How much greener are condos?

[West End Boy]

Today's article in the Globe about family-friendly 3-BR condos got me thinking.

How much less of a carbon footprint would you have if you lived in a 3-BR condo versus a small attached rowhouse? I'm guessing it would be a lot less, though I know it can depend on how you calculate and what you include (though condos are smaller and tightly-packed, there's the tall construction, elevators and common areas, etc.)

Curious what everyone thinks about this.

 

[kettal]

In a condo, I haven't had to turn on my own heating yet, and I am perfectly comfortable and warm. I visited my friend's townhome in the Annex in October, who hadn't turned on the heating, and I was shivering and seeing my own breath while inside!

I don't know if it is fair to include the impact of the work and upkeep of a home including watering the gardens, clearing the driveway, etc??

The other factor is location. A condo out in Schomberg would probably lead to a bigger eco-footprint lifestyle than a mansion in Cabbagetown...

 

[Monaco]

I don't know about condos being green, but I agree about the heat issue. I haven't turned on my heat at all, and usually don't for most of the winter. In fact, sometimes I need to open the balcony doors because it is too warm.

But does this mean condo units require more A/C in the summer? I find that it gets stuffy very quickly, so I use the a/c a lot.

 

[hbl33]

I've read a book about intensifying Toronto which it also mentions the aging of the condos around T.O. Many apartments which were built from World Wars to 1980's have inefficient heating systems, which its emissions are equal to the similar # of detached homes (as is the suites in an apartment). I can't remember the exact statistics though.

 

[kettal]

But does this mean condo units require more A/C in the summer? I find that it gets stuffy very quickly, so I use the a/c a lot.

I rarely use AC in any circumstances, but my unit is on a high enough floor that opening the window will guarantee a cool breeze.

 

[Whoaccio]

That unit in the Globe article reinforces my belief that "family units" are really just 2B+D units with the den converted to a nominal bedroom. I'll give dev credit for cramming a fair bit into a small package, but I will just about guarantee that no family will move into this thing. It's not just small, it's a sardine can. Four people living in under 900 sq-ft with only one piddly live/eat/cook area?

These kinds of units will just be treated as 2B+D by whoever buys them.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

I think the location of a house or condo plays a big role in a family's carbon footprint (house in the annex or condo/apartment in a central location) vs. house in Richmond Hill / apartment/condo in Mississauga) as vehicles play a significant role in carbon footprints. Houses with an average to decent sized lot have a significant advantage in that if the family is eco-conscious and serious about it they can have a few chickens in their backyard for fresh eggs and can grow their own organic vegetables, fruit and herbs which brings their footprint down. How far the home occupants are from their place of work & school, what means of transport used to get there and back and frequency of travel (business or pleasure) are other factors.

 

[kettal]

Four people living in under 900 sq-ft with only one piddly live/eat/cook area?

Hey, I've done it. Keep in mind, you can spend your free time outside the unit... in the common areas, the library, the cafe, the community centre, or whatever. It's not like a suburban home where you stay in your home all day.

 

[Monaco]

That unit in the Globe article reinforces my belief that "family units" are really just 2B+D units with the den converted to a nominal bedroom. I'll give dev credit for cramming a fair bit into a small package, but I will just about guarantee that no family will move into this thing. It's not just small, it's a sardine can. Four people living in under 900 sq-ft with only one piddly live/eat/cook area?

When I see this, I see "student housing". This is how I lived as a student...

 

[West End Boy]

Some interesting takes on the issue.

I know that the unit in the Globe article is small by North American standards, but lots of families live in that much space (or less) in many other places. The house I live in now (with partner and toddler) is not much bigger (1000sf+/-) though it does have a small backyard. With smaller homes, people just tend to live more "publicly" which can be a nice thing if you believe in communality.

My parents have a condo in Mississauga and the heat is very seldom on in the shoulder seasons, however they do use the A/C more in the summer because of the large expanses of glass and the western exposure.

I'm just trying to imagine living in a 3-BR condo in a central location, close to a nice green space, and I can see the upsides for sure. I've never been very good at keeping up with maintenance on my house, and it's typically drafty/cold in the winter.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Yeah, it's definitely possible to live with a family in a small space. The problem is that people expect to go to these places with a suburban mindset; stay at home and only go outside to get groceries or go to work/school. If you don't stay to the house and outside to have fun by yourself or with kids, people might find that it's not actually that bad. You might have to keep a relatively cramped dining room + living room layout, but aside from that there's actually plenty of room.

If you have kids, find interesting things to do outside and set up what they need in their room. You're lowering your footprint and building healthy fitness habits. If you don't, that gives you plenty of space for a guest bedroom and home office. In fact, I'd almost call it unneeded space. Almost

 

[W. K. Lis]

A condo would be greener if each unit has its own water, heating, and electrical meters.

 

[bleeepbluuup]

Today's article in the Globe about family-friendly 3-BR condos got me thinking.

How much less of a carbon footprint would you have if you lived in a 3-BR condo versus a small attached rowhouse? I'm guessing it would be a lot less, though I know it can depend on how you calculate and what you include (though condos are smaller and tightly-packed, there's the tall construction, elevators and common areas, etc.)

Curious what everyone thinks about this.

I don't think you can answer this question in a general sense. You'd have to compare one particular condo unit to one particular house to get a useful answer.

 

[Whoaccio]

When I see this, I see "student housing". This is how I lived as a student...

Yea, for a few student's or something this would probably work. I think most people will find students and families don't always have the same tastes, though.

Yeah, it's definitely possible to live with a family in a small space. The problem is that people expect to go to these places with a suburban mindset; stay at home and only go outside to get groceries or go to work/school. If you don't stay to the house and outside to have fun by yourself or with kids, people might find that it's not actually that bad. You might have to keep a relatively cramped dining room + living room layout, but aside from that there's actually plenty of room.

It's not a suburban mindset, it's just practicality. What, exactly, are you going to take your seven year old to do on a daily basis in clubland? The entire downtown is designed, logically in my opinion, around young, childless professionals with high disposable incomes. Unless you are Gordon Gecko rich you can't eat out frequently downtown without bankrupting yourself or having your spawn grow up on discount falafels, so dining is more or less out. Clubs/bars are obviously out. Shopping is out. Museums could work, but you can't realistically go them more than once or twice a month. With a few exceptions, downtown parks are awful. You can't even realistically let a kid (under 10) out on their own to just walk around, so one parent would have to take it for a walk like some kind of dog. And isn't that what every parent wants? To get home from a day of work and have to walk their kids around some yuppie bar so that their eyes can focus on something more than 8 feet away? I'm sure siblings will love having to study in the living room while their mom cooks and the brother plays Nintendo.

EDIT: Frankly you wont find any city on Earth where children live in numbers close to the downtown core. Urban children, yea, sure. But not near the CBDs. Not in London, not in Paris, not in New York. It doesn't make sense there and it doesn't make sense here. People move close to these areas because they are close to work and recreational activities. Given that kids neither work nor have compatible recreational preferences with 28 year olds, neither of those apply. It's more practical then to move to areas like the Beaches or, if you could afford it, somewhere along the Yonge line like Summerhill or Davisville. That gives parents convenient access to work, while not paying for location benefits families don't want.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I see where you are coming from here Whoaccio but I'm not sure that the reality of raising children today complements your argument.

I think the primary drive to raise children in a low-rise detached house is an emotional and financial argument, not a pragmatic one. For the record I don't have children but would also chose to raise them in a low-rise detached house as well. What this built form allows is slight isolation and individual control over your personal space. This is an important emotional desire.

The practical reality of raising a child today is that most people pick-up and drop-off their children at school. Activities are highly programmed and children spend most of their play and recreational time indoors and online. Living in the old city of Toronto you have a greater, not lesser, proximity to activities appropriate to children than you would in a suburb.

The disadvantage of urban living with children is the lack of space for unsupervised or partially supervised outdoor play. However, sadly I don't think kids today would take as much, or would be allowed to take as much advantage of this as they once would. I grew up in a semi-rural environment and would wander, even alone, several kilometers from our home even from a very young age.