High-rise Hypocrisy—“Greenest City” it Ain’t! Part 2

City Conversations No One Else is Having

Vancouver and BC politicians and developers say high density high-rise is the only path to affordability, climate action and energy conservation. Scientists “say it ain’t so!”   

High-rise proponents may not be thinking backwards, but the science makes it all go sideways

“There is a growing but mistaken belief that building taller and denser is always better.” began José Bicudo, Paul’s friend, also a member of the Fairview/South Granville Action Committee (FSGAC) and an environmental engineer with over 30 years of varied experience in the academic, municipal and consulting sectors. 

He continued. “However, urban environmental design often neglects lifecycle Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, which include the full life cycle GHG emissions associated with raw materials extraction, manufacturing or processing, transportation, use and end-of-life management. A recent 2021 study in Urban Sustainability  offers a method that decouples density and tallness in urban environments and allows each to be analysed individually. Case studies in real neighbourhoods showed that taller urban environments (read high-rise) significantly increase life cycle GHG emissions (+154%) while low-density urban environments (read single homes and townhouses) significantly increase land use (+142%). However, increasing urban density without increasing urban height (read the 4–6 storeys Vancouverites are used to) reduces life cycle GHG emissions while maximizing the population capacity. So the claim that building taller is the most efficient way to meet growing demand for urban space is not based on scientific and real life evidence.”

“Translating into simple language,” I interrupted, “which is all I can understand, you’re saying from a climate science viewpoint low-to-mid-rise residential buildings have less impact on the climate than high-rise. Does anyone else buy that idea?”

“Several studies that I have read,” answered José. “A 2015 study in the International Journal of High-Rise Buildings compared land use, energy use and lifecycle carbon emissions for each of 2,000 homes calculated over 40 years, including single family homes, four-storey low-rise buildings, low high-rise, high and super-high-rise (100+ storeys) residential buildings. According to their analysis, a four-story courtyard design used the least energy per household; triplexes were second best; and a 65-storey high-rise was third best.”

I pursed my lips, so he continued. “Another local study, a 2014 BC Building Performance Study, looked at 337 buildings across BC—about a third (115) were multi-unit residential buildings (MURBs). In that study, the energy performance of low-rise MURBs (1-3 storeys) was 28% better than mid-rise MURBs (4-9 storeys) and 22% better than high-rise MURBs (10+ storeys). GHG emissions mirrored energy performance.”

“So, to be clear again,” I interrupted once more, “it seems no matter where or when a credible scientific study is done, multiple unit residential buildings from one to nine storeys always outperform high-rises, by a margin of 22% to (I checked my notes) 154%. Am I right?”

“Exactly,” answered José, continuing. “One final piece of research from the Netherlands. A Dutch group, Homeowner Associations to Net Zero Energy, has been researching how to get existing high-rise buildings retrofitted to achieve a net zero energy standard.” I waited for the conclusion. “Their research suggests net zero energy can be possible for a high-rise up to eleven storeys, using a rooftop wind turbine and solar panels on the roof and most of the ground area.”

“A rooftop wind turbine seems a bit much,” I responded. “What can they achieve without that?”

“A net zero energy all-electric solution based on solar panels covering all facades and carports can already work for buildings up to six storeys without the need for the wind turbine—so mid-rise net zero could be feasible.”

José returned to the Vancouver questions at hand. “To its credit, the City of Vancouver has focused on GHG reduction in new buildings in its 2016 Zero Emissions Building Plan as well as its 2018 Climate Change Adaptation Strategy Update and Action Plan. The 2016 plan lays out four strategies to require the majority of new buildings to have no operational GHG by 2025 and that all new buildings have no GHG emissions by 2030. The 2018 update got a bit more specific and included consideration of retrofits to existing buildings.”

“So what are these four strategies and is the City having any success with them so far, especially in relation to all the high-rise spot rezonings underway along the Broadway corridor and elsewhere in the city?” I asked.

“Good question,” answered José. “The first of the four strategies is the only one that could address the Broadway corridor. It establishes new, reduced limits for GHGs and energy use. Let’s start with the Broadway corridor project that’s furthest along. There was a highly controversial rezoning at 2538 Birch Street whose Development Permit, affirming the complete design, was approved by the Development Permit Board last November.” 

“The rezoning information for that project only included one page on Sustainability, which is a bit hard to decipher.”

Partial page 56 of Rezoning information for 2538 Birch Street

José continued. “Depending upon when the rezoning is dated from, it looks like the total GHGs inherent in the design will be about 1/6th less than five years ago, and that GHG targets are decreasing 20% per year, down to zero in 2025. However, the documentation doesn’t identify what the new Birch building is expected to achieve.”

Looking over his shoulder, I asked, “What’s TEUI and why is it TBD?”

“TEUI stands for Total Energy Use Intensity and is an accepted measure of all energy use in a building, consisting of the sum of all energy used on site (i.e. electricity, natural gas, district heat), minus all renewable energy generated on site, divided by the Modelled Floor Area, which is a theoretical floor area because the project hasn’t been fully designed yet. As for why it’s TBD (To Be Determined), I guess that means the City hasn’t identified its targets as yet—the project’s Development Permit (DP) drawings are not publicly accessible, so let’s check the Development Permit Prior-To letter to see. That’s the last list of design approval requirements before building permit issuance.” He searched out that 15-page PDF document.

“The easiest way to find the answer is to search sustainability or climate or energy. Hmm,” he said after a few moments. “There are no prior-to conditions under any of those search terms.” I waited while he scrolled through the letter. “Nada, nothing,” he concluded after a few minutes of reading. I jumped in.

“So then, the rezoning establishes sustainability targets, including those that are TBD, which should be but is not dealt with in the Prior-To letter. So I guess we all take it on faith that City staff will eventually identify TEUI requirements that applicants will meet.”

“Hopefully,” continued José. “But they don’t seem to be making much progress. Although the Green Buildings Policy for Rezoning—Process and Requirements document has been amended as recently as 2019, it’s still using the TEUI limit of 120 that was in place in 2016.”

“How can you tell?” I asked. 

“Well,” he answered, “Another controversial Broadway Corridor spot-rezoning-before-the-Broadway-Plan-is-in-place is at 1477 West Broadway, diagonally opposite the Chapters store at Granville and Broadway.” I nodded, knowing the location and the controversy.

He resumed. “I was curious about its projected building performance so looked at the project’s rezoning application booklet. The July 2021 application still references the 2016 City standards for TEUI—the building complies, by the way, betters the 2016 standard by about 16%. But we still don’t know what the 2021 standard is.”

“In fairness,” he continued, “the 1477 project’s GHGs as modelled are way less than the 2020 target of 5.”

I paused for a few moments to consider the bigger picture, continued in a puzzled tone.

“In summary, it appears the City has ignored its own research, and that of others, that clearly says high-rise development uses more energy and creates more GHGs than lower forms of development.” I paused, he nodded so I continued.

“And when high-rise development is proposed in advance of a plan that is not yet approved, in this case the Broadway Plan, the proponent gets to compare their proposal to outdated or unstated measures of sustainability. Further, when a project proceeds past rezoning to Development Permit, there is no further mention of the sustainability targets it is expected to meet!” We were both silent for a few moments, then I continued.

“So, if the City is serious about becoming the greenest city in the world and meeting the objectives of its own Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, it needs to think long and hard about the place, if any,  of high-rise development. It needs to complete its standards work so proponents know what they need to do with a proposed development, and those targets need to be monitored through to building completion and probably thereafter. And those standards need to track down to zero, rather than at a later time to be determined.” I paused. José nodded ever so slowly. I concluded:

“Too bad none of that appears to be happening.”

Today’s question: Do you think high-rise housing is the solution to affordability? Why or why not? I read and respond to all comments made below. If you enjoyed this post, consider becoming a free subscriber to City Conversations at

Brian Palmquist is a fully vaccinated Vancouver-based architect, building envelope and building code consultant and LEED Accredited Professional (the first green building system). He is semi-retired for the moment, still teaching and writing, so not beholden to any client or city hall. These conversations mix real discussion with research and observations based on a 40+ year career including the planning, design and construction of almost every type and scale of project. He is the author of the Amazon best seller “An Architect’s Guide to Construction.” He is also a member of team for a livable Vancouver, a new political party dedicated to restoring a livable Vancouver starting with the 2022 civic election.