solar control solutions, was tasked to provide a way to maximize the diffuse daylight in the space without permitting direct sunlight to strike any part of the debating chamber at any time during the day.

Given the complex geometry of the roof and the need to block direct sunlight, it wasn’t possible to use an “off the shelf” solution. As a result, Draper worked closely with facade engineers, Front Inc.; climate engineers, Transsolar Inc; and skylight contractor, Seele; to develop a custom motorized louver system.

There were three big challenges to address:

• Motorized louvers rarely rotate more than 90°, but this project required a drive mechanism that could rotate the louvers through 180°, allowing them to track the sun continuously throughout the day.

• The louver system needed to cope with the irregular shaped skylight elements.

• The system needed to allow adjustment to run on a number of different slopes.

The final design comprises a drive bar with sections of rack mounted at each louver location. These racks engage toothed wheels mounted on the louver shafts. Consequently, as the actuator drives forward and back, the louvers are rotated.

The louvers slowly rotate 180° every day during daylight hours, then retract to their original position overnight. Adjusting the actuator stroke allows the amount of louver rotation to be increased or decreased as required.

Using 3-D printers, prototypes of components were produced to check their integration with the structure.

Due to the precision required, two mock-up systems were built and reviewed by the design team and modifications made to address issues that were highlighted. Noise measurements resulted in the original actuator being replaced by one which achieved significantly quieter operation.

The mock-up also allowed consideration of maintenance issues, including louver or actuator replacement and, in an emergency, the ability to close a bank of louvers if an actuator failed.

In addition to the prototyping and approval process, each segment of the louver system was completely built and tested in the factory before shipment to Ottawa.

In the end, the custom louver system, while critical to the successful operation of the debating chamber, is almost invisible both from the interior and the exterior because of its position in the middle of the multi-layer roof structure.

Terry Coffey, ISF is with Draper, Inc.; Drawings and photos supplied by Draper, Inc., unless otherwise noted.


Emission Omissions: Carbon accounting gaps in the built environment

New study discovers important gaps in life-cycle approach used to account for GHGs in buildings

By Philip Gass, Senior Policy Advisor, International Institute for Sustainable Development

In Canada, there is rising interest in how building materials may affect greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), and whether innovations and choices in these materials can help the country meet its emission reduction targets. The fact that over 30 per cent of GHGs come from the communities and structures we build for ourselves underscores the need for us to get this right.

To date, evidence for optimizing the choice of building materials has largely been drawn from life-cycle assessment (LCA) studies that consider the GHG (and other) impacts of building products at each phase of their “cradle-to-grave” lifespan (i.e., production, use and end of life).

While LCA is the best-available approach for evaluating GHG performance of alternative building products and designs, policy-makers and building designers should be aware there are also limitations, challenges and uncertainties that need to be considered when looking to decarbonize our buildings. We should exercise caution when making decisions that advocate for one building material over another.

Recent research by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) has identified serious gaps in how emissions from building materials and products are being measured and accounted for. Failure to account for all carbon emissions may undercut today’s climate change efforts and shortchange future emission reduction opportunities.

News Release:


Full Report: