Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

A systems analysis for UBC South Campus : Northeast Sub-Area Neighbourhood University of British Columbia. School of Community and Regional Planning 2009-02-28

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata


SouthCampus-Systems-UBC-UrbanDesign2009.pdf [ 8.95MB ]
JSON: 1.0102488.json
JSON-LD: 1.0102488+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0102488.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0102488+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0102488+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0102488+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0102488 +original-record.json
Full Text

Full Text

PLAN 587A. INTRO TO PHYSICAL PLANNING & URBAN DESIGN | fEBRUARY 2009a systems analysis for UBC South CampusNortheast Sub-Area Neighbourhoodplan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Contents1.0 Introduction2.0 Ecology3.0 Land Use4.0 Built Form5.0 Social & Economic Development6.0 Transportation7.0 Energy8.0 Waste & Water Management9.0 Food System10.0 Conclusion11.0 ReferencesAppendicesUniversity of British ColumbiaSchool of Community & Regional PlanningPLAN 587A. Introduction to Physical Planning & Urban DesignProf. Maged Senbel | 2008 - 2009 | Term 2ContributorsJoanna Clark • Megan Fitzgerald • Ellen Larcombe • Waleed GiratallaMartin Gregorian • Adam Hyslop • Asrai Ord • Jason OwenStacy Passmore • Mona Poon • James Richardson • Paris Marshall SmithIona To • Quyen Tran • Anjali Varghese • Michelle Yip5ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 20091.0 IntroductionGiven the imperative to imagine a more sustainable future, guiding new urban development is an enormous challenge.  In February of 2009, fifteen students from the masters of Architecture, Landscape Architecture, and Planning at the University of British Columbia (UBC) applied this mission to a campus neighborhood slated for development. The product of extensive research and brainstorming, our work that follows provides a background of analysis and recommendations for the critical systems in the UBC South Campus Neighborhood that could be improved through a sustainability assessment.In 2005, The University of British Columbia Board of Governors adopted a neighborhood plan for a portion of land called South Campus, with an emphasis that it be a "sustainable community".  This planning document was based upon previous land designations, established through the 1997 Official Community Plan and adopted by the Greater Vancouver Regional District.  Officials planned the UBC South Campus to be an independent and complete neighborhood community, including residential ownership and rental opportunities along with commercial and public amenities, such as a school, parks, open space, and a community centre.   Though not autonomous, the plan for "a sustainable community in the woods" will house an estimated population of 4,000 people and provide some 800 opportunities for employment.As such, the South Campus is designated primarily for non-institutional uses (private sector) and development seeks to bridge the university with the greater Vancouver community, while increasing the volume of a strained housing market and generating income for the university.  The parcel has distinct characteristics that have made it a unique challenge for a sustainable analysis. Environmentally, it is a rich forest ecosystem with close relationships to local natural waterways. Urban development in such a location tests our ability to balance tradeoffs, while also stimulating opportunities for enhanced relationships between natural and constructed environments.  Further, it is located adjacent to the UBC Farm, which is the site of competing land use claims in the UBC community.  Land use decisions about the South Campus development will most certainly have an effect on the viability of this institutional farmland.Auspiciously, the South Campus Neighborhood Plan (SCNP) provides for numerous sustainable design features and sets the tone for a compassionate development. Our goal with this analytical report is to go beyond this, generating researched approaches and contextual techniques that will lead 6 7plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 20092.0 Ecology2.1 IntroductionDescriptive StatementThe environment includes the local flora, fauna and the natural features of the planned site. Effective sustainable design is further informed by the geology (soil), topography (contours and aspect), sun, wind, shade, microclimates and hydrology of the site. To create a healthy and sustainable neighbourhood, these environmental factors must be considered when designing for landscape, built forms, circulation, energy, waste and social interactions. The conservation of the local flora and fauna must be carefully considered with the design and implementation of the South Campus Neighbourhood Plan.The University of British Columbia is situated in a temperate rainforest, a rare biome rich with biodiversity. The South Campus Northeast Sub-Area neighbourhood happens to be located next to a fine example of intact forest  and in the vicinity one of the last salmon bearing streams in Vancouver,  deeming it an ecological oasis surrounded by an urban metropolis. This  provides a wonderful opportunity to showcase leading edge ecological design initiatives that protect local ecology while strengthening the nature/culture connection through integrating humans with their natural surroundings. The following precedents showcase some of the leading edge neighbourhood in sustainable design. to the most cutting edge sustainable community possible for UBC's South Campus.  Imagining the potential for this neighborhood while anxiously trying to preserve space and resources for future generations, the recommendations in this report will prioritize the following goals: creating a healthy sustainable community, localizing material and energy flows, and establishing a synergy between the UBC farm and the residential community.FoodWater & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseEcology8 9plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 20092.2 Environment - Site InventoryPhysiography The Northeast Sub-Area is a 39 hectare portion of South Campus. The site is located on the western peninsula of Point Grey and west of Pacific Spirit Regional Park. There are no major landforms on site and the topography is even with a gentle slope to the south and southwest. The South Campus site is bounded by Marine Drive to the west and south, beyond which the Point Grey cliffs fall sharply to Wreck Beach below. The area is approximately 80m above sea level.The site is located on a mantle of wave washed lag gravel approximately 1-2 metres thick and mainly covered in gravely sandy loam soils with a thin layer of humo-ferric podzol soil. In the depressed areas of South Campus, a shallow clay layer restricts subsurface drainage. Typically these types of soil occur under coniferous, mixed, and deciduous forest vegetation but may also occur under shrub and grass vegetation. As for drainage, this geologic composition results in a low permeability cap near the surface, limiting vertical infiltration, creating perched aquifers and an elevated water table.figure 2-2. ContextPACIFIC SPIRITREGIONALPARKUBC FARMWRECK BEACHSW Marine Dr.16th  Ave. WEast LegendSouth Campus NeighbourhoodNortheast Sub-areaPrecedentsUniverCity at SFU made significant efforts to create strong links with the nature of the site from topography, watercourses to existing habitat while integrating with the adjacent wilderness area of Burnaby Mountain Conservation area. Habitat has been designed into the site while measures including stormwater management and local planting guidelines have been put in place to conserve local ecologies.Cornelia Oberlander, a world renowned landscape architect, strongly influences our natural design approach. She has made a career of using ecological design practices. She believes that a design “must be viewed holistically in terms of plant relationships as well as the genius loci, or spirit of the place.”Lastly, the Evergreen State College, located on the southern edge of Puget Sound, demonstrates an important precedent for sustainable design as its environment and social conditions are similar to that of the South Campus. Like the South Campus plan, the college must consider similar issues such as housing, institutional uses, and the adjacent second-growth forest in its design. The final design addresses concern over the loss of forested land in the heart of the campus by concentrating building development in previously disturbed areas, saving stands of mature trees between building clusters and allowing the forest to “grow back” into the building’s fingers, thereby intensifying the relationship between the campus and the forest.figure 2-1. Evergreen State CollegeBuilding’s green fingersFoodWater & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseEcologyFoodWater & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseEcology10 11plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Natural HazardsA significant potential hazard in the area is the erosion of Point Grey cliffs. The cliffs are comprised of erodable sands. Possible erosion stems from wave and river action, water seepage through the face of the cliffs, surface runoff flowing over the rim of the cliffs, vegetation loss by windthrow, and pedestrian traffic on the non-vegetated sand slopes. Other natural hazards that exist on the site include earthquakes, which can cause serious damage as a result of surface fault rupture, ground motion, seismically induced slope failure, or liquefaction of soils. figure 2-4. Site Condition3100 TOLMIE ST4600 W 16TH AV3100 BLANCA ST4600 W 15TH AV4500 W 16TH AV4500 W 15TH AV4400 W 16TH AV3100 SASAMAT ST4400 W 15TH AV3100 TRIMBLE ST4300 W 16TH AV4300 W 15TH AV3200 DISCOVERY ST4200 W 15TH AV4200-4300 KEVIN PLAC4200 W 29TH AV4300 W 29TH AVWreck Beach Erodable CliffsSecond Growth forestPredevelopmentUBC farm UBC farmLegend   Wind Directions       Wreck Beach Cliffs         Contours Atmospheric EnvironmentVancouver’s climate is one of the mildest in Canada, with fairly mild winters and usually only a few snowfalls in an average winter. Summers are generally cool and temperatures range from an average of 3.6°C in January and 17.1°C in August. The most rainfall occurs between October and March. Annual precipitation is 1226.5 mm/year and July is the driest month with an average of 39.3mm and November the wettest with an average of 196.1mm. The prevailing winds generally come from the northwest and west directions.RainfallTemperature - SummerTemperature - SpringTemperature - Winterfigure 2-3. Precipitation & TemperatureFoodWater & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseEcologyFoodWater & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseEcology12 13plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009bio-swales and natural plantings in an effort to create biodiversity throughout the neighbourhood.BiologicalFaunaSouth Campus contains no aquatic habitat, as no watercourses are present on the site. Although Musqueam Creek adjacent to the site is one of Vancouver’s last salmon bearing streams. Currently, this area is home to a variety of bird and wildlife species, such as owls, eagles, chickadee, warbler, wren, kinglet, woodpecker and sea birds. Smaller mammals, like douglas squirrel, vole, mice and larger ones, like coyote, skunk and raccoon are common. Salamander, newt, garter snake, toad and tree frog are found in the wet areas of the site. It has been confirmed that no eagle or heron nests are present. There are no known rare or endangered plant or animal species in this local area.FloraThe forest has many varieties of evergreen trees, including cedar, hemlock, douglas fir and sitka spruce. There are also deciduous trees, including vine maple, red alder and bitter cherry. Berry bushes such as salal, salmonberry, blackberry, and elderberry are abundant. Many varieties of ferns, mosses, lichens and mushrooms are typically found in this rain forest region.2.3 AnalysisCurrent Plan - Sustainable InitiativesIn general this plan surpasses a typical plan in how it addresses the environment. There are, however, many more opportunities for this plan to go further in the protection and enhancement of both the local environment and the watershed as a whole. Following is an assessment of the sustainable initiatives addressed by the current plan.DesignDubbed “an urban village in the woods” the plan attempts to design within the context of the surrounding forest. This is most obvious with the “green edge” a large stand of conifers retained from the previous forest that surrounds the development. This plan also considers the physical environment by letting the “land inform the development”. Greenways and green streets are integrated with SalmonberryFoodWater & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseEcologyFoodWater & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseEcologyPacific Tree FrogCoyoteOpen Space StrategyGreen edgeGreen corridorGreen Edge & CorridorHabitat Replacement Additional efforts are made to address the loss of terrestrial habitat resulting from forest removal by: Managing local trees to encourage wind firmness, • Replacement plantings of native trees • Creating habitat using native trees, shrubs and nestboxes in land • scapingPreserving sensitive areas by retaining undergrowth, controlling    • access and using barrier plantingProvision of corridors from the development to Pacific Spirit Park• Protection of Existing Ecosystem Services Post-OccupancyThere are a number of efforts being made to protect local aquatic and terrestrial ecologies in the post occupancy phase of the development:Careful consideration is being taken to preserve Booming Ground  • Creek, which is currently receiving wastewater from the existing South Campus storm sewer system. A team of experts is looking at a strategy to maintain beneficial flows to the creek to support fish habitat in the lower reaches of the creek.14 15plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009The tree retention assessment is based on the age of the trees as well • as their ability to withstand wind. The tree retention capability criteria are limited and should have included soil analysis and the site’s potential. According to these tree retention criteria, 70 percent of the vegetation on the site will be lost resulting in negative habitat and ecological consequences.figure 2-5. Environmental ContextStormwater strategy methods will include grass swales and open • channels, pervious hard surfaces, on-lot filtration systems, surface ponding and rooftop storage and oil grit separators, superpipe storage and absorbent landscaping to filter toxins from the water before it reaches outflow.Analysis of Current and Proposed PlanEnvironmental elements that are missing from the plan:Although a significant effort has been made to address environmental conservation, there could have been more efforts made to establish that the plan will in fact protect and enhance the natural environment for the life of the development. There are few technical documents outlining specifications for • implementation of environmental initiatives such as bio-swales and biofiltration systems for storm drains.Recommended plantings are vague, do not outline site specific native • species (those that naturally grow in the same ecology). A sample native plant list would prove the authors knowledge of the ecology of the site. There are no guidelines regulating the planting or spreading invasive • plants which could eventually invade and threaten the surrounding forest. There are no guidelines to ensure planting and design methods are used to create a soft transition between the green edge and the development area. In fact, the completed development does not comply with the plan as the forest edge is ended abruptly with a turfed landscape and introduced plants. There are no references to how the landscape and green edge would  • be implemented or maintained. It is best practice to ensure implementation follows British Columbia Nursery and Landscape Association landscape standards. It is also important to ensure that both landscape implementation and maintenance follows ecological landscaping methods. There are also no stipulations that only organic fertilizers and pesticides will be used.UBC �Transitional zone between forest and developmentPredevelopmentCurrent developmentFoodWater & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseEcologyFoodWater & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseEcology2.4 RecommendationsForest TreatmentUBC Farm follows the Environmental Farm Plan’s (EFP) biodiversity assessment and planning guide and is working on their own biodiversity plan. Our planning team will work with UBC Farm to create a biodiversity plan for the neighbourhood to help inform how to manage systems and services on the site to ensure the up-most protection of the local ecology for the life of the development. Restore the interface beside forest stands to mimic the forest edge. Plant undergrowth trees and shrubs including vine maple (Acer circinatum) and salmonberry (Rubus parviflorum). Plant native ferns under conifer trees and sword fern (Polystichum munitum) for the most successful choices.Designate one or two large sections of the green edge as habitat sanctuary to limit fragmentation and wildlife disturbance.16 17plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Plant SelectionForm a team of landscape architects, ecologists and horticulturists to oversee the planting plan and landscape implementation with a commitment to visit the site a year later to ensure the plan is being followed. Incorporate native/site specific vegetation to minimize the use of chemicals and encourage animal habitats; i.e. native street trees. Designate 75 percent of the site to naturalized plantings. Locate these in shady, moist sites where coastal plants grow best. The remaining 25 percent should be a mix of drought tolerant plants that attract beneficial insects and/or provide food for residents. These plantings should be allocated to sites with full sun exposure. Community gardens should be located close to residential centers for communal access; ideally situated in full sun, near a water source. Lawn will be limited only to recreational space. Hardy groundcovers and low shrubs will be selected to grow under street trees. Lawn maintenance is water intensive, lawn mowers are highly polluting and research shows that the chemical fertilizers and pesticides used for lawn have negative effects on human and environmental health (Canadian Family Physician, 2007).A number of highly invasive plants will be prohibited from the site to protect the forest from the spread of invasive species. (see Appendix A).Canopy - provide wildlife habitats and shades in the summerVisual ConnectionShrub layerHerb layerGreen fingers – extend the forest edge into development area (see precedents Evergreen State College) to create a cohesive connection between the developed area and the forest. figure 2-6. Landscape Layers - Nature and Culture InteractionFoodWater & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseEcologyFoodWater & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseEcology18 19plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009ManagementOnly businesses who are certified by the Society of Organic Urban Landcare Professionals (S.O.U.L) will maintain public space. Residents will be encouraged maintain private gardens using only organic maintenance practices with minimal water use and if possible gas powered maintenance equipment will be prohibited.Interface and open space trees will have an annual health inspection conducted by certified arborists. Leaves will be left around the trees as mulch. Needles and duff will not be removed from the base of forest trees.A year round composting program will be set up with UBC farm to guarantee organic waste is used on site for fertilizer and mulch.EducationProvide new homeowners with ecological gardening and food growing workshops at UBC farms. Streamkeepers workshops will be provided to residents and area managers to provide education about how to protect the fish habitat of Musqueam Creek (protecting storm drains, avoiding use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, washing cars away from drains, raising awareness about spawning times).Interpretive signs will be used in selected naturalized areas for onsite to  educate the public about local ecology.Children’s gardens will be incorporated as play spaces to encourage discovery and play in the natural world.  Green edge        Pedestrian           Road   Pocket park    High-density housingChildren’s play space   Medium-density housing   Public open space   Constructed wetland   Local creek connection(beyond study site)Ground water “Village in the Woods” Ecology advocacy and social responsibilityGreywaterWater fl owNutrient cyclefigure 2-7. SectionFoodWater & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseEcologyFoodWater & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseEcology20 21plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009figure 3-1. SCNP In Context3.0 Land Use3.1 Background The organization of land uses is critical to the design of a healthy sustainable community. A land use plan is effectively the physical canvas on which all the systems discussed in this evaluation are laid out and integrated with each other.In order to envision what a healthy sustainable community might look like in South Campus, it is important to view the site in the context of its physical and societal surroundings. How does South Campus relate to the broader UBC community and to the urban structure of greater Vancouver as a whole? What role does the development of South Campus play in affecting broader sustainability objectives at the regional, provincial, or national level? As part of Metro Vancouver, the UBC endowment lands face significant pressure to accommodate some of the region’s anticipated population growth.  Located within the region’s existing urban area, with fairly direct access to Vancouver’s urban core and proximity to major institutional and employment lands, South Campus is an attractive area for development. As part of UBC’s University Endowment Lands, the endowment revenue associated with development make it that much more attractive. While the urban development of what is predominantly a natural, vegetated area has inherent environmental consequences, there are ways to develop the land such that ecosystem functions are protected, restored or even enhanced, and damages caused by earlier human interference are repaired. Vital to this task is a land use planning framework that at once limits unwanted land uses that may hinder the community’s ability to achieve sustainability objectives and attract and nurture those uses that add social, ecological and economic value to the area and the broader community. An integrated land use plan should manage the relationship between these uses so as to capitalize on synergies and avoid conflicts. A number of concepts or theories have emerged in recent years that attempt to inform the development of such a land use plan. While many of the concepts overlap considerably and build upon one another, they are outlined below as discreet categories to provide a simpler framework for analysis of the UBC South Campus Neighbourhood Plan. Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use22 23plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 20093.2 PrinciplesMixed-Use & DensityThe concept of mixed-use development is a return to more traditional human settlement patterns where commercial and residential uses were more integrated with one another. Euclidian zoning systems developed with industrialization in the interest of protecting residents from the hazards of industry. These zoning systems evolved to segregate all types of uses, ensuring the separation of residential areas from employment, retail, institutional and recreational uses. Assisted by cheap oil and the private automobile, this approach contributed to the low-density auto-dependent communities we see across North America today. In recent years, mixed-use developments have become quite common in high-density urban areas, but in more moderate density developments, as envisioned for South Campus, segregation of uses still predominates. figure 3-2. Conceptual Mixed-Use Area (Section Drawing)By providing for a mixture of uses in close proximity, a land use plan can encourage the development of more complete communities, more walkable neighbourhoods, and healthier social networks (Grant, 2004). This mix of uses, however, may involve a greater potential for conflict between uses and users, augmenting the need for thorough consultation and negotiation. One example of the application of this principle is in the master plan for Dockside Green, in Victoria, BC.Population and Employment DiversityA complete community is one in which a diversity of residences, shopping, recreation, and workplaces is available. This diversity contributes to the liveliness and energy of a neighbourhood and can lead to stronger social cohesion. As part of an increasingly multi-cultural city, South Campus needs to be planned in such a way that people of diverse backgrounds feel at home. One way to achieve this is by providing a wide variety of employment and housing types and tenures (De Wit, 2001). In the Southeast False Creek Official Development Plan, for example, an attempt was made to house a representative sample of the wider GVRD population, which led to the provision of a variety of housing forms, types and tenures. By meeting the needs of all demographics, a community can be designed to be inclusive and celebrate diversity.Transit-Oriented DevelopmentBuilding on the concept of mixed-use communities, Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) looks at how land use decisions can contribute to the viability and attractiveness of public transit. By targeting the development of higher density, mixed-use nodes around transit stops and stations, the critical mass of users needed to maintain an appealing transit system can be achieved. This has benefits in terms of both environmental justice and social equity through the provision of transportation choice.TOD is one application of the broader principle of integrating transportation  and land use planning. The interconnectedness of these two fields has long been documented but they are often still treated as discreet systems  because of inadequate coordination between levels of government and disconnects in objectives. Pearl District Square, PortlandFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use24 25plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Walkability & InterconnectednessThe walkability of a neighbourhood is greatly dependent on concepts of density and mixed-use. By ensuring efficient pedestrian linkages between residences, offices, retail, and recreational opportunities, a land use plan can encourage healthier lifestyle choices and improve street-level activity. Strategies for this include the design of greenways, pedestrian-scale design and lighting schemes, and street-layouts that give priority to pedestrians and cyclists over the automobile. Other approaches to TOD, walkability, and interconnectedness are discussed in greater detail in the Transportation section of this report.LivabilityClosely related to the healthy cities movement, livability has to do with the provision of clean environments, good employment and education, resource conservation, and healthy living. Vancouver has long been seen as a leader in livability, but the concept is still a necessary criterion in evaluating land use planning decisions at the neighbourhood level. Closely related to the concept of livability are strategies that allow residents to ‘age in place.’ By providing for a mix of housing types and tenures, community services, and amenities, a land use plan can ensure that a community serves the needs of its residents at all life-stages. This has obvious co-benefits with respect to encouraging diversity.Multifunctional Urban Green Space NetworksUrban development of any form reduces the amount and quality of natural spaces and systems around us. Therefore, a land use plan should strategically preserve and enhance a multifunctional urban green space network. Multifunctional green space networks capitalize on synergistic uses. This allows for higher densities and more efficient use of land, thereby reducing sprawl. The functions of such green space networks may include: passive and active recreation, transportation, urban agriculture, education, storm and wastewater management, ecological preservation, maintaining natural processes, and overall quality-of-life improvement (Tzoulas, 2004). They provide opportunities for integration of a range of disciplines and systems, as discussed throughout this report. In South Campus, there is particular opportunity for integrating urban agriculture into the design of green space networks to help create a synergistic relationship between the UBC farm and the new community. The growing of food in urban environments is becoming increasingly attractive as the costs of transporting goods to market increase and awareness of the impacts of food systems on environmental and social systems grows. Integrating agriculture in urban land use planning is relatively uncharted territory and requires innovative approaches to zoning regulations and other by-laws (Mubvami, 2006).Integration and Preservation of Natural SystemsLand use plans need to allow for and encourage the integration of natural and human systems while protecting sensitive natural lands from conflicting land uses. This goes far beyond the delineation of urban green space networks. Human systems are part of the natural system and need to be treated as such throughout the urban environment. By planning for the efficient use of land through higher densities, reduced building footprints, and multi-functional spaces, a land use plan can protect more natural space from development. Within built-up areas, human systems should be designed to co-operate and integrate with natural systems, recognizing the inevitability of their coming together.As with all sections of this analysis, it is important to note how the preservation of natural habitats and systems on the South Campus lands fits into broader conservation programs at the regional and provincial level. Much research has been done on methods to identify areas of high conservation interest and to design efficient networks of nature reserves. The proximity of the south-campus lands to the 763 hectare Pacific Spirit Regional Park requires that land use decisions are made cognizant of their impacts on this ecological reserve.3.3 AnalysisAs the largest neighbourhood in ‘University Town’, South Campus is expected to accommodate much of the anticipated growth within the University Endowment Lands. The proposed land use plan of a “compact and complete community” sets objectives very much in line with the principles described above. The plan calls for a mixed-use neighbourhood with a distinct “urban village in the woods” character that combines various types and tenures of residential use, a village commercial centre, a community centre and a community school. Other admirable objectives include an emphasis on pedestrian, cycling and transit; providing places with amenities that encourage community gathering Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use26 27plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Figure 3-3. Encouraging Integration with UBC Farm & Pacific Spirit Regional Parkfigure 3-4. Proposed Land Use Plan with Building footprintand interaction; parks and open spaces; a pedestrian greenway network; and encouragement of best practices in bio-filtration, storm-water management, and ecological preservation. These objectives could, however, have been even more aggressive; particularly on a site with access to an innovative research community, high market demand, and site-specific opportunities, such as proximity to the UBC farm. The level to which the land use plan achieves its stated objectives and addresses the principles discussed earlier is analyzed in this section.The proposed plan calls for roughly 85 percent of the net area to be allocated to residential development, with a central “village” core of mixed-use development. With this high proportion of land area covered by strictly residential uses, the truly mixed-use nature of the proposed neighbourhood is questionable. While it is impossible to precisely predict demand for housing or commercial space, the South Campus Neighbourhood Plan estimates a population of 4,782 residents in 2,481 units. The plan’s suggested area for residential use (203,028 m2) is higher even than that proposed by the Campus Community Plan (CCP) (187,190 m2) while accommodating the same projected buildable floor area. This implies a lower residential density than originally proposed by the CCP and an average floor space ratio (FSR) of only 1.18. This only just enters the ‘Medium Density’ category. Significantly higher densities could be achieved while maintaining the proposed ‘village in the woods’ character. This could be accomplished through slight increases in building heights from 4 to 6 storeys and more clustered development patterns. Design guidelines for the staggered increase in heights based on sightlines from pedestrian pathways. This could simultaneously free up land for larger shared open spaces and multi-use greenway corridors and relieve pressure to develop residential buildings on UBC Farm lands.A breakdown of tenure-types across the study area is illustrated in Figure 3-5 While the OCP requires 20 percent rental housing over-all in Future Housing Areas, the SCNP provides only 8 percent across the study area, citing higher proportions of rental housing closer to campus. While this may be compensation for not meeting OCP requirements, 8 percent rental units is inadequate in terms of offering a full spectrum of housing tenure and price. The supply of rental units in Greater Vancouver as a whole is inadequate to meet demand. The region had a rental vacancy rate of less than one percent in 2008, and purchase prices are still well out of the reach of many households. By limiting the supply of rental units in South Campus, the plan is effectively driving up rents and creating a figure 3-5. Residential TenuresFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use28 29plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009barrier to low- to moderate-income residents. This has a clear impact on the potential diversity of residents in the neighbourhood and seems contrary to the plans stated objective of providing “a range of housing types, unit sizes, and densities with a variety of prices and tenures suited to university faculty and staff.”The inclusion of a school, a variety in types of recreational space, and seniors residence contributes to the livability of the proposed neighbourhood and the ability of residents to age in place. Improvements to the variability in tenure types could improve the accessibility of the neighbourhood to young adults and students. This could help meet objectives relating to reducing transportation-related emissions and ensuring better integration with the academic community. figure 3-6. Visualizing Proposed DensitiesWhile a greenway network was made a central part of the circulation system, its potential as a multi-use space is lacking in some areas. The recreational component of the green space network is clearly evident. However, its role in ecological preservation and providing opportunities for urban agriculture seems limited, partly as a result of its narrowness. Better integration with Pacific Spirit Regional Park through a wider corridor could encourage greater preservation of habitat and support biodiversity. Opportunities for physical connection with the UBC farm through the green space network could also be improved.A more thorough evaluation of the plan’s transportation objectives as they relate to land use can be found in the transportation section of this report.3.4 RecommendationsIncrease proportion of rental units to 20 percent within the South Cam-1. pus Neighbourhood Plan Area.Increase densities and relax height restrictions, particularly along Wes-2. brook Mall, informed by sightlines from primary pedestrian pathways.Expand Mixed-Use designation South down Wesbrook Mall.3. Widen the proposed east-west greenway and work with PSRP and the 4. UBC farm to improve integration of these green spaces into a broader multi-functional green space network.Propose ‘Alternative Eco-village Zone’ as transition from UBC farm to 5. SCNP area.Encourage innovative natural buildings (e.g. cob construction, strawbale 6. construction) and zero-waste, carbon-neutral systems.Incorporate market and or research uses associated with UBC Farm into 7. mixed-use core.The conceptual model below demonstrates the potential for higher 8. densities to be incorporated without significantly changing the character of the neighbourhood. Approximately 100,000 square feet of residential space was added to the model.Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use30 31plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009figure 3-7. Conceptual Density ChangesIn the United States, more than 2,000,000 acres (8,100 km2) of open space, wildlife habitat, and wetlands are developed each year according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA further states that buildings account for: 39% of total energy use 12% of the total water consumption 68% of total electricity consumption 38% of the carbon dioxide emissionsThese statistics demonstrate what a significant impact our constructed environments are having on environmental quality. Further concerns with resource use and health issues have led to the growth of “greener” building practices, meaning natural buildings or structures with lower impacts. Through the sustainability discourse, we are developing alternative architectural and engineering choices for the built form that will lead to greater future sustainability environmentally, socially and even economically. Increased costs are often sited as the reason for employing traditional building practices, however in  our finite world of resources, we know that this cannot continue. Specifically for the South Campus Neighborhood at UBC, there are many opportunities for creating sustainable infrastructure. The following section describes general recommendations based on precedence that may be adopted for the area.Implementing changes and interventions with regards to environment and resources inevitably results in new consequences of compromise to social and economic factors. Characteristics of the built form that impact sustainability can be broken down into primary categories: design, materials, production and lifecycle. These characteristics are typically regulated through design guidelines, building regulations, technical codes, impact assessments and more. Beyond minimum practices outlined in these regulatory documents, the architect, developer and owner make decisions about the sustainability of infrastructure based on personal knowledge, priorities and costs. It is therefore critical to the success of a project that these stakeholders be engaged with sustainability both through experience and professional values in order to have a comprehensively committed sustainable project. One of the defining traits of a sustainably built system is that is be holistic, thorough and integrated whenever possible, considering the structure, its embodied energy, and the lifestyle choices it promotes. It is challenging to reconcile these various scales within a built 4.0 Built FormSource: EPA Green Building Website BENEFITSEnhance and protect biodiversity and ecosystemsImprove air and water qualityReduce waste streamsConserve and restore natural resourcesECONOMIC BENEFITSReduce operating costsCreate, expand, and shape markets for green product and servicesImprove occupant productivityOptimize life-cycle economic performanceSOCIAL BENEFITSEnhance occupant comfort and healthHeighten aesthetic qualitiesMinimize strain on local infrastructureImprove overall quality of lifeBenefits of Sustainable Practices in the Built Form....Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use32 33plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009product. Additionally, due to the somewhat experimental and unconventional nature of many sustainable components, it is critical to have a flexible system of regulation or governance. Technologies and research contributing to this field is ever evolving and while we make several recommendations through this report, it is by no means comprehensive and there will certainly be other good solutions for approaching sustainability in the built form for UBC South Campus. Each choice is contextual and must be evaluated based on specific site and design characteristics. 4.1 Background: PrinciplesReduce, reuse and recycle: Harkening to the catch phrase advertising waste recycling, it seems appropriate to start appling the same principals to the built form. It is imperative to consider how the “Three R” activities can be balanced in any sustainable project. For western lifestyles, the first commandment to REDUCE will be the most challenging. Living with less, for example having smaller and simpler living spaces will be difficult to accept and challenging to market to consumers. In addition to reducing the physical space in a home, some have found ways to live more sustainably by increasing the density of living, so that people are living together in closer quarters. We must further grasp every opportunity to REUSE or adaptively reuse existing infrastructure. This can provide some of the largest resource savings, especially when combined with new energy efficient upgrades. Flexible design is key. If a building has become obsolete, it is the owner’s responsibility to RECYCLE the building when demolished in order to give a new life to the materials. Beyond the three concepts explored above, the following principles are essential to sustainable design choices. • Conservation • Non- toxic and low-impact materials • Energy efficiency and renewability • Locally and regionally sourced or manufactured materials and labor • Low carbon • Design for quality and durability • Integrated systems  approach • Healthy buildings • Flexibility and adaptability •A “Tiny House”BEST PRACTICE #1Intregrated Building SystemsThis principal is based on creating buildings that function as relatively independent systems, integrating natural systems with the operation of the building’s life cycle. A major benefit to this approach is reduced waste, as waste is not something disposed but rather an opportunity for the creation of a new product.BEST PRACTICE #2Small FootprintArchitects are starting to realize there is a market in the “Not so big house,” which appeals to homeowners in terms of affordability. Creative and artfully crafted homes find new ways to maintain lifestyles in less space. ENERGYUSECARBONEMISSIONSW A T E R  USESOLID W A S T E30-50%35%40%70%$58 BILLIONOF SICK TIMEEACH YEARAverage Savings for Green Buildings(Data Source: U.S. Green Building Council) BEST PRACTICE #3“100 Mile Building”This concept plays off of the popular idea, “The 100 Mile Diet” which is a way of eating for food sustainability and security, such that the person commits to purchasing and eating food that was produced within one hundred miles of their place of residence. Imagine if this was applied to buildings the impacts it would have! The LEED certification has a line-item for structures built from resources within 500 miles. From our assessment of the critical factors, this kind of commitment would create significant progress and positive change in the system of building today. Values would have to be radically different and lifestyles would be altered. Fortunate Vancouver is a resource rich region and would have better options than other locations. Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use34 35plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009 4.2  General Guidelines for Creating   Sustainable DesignAppropriate building sitting is essential; contextual building placement is a. central (and often ignored) but can provide substantial opportunities for energy efficiency. Although many may envision the ideal environmental home or office structure as an isolated place in the middle of the woods, this kind of placement is often detrimental to the environment. First, such structures often serve as the unknowing frontlines of suburban sprawl. Second, they usually increase the energy consumption required for transportation and lead to unnecessary auto emissions. Designing to the site also enables the integration of passive solar through maximization of southern glazing and interior thermal mass. Use density and clustering, where appropriate, to reduce footprint. b. Be open to flexible yet contextual building heights in order to c. compensate for needed density, or conversely to conserve forest canopy, views and natural conditions. Buildings should be sited to maintain view corridors important to the community as well as maximize views from the building itself. Always use renewable energy sources (solar, water, wind) as appropriate d. per climate, solar access, geothermal etc. Green roofs incorporated into design for storm water management and e. building cooling. This space also provides important space for urban farming and/or public recreation space which improves the life quality for residents as well as property values. Rain gardens should be considered in the landscaping for additional f. storm water managementConsider biomimicry for integrated natural systems, resource g. conservation, and adaptation.Use natural recycled materials such as woods, stone, metal, and h. concrete whenever appropriate. Insulation of high quality and R-value is critical for energy efficiency. i. Alternatives to fiberglass such as soy and cotton are also available and contribute to air quality and health issues. Student built  modular homesBEST PRACTICE #4Prefabricated or Modular Constructed BuildingsRecently architects and designers have found fascination with prefabricated and modular building types. Though the details vary, many of these structures are smaller and more affordable, therefore providing a significant opportunity to make headway in the social and economic sustainability categories. In Surrey a 27 floor prefabricated condominium building is underway and it will be constructed in 6 months instead of the typical 12-24 months. Waste from the construction process is also reduced, as well as energy. The units were constructed in a factory in nearby Abbottsford.Services substitution such as providing composting bins in building can j. change waste habits. Providing appropriate waste bins in an integrated system. Or other components to promote sustainable lifestyle.Small homes: keeping unit/house sizes small can both reduce the k. resources needed for construction and life cycle as well as providing greater affordability. Shared facilities (such as kitchen or laundry): can reduce costs and l. resources. Blending the exterior with its environment (color, material) also can lead m. to greater energy efficiency. Designs should optimize underground area in order to reduce footprint n. on land. Large basements for future build-out, parking or storage should be considered. Long life: timeless design and durable materials so that maintenance is o. reduced and need for replacement happens less frequently. Flexibility or adaptability to possible future change of use: flexible p. housing that provides the opportunity for alternative arrangements of space for different layouts and family sizes as needs evolve and lifestyles transform.Clustered development is critical for footprint and public transport q. efficiency.Diversity of style/design for social layer to provide increased interest and r. timeless neighborhoods. Historic preservation for keeping past stories and culture, as well as s. adaptive reuse of building resources. Innovation for sustainability and stimulation of academic intellectual t. development: The University location fosters research and innovation. Academic and industry research conducted on campus has long been a source of new technology. They will continue to encourage technologi-cal innovation and promote the use of sustainable building practices in the development industry.Design out parking. Create smaller spaces for electric or alternatively u. fueled vehicles. “Eco Building” in WalesBEST PRACTICE #5Recycled BuildingsIn Amsterdam a student housing project was created from recycled shipping containers. The project was initially done as temporary housing but has been so successful that it will remain.BEST PRACTICE #6Natural BuildingsConstructing buildings from materials that are minimally processed and readily available such as straw bale, cob and adobe is an ancient way to build and completely heathy and organic. Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use36 37plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009MaterialsMaterials considered to be fast growing or rapidly renewable are plants like bamboo, straw, lumber from certified forests with sustainable management, cultured stones, recycled stone and metals, non-toxic, reusable, renewable, recyclable, compressed earth, adobe, baked earth, rammed earth, clay, linoleum, vermiculite, flax linen, sea grass, cork should be incorporated into buildings. Materials should be extracted or produced locally whenever possible as to reduce the energy needed to transport the materials. Environmentally Friendly features of the building include straw bale insulation, rainwater harvesting, photosensitive lighting, recycled cellulose insulation and a small photo-voltaic/wind turbine system’ are also critical to sustainable life function. In general buildings designers should prioritizing materials with the following qualities: Reused or recycled materials, low impact/lower volatile organic compounds, high quality and durable, re-used materials from the site (soil, stone, fill, wood, plants and elements of existing structures. UBC building codes aptly require that the exterior finishes and detailing on all buildings be appropriate to the west coast climatic conditions, which will give longer life to the structure and decrease costly repairs.Current site natural resources include: earth, lumber, air, natural rainfall, urban infrastructure nearby from which to draw used materials, south facing sunlight, and a substantial labor pool.ProductionEnergy resources for construction activity can be very costly, polluting and intensive. It is essential to consider sustainability during the building process as well as for the design of the building. Further, energy resources for material transport to site also impact the embodied energy costs of the structure. Another way to decrease environmental impacts at this level are through the acquisition and disposal of buildings, and appropriate demolition or recycling of unwanted materials. Labor resources should be local and brought to site via public transportation. Especially geared towards low-income individuals for community capacity buildingLifecycleFocus on energy efficiency and the onsite production of renewable power, reduce water resources needed through net cycle and incorporate on site waste management for zero waste. Please reference the energy, waste and water management sections of the document for additional information. Prioritize the creation of healthy buildings with clean indoor air quality resource conservation and accessible to public transport.4.3 Analysis: Existing ConditionsMunicipal plans and regulations that apply to the UBC South Campus are: The South Campus Northeast Sub-Area Neighborhood Plan (Design Guidelines), UBC Environmental Assessment Program Principals for Physical Planning at UBC: A Legacy and a Promise, Vancouver Green Building Strategy, British Columbia Green Building Code, Vancouver Green Homes Program, UBC Sustainability Office. A review of these regulations has shown a fairly strong commitment to the concepts of sustainable building practices however with weak power to require and implement. The most applicable of these standards is the UBC Residential Assessment Program (REAP) which is self claimed based on the LEED standards, but catered to the type of residential development desired by the university. These standards are required for all developments at the minimum, with higher levels of performance and ranking possible. While there are many detailed differences between LEED and REAP, the primary differences are superficial. They are both point systems, LEED has a maximum number of 69 points where as REAP has 200. The minimum required for LEED is 26 including a certain number of required and non-point accruing components such as minimum energy performance, storage for recyclables, and construction activity pollution. Each optional component is worth 1 point. For REAP all points are optional for a minimum number of 66 points. Each item on the checklist is worth two points or more. Quantifiably there is more flexibility in the REAP program at UBC, it only requires 33% of the points whereas LEED requires almost 40% of available ratings. As the rating systems are very similar, certain distinctions were exposed through a careful comparison. While REAP appears to have more points, they are very details (2 points for installing an energy star thermostat) and each single point in LEED appears to have more “bang for the buck”. For example, they address storm water management more Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use38 39plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Forest Sustainably Certif ed Wood ProductsBicycle parking, storage and changing Compact living recycledRapidly renewable materials like bambooPhotovoltaic energy sourcesrecycled native vegetationHigh effciency elevatorHigh effciency boilerLarge high insulatedsouth facing windowsShutters for heatretentionEnergy star appliancesCFL/LED LightingHigh thermal mass flooringRooftop recreationGreen RoofTankless hotwater heatersSolar shinglesLow or Zero VOC PaintCO 2 monitorsLow E glassAlternative vehicle parkingPublic transitStormwater managementGreen streets w/ pervious pathUse basementsfor underground parkingWood or fber-fly ashsidingRegional material useNative/xeriscaped water effcient landscapefigure 4-1. Sustainable Building Diagramrigorously and encourages the consideration of something they call the “heat island effect” with regards to the roof and building temperature and it’s ability to create a heated mass that may impact local environments. While the REAP does provide and encourage alternative and more fuel efficient transportation options such as car sharing and bicycle storage, it does not provide any points for innovative waste water technologies. LEED places a great number of points on percentage rankings of renovating, building reuse and recycled materials, which demonstrates again how significant these activities are to the overall sustainability of building structures. Overall the UBC green building program is good, in the greater campus there have been notable buildings with documented energy savings, such as the Choi Building and the Liu Centre for Global Issues. 4.4 Analysis: UBC Green BuildingsThe CK Choi Institute of Asian ResearchBuilt in 1996, The CK Choi Building was the first building at UBC to be built as a “green” building and remains an inspiration for designers. The design incorporates technologies that were well before their time, as LEED standards had not yet been generated when Choi was constructed. The innovative approaches to energy, water and resources in this 3000 square meter building made it high performance and award winning. Highlights include:composting toilets that save more than 1,000 litres of water per day• a plant-based greywater recycling system that processes compost tea • from the toilets and waste water from kitchen and bathroom sinks50 percent reused or recycled materials• 100 percent natural ventilation• overall energy use 23 percent below a comparable building• energy efficiency features save 6.4 million kWh, 1000 tons of • greenhouse gas emissions and about $180,000 annually in current utility ratesSource: UBC Sustainability OfficeFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use40 41plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Liu Centre for the Study of Global IssuesCompleted in 2000, The Liu Centre is a remarkable building with numerous green qualities, but most known for is unique use of “high-volume fly ash concrete.” To mitigate the high greenhouse gas emissions produced through the production of cement, fly ash (which is a by-product of coal power plants) can be substituted for cement in the concrete mix. UBC estimates that the pollution caused by cement plants is equivalent to that of all the vehicles in Vancouver. Highlights include:commitment to retain significant trees on the site• careful deconstruction of the existing building• 93 percent of the demolition materials were diverted from landfill; • salvaged materials were used to construct the Liu Centre and the remaining materials were sold or recycled100 percent natural ventilation• high-volume fly ash concrete, where 50 percent of the energy intensive • cement was replaced with fly ash, a waste product from burning coalenergy use 34 percent below a comparable building• Source: UBC Sustainability OfficeDivision Selected RecommendationsSite Work Use displaced soils from foundation for landscaping onsite. Refer to above labor and production sections.Concrete Use concrete made from recycled fly ash whenever possible. Minimize overall concrete volume. Foundation should be built from recycled blocks or foam materials. Pervious concrete should be used in site design for onsite water retention. Masonry Locally quarried stones for exterior and site materials. Recycled brick or stone is also a possibility. Metals Recycled steel structure, recycled metals should be priority or locally produced based on resource availability.Woods and Plastics Priority on recycled or local. Plastics should be used minimally unless recycled. Lumber is sustainably harvested certified and limited to fast growing varieties. Consider composite materials as well that mix scraps of wood and plastic together. Thermal and Moisture ProtectionHighest possible R value walls and ceilings, use recycled insulation options (blue jeans, cotton, soy). Non-toxic and vent-able for air quality and moisture control. Doors and Windows Recycled metal or wood. Locally produced. Should be double paned and coated for UV protection.Finishes Recycled, local and minimal, but made from renewable naturals. Avoid exotic woods and stones. Avoid trendy finishes to maintain timeless value. Paints and other finishes should be non-toxic and zero VOCs. Natural wool carpets for hypoallergenic residents.Furnishings Natural organic fibers on fabrics. Also consider multi-functional furniture. Mechanical Plumbing fixtures are all low flow, consider composting toilets. See water systems and energy sections for additional detail. Consider alternative heating sources such as geo-thermal, or high combustion individual stoves. Electrical Energy efficient fixtures, most minimal and shared appliances and highest efficiently. Design to reduce light pollution. Use lighting fixtures that sense the amount of light coming into a space and adjust accordingly. 4.5 Recommendations Sample Specifications for UBC South Campus(Please note that this list is by no means exhaustive. It is intended to provide a number of suggestions but acknowledges that every design and site is unique.)Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use42 43plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009In order to develop a sustainable community in the South Campus Neighbourhood at UBC, it will be imperative that the designs incorporate as many of the principles, approaches, features and materials included in this background on the built form. Though the review is fairly generic, potentially all of these ideas can be integrated into the ensuing structures. This report additionally recommends that the university develop additional institutional and programmatic components to support sustained learning and research of non-traditional building materials and techniques through academics, sustainability charettes, post-occupancy studies, and continued allocation of funding. It is the responsibility of the university as well to maintain progressive, clear and accessible standards with regards to the built form, to encourage greater facility of compliance. Focus should be on energy efficiency and renewable energy, water efficiency, environmentally preferable building materials and specifications, waste reduction, toxics reduction, indoor air quality, as well as designing buildings to support adaptively sustainable contemporary lifestyles, such as shared laundry facilities and proper bicycle storage. Emerging concepts in this field suggest that architectural design that is flexible and adaptable for unknown future uses. This means creating spaces that are able to sustain different types of lifestyles or operations under new circumstances. The UBC Farm is also a significant component to this proposal. It’s adjacency provides numerous opportunities for partnership and community development. This report further recommends that natural buildings be located in the zone areas in closest proximity to the farm, to ease the transition from urban to rural. We hope that instead of creating a border along the edge of the farm, the farm will play energetically in the design of UBC South Campus Neighborhood, that urban forms of farming will appear, integrated into the architecture and community.Images 1 and 2 are imaginative renderings of large multi-family developments with integrated natural systems. Image 3 is a retrofitted rooftop urban farm experiment in Los Angeles.Image 1Image 2Image 312 35.0  Social & Economic Development5.1  Sustainable Communities in UBC’s     South Campus NeighbourhoodvisionTo design a community that is socially inclusive, celebrates diversity and supports the health and wellbeing of residents. Integral to this vision is the creation of places that encourage social interaction among residents, create opportunities for physical exercise and generally foster a sense of attachment  to the community. Sustainable Communities Sustainable urban design requires that social systems are considered alongside the economic and environmental systems. Furthermore, factors such as income, housing tenure, demography, type of visitors and a variety of lifestyles are considered in sustainable urban design (Evans, 2007).  Sustainable communities are environmentally and economically viable as well as socially just, allowing for “[e]quitable access to resources and decision-making processes foster[ing] the distribution of foods and benefits across all sectors of the community.” (Swisher, 2006). However, it must also be noted that there can be no formulaic response to creating community – the response from each community must be individualistic while sharing sustainability as a common goal. Ultimately, economic fortification, the flourishing of environmental and ecological systems, social equity and long-term commitments to future generations are critical to the long-term health of planet Earth and society as a whole (Swisher, 2006). Socially and Economically Sustainable Systems: Literature Review Modern trends in an individual’s selection of urban communities are comprised of much more than a want for adequate shelter. The social and physical components that make up a community are becoming increasingly important to both community designers and residents as awareness about the meaning of place and its effect on quality of life expands. Ideologies such as social preservation are also beginning to make real impacts on communities globally as attempts to foster and preserve a sense of place through the maintenance and safeguarding of the existing, sometimes historic, social structures begin to appear in communities worldwide (Brown-Saracino, 2004). Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use44 45plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009The concept of social cohesion also has an important role to play in the creation of sustainable communities. Although this concept has been used in academic literature and government policy since the 1990’s it still has multiple definitions, including the ideas of “social solidarity and reductions in wealth disparity” and the development of “social networks and social capital” (Canadian Policy Research Networks, 2002). Social capital is sometimes used interchangeably with the idea of social cohesion although Ann Dale defines it differently as “the ability of actors to secure benefits by virtue of membership in social networks or other social structures” and that this ability aids in the development and maintenance of economic and political sustainability and effective governance (Dale, 2001).  One example of social capital affecting environmental outcomes is on Salt Spring Island where high levels of co-operation and connection between individuals successfully facilitated an attack against a local logging company removing old growth forest from an area protected under the island’s OCP (Royal Roads University, 2008). Another example of social capital is apparent in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside where a focus by organizations in the area has initiated community mobilization for greater social connection and interaction (Coyne, 2004). In both cases, the presence of social capital improved participating individuals’ experience of the community and proved to have positive effects on the area’s economic and environmental surroundings. The idea of an intercultural city also focuses highly on unity in the social realm. Interculturalism advocates for the removal of cultural barriers and is becoming increasingly popular with policy makers. A movement beyond multiple methods of knowledge found in multiculturalism, to be intercultural is to allow for cultural diversity while integrating and cooperating with individuals from other ethnic backgrounds in order to produce new methods of living, working and thinking together. Communities, with national and city policies in place to support them, need to alter how they perceive civic culture, institutions and public spaces. Community values must incorporate trust, collectivity, a sense of personal accountability and a complete acceptance of the normalcy of diversity if the concept of an intercultural city is to work. To function as an intercultural unit means that the city or community is strengthened in its resource variability in areas such as new skill sets or social networks (Culture Programme, 2008).The relationship between health outcomes and community design is also a significant theme in community planning. The constructions of places that people enjoy and want to spend time in combats the anti-social and lethargic behavior associated with poorly implemented or out of date community design. The Sierra Club warns that inefficiently planned neighborhoods are causing ill health throughout the world. Reduced walkability contributes to increased driving and increased pollution, especially in the form of smog (Sierra Club, 2001). The group Project for Public Spaces (PPS) notes that locating common destinations in one central area increases the chances of walking or cycling to those amenities, simultaneously decreasing the need for vehicle transport, and subsequently reducing greenhouse gasses. PPS further elaborates on placemaking as an important characteristic of a healthy, sustainable community by noting that welcoming, interesting places draw individuals out of their homes and cars and entice them to linger in social areas, helping to alleviate social illnesses such as depression and physical ones such as obesity (Project for Public Spaces, 2008a).Best Practices Project for Public Spaces (PPS) is an organization that aids communities in making spaces that foster a sense of community and positive social interaction. The president of PPS, Fred Kent, discusses the importance of having outdoor spaces that facilitate intermingling between community members and visitors. Kent notes that successful places are those where “people feel comfortable in and connect to, that they can be affectionate in, smile, laugh, engage, tell stories” (Gurwitt, 2005).Two examples where PPS has had a significant positive impact are Discovery Green in Houston, Texas and Campus Maritus in Detroit, Michigan. These two places, despite being located in socially challenging localities – one being in an under-populated location and the other in an inner city location- were transformed into successful parks. A factor contributing to this achievement  was the participatory process carried out by the planners whose community  and stakeholder visioning sessions allowed for the community to generate a sense of ownership in the park. Both developments generated new economic investment and incorporated a variety of elements into the design such as water features that doubled as children’s play areas, café’s, small markets and places to hold major events. Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use46 47plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009In addition to work taking place in the public realm, the arrival of new mixed-use and high density models into planning are creating developments which reduce the ecological footprint of a community, produce economic gains, and reduce the social problems which tend to accumulate in places which are characteristic of “overdominant activity and land-use – whether residential, office or entertainment” (Evans, 2007). PPS recommends the following eight-step methodology to develop a successful mixed use development: Begin with public spaces around the necessary housing, retail and 1. commercial buildingsBuild community by creating places people like to gather2. Find consensus between the planners, community and public sector 3. about what amenities and addition should be included in the planProvide a sense of place and interesting destinations4. Offer a variety of uses and activities5. Support transit and smart-growth principles6. Ensure that the plans are well integrated7. Ensure that the plans are well managed while making use of potential 8. private partnerships (Project for Public Spaces, 2008).5.2 Plan AnalysisDemographicsThe South Campus Neighbourhood Plan (SCNP) projects an estimated population of 3,978 in the residential area with an additional 804 residents in  the commercial centre of South Campus (UBC, 2005). This division of residents into commercial mixed-use areas versus solely residential is visually  represented in Figure 5-1.Within these resident groupings, the promotion of South Campus includes a focus on work and study housing. To institute this condition, the SCNP has required that “not less than 50 percent of new housing serve households where one or more members work or attend University on campus” (UBC, 2005:6). What is not included, however, is how this 50 percent will be shared within the staff/student body. In other words, the plan does not stipulate how the 50 percent will be broken up between those who work and those who study on campus. Furthermore, the plan does not stipulate who will make up these staff and student groups. This begs the following questions: will the employees be mostly faculty-based, or will other campus staff be encouraged to live in South Campus as well? What kind of students will the community attract? Will they be mostly graduate students or undergraduate students too? Will students at the new school in the South Campus Neighbourhood be included in the study-live figures? The current plan does not address the diversity that exists within these broader categories of ‘student’ and ‘staff’; consequently, the current plan maintains a degree of uncertainty regarding what the makeup of this portion of the community will consist of. Another demographic group that the plan considers is seniors. The SCNP promotes the idea of “aging-in-place”, which allows an individual, couple or family to change housing type as income changes (UBC, 2005:12). The “aging-in-place” model also includes the provision of 180 units of senior’s housing located in the commercial centre in the initial build-out. A wide range of housing types will also appeal to a variety of income levels, ensuring the neighbourhood is inclusive of various budget types.figure 5-1: Distribution of Residents Source: UBC 2005Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use48 49plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009To properly support the changing demographics of the South Campus population, the university is required to “annually engage an independent housing consultant to review current demographics, income levels and other relevant housing-related information of UBC faculty, staff, students, and others working or studying at UBC to determine their housing needs” (UBC, 1997:39). This annual evaluation will be especially important in the South Campus community to evaluate the changes and trends in demographics  before subsequent build-out stages.What the plan leaves out, however, is the consideration of young children and youth. Also lacking are details about the social amenities and commercial retailers that would be geared to the diverse demographic groups.Recommendations Split the 50 percent work/study households equally between work and • study, with proportional representation of faculty members vs. other staff in the work households, and graduate vs. undergraduate students in the study households.A clear and transparent selection process should be used to determine • the residents of South Campus. The selection criteria should be posted online and applicants should be fully informed of every stage in the selection process. Since the community is promoting living and working or studying, study • or work spaces should be available – either in the form of a library in the community centre, or in the form of flexible space that can be used for study or rented out for functions and events. This type of space can be integrated into the housing units, or exist on its own, for example, above the commercial spaces on the main street.Ensure commercial facilities cater to affordable retailers and not only • upscale shopsEmploymentThe current plan for South Campus does not detail expected changes in employment. The University Town website mentions that jobs will be created, but does not provide specifications (UBC, 2009). The SCNP simply states that the University Town will be a place to “live, work, study and play” (UBC, 2005:4) without any mention of anticipated number of employment types and tenure. It can be assumed that employment opportunities will arise from the school and community centre, as well as from the retail venues in the commercial centre. The number of retail stores can be estimated to be between 17 and 60 as the allocated commercial space totals 6000 m2 and the space allotted to individual retailers can range from 100 m2 to 350 m2 (UBC, 2000).In addition, other employment opportunities may be available for administrative staff for the housing units, or staff in daycare facilities. The SSP also mentions the possibility of incorporating live-work studios in the vicinity of the “village centre”, which will also generate more employment activity in South Campus (UBC, 2000:43).Recommendations Increase the local community feel by giving preferential hiring to those • in the South Campus community (within reason). This approach could support the 50 percent work/study in place stipulation.Give preference to local commercial vendors.• Increase factors that could be used to increase the community • atmosphere of South Campus. Examples include: supporting local products (especially farm products), interactive spaces (for example, cafes that double as performance spaces) and shared community amenities (Laundromat).HousingThe current housing plan for South Campus will include 1,989 units of living. This will be a mix of market (90 percent) and rental housing (10 percent). The OCP requires 20 percent rental housing for all future housing areas, however the South Campus Northeast Sub-Area Plan states that this percent requirement will be satisfied “closer to the campus core” with the justification that this location provides proximity to work/study for those that require this type of housing (UBC 1997:17). In addition to basic rental and market housing, a senior’s residence  will also be included in this community.The design of the housing stock in the South Campus Neighbourhood will have a strong orientation to the street or greenway system to “encourage walking, to Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use50 51plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009promote street activity and enhance neighbourhood safety” (UBC 1997:10). In addition to this, both mixed-use and live/work models will be employed. As discussed in the demographic section, the plan states that South Campus will contribute to the OCP goal that not less than 50 percent of new housing serve households where one or more members work or attend University on campus (UBC 2005:11). The housing has been designed to appeal to this group and achieve this goal. As stated in this plan, this goal will be achieved through the provision of “a range of housing types, unit sizes, and densities with a variety  of prices and tenures suited to university faculty and staff” (UBC 2005:13).  Seniors’ housing is also included in the plan, totaling 180 units.Point form summary of current Plan housing details:Mixed use and live/work models incorporated• 50 percent housing for students and staff/faculty• 10 percent Rental, 90 percent Market• Seniors Living residence (180 units)• Design: Ground oriented (to ensure street-oriented and human scale) • Architecture: no singular theme, but diversity of style with respect for • traditions and heritage of the university17 percent of residents will live in commercial mixed-use, 83 percent will • live in the residential portion Table 4-1: Housing Types and build-out estimationsSouth Campus Housing Reserve South Campus  Commercial VillageRental Units 199 0 0For Purchase 1,790 1,891 312Ground-Oriented 796 1,000 02006 350 0 1002012 800 0 3122021 1,989 300 312Units at Build-out 1,989 1,891 312Source: (UBC, 2000:51)Recommendations Increase rental portion to a minimum of 30 percent to ensure access • to students and the broader Vancouver population who require rental housing  (see image below). This increase in rental housing is also imperative to ensure that there is even student representation within the goal of 50 percent student/staff housing. Introduce family-friendly living, with specific child-friendly design • features. These features include appropriate room size in units and layout that accommodates family needs. Residential buildings should also contain interior and exterior social play spaces (COV,1992). Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use52 53plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Introduction of affordable housing options to ensure for an inclusive • and socially diverse resident body. This could include some social housing as well as housing that is provided at below-market rates to staff and students. Universities such as Simon Fraser University have experimented with this alternative type of housing model where housing is provided through the University’s land trust at a reduced cost (UOBM). Increase average FSR (currently 1.18) to provide greater density. This • will add to affordability and to the social diversity/vibrancy of the community. Ensure that housing does not threaten the UBC Farm. This requires a • removal of the “reserve housing” area and the transfer of this housing density to the south campus residential area. PlacemakingEffective placemaking is essential to creating a livable community that fosters a sense of attachment and respect among residence and the broader users of the place. The New York based firm Project for Public Spaces has researched the elements that contribute to a strong sense of place as well as the benefits that are derived from effective placemaking. The two frameworks shown below, developed by PPS, describe the benefits of place and the components that makeup a great place.Guiding principles for effective placemaking (PPS): The Benefits of Place:Builds and Supports the local economy1. Nurtures and Defines Community Identity2. Fosters Frequent and Meaningful Contact3. Creates Improved Accessibility4. Promotes Sense of Comfort5. Draws a Diverse Population6. Great Places are made up of: Key attributes1. Intangibles2. Measurements3. Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use54 55plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009The importance of creating a strong “sense of place” is referenced in the South Campus Neighbourhood Plan and Comprehensive Community Plan. Sense of place is fostered through the following built form features: Village commercial centre which is meant to feel like “community living • room”Parks and Open Spaces (Usable neighbourhood open space)• Green Streets• Fine-grained circulation for pedestrians and cyclists• Community centre which will help ‘animate’ public space and add an • element of security and sense of safety to areaUse of specific materials and colours on buildings and in pedestrian • places add to the physical character of the community, also influencing the experience of place.The following sections of the current South Campus Neighbourhood Plan  discuss the contribution of key community amenities to the sense of place:Village as focal point:The sense that the village mixed-use centre is the heart of a ‘village in the Woods’ is established by locating the community core beyond a ‘green portal’ of retained and redeveloped trees. Walking distance from 16th Avenue to the retail ‘Main Street’ is set at 200m. The community core draws together the elements that centre the focus of the neighbourhood - shops (including an ‘anchor’ grocery store), community centre, village residential (including seniors residential) and school. The village centre itself is located along the primary vehicular access point to the neighbourhood - enlivening the ‘main street’ which is bisected by the primary pedestrian Green Street. The proximity of the school to the village centre offers possibility for dual-use of community centre facilities (UBC, 2005: 62).Importance of the School:The location of the school is seen as a critical element to the vitality and livability of the village neighbourhood. The school has been located immediately south of the village core, which satisfies the following criteria: Facilitates opportunities for dual-use of community centre facilities oriented on the primary pedestrian Green Street; Centrally located to offer immediate connection to the village centre; Fronts the secondary neighbourhood access point on a collector roadway; Considers future integration of the NRC building; provides accessibility from other University Town neighbourhoods; and is flanked by open space, community uses and housing - rather than roadways (UBC, 2005: 63).Greenways and Green Streets:A founding element of the land use arrangement is the pedestrian ‘green network’ and the park system. Green Streets connect the neighbourhood for pedestrians both within the South Campus neighbourhood and to adjoining areas. In this way, pedestrian and non-motorized movement is encouraged and facilitated. Connections to the surrounding areas - Pacific Spirit Regional Park, Hampton Place, the athletic fields, the Main Mall Greenway and the Future Housing Reserve are established as extensions of the network. Integralto the green network at nodal points are sub-neighbourhood ‘pocket’ parks creating open space gathering and activity amenities for localised community use (UBC, 2005:61).RecommendationsThe following recommendations are intended to strengthen the South Campus community as a Place that is respected, valued and that contributes to the health and vitality of the community in its entirety. Promote greater arts and cultural influence in the public realm through • the addition of public art and outdoor performance opportunities. While the current plan contributes to a sense of place through the inclusion of a green space, a public market/square area as well as a community centre, there is a lack of arts and cultural amenities and opportunities that would add to the quality and experience of the place.Addition of a public farmers’ market to the plaza area in the village • would help add social life to the public square and draw in visitors from outside the community, adding to the vibrancy of the place. Products can be sold from the local farm, fostering connections between this community asset and the residents. This market will also create social opportunities within this place and add to the attachment residents feel. The activity generated by a public market, in general, will contribute to the life of the plaza area – invigorating this place. Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use56 57plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Reduce the presence of cars in the community by restricting on-street • parking availability.  The current plan allows parking on both sides of the street in the village area. To add to the sense of place in this critical community focal point, car parking in the village commercial centre should be banned. Cars should be stored and parked underground, out of the sight of residents – adding to the aesthetic appeal of the place as well as its livability.Introduction of play opportunities for children and youth. This will • encourage positive social interaction between different demographic groups, and generally add to the social experience of this place. Develop streets as places, not thoroughfares. the current plan • emphasizes the use of streets for purposes of circulation with an emphasis on ecological sustainability. The plan mentions the importance of “paths that actively enhance the interaction between residents and their neighbourhood” (p.58). While this interaction is an important function of the street, streets serving as places that people engage in static interaction with other people are also critical. The introduction of design features that make streets places of social activity is critical to the livability of this community.Some features that will help ensure the streets of South Campus are meaningful and effective places for social interaction and individual enjoyment are:The inclusion of street furniture to allow for resting.• Wide sidewalks and boulevards that allow people to mingle and • socialize in groups.The inclusion of amenities close to or on the street/sidewalk area. • Lighting to allow for comfortable use at night.• Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use58 59plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Elements that will contribute to vibrant and healthy places in South Campus Neighbourhood:Public AmenitiesPublic amenities play a vital role in communities not only through the provision of basic services but also in their ability to contribute to a strong sense of place. As such, there is overlap between this sub-theme and that of placemaking. The key public amenities provided through the South Campus Plan are as follows: School• Community Centre• Village Commercial Centre, including Plaza• Local grocery store• Parks and Open Space (allow for passive and active recreation)• Network of greenways and green streets supporting pedestrian and • cyclist mobilityCommunity Service card to allow residents to use arts and cultural • facilities on campusRecommendationsIn addition to the amenities included in the campus plan, several additions are recommended to better serve community members and strengthen this community’s social system.Addition of a health clinic and pharmacy to cater to medical needs of • residents. This is particularly pertinent given ‘aging in place’ is being encouraged in this community and the provision of a seniors residence will only add to medical needs of community. Childcare facility. The South Campus plan states that childcare may be • introduced into the community. However, given the limited childcare currently available on campus, this element is essential as such must be included in the plan to ensure this community is livable and meeting the needs of its residents. Additional opportunities for youth. This is particularly important if the • school is for students from K-12. This could involve a designated recreational space for youth, such as a skateboard park or through programming within the community centre. The inclusion of youth space will help foster interaction between members of the community that Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use60 61plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009span the demographic spectrum. Opportunities for intergenerational interaction are also encouraged through specific social programming and volunteer based opportunities.Recreation and program-based opportunities for children and families. • Making this community amenable to children and their families needs to be a priority in this plan. Public amenities such as unstructured play opportunities as well as program-based learning opportunities are critical to ensure this community is family and child friendly. Inclusivity ConsiderationsSouth Campus should strive to be an inclusive community that acknowledges and accommodates the diversity of its residents and users. The SCNP indicates that “[c]ommunity facilities in South Campus will provide access for elderly people and people with movement or sensory difficulties, while improving awareness of access issues.” (UBC, 2005:45). Although this statement outlines the wishes of the South Campus, it is vague and does not provide concrete examples of how the elderly or those with movement or sensory difficulties will be accommodated. Furthermore, this statement only indicates the considerations that will be made for community facilities but not in terms of housing. The plan has stipulated that seniors’ housing will be available, but has not mentioned how accessible this housing will be for those with disabilities. Will ramps be included in the ground floors of buildings for wheelchair accessibility? Will pets be allowed in buildings for those who are visually impaired and need assistance? What kind of seniors’ housing will be provided – apartments for seniors, an assisted living facility or a nursing home?Diversity is also manifested in the UBC campus through the variety of cultural groups that comprise its population. South Campus will likely be comprised of the same multicultural mix. As Figure 5-2 shows, the UBC campus population is largely made up of visible minorities (56 percent) and the campus plan in its current state makes no specific mention of how this aspect will be integrated into the community. The 2006 Census also shows that 6,615 out of 10,720 people on UBC campus have languages other than English or French as their mother tongue (2006 Census, 2008). How will this influence the dissemination of information within the South Campus community? Will information concerning the community such as community meetings and events be promoted in other languages as well? Will this affect the signage on South Campus? The “Immigrant Status and Period of Immigration” chart in the 2006 Census shows that 5,080 out of 10,720 – just under 50% of the population – are immigrants. How will this affect the how the community is shaped? What factors will the university use to ensure that immigrants also feel a sense of inclusiveness in South Campus?The South Campus land also has traditional Musqueam roots. Will this history be acknowledged and preserved in the community plan? Recommendations Include housing and facility features that will appeal to and meet • the needs of people with physical challenges. For instance, building accessibility can be increased through the addition of ramps and the use of Braille (on mail boxes, for instance).figure 5-2. Visible Minorities at UBC Source: 2006 Census, 2008Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use62 63plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Include housing which meets the needs of people across the • demographic spectrum, including seniors and children. Seniors should have the option live independently as well as in an assisted living facility.Include multi-cultural and diverse programming in the community centre • (e.g. ESL and language-sharing sessions), as well as in community events (cultural celebrations).Incorporate symbols of different cultures into the urban design. E.g. add • cultural symbols to the design of playgrounds, buildings or public art.Ongoing community consultations at regular intervals to ensure public • participation shapes the development of South Campus.Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Usefigure 6-2 Climate change cartoon. Source: (n.d.)6.0 Transportation6.1 BackgroundGoal StatementTo create a more livable community that relies on public transportation, bicycling and walking instead of automobile usage, while also minimizing the environmental impacts and maximizing the social benefits of the transportation system.Systems CharacteristicsTransportation provides an essential underpinning to campus/community development and economic health; yet many cities have invested heavily in car-based physical transportation infrastructures. Hence, they are now experiencing many negative environmental, social, and economic impacts such as high levels of congestion, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and pollutants, automobile-related accidents, urban sprawl, and an increasing demand for energy (see Figures 6-1 and 6-2).figure 6-1. The web of connectedness of some of transport’s impacts. Source: Gilbert and Perl (2008).Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use64 65plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Given these negative impacts, UBC/UEL (University Endowment Lands) strives to encourage alternatives to driving through transportation infrastructure and programmatic strategies. These strategies are outlined through various plans and policies that inform how the transportation system is planned and implemented throughout the campus, including the South Campus  (see Figure 6-3).There are only five roads, all of which are major arterials, leading from Vancouver into the UEL due to the physical buffer between Pacific Spirit Park and the adjacent neighbourhoods in Vancouver, namely: North West Marine Drive, 4th Avenue/Chancellor Boulevard, 10th Avenue/University Boulevard, 16th Avenue, and South West Marine Drive. There are also a number of on-street bike routes nearby – meaning that a bike lane is provided – including 16th Avenue, Westbrook Mall, and Marine Drive (see Figure 6-4). In terms of the public transit system, UBC/UEL is served by 17 bus routes, including the #99 B-Line express and two community shuttles that connect UEL neighbourhoods with the regional transit network: #C20 - UBC/Totem Park and #C22 - UBC/Hampton Place.Many UEL residents already commute by alternative modes of transportation. As a result of the limited number of roads leading into the UEL, the high number of on-street bike routes and public transit lines, and the other programmatic strategies that have been implemented on campus (in particular, U-Pass), the percentage of persons driving to work from in relatively low for Metro Vancouver. According to the 2006 Census, slightly less than half of commuting trips were made by car (48 percent), while many residents opted to walk (26 percent), bike (11 percent), or take transit (11 percent). The median journey to work (commuting distance) for residents of Electoral Area A (UBC) was only 6.3 km, compared to 7.4 km across Metro Vancouver – likely because of many job opportunities on campus.That being said, however, there are still many ways that the current transportation system at UBC could be improved to further promote alternative forms of transport. Some of the most effective best practices that have been applied elsewhere are discussed in the following section.Best PracticesTo encourage more active modes of transportation such as walking and cycling and to promote the use of public transit, there are a number of transportation demand management (TDM) strategies that have been implemented by cities and transit authorities across the world. TDM strategies aim to use transportation resources more efficiently (Litman, 2009). Only strategies that are applicable to the South Campus Neighbourhood are discussed in this section. figure 6-4. Cycling routes in and around the UBC campus.Source: TransLink. (2008). figure 6-3  Relationship between Plans Affecting Transportation in South CampusFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use66 67plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009In the Recommendations section, these TDM strategies are ranked according to their ease of implementation and effectiveness. Based on this analysis, more specific, feasible strategies that could be incorporated into South Campus are then outlined.To evaluate the impacts different strategies have on automobile use, transit ridership, and other alternative transportation modes, we can use the measurement of elasticity, which is the percentage change in consumption of a good caused by a one percent change in its price or other characteristics such as traffic speed or road capacity. For example, an elasticity of -0.4 for vehicle use with respect to parking fees means that each one percent increase in a parking fee results in a 0.4 percent reduction in vehicle mileage or trips. Similarly, transit service elasticity is the change in transit ridership resulting from each one percent change in transit service, such as vehicle-km or frequency. A negative sign symbolizes a negative relationship between the cause and effect (e.g., an increase in fuel price causes a reduction in vehicle travel).Parking Fees and AvailabilityOf the TDM strategies, vehicle travel and transit ridership are particularly sensitive to parking fees. In comparison to other vehicle operating expenses, parking prices are found to have a greater effect on travel activity, usually by a factor of 1.5 to 2.0, as the cost is paid on a per-trip basis (USEPA, 1998). For example, a $1.00 per trip parking charge is likely to cause the same reduction in vehicle travel as a fuel price increase averaging $1.50 to $2.00 per trip. It is worth noting that if parking fees are not implemented consistently throughout an area users may simply use other parking locations where the costs are lower. Therefore, it is important that parking fees are applied uniformly within an area and enforced consistently.Also related to parking fees is the issue of parking availability. Reducing the number of parking spaces for residential buildings, as well as on the streets and in parking lots for general users is another effective strategy to discourage car usage, and could be combined with high parking fees to encourage other modes of transportation. Transit Fare ReductionsTransit fare reductions through incentives such as employer or community passes can produce different effects depending on the demographics of the target group and the relative costs of other transportation options. Lee, Lee, and Park (2003) have surveyed motorists to find out what would make them switch to public transit, and the findings suggest that car users have low fare elasticities. In other words, reducing fares alone is unlikely to persuade many people to make the shift from vehicles to public transit. It appears that car users are more sensitive to parking fees, travel time, and crowding, indicating that improved transit service would attract more choice riders (those who have access to an automobile but choose to use public transit).With that being said, however, Litman (2008b) does state that there are TDM strategies involving transit fare reductions that have been effective at increasing ridership. One example is commuter transit benefit programs, where employers encourage and sometimes subsidize transit passes. Deep discount transit passes can also encourage irregular riders to use transit more frequently (Oram and Stark, 1996) or avoid losses in ridership if established when there are fare hikes. Many campus transportation management programs that include free or discounted transit fares have also been successful in increasing transit ridership. A perfect example is the UBC U-Pass program, which offers a cheaper and more convenient fare payment system. Another example is the successful ComPASS (Community Pass) program at SFU. ComPASS was introduced for SFU’s UniverCity Program in February 2006 based on a price of $28/resident/month, and is supported in part by the SFU Community Trust, who guaranteed program funding for 2 years (the UBC TREK Program Centre has also been advocating for such a similar ongoing program for a number of years).It should be noted, however, that not all transit ridership increases represent automobile travel reductions. Some are shifts from walking, cycling and ridesharing or increases in total personal travel.Transit ServiceAs mentioned above, improving transit service tends to draw more choice riders. There are, however, many factors that can impact service elasticities, including demographic factors (e.g., the proportion of the population that is lower-income), geographic factors (e.g., population density, employment density Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use68 69plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009and pedestrian accessibility), service quality (e.g., speed, comfort and schedule information) and fare price (Ibid). These other factors should also be taken into account when looking at service elasticity.Evans (2004) states that the elasticity of service expansion (routes into new areas of a community) typically ranges between 0.6 and 1.0, meaning that a one percent increase in service (measured in vehicle-km or vehicle-hours of service) leads to a 0.6 to one percent increase in ridership, albeit lower and higher response rates (from less than 0.3 to more than 1.0) have also been found. Meanwhile, the elasticity of transit use with respect to transit service frequency (also known as the headway elasticity) averages 0.5. In addition, Evans (2004) has found that higher service elasticities are often associated with new express transit service and university towns with rail transit stations (for bus or light rail lines to feed). Together, service frequency and the penetration of a service network can affect the perceived value of travel time, which is the cost of time spent on transport, including waiting as well as actual travel (Litman, 2008e). Although strategies that improve transit travel speeds (e.g., bus-only lanes, transit-priority signals, express lanes, etc.) can attract more riders by reducing the cost of travel time, a 20% improvement in service quality can have the same effect as increasing travel speeds by 20% (Ibid). To examine this further, Table 6-1 provides a list of service quality factors that can affect transit travel time costs. The second column describes how these factors impact perceived travel time and the third column explains how transit travel compares to private automobile travel with regards to these factors.Thus, in addition to increasing the speed of transit travel, Litman (2008e) recommends implementing the following strategies to reduce perceived transit travel time costs: Increase comfort, such as adequate space, comfortable temperature, • cleanliness, quiet, and smooth vehicle movement; Improve walking and waiting conditions;• Reduce waiting time;• Improve transit reliability;• Improve user information (schedule information, transit vehicle arrival • time, route guidance, easy to understand announcements, etc.);Provide real-time information to passengers of problems, delays, and • expected arrival times; andIncrease perceived safety and security.• Pedestrian and Cycling Facility ImprovementsAlthough specific elasticity values are not available for pedestrian and cycling facility improvements, such strategies can also shift automobile trips to walking and/or cycling trips, and can help support public transit and ridesharing. According to Litman (2008f), the walkability, or overall walking conditions of an area, can be improved through strategies such as: Improving conditions of sidewalks, crosswalks, and paths such as • reallocating road space to increase the width of sidewalks along public Table 6-1. Factors affecting transit travel time costsFactor Description Transit Evaluation Implications Waiting Waiting time is usually valued higher than in-vehicle travel time. Transit travel usually requires more waiting, often along busy roads, with little protection. Walking links Time spent walking to vehicles is usually valued higher than in-vehicle travel time. Transit travel usually requires more walking for access.  Transfers Transfers spent walking to vehicles is usually valued higher than in-vehicle travel time. Transit travel often requires transfers.   Trip duration Unit costs tend to increase for trips that exceed about 40 minutes. Transit travel tends to require more time than automobile travel for a given distance. Unreliability (travel time variance) Uncomfortable conditions (crowded, dirty, insecure, cold, etc.) increase costs. Transit travel is often less comfortable than private vehicle travel. Sense of control A person’s inability to control their environment tends to increase costs. Transit travel is often perceived as providing little user control. Cognitive effort (need to pay attention) More cognitive effort increases travel time costs. Varies. Driving generally requires more effort, particularly in congestion. Variability Transit travel conditions are extremely variable, depending on the quality of walking, waiting, and vehicle conditions. Transit benefit analysis is very sensitive to cognitive factors that currently tend to be overlooked and undervalued. Captive versus discretionary travelers. Some transit users are captive and so relatively insensitive to convenience and comfort, but discretionary travelers tend to be very sensitive to these factors. Achieving automobile to transit mode shifts requires more comprehensive analysis of transit service quality factors and their impacts on transit demand.   Source: Litman (2008e)Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use70 71plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009rights-of-way;Improving non-motorized facility management and maintenance, • including reducing conflicts between users and maintaining cleanliness;Incorporating universal design (also known as accessible design) to • accommodate people with special needs such as those who require wheelchairs, walkers, strollers and hand carts;Providing pedestrian countdown signals, which indicate how many • seconds are left in the walk phase (Markowitz et al., 2006);Improving pedestrian accessibility by creating location-efficient, • clustered, mixed land use patterns, with good road and path connectivity, safe, barrier-free, navigable, and short routes, and easy access to transit and pedestrian-oriented buildings (e.g., locating pedestrian-oriented uses at ground level);Concentrating more activities within walkable commercial centres;• Providing street furniture and pedestrian facilities (e.g., benches, • pedestrian-oriented street light, public washrooms, etc.);Designing the built environment at the human scale, with shorter blocks, • narrower streets, and pedestrian-oriented buildings;Implementing measures to calm traffic, reduce speed, improve • streetscape, and restrict vehicle access (some of these measures are already mentioned in Section 3.3 of the South Campus Northeast Sub-Area Neighbourhood Plan);Implementing active transportation encouragement programs;• Addressing pedestrian security and safety concerns through measures • such as video surveillance at transit stations; andIdentifying walkability problems associated with wide roads and • increased motor vehicle traffic volumes and speeds.Improvements to cycling facilities and integrating bike use with transit use can also be incorporated, and some of these improvements have already been covered above. Additional strategies recommended by Litman (2008b) to improve the cycling environment that are applicable to the South Campus Neighbourhood include the following:Implementing cycling lanes and trails;• Encouraging employers to provide change facilities at worksites;• Establishing bicycle storage facilities, especially at transit stops – this • may be a mix of free bike racks and paid bike lockers;Providing paths, bike lanes and road improvements to make it easier to • ride to transit stations and terminals; Ensuring bikes can be carried by transit vehicles (currently, all of • TransLink’s diesel buses, including community shuttles, are able to carry bicycles and this could be continued in the future); andImplementing a public bike system where bicycles can be rented and • returned at various locations throughout an area. Currently, the UBC Bike Co-op offers this service. Expansion of this program could be explored. Transit-Oriented DevelopmentMany of the strategies outlined above promote a mode shift to public transit and other modes of transportation. However, there are other transit-oriented development (TOD) measures that maximize access by transit and non-motorized transportation. Residential and/or employment density, for example, is one measure. Typically, a combined activity intensity of 35 residents and/or jobs per hectare is required to dramatically increase transit use, and about twice that amount for higher quality transit, such as rail service (Newman and Kenworthy, 2006; Litman, 2008d). If it is a residential neighbourhood, it would translate to approximately 17 dwelling units per hectare (assuming 2 to 2.5 people per dwelling). At these densities, the number and breadth of amenities accessible by foot, bicycle and public transit dramatically increase. People no longer need an automobile to access the daily services they require.Ideally, these suggested density thresholds would apply to a 10-minute (or roughly 1 km) walking radius around a transit station (known as a ped shed) to create a transit centre. This would help ensure there is sufficient intensity of activity around the area. Ten minutes is the chosen time limit as it is the accepted time people will usually take to get to a public transport stop or to a Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use72 73plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009figure 6-5. Ped Shed for Transit Centreslocal amenity. With a walking radius of 1km, the total area for transit-oriented development would then be 300 hectares (Figure 6-5).It should be noted, however, that more than half of local transit riders only walk approximately 450 metres or about 6 minutes. Thus, the ped shed for most people could be significantly less than 1 km, especially among seniors and persons with mobility impairments. At the same time, there are also riders who would be willing to walk more than 1 km to transit service and other people who are unwilling to take transit regardless of how close they live to a transit station.Summary of Best PracticesWhen examining all of these strategies, Litman (2008c) suggests that the following things should be kept in mind:Discretionary and suburban ridership are often more responsive to • transit prices than captive and urban riders;Similarly, transit service elasticities are lower for captive riders than for • discretionary riders;Elasticities are approximately twice as high for off-peak travel as for • peak-period travel;Large fare reductions are needed to attract motorists to public transit, • although improved transit services or increased vehicle operating costs (e.g., road or parking pricing) are likely to increase the impacts of fare reductions; andPackaging incentives to include fare reduction or discounted passes, • increased service, and improved marketing can be especially effective at increasing ridership.Beyond Best PracticesThe following suggestions are considered as being beyond best practices as they are not currently commonly used elsewhere. However, they are emerging practices that might be applicable to the South Campus Neighbourhood.Moving walkways, like escalators, can make connections between short distances or transfers between modes more efficient. Passengers can choose to stand or walk.While particularly common in airports, moving walkways are also useful in subways stations to facilitate easier transfers. Introduced in 2002 as an experimental prototype, the 800 metre-long moving sidewalk at the Montparnasse-Bienvenüe station in Paris, France is capable of moving roughly 10,000 passengers per hour. In the context of South Campus, a moving sidewalk could be used in the commercial area along Wesbrook Mall to help facilitate pedestrian movement to and from transit connections at 16th Avenue. It would assist persons with mobility impairments, including seniors who might have problems walking.A completely car-free neighbourhood is another concept worth consideration, especially since much of campus is already off-bounds to motor vehicle traffic (excluding emergency and service vehicles). Small- to medium-sided car-free neighbourhoods are growing in number and popularity across Europe (a listing of existing car-free neighborhoods can be found on Wikipedia); however, tradeoffs include convenience, limited accessibility, and peripheral parking requirements. Alternatively, streets could be closed off on certain days of the week or month, in celebration of non-motorized transportation.The provision of a free transit pass would also provide more incentive to choose transit over driving. One of the main advantages of such a pass is that people would be less likely to own a car, which in turn, would reduce parking requirements. It is worth noting that UBC offered a 2-month free transit pass to a number of residents in 2003 as part of a study that was supported by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (UBC, 2003b).Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use74 75plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 20096.2 AnalysisA number of objectives of the SCNP are related to transportation and circulation, and these can be summarized into the following key goals:Place strong emphasis on pedestrian and bicycle travel by including • bicycle and pedestrian-only routes, good access to transit, and a reduced need for commuting; Provide direct connections to pedestrian and cycling facilities elsewhere • on campus, including connections to Sherry Sakamoto Trail, Council Trail, and Long Trail in Pacific Spirit Regional Park in consultation with GVRD Parks;Create a mixed-use neighbourhood;• Restrict vehicle speed and enhance the pedestrian realm;• Accommodate full-size transit buses along arterial roads and along the • extension of Wesbrook Mall south of 16th Avenue, and mini-buses on other roads within the neighbourhood so that homes are within a typical 5-minute walk of a transit stop and services.Support UBC transportation programs, including a community • transportation pass, car sharing, community bicycles and campus shuttle services.To achieve these goals, the SCNP strives to emphasize alternative transportation modes while reducing the environmental impact of auto-oriented transportation. For example, as illustrated in Figure 6-6, roadways along site perimeters are limited. It is also worth noting that, “A key feature of the South Campus neighbourhood identified in the Campus Community Plan (CCP) is that there will not be through access for general traffic travelling between 16th Avenue and SW Marine Drive via Wesbrook Mall” (2005, p. 18).All roadways are designed to be shared with bicycles. In terms of end-of-trip facilities, bike parking guidelines are set out in Section 7.6 of the UBC Development Handbook (2008a, p. 7-4): Class I [secure, long-term bike parking]: 1.5 bicycle parking spaces per • dwelling but not required if individual parking garages are provided; andClass II [visitor bike racks]: One 16-stall bike rack per 35 units in a • convenient location convenience retail stores, personal service shops, restaurants, specialty food services; orClass II: 2 per 100 square metres of gross floor area, but in no case • less than 4 bicycle parking spaces per establishment (at a convenient location). Thus, requirements will vary by building. With regards to the pedestrian network, walking will be encouraged by the provision of sidewalks along roads as well as by system of “green streets” and greenways. An east-west greenway is planned for the South Campus Northeast Sub-Area, as well as an extension of the Main Mall greenway on the western edge of the neighbourhood, which will connect with Pacific Spirit Park.figure 6-6. Roadway context Source: UBC (2005).Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use76 77plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Additionally, Westbrook Mall is identified as a regional transit route by the Campus Transit Plan (2003a) with the intent that “local regional services (currently Routes 41 and 49) would be routed through South Campus rather than along SW Marine Drive to provide regional transit connections directly to the South Campus neighbourhood” (p. 19). While improvements to the transit network are within the jurisdiction of TransLink, both the Campus Transit Plan and the SCNP call for more community shuttles throughout the South Campus neighbourhood – for example, along Wesbrook Mall and East Mall as well as local streets (SCNP, 2005, P-6).figure 6-7. Village centre cross-section. Source: UBC (2005).Although these measures will certainly create a more pedestrian- and cycling-friendly environment compared to other communities in Metro Vancouver, there are still a number of improvements that could be made if UBC is to truly favour walking, cycling, and public transit over driving. For example, even though the plan calls for designated bicycle routes along Wesbrook Mall and East Mall (which would connect to existing bicycle routes), there will not be separate bicycle lanes; the space is instead being allocated to on-street parking. Also, although the wider travel lanes on Wesbrook Mall will allow private vehicles and buses to more easily overtake cyclists, the lack of separation between vehicles and bicycles will still pose significant danger to cyclists and the overall movement of vehicles and bicycles will be less efficient (see Figure 6-7). Furthermore, although transit service will be available in the neighbourhood, the plan neglects to consider transit fare reduction programs such as the SFU ComPass to encourage more transit ridership. Nor does it question whether or not the residential and/or employment densities in the area will be sufficient to dramatically increase ridership. In addition, the plan does not address issues of transit service quality. The assumption seems to be that the transit system will be able to function effectively without additional improvements such as increased frequency or higher quality and secure waiting areas for passengers. Although the SCNP specifies that most or all of the residential units will be within a typical 5-minute walk from a transit station, it does not indicate how frequent these stations will be served. It is likely that the community shuttles would not run as frequently as the regional transit system. In that case, would residents be discouraged to use the transit system and instead opt to drive?In addition, it is noted that the SCNP sets out maximum parking ratios for all residential types. While setting maximum – as opposed to minimum – parking ratios is a good first step towards reducing parking availability, a further step would be to separate the cost of the residential units from the cost of residential parking stalls. This would help reduce the cost of the dwelling units, as a parking stall adds approximately $30,000 to the construction cost of a dwelling unit (Vance, personal communication, 2008). It will also enable residents to see the true costs of providing parking and discourage vehicle ownership.While beyond the scope of this particular study, the efficient movement of goods is equally critical to the economic health of UEL/UBC. As noted in the 2007 Transportation Status Report, “The City of Vancouver — through which all trucks must travel to reach UBC — manages heavy truck traffic through a number of bylaws and regulations” (UBC, 2008c, p. 25). The SCNP focuses exclusively on the movement of people, except to say that commercial buildings may require truck loading zones. Given the fact that trucks are associated with campus development, and are required to delive groceries and other necessary goods to stores, the movement of these vehicles needs to be addressed in a more detailed manner within the SCNP.Lastly, accessible design – which refers to inclusive facility design that accommodates everyone including those with mobility, cognitive impairments, or other special needs (Litman, 2008a) – is not addressed by the SCNP. However, all new developments are subject to the guidelines laid out within the Development Handbook, which specifies that “the circulation system should provide barrier free accessibility for wheelchairs and other mobility devices,” and that, “paving patterns... and open spaces should incorporate tactile surfacing to aid accessibility” (2008a, p. SC5-2). Consulting with local disability groups Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use78 79plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009would help to ensure that SCNP is fully accessible, not only for persons in wheelchairs, but also for persons with other types of impairments.6.3 RecommendationsTo prioritize the strategies for the South Campus Neighbourhood, the overall ease of implementation and effectiveness of the strategies described in the Background section are rated in Table 6-2. As can be seen, many of the strategies have been grouped into categories. A scale of 1 to 5 is used (1 = difficult to implement or ineffective, and 5 = easy to implement or highly effective). The fourth column is the sum of the two ratings. The strategies with the higher total scores have higher priority for implementation.As illustrated in Table 6-2, the easiest and most effective general strategies to implement are:Increase parking fees and reduce parking availability, improve pedestri-1. an and cycling facilities, and ensure residential and employment densi-ties are supportive of the transit service;Implement other transit service improvements; and 2. Strategy Ease of Implementation Effectiveness Total Rating Reduce parking availability and increase parking fees. 5 4 9 Improve pedestrian facilities 4 5 9 Improve cycling facilities 4 5 9 Ensure residential and employment densities are supportive of the transit service (minimum density should be 35 residents and/or jobs per hectare) 4 5 9 Implement other transit service improvements (e.g., improve walking and waiting conditions, and increase perceived safety and security) 4 4 8 Reduce transit fare (e.g., community pass) 4 3 7 Increase transit service frequency 3 4 7  Table 6-2. Ease of implementation and effectiveness of various TDM strategiesfigure 6-9.  Walking school bus in Apex, NC. Source: Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (2009).Increase service frequency and implement transit fare reductions (e.g., 3. community pass).Within some of these categories, there are also more specific strategies that may be easier to implement than others. Below is a list of such strategies that would be feasible to implement. ParkingPrivate vehicles should be stored and parked underground whenever • possible. On-street parking should give priority to shared co-operative vehicles.The cost of the residential dwellings should be separated from the cost • of the residential parking stalls. Parking should be prohibited along Wesbrook Mall, or only allowed one • side of the road, within the village commercial centre.On-street parking should be eliminated along East Mall on one side of • the road.Establish parking fees for the entire neighbourhood that are equivalent • to or higher than the fees found elsewhere on campus (excluding residential parking).Figure 6-8. Commercial village centreFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use80 81plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009 Pedestrian and Cycling FacilitiesSet a target density of 35 residents and/or jobs within the entire South • Campus Neighbourhood (as the entire area will be within a 1 km ped shed of the village commercial centre). The increased residential density will also help eliminate the need for the Future Housing Reserve on the current location of the UBC Farm.Establish a separate bicycle lane in both directions along the entire • length of Wesbrook Mall, including neighbourhoods beyond the South Campus Neighbourhood (see Figure 6-8). Provide wider sidewalks with pedestrian facilities along Wesbrook Mall, • especially within the village commercial centre, including benches, pedestrian-level lights, waste bins, trees for shading, canopy covers for protection against the elements, and secure bicycle storage facilities. Include active transportation encouragement programs in the school • and community centre. Instead of providing motorized school buses or requiring parents to bring their children to school (which may encourage the use of private automobiles), incorporate alternative forms of transportation such as a walking school bus, where a group of children walk to and from school with one or more adults (see Figure 6-9), and bicycle programs such as bicycle repair workshops and bicycle training sessions.Have a separate bicycle lane along East Mall in both directions.• Public TransitWork with TransLink to:Increase transit service frequency of the regional buses as well as the • shuttles; Increase comfort, such as adequate space, comfortable temperature, • cleanliness, quiet, and smooth vehicle movement; Improve transit reliability;• Improve walking and waiting conditions;• Improve user information (schedule information, transit vehicle arrival • time, route guidance, etc.);figure 6-10. 2006 actual and 2011 recommended mode split targetsFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseProvide real-time information to passengers of problems, delays, and • expected arrival times; Implement a community transit pass; and• Increase perceived safety and security.• OtherEnsure all facilities are universally accessible.• Further examine the impact of truck traffic and the movement of goods • on the South Campus Neighbourhood.Set higher mode split targets for alternative modes of transportation (see • Figure 6-10), and utilize the strategies outlined above to achieve these targets.82 83plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009figure 7-2. Solar Water  Heating (US Department of Energy, 2003)figure 7-3. Solar PV Panel (Solar4Power, 2009)7.0 Energy7.1 BackgroundGoal StatementThe goal for South Campus is to be a net positive producer of energy. In other words, the energy requirements of South Campus shall be satisfied by on-site production of renewable energy with excess energy sold for additional revenue.System CharacteristicsThere is a wide array of possible energy sources in BC. This section provides background information about several of these sources.HydroelectricityHydroelectricity is produced by harnessing the power of falling or flowing water. A dam is typically constructed to retain water, and its potential energy, in a reservoir. As water passes through the dam, this potential energy is converted into kinetic energy in the form of electricity (Canadian Centre for Energy, 2008). This method of energy production is clean in that it produces limited wastes and greenhouse gas emissions. However, the construction and maintenance of dam facilities has a considerable ecological footprint. Most of BC’s electricity is provided by BC Hydro, who operates 30 hydroelectric facilities (BC Hydro, 2009). The ecological footprint of electricity delivered to BC Hydro customers is 23 ha/GWh (Ministry of Environment, 2008).Natural GasNatural gas is a petroleum product found beneath the earth’s crust. Natural gas is commonly used for space and water heating which account for nearly three-quarters of residential energy use in BC (Terasen Gas, 2009). Terasen Gas is the primary natural gas provider in BC. The ecological footprint of natural gas delivered to Terasen Gas customers is 45 ha/GWh (Kwantlen, 2006). figure 7-1: Example of Passive Solar (Solar4Power, 2009)Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use84 85plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009SolarThere are three main categories of technology which use the sun’s energy:Passive solar – Where buildings are designed and oriented to • optimize reception of the sun’s rays, to heat air or water. Passive solar technologies and techniques use the sun’s energy without requiring active mechanical systems. For example, as shown in Figure 7-1, south-facing overhangs can be sized to shade windows in the summer and allow solar gain in the winter. This is a cost-effective and environmentally friendly way of space heating.Active solar thermal – Where solar energy is used to heat air or water via • solar panels. Solar water heaters and space heaters consist of a solar collector and a storage device. Figure 7-2 illustrates a typical solar water heating system which includes solar panels on the roof and a storage tank in the house. Active solar thermal heating is a green alternative to heating via natural gas. Solar electric (photovoltaic) – Where solar energy is converted into • electricity via solar photovoltaic (PV) cells. Photovoltaic (PV) cells, shown in Figure 7-3, collect energy from the sun and convert it into electricity. This clean source of energy produces no emissions; however, there is an ecological impact associated with manufacturing of PV cells. The life cycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with PV cells ranges from 25-32 g-CO2 eq/kWh with projections of 15 g-CO2 eq/kWh in the future. In comparison, a coal-fired power plant produces approximately 915 g-CO2 eq/kWh while wind power emits 11 g-CO2 eq/kWh on average. The energy payback of PV systems (the time required to produce as much solar energy as is used to manufacture, install and maintain the system) is now as low as 1.5 years (Alsema et al., 2006).WindWind turbines capture the kinetic energy of wind and transform it into mechanical energy. More traditional wind turbines (or windmills) use this mechanical energy directly for work such as pumping water or milling grain. Today, the mechanical energy produced by turbines is most often used to  power electric generators (American Wind Energy Association, 2001).There are two types of electric turbines: vertical (egg-beater) and the more common horizontal (propeller) turbines (American Wind Association, 2007). Wind turbines can also be classified by their size/rated output. The size of wind turbines can vary greatly depending on the desired scale of energy production. The smallest turbines can be about 8m high and output 0.25 kW. These are often used in single residential applications. On the other extreme, turbines used for wholesale electricity production can have 90m tall towers, with rotor blades almost as long, and output 5000 kW (or 5MW). Although there are a variety of sizes between these extremes, the turbines are usually categorized either as large or small with the cut-off usually at about 100 kW (American Wind Association, 2009). Vertical turbines are generally small whereas horizontal turbines can be both large and small. In general, larger turbines have a greater output and greater economy of scale. Large turbines also have longer life spans (around 25 years) while the smaller models tend to operate for only 10 to 15 years (Canadian Wind Association, 2005).figure 7-5. The exponential relationship between wind speed and wind power (Clarke, 2003).The amount of energy in wind is proportional to the cube of the wind speed. Thus variations in wind speed are very significant as doubling speed, for example, would result in an eight-fold increase in output. In general a minimum average annual wind speed of 3m/s is required for wind turbines to be viable electricity generators (Canadian Wind Association, 2005). Several factors, however, determine how much of this wind energy can be captured by turbines and turned into electricity. These factors include the variability and distribution of wind speed, rotor height, the diameter of the area swept by the rotor, and air density (Canadian Wind Association, 2005). As might be expected, more constant wind with less turbulence results in higher energy capture. The height of the rotor is also important because wind speeds increase with height off the ground and are also less turbulent (Canadian Wind Association, 2005). This is particularly important to note, because although figure 7-4. Horizontal and vertical turbines (American Wind Association, 2009).Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use86 87plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009taller towers may be more expensive the exponential relationship between wind speed and output could make it an economic trade-off. figure 7-6. Relationship between turbine height and wind power (Clarke, 2003).Wind turbines are also advantageous as they require little land space: just the area of the tower base. Small wind turbines can require less than a square meter on the ground. In large wholesale applications, the base may be as much as 8m in diameter (or approximately 50m2); however the area around the base is still usable. For example, crops can be planted right up to the edge of the base (Canadian Wind Association, 2006). Siting wind turbines is therefore more dependent on the surrounding land uses and regulations, particularly for the larger technologies, rather than on the physical space they require. For example some issues to consider include noise, aesthetics and affects on wildlife. Noise and aesthetic factors are also related to the type and size of turbines, wind patterns and terrain. The issue of noise has been greatly reduced in modern turbines. Today, small turbines usually run as quietly as a refrigerator at 52 to 55 dB (and no more than 6 decibels louder than other background noise), and large turbines will create a similar noise level at a 100m distance (Canadian Wind Association, 2005). As a rule of thumb, the American Wind Energy Association (2001) suggests that small turbines be placed at least 100m from the exterior of residential buildings. In the case of larger turbines and wind farms, they are usually located far from daily human activity, thus noise is less of an issue. While aesthetic issues are largely subjective it should be noted that CANWEA suggests that turbine blades be at least 10m higher than any structure within a 100m radius of the turbine. As such, if turbines are sited properly, they will be highly visible (Danish Wind Industry Association, 2003). Finally, while there has been anecdotal evidence suggesting that birds and bats are killed by colliding with turbines, studies have shown that this occurs at an insignificant rate accounting for less than 0.03percent of all bird deaths caused by humans (American Wind Association, 2009). In comparison, housecats and collisions in to buildings are a much greater threat to birds than wind turbines. Of course, turbines should be placed responsibly in consideration of its context. For example, they should not be located within migratory routes of bird populations.Wind turbines provide an attractive choice for sustainable electricity generation as they have very small carbon footprints. For large turbines, 98percent of the carbon emitted during their life cycle occurs during the manufacturing process which includes the production of steel for the tower, concrete for the foundations and epoxy/fibreglass for the rotor blades. These construction emissions however can be offset within six months of running the turbine. Emissions generated during operation of wind turbines arise from routine maintenance inspection trips (Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, 2006). Finally, much of the material from decommissioned turbines can be recycled, with one company claiming that their turbines are 80percent recyclable (Vestas, 2007).Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use88 89plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009figure 7-8. Different household geothermal systems.Figure 7-9. District Heating (Geothermal Education Office, 2000)At a larger scale, geothermal plants can generate energy for neighbourhoods or cities. Figure 7-9 illustrates district heating, where heat generated in one location is delivered to multiple buildings. BiomassBiomass energy refers to the chemical energy embedded in organic matter. The applications for biomass energy range from the most basic uses, such as burning wood for heat, to the creation of biofuels, to the capture of biogases from the decomposition of organic matter. Biomass energy is more sustainable than fossil fuels because it comes from a renewable source, it has the potential to offset greenhouse gas emissions through planting feedstock crops and capturing biogas, and because it can make use of waste products. However, the wide range of biomass energy Figure 7-7. The sound of small wind turbines compared to other noises (Clarke, 2003).GeothermalGeothermal energy is derived from heat occurring naturally beneath the earth’s surface. This energy is used most commonly for heating/cooling, but also for generating electricity. As shown in Figure 7-8, there are different geothermal configurations at the household level including open and closed loop systems (Darke REC, 2009). Closed loop systems circulate a solution such as antifreeze through pipes below ground. On colder days, the solution collects heat from the earth and delivers it to the building while, on hotter days, the solution pulls heat from the building and delivers it below ground. Open loops systems differ in that they use a natural water supply instead of an antifreeze solution (IGSHPA, 2009).  Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use90 91plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009systems provides varying levels of efficiency and sustainability. For example, planting, harvesting and combusting fast-growing crops for energy production requires significant energy inputs and is therefore less sustainable. In fact, the energy input into these processes is sometimes greater than that produced (StormFisher Biogas, 2008). Furthermore, fuel crops can compete with food crops bringing food-security issues into question (Canadian Centre for Energy Information, 2008). A more sustainable alternative would be to use waste products of another industry, such as woodchips from a sawmill, instead of producing biomass feedstock. However, there are often competing demands for such feedstocks. In this case, for example, the woodchips may be better used in a landscaping or pulp and paper application (Canadian Centre for Energy Information, 2008).One application that is particularly attractive from a sustainability perspective is the capture of biogas released from the anaerobic digestion of waste biomass. Anaerobic digestion is a process wherein bacteria decompose organic matter in an-oxygen free environment. The resulting gas produced by the bacteria is made up primarily of methane and carbon dioxide (Oregon, 2008). Typically about 60 to 70percent of the gas produced is methane which has an energy content of about 6 kWh/m3 (Electrigaz, 2006). The methane can then be burned either for heat production and/or to generate electricity. The conversion process for electricity generation is not particularly efficient as only about 2 kWh of useable electricity is produced per cubic meter of methane (Electrigaz, 2006). However, this process also produces usable heat as a by-product. Together the process becomes highly efficient.The amount of biogas produced from the digester is highly variable (from 20m3 to 800m3 per tonne of waste), as it is dependent on digester technology and on the quality of the waste product. High-fibre wastes, for example, are not recommended as they are more difficult to decompose (Electrigaz, 2006).Using waste biomass as a feedstock has many advantages from an environmental perspective. First, products such as organic municipal waste, biosolids from a wastewater treatment plant or animal waste from a farm would undergo anaerobic digestion naturally, releasing the gases into the atmosphere. However, in a controlled digester, these gases can be captured (Oregon, 2008). This is especially important in the case of methane which is 21 times more harmful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Thus even simply capturing and flaring off methane (whose products are carbon dioxide and water) is better in term of greenhouse gas emissions (EPCOR, n.d.b). Because capturing biogas for electricity and heat generation offsets emissions that would otherwise be released, this process is considered to be carbon-neutral. The only emissions created through this process are in the construction of the digester and generator infrastructure. Finally, the resulting digested biomass still has value and is considered to be a higher value product as a fertilizer and/or a compost feedstock. It also has less odour and pathogens are reduced by 97 percent (Hilborn, 2006).Building EfficiencyMaximizing the energy efficiency of buildings is a key component of an energy-neutral system. A number of measures can be undertaken to minimize the energy consumption of buildings. Some solutions are technological such as installing energy efficient appliances and high-rated insulation and windows. Other techniques involve ensuring that all openings like doors and windows are well sealed. Finally the orientation and the construction material of the building itself as well as the surrounding landscaping can be designed to maximize the benefits of passive solar heating and cooling as shown in Figure 7-13.The University of British Columbia has set minimum and optional guidelines for building energy efficiency through their Residential Environmental Assessment Program (REAP). The minimum requirements set by this document prescribe insulation ratings for roofs, exterior walls and floors, energy star rated windows and appliances, high efficiency boilers and furnaces, programmable thermostats for large rooms and non-incandescent lighting in common areas. Within the figure 7-14. A compact fluorescent lightbulb.figure 7-12. Common means of heat loss in homes (, n.d.).figure 7-10. Biogas process (Stormfisher Biogas, 2008). figure 7-11. Electric generators running on landfill biogas (EPCOR, n.d.a.).Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use92 93plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009optional guidelines these basic requirements are repeated but with higher efficiency ratings. However there is also an advanced category that includes options for wiring of future solar technology and for actually installing onsite renewable energy sources such as solar panels and geothermal heating (University of British Columbia, 2007). The energy savings from implementing the above measures can be very  substantial. For example LEED Silver certified homes are estimated to provide an energy savings of 30 percent. LEED Plantinum homes are expected to  provide even more savings, up to 60 percent, however, these savings are not strictly due to building efficiency as they include onsite energy production (US Green Building Council, 2007).7.2 AnalysisThe South Campus Northeast Sub-Area Neighbourhood Plan states that  “South Campus will have an energy system that meets the residents’ needs in a highly energy-efficient manner, and provides opportunity for research and innovation such as harvesting renewable energy sources within the neighbourhood and sharing energy between land uses.” The plan highlights possible renewable energy sources such as solar, geothermal, waste heat and hydrogen. While plans to use renewable energy sources should be applauded, the actual requirements are vague and there is limited evidence to suggest that such plans have been translated into substantial actions. The only evidence of using alternative energy is a 109-unit condominium development, Pathways. This development features a solar hot water preheat system (UBC Sustainability Office, 2009) and is also the first at UBC to achieve a gold standing under the REAP system (Adera, 2009). Besides these steps towards sustainability, it is our understanding that the energy needs of South campus are to be satisfied in a conventional manner with electricity being supplied by BC Hydro and heating provided by Terasen Gas. Energy ConsumptionThe first step in our analysis is to estimate the energy consumption requirements of South Campus, which includes 2481 residential units and 15,200 sq.m of commercial/institutional space. According to a study of energy consumption in BC (CIEEDAC, 2004), the average residential unit requires 95.86 GJ/unit/year while commercial/institutional space requires an average of 2.58 GJ/sq.m/year. This would translate into a combined energy requirement of 77 GWh/year for South Campus, assuming buildings are no more energy efficient than the BC average. However, as part of our recommendations on building efficiency (outlined below in section 3), we assume that the energy demands will only be 75percent of conventional BC buildings. This conservative estimate is based on LEED Silver homes which, as stated above, increase energy efficiency by about 30 percent (US Green Building Council, 2007).The total energy requirement can be further broken down into heating and electricity requirements, as shown in Table 7-1. The charts below show how heating and electricity consumption differ for commercial/institutional and residential uses in BC (Terasen Gas, 2009). Table 7-1. Energy Use by Land Use Type for South CampusHeating Electricity TotalResidential 37 13 50Commercial/Institutional 5 3 8Total 42 16 58Building TypeEnergy Use (GWh/year)figure 7-13. Home designed to capitalize on passive solar energy (Inhabitat, 2006).Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use94 95plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009150020002500Ecological Footprint (ha)Figure 7-16: Ecological Footprints By Energy Source for South Campus 05001000BC Hydro Solar PV Wind Terasen Gas Geothermal BiomassEcological Footprint (ha)Electricity GenerationHeating/CoolingEcological Footprint AnalysisThe next stage of our analysis highlights the ecological impacts of different energy sources by using a common metric: the ecological footprint. Ecological footprint analysis is an accounting tool which estimates the resource consumption and waste assimilation requirements of a defined human population or economy in terms of a productive land area (Rees & Wackernagel, 1996). Figure 7-16 shows the ecological footprints for different energy sources, assuming that each source would be supplying all of the energy needs for South Campus. For example, there would be a 485 hectare (ha) ecological footprint associated with BC Hydro supplying 100 percent of South Campus’ electricity. Similarly, there would be a 2485 ha ecological footprint associated with Terasen Gas satisfying 100 percent of South Campus’ heating demands. The ecological footprint analysis, therefore, shows that using conventional energy sources (hydroelectricity and natural gas) for South Campus will result in a combined ecological footprint of 2970 ha, which is over 120 times larger than the actual development area.In contrast, the ecological footprints of alternative energy sources are significantly lower. For example, using solar PV panels as the sole electricity supply for South Campus would result in an ecological footprint which is 30 percent that of BC Hydro’s footprint.The ecological footprints for BC Hydro and Terasen Gas are derived from the BC Ministry of Environment Consumption Calculator and Kwantlen ecological footprint study, respectively. The ecological footprints for solar PV, wind, geothermal and biomass energy are derived by converting the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of each energy source to an equivalent carbon sequestering forest area based on a land conversion rate of 3.66 ton-CO2 eq/ha/year (Redefining Progress, 2009). Please see Appendices for calculations.Maximizing On-Site Energy ProductionThe ecological footprint analysis has shown that alternative energy sources such as solar and geothermal have a smaller environmental impact when compared to conventional energy suppliers such as BC Hydro and Terasen Gas. This section attempts to illustrate the maximum amount of renewable energy which can be produced on-site, based on the available physical space in the South Campus development and at UBC Farm. The UBC Farm is currently 24 ha in size (Save Farm, 2009). Solar PVThe energy output of solar PV panels depends on the available sunshine as well as the panel rating, which ranges from 50W to 200W. Vancouver receives an average of approximately 5.5 hours of sunshine per day (Copperhill, 2009). Assuming we are using 200W, 0.6 sq.m solar panels, the solar energy output would be approximately 700 kWh/sq.m/year. The total roof area of South Campus at build-out will be approximately 64,850 sq.m. Assuming solar PV panels are installed on the total available roof area, we could produce 46 GWh/year of electricity, three times the anticipated demand. WindMost wind systems maximize energy output at wind speeds of about 12 m/s, but are able to start generating energy at 3 m/s. In Vancouver, the average annual wind speed near the ground is 3.2m/s (The Weather Network, 2009). At Electricity26%Energy Use for Average BC Residential HomeHeating/Cooling74%Heating/CoolingElectricity36%Energy Use for Average BC Commercial/Institutional Building64%figure 7-15. Average Energy Use Split in BC.Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use96 97plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009an elevation of 30m, however, this speed increases to 5.1m/s in the University area (Environment Canada, 2003) and should continue increasing by 12percent every time the elevation from the ground doubles (Canadian Wind Energy Association, 2005). Consequently, while wind turbines provide a viable means of electricity production for the south campus neighbourhood, it is unlikely that any turbine will be able to reach its maximum output due to the moderate wind speeds. As such, it is particularly important to choose turbines with high towers (to gain as much additional speed as possible) and with extra large rotor diameters. For example, a turbine such as the Vestas V82 might be selected: it has a tower height of 78m and a rotor diameter of 82m. Its rated output is 1.65MW (Vestas, n.d.); however only about 30percent of this potential would be achieved under the average wind conditions. One of the benefits of wind energy is their small land requirements. Despite their height, a large turbine would only require about 50m2. However, while turbines themselves take up very little land area, they must be separated by a significant distance in order to ensure that maximum wind energy can be captured. In wind farm operations, turbines are often installed in rows placed 500m apart, with 125m between turbines (Canadian Wind Energy Association, 2006). Based on this spacing, and if the entire neighbourhood area and farm were available for wind energy production, approximately 15 large turbines could be installed for a total land requirement of only 750m2. If the Vestas V82 turbine was used, 65.7GWh of electricity could be produced a year – over four times what is required for the community.GeothermalA geothermal heating plant requires between 0.3 and 8 acres of land per MW of energy output (US Department of Energy, 2009; DiPippo, 2007). Therefore, assuming a land requirement of 0.5 acres per MW, a 118-MW geothermal power plant could be built on the 24 ha UBC farm site. This plant would have a maximum energy output of 1040 GWh/year.There is evidence that geothermal facilities can coexist with agricultural practices. The Imperial Valley in California is home to 15 geothermal plants and continues to be one of the most productive agricultural areas in the world (Nevada Geothermal Power Inc., 2009). This means that the geothermal plant could potentially coexist with the UBC farm.BiomassThe energy output of an anaerobic digester/biogas system is highly variable, depending on the feedstock type and quantity. In the south campus neighbourhood there are many potential feedstocks: wastewater sludge, organic municipal waste including food waste, plant and animal waste from the UBC farm and organic waste from the university itself. However, assuming we only have access to organic waste produced on-site (i.e. wastewater sludge and food waste), approximately 0.3GWh of electricity could be produced per year in addition to 0.5GWh/year of heat. (Please see Appendices for calculations). The energy derived from this process would be more than enough to run and heat the wastewater treatment facility and the anaerobic digester, while still sending excess energy back into the grid.The size of the digester, while proportional to the amount of feedstock, is also dependent on the retention time required for the waste which can range from 17 to 50 days, depending on the quality of the waste (Gell, n.d.). However, the relatively low flow of wastewater feedstock (1200 tonnes per year or 3.2 tonnes per day) means that the digester will be quite small, likely requiring less than 20m2 of land space. In order to minimize transport of the feedstock, the digester should be located adjacent to the wastewater treatment facility. This also allows the facility to be easily powered and heated by the biogas system.SummaryTable 7-2 outlines the maximum amount of energy which can be produced on-site, based on the above assumptions and land use requirements. As shown, by using an array of alternative energy sources, we can produce nearly 2000percent of the energy requirements of South Campus by using an additional 0.042 ha of land onsite and 24 ha offsite (UBC farm). Much of the offsite land requirements can coexist with the farm’s agricultural needs. Since the solar PV panels would be located on rooftops, there would be no additional land requirement. Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use98 99plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Table 7-2. Maximum Onsite Energy Production PotentialWindBecause wind turbines will likely never reach their maximum potential output on the south campus site, we would not recommend that it be a primary source of energy production. However, we do still recommend some wind power generation, especially since wind power acts as an excellent back up for solar electricity since times of less sun tend to coincide with times of increased wind.We thus propose that at least two large turbines rated for low/moderate speeds (such as the Vestas V82) be installed in the south campus neighbourhood. This would provide 8.8GWh/year of energy, or roughly half the community’s electricity needs. Together these turbines would require about 100m2 of land space.There are several reasons why we recommend using large turbines instead of smaller models. From an energy production standpoint, hundreds of small turbines would be required to produce an equivalent amount of energy. For example, 275 - 5kW-rated turbines with comparable efficiency for wind speed would be required to produce as much energy as one Vestas V82 model (Iskra, n.d.). From an aesthetic standpoint, the few large turbines are cleaner and more iconic than many small ones. Furthermore, while large turbines are more visible they are often less visually distracting than small turbines which would turn at much faster speeds. Finally, we are not recommending placing any turbines on the UBC farm in case of any potential issues with wildlife that they may be interested in attracting to their site.GeothermalWe recommend that geothermal energy be the main source of heating for the South Campus development. To minimize the amount of UBC farmland required for a geothermal plant, it is recommended that the plant be sized to provide only 100percent of the development’s heating demand. This would translate into a 1 ha plant, thereby leaving 23 ha of UBC farmland untouched.BiomassWe recommend an anaerobic digester/biogas system which uses all of the community’s wastewater sewage sludge and approximately half of the community’s food waste. While using all the food waste would generate additional energy, we believe it is important for residents to have the opportunity to compost their own wastes in their yards/community gardens. A system based on these two waste streams would produce 0.2 GWh/year of electricity and Maximum Energy ProductionOnsite Offsite Total  (GWh/year) As % of RequiredFor Electrical UseBC Hydro 0 0 0 0 0%Solar PV16.49 0 6.49 46 288%Wind 0.04 0.04 0.08 66 414%Subtotals 6.52 0.04 6.56 111 702%For Heating/Cooling UsesTerasen Gas 0 0 0 0 0%Geothermal 0 24.00 24.00 1039 2480%Biomass 0.002 0 0.002 0.50 1.2%Subtotals 0.002 24.00 24.00 1039 2481%Totals 6.52 24.04 30.56 1150 1992%Energy OutputEnergy SourceSpace Used (Ha)Notes:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           1. Solar PV panels will be located on building rooftops; therefore, the amount of additional land required is zero.7.3 RecommendationsThe ecological footprint analysis has shown that alternative energy sources such as solar, wind, biomass and geothermal are less environmentally impactful than conventional energy sources. It has also been shown that the South Campus development has the physical space to easily accommodate on-site energy production which satisfies the community’s needs many times over. We therefore recommend an energy production plan which uses solar, wind, geothermal and biogas systems as detailed below. Furthermore, we recommend that UBC mandate a minimum gold standard for energy efficiency under their REAP system in order to reduce the energy requirements of South Campus. Recommended Onsite Energy ProductionSolarRooftops can serve many purposes beyond simply being a platform for solar PV panels. For example, rooftops can be used for rainwater collection or to grow plants (i.e. green roofs). We, therefore, recommend that a portion of the available roof area be reserved for these other potential uses. We propose that solar power be the main source of electricity for the South Campus development. We recommend that a minimum of 100percent of the development’s required electricity be supplied by solar PV cells. This would translate into 2.25 ha, or 35percent, of the available roof area being used for solar panels. Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use100 101plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 20090.3GWh/year of heat.We also recommend that this system be discussed with stakeholders at the UBC farm and the main campus to explore other potential waste feedstocks. While much of this waste may already be composted, it may be helpful to highlight the improved quality of the digested waste as a compost feedstock. Moreover, it is important to note that by extracting the biogas, the process becomes a net energy producer, unlike composting alone which requires energy (Mata-Alvarez, Mace, Llabres, 2000). SummaryTable 7-3 outlines our recommended on-site energy supply plan, based on the above assumptions and land use requirements. As shown, by using an array of alternative energy sources, our plan results in producing 116percent of the energy requirements of South Campus by using an additional 0.01 ha of land onsite and 1 ha offsite (UBC farm). Our energy supply plan is a recommended minimum. It would finally be recommended that opportunities for increased on-site energy production be reconciled with competing demands for physical space.Table 7-3. Recommended Energy Supply PlanRecommendationOnsite Offsite Total  (GWh/year) As % of RequiredFor Electrical UseBC Hydro 0 0 0 0 0%Solar PV12.25 0 2.25 16 100%Wind 0.01 0 0.01 9 55%Subtotals 2.26 0 2.26 25 155%For Heating/Cooling UsesTerasen Gas 0 0 0 0 0%Geothermal 0 0.97 0.97 42 100%Biomass 0.002 0 0.002 0.30 1%Subtotals 0.002 0.97 0.97 42 101%Totals 2.27 0.97 3.23 67 116%Notes:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           1. Solar PV panels will be located on building rooftops; therefore, the amount of additional land required is zero.Energy SourceSpace Used (Ha) Energy Outputfigure 7-17. Comparison between a conventional energy system and the  recommended system.16 GWh/year8.8 GWh/year8.8 GWh/year0.5 GWh/year 42 GWh/year21 GWh/year42 GWh/year+16 GWh/year9.3 GWh/year56 GWh/year56 GWh/year+21 GWh/yearOf_fsite Input - Required = 077 GWh/year - 77 GWh/year = 0Onsite Input - Required = Gain67.3 GWh/year - 58 GWh/year = 9.3 GWh/yearConventional Energy PlanRecommended Energy PlanFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use102 103plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Figure 7-17 illustrates how the recommended energy plan achieves the stated goal of being a net producer of onsite renewable energy. In a conventional energy system, communities pay for energy produced offsite, much of which is non-renewable. In our recommended scenario, energy requirements are lowered due to high building efficiency. Moreover, all of the community’s energy is produced from renewable sources onsite, with excess sold back to the grid.Linkages with Other SystemsProducing renewable energy onsite creates linkages with the other community systems, whether it be through complementary land use, maximizing resource potential, providing energy or distributing revenue. Figure 7-18 illustrates how a reliance on alternative energy sources can in fact be the foundation of an environmentally responsible and financially viable development. The revenue of producing excess energy can be used to support other important ventures such as educational programs, community programming, agricultural practices, alternative transportation systems and environmental preservation. The following section shows more specifically how our proposed energy system might interact with other systems in the South Campus neighbourhood.Social SystemsSince South Campus is located on UBC property, we envision that this development can be used as a demonstration project and educational site  to help cultivate interest and learning around sustainable practices.  Community programs can also help to make South Campus a desirable and healthy place to live. Transportation SystemsAlternative transportation schemes such as community bike programs and shuttle buses are important components of fostering sustainable communities. These vital initiatives often require subsidies which can be provided by revenue from excess energy production.Waste SystemsWaste organic matter plays a fundamental role in the proposed biogas system. These waste products will be the feedstock in our process to produce methane, which can ultimately be converted into heat and electricity.Food SystemsThe UBC farm is a vital campus resource. In exchange for using valuable UBC farmland for energy production (geothermal plant), we plan to financially support their work with some of the revenue created by electricity production. Furthermore, if the farm creates any waste biomass, it could be processed through the anaerobic digester and the biogas could be collected. Before sizing the digester it is necessary to determine what quantity of biomass they could provide, as digester sizing varies with feedstock quantities. Again, discussions with the UBC farm should also highlight the increased quality of the digested biomass as a compost feedstock.Environmental PreservationWhile our recommendation to produce renewable energy onsite provides multiple benefits, including developing a new revenue stream while reducing energy costs, the primary motivation is the protection of the environment. Our proposals result in significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions, and lower ecological footprints. Furthermore, visual cues such as wind turbines and solar panels can remind individuals of their connection to the earth and their reliance on the sun, the ultimate source of all energy.$$figure 7-18. System linkages.Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use104 105plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009figure 8-1: Composition of GVRD waste that is sent to landfill at Cache Creek.8.0 Waste & Water Management8.1 Background“Waste is too expensive; it’s cheaper to do the right thing”  Paul Hawken (Natural Capitalism)Waste management, both solid and liquid, is often presented as a cumbersome problem for communities due to the volume generated and the subsequent cost of management. Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), a mixture of organic and non-organic industrial & residential by-product deemed no longer useful, can be divided into 5 waste streams: municipal, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and hazardous (EPA, 2009) Water resource management, also an integral part of community development, includes supply of potable water and the management of wastewater and stormwater. Assuring a reliable source of potable water of an acceptable quality is one of the fundamental needs of a healthy community Collection, storage, transportation and safe disposal of waste are among some of the issues that must be negotiated when planning new communities. Increasingly as communities move towards sustainability, such challenges are being re-imagined within alternative solutions that frame waste not as a problem to overcome but as opportunity to embrace. Waste can be redefined as a resource and the inputs and outputs of our conventional linear model reworked as ‘cycleputs’ or components of a circular regenerative system. This report proposes that through similar examples of creative thinking, the complete integration of needs, effective interventions and development of responsive support mechanisms opportunities can be created. The following analysis of the South Campus Plan will expand on the objectives identified in the community consultation to provide “safe, effective and innovative infrastructure systems within economically reasonable cost parameters, including alternative energy and waste management systems” (South Campus Plan, 2005). By beginning to look at the source of our waste,  we feel that effective interventions can be designed which will greatly reduce the burden of transportation and storage of waste. Our recommendations will focus on the adoption of an integrated resource management system (IRMS) building on the principles of zero-waste and virtually eliminating the need for landfills or incineration, turning the linear extraction/production/disposal model into a circular lifecycle (RCBC, 2008).106 107plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009System CharacteristicsSolid (organic and non) In 2002, Canadian governments and businesses disposed of 31 million tones of MSW, an average of 2.7 kg of waste for each Canadian per day (Stats Can, 2004) At current practice, the population for South Campus will produce 12, 911.4 kg of waste per day, with additional waste from the school, retail outlets and other commercial facilities. Currently 40% of UBC’s waste is organic and compostable and 36% of the UBC waste stream is recyclable, but it is unclear how much is actually recovered (Ubyssey, 2009) In electronic waste (Computers, electronic instruments and mobile devices) alone, UBC currently produces over 70 tons annually (ibid).It is estimated that 60% can be recovered and resourced. Metro Vancouver, 2009The conventional method of waste management follows a linear  lifecycle that begins with the introduction of a raw material (eg. wood), that proceeds to be manufactured, then used or consumed until deemed no longer useful. At this point it can either be recycled or taken through one of three waste management options - composting, combustion/incineration, or landfilling. (Figure 8-2 – linear system) One of the grounding assumptions of a linear waste management system is that there at either end of the line (the source and the sink), there is an unlimited supply of either the raw material needed for production or the space to hold the discarded products. 80% of municipal and industrial solid waste in Canada is disposed of by landfilling processes, with the remainder disposed through recycling, resource recovery and incineration (Environment Canada, 2006). This model is recognized for its inefficient use of resources and many suggest that it cannot continue to be maintained easily. (MetroVan, 2009) At a regional level, the GVRD is reaching a waste management threshold as the Cache Creek landfill reaches capacity. In response, the regional government has adopted a zero-waste challenge.An alternative system builds on the re-allocation of resources and the smart design of products and systems that get maximum resource efficiency. (Figure 8-3) Circular resource management systems place ‘natural capital’ as an integral component of consumption and recognize the natural boundaries of ecological systems. In addition, these systems challenge consumers to reorient themselves within the cycle and become increasingly aware of their own behaviour and the implications of maintaining a disposable lifestyle. Zero-waste is a set of guiding figure 8-2: Linear Systemfigure 8-2: Cynical SystemFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use108 109plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009principles that many communities have been embraced in the interest of moving towards greater ‘eco-intelligence’, designing products that are efficient and naturally smart.Water Conventional water distribution and wastewater management systems are extremely energy and resource intensive activities. The average Vancouverite consumes about 358 litres of potable water on an average day (l/cap/day). (Environment Canada 2004) The majority of this leaves the system as wastewater through toilets and drains. Extensive infrastructure is required to store and deliver potable water for consumption, to remove and treat the resulting waste and to effectively dispose of the treated wastewater into our natural water systems. A conventional systems approach assumes that the built environment is separate from the natural freshwater cycle. We build infrastructure to deal with the runoff generated in urban areas due the increased impermeability of the built environment compared to natural conditions. Designing in this way requires incredible amounts of energy to build and maintain these systems and results in wasteful use of one of our most precious resources.Design for sustainable communities requires efficiency and integration of our water distribution, wastewater and stormwater management systems. Harvesting and treating rainwater for use as a source of potable water is one example of an integrated resource management system. This would reduce the demand on the municipal potable water supply, lower the risk of damage to the surrounding ecological systems and urban infrastructure and control the water quality of discharge off the site. Conventional wastewater management systems collect discharge from toilets and drains and convey this flow to a municipal wastewater treatment plant. This system does not make any distinction between black water (raw sewage) and grey water (non-black water component of sewage) as both quality levels are treated through the same process. Grey water, containing much fewer contaminants, requires a significantly lower level of treatment than black water and therefore a tremendous amount of energy and resources are wasted. The amount of water consumed by the average person in a conventionally designed system is broken down by category in Figure 8-4.With toilets and clothes washers accounting for 20% and 16% respectively of the total potable water usage, as shown in the figure, over one third of fresh water demand is used for activities that do not require a high level of water quality such as flushing toilets and doing laundry. This points to another major inefficiency in conventional water management systems: the missing distinction between required water quality for different uses. Toilets and clothes washers both account for the largest use of potable water and show the most potential for water savings. Based on a study conducted by the AWWA Research Foundation and the Seattle Public Utilities Department by introducing water efficient fixtures and appliances, total indoor usage can be reduced from 241 to 151 l/cap/day. (Mayer, 2001)Current best practices generally call for the use of water efficient technologies and incentives such as water metering to reduce demand. Stormwater and grey water recycling are used in remote areas or in cases of extreme shortage of supply, but are often not considered to be cost effective for larger developments where supply is relatively cheap and abundant. Current Waste Management System on CampusThe University Neighborhood Association (UNA) is currently negotiating the terms of a new waste management system. Discussion is between having a universal collection and sorting system versus setting regulatory standards that allow for the management and maintenance of individual stratas. Standards would be set according the current Metro Vancouver standards. Concern has been expressed over the cost of a de-centralized system. In addition the UNA is planning to hire a Sustainability Coordinator to provide ongoing educational and other support to residents. (UNA 2008)8.2 Analysis of Existing ProposalSolid WasteThe South Campus Plan proposes that, “South Campus will have a waste management system that manages neighbourhood wastes as resources, recycles as much as possible, pursues by-product synergies, and encourages composting for re-use in gardens and the landscape.” In addition, recycling figure 8-4: Breakdown of  Water Usage(Mayer, 2001)Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use110 111plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009and garbage holdings will be provided within the new residential buildings. The language of the proposal is encouraging; it recognizes the opportunity of waste to be resources for other sectors of the community and the potential to develop a circular system of waste management. In addition it provides the opportunity for individual stratas to actively engage in self-management of their individual systems with a focus on recycling.Reading further in the document, the language loses its rigor and adopts a more suggestive tone: “Composting facilities will be an option for households and businesses”, “Consideration will be given in design and construction” and “Businesses and institutions will be encouraged to have recycling and stewardships facilities” (emphasis added). The strong vision stated in the first portion of the plan is lost in the proposed action plans. The language of the proposed plan for South Campus falls short in the following areas:Insufficient in detail and strength to promote the changes needed for an • integrated solid waste management system Lack of strategies to implement management plan • Failure to identify supportive governance policies • Potential alliance are mentioned but not described• Key points for effective interventions not highlighted• Community engagement and participation is not mentioned• Water The approach to water management as detailed in the report titled A Sustainable Drainage Strategy for the South Campus Neighbourhood follows many of the current best practices in terms of reducing demand by use of water efficient fixtures and appliances, appropriate plant selection for landscaping, limited water recycling and unit water metering. The strategy also considers various approaches to stormwater drainage management aimed at minimizing impacts to the surrounding ecology. The existing South Campus Community Plan emphasizes the need for careful design of drainage infrastructure that will maintain base flow in downstream creeks, minimize erosion of the cliff at the western edge of the peninsula, and manage flows from a 200 year rainfall event to avoid potential damage to property from flooding. The intention of this report is not to discredit these recommendations, as these are all valuable considerations to make, but to suggest areas where the recommendations might be improved upon to further emphasize the need for integrated systems. The proposed strategy falls short in a number of areas including:Limited emphasis on grey water recycling;• Incomplete integration of stormwater, wastewater and potable water • systemsAbsence of any discussion of onsite treatment facilities;• Focus on the feasibility of stormwater retention rather than treatment for • re-use within system; andOverall reliance on wasteful, conventional water management strategies • and infrastructure.8.3 Best PracticesIntegrated Resource Management SystemsEffective development, implementation and management of an Integrated Resource Management System (IRMS) requires a multi-layered, multi-stakeholder approach that links, “communities, businesses and industries so that one’s waste becomes another’s feedstock.” (RCBC, 2008) IRMSs significantly reduce consumption by working with sophisticated design that uses “intelligence to ecologically harmonize our actions and products with the world around us.” (McDonough, 1999) Achieving a zero waste community requires designing products and industrial processes so that their components can be dismantled, repaired and/or recycled. (ibid) This means moving consumers away from the disposable lifestyle that permits 80% of what is purchased to be used only once. (Hawken, 1997) An alternative model would build on the well known example in the GVRD of the glass bottles used by Avalon Dairy to package milk. With the average life span of 40 - 50 uses, each bottle is able to greatly reduce the need for alternative cardboard or plastic packaging, presenting a solution at its source rather than finding methods of dealing with it at the end. (Avalon, 2009)Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use112 113plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Design The opportunities for maximizing eco-intelligent design are potentially limitless. The authors of Cradle to Cradle – Remaking the Way we Make Things, urge us to be bold in understanding the impact of our actions to the surrounding world. For example, as we walk, the surface of our shoes degrades bit by bit leaving behind small pieces of material to be absorbed or washed away into the soil or water system. An eco-intelligent model would ask - How can the soles of shoes be designed with material that is not only biodegradable but potentially beneficial to natural environments? (McDonough, 2002)Technological vs. Biological NutrientsBy building circular systems for different types of inputs that differentiate between technical and biological ‘nutrients’, “eco-effectiveness leads to human industry that is regenerative rather than depletive”. (McDonough, 1999) It is an opportunity for creative design. For example, “Products composed of materials that do not biodegrade should be designed as technical nutrients that continually circulate within closed-loop industrial cycles -- the technical metabolism.” The authors emphasize the importance of taking care to maintain separation and avoid contamination; the biological system must be protected against threats such as “mutagens, carcinogens, heavy metals, endocrine disrupters, persistent toxic substances, or bio-accumulative substances.” (ibid)The design of such a closed-loop circular system transcends the current practice of waste management at two critical junctures. First it stretches the conventional understanding of recycling to avoid ‘downcycling’ inputs into inferior grade products and instead preserve the embodied energy by resourcing the product or nutrient. Second it renegotiates the current relationship that exists between supplier and consumer, placing the responsibility of management on the manufacturer not the consumer. Customers purchasing a product would in fact be leasing products and purchasing the service, creating a relationship with the manufacturer to guarantee the life of the nutrient, not the product. Servicing Biological Nutrients In the following analysis we will detail three strategies that have been used across North America to minimize waste production by processing and utilizing organic “resources” close to their source:In-Vessel composting system: A closed system that can accept 5 1. tones of organic input / day and through temperature control and aeration, speed up the aerobic composting process. After an initial 14-day period in the processor and 3 month maturing process, B-grade quality compost that is safe for landscaping use is produced.  In-vessel composting is used in Squamish, UBC (currently running at capacity), New York, Colorado, and other regions across North America. (UBC Waste Management, 2009)Methane Biodigester: A methane biodigester can be used to process 2. biosolids through an anaerobic process that generates methane. This methane can be collected and used as a heating source to generate electricity. Please refer to the energy section for further details.Living Machine: The living machine system developed by Worrell Water 3. Technologies (2008) supports the decomposition of biosolids (sewage) through a similar, though more intense process, as the in-vessel composter. This system mimics a wetland environment that removes hazardous micro-organisms, filters sediments, and reduces  the macronutrient content that cause eutrophication in lakes and rivers.figure 8-5: Micro footprint AnalysisFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use114 115plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009figure 8-6: Macro footprint AnalysisIn-VesselMethane BiodigesterLiving MachineTable 8-1: Comparison of Waste Collection SystemsRegionally centred system Site centred system Unit centred systemSend all wastes to be processed in Vancouver at a city wide tertiary processing facilityProcess wastes at a centralized location in South campusProcess all wastes at the buildingPiping and transport to ship organic wastes to Sewage facility, waste processing.Some piping and transport necessary.  Composting toilets, personal compost bins. Building allocated community gardens.Low utilization of organic resources (most are sent to the ocean)High site centred resource allocation of organic outputs (compost for the farm and larger community)High site centred resource allocation of organic outputs (compost for personal gardens)High energy and land footprint Medium – low energy and land footprintLow energy and land footprintLow management Some on site management High personal management8.4 RecommendationsGoal StatementIn keeping with the zero waste objective, we seek to develop an integrated resource management system with the South Campus and Vancouver community that utilizes 100% of the solid and liquid “wastes” for appropriate use within the region.The OpportunitySouth Campus is a new community and therefore offers the unique circumstances from which policy structures & strata by-laws could be introduced that would establish normative guidelines necessary for transformative change. South Campus could be designed with the eco-intelligence needed to make it model sustainable community. There are not any primary production facilities so the ‘input’ into the system will not be raw material necessarily (except in the case of food) but manufactured and the consumer then becomes the extractor and distributor. Taking on a new role. The ‘raw’ materials would be all that is first introduced into the system. Consumer, To make an informed decision of appropriate systems to process organic wastes on site, we conducted a footprint analysis to understand the spatial dimensions of elements of the system.As can be seen, while the in-vessel composting system itself takes little room, the space required for storage, and transport of materials takes up a considerable amount of space. Thus, in the design of the south campus,  recommend measures that minimize travel distances and promote “small and slow” solutions that limit the need for large heavy machinery. There is, of course, a trade-off with this strategy, which is illustrated in the following table:Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use116 117plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009institutions and retail outlets take on a new responsibility in this system – they become the manufacturers and must carry the burden of responsibly for disposing or else pay a fee. The rule would be whatever is brought into system must be accounted for.SolidDesigning for life with Eco-Intelligence•  - Placing responsibility on the manufacturer to prioritize durability, reusability and recyclability. Building a circular lifecycle into the design of the product and integrating “extended producer responsibility”.Reduction at the Source • – Eliminate disposal packaging from all commercial centres including the grocery store, offices and retails outlets: plastic bags, paper/plastic food storage containers, paperless offices, vending machines, waste free lunches & cafeterias.Invest in the Service Industry•  – Increase in opportunities for service sector employment. According to Environment Canada recycling creates 10 times more jobs on a ton by ton basis. Building services around the system that preserve a level of convenience but without comprising natural resources – eg.“True Cost” Accounting•  – Bringing ‘natural capital’ into the economic equation, so that current externalities (environmental degradation & public health burdens) are calculated fairly. Implement at both an institutional and individual level. Each residence should receive an itemized account of the contents of their waste and the cost of the disposal, much like a phone bill.Create Economic Incentives•  - Cost recovery based on “Polluter Pays Principle” use taxes and subsidies as intervention tools to create pressure points that will support efficient resource use. Rather than using the tax base to build new landfills or incinerators, invest in integrated management systems that recover and recycle. Subsidize products and companies that prioritize lifecycle packaging. Invest in re-usable plates and cutlery for school cafeteria.Build the Systems - • Source separation of MSW – biological vs. technological nutrients Adequate collection scheme (one central recycling centre, individual recycling stations for each high rise strata and bins for low-rise buildings and commercial establishments).Policy & Governance - • Stricter regulatory guidelines, more precise terminology and staffing support to develop active programming, leadership that would stimulate and support behavioral changes. Create policy specific to the needs of the users designed by the users. Provide ample opportunity for public participation.Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Usefigure 8-7: Integrated Resource PlanAt an institutional level, the need is to provide adequate policy and legal frameworks, sufficient planning, training and support staff, room for public participation and education, and mechanisms to capture cost recovery initiatives. At a structural level, waste management facilities must be upgraded and developed to offer sophisticated and de-centralized source separation, collection, transportation and resourcing and recovery. But most importantly the underlying goal of an IRMS system is to promote an overarching systemic change that localizes resource management and reconnects the consumer with the cyclical nature of consumption.118 119plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Solid – Organic RecommendationsYard trimmings, and Food waste: • Several regions in Canada and the US are setting powerful precedents for significantly reducing landfill contributions through the use of centralized composting facilities. We recommend an additional in-vessel composting system that would run at 63% capacity relying only on the organic output of the commercial and residential spaces at South Campus (1,153,801 kg/yr). We anticipate we can generate up to $435,800/year purely on the revenue from pick up, and another $186,000 from the sale of the finished compost (assuming the low cost of $60/yd for 703,818 kg / yr of mature compost) Black water:•  Based on current projections, the South campus will produce just under 14 million gallons of black water in the year (approximately 38,000 gallons/day). To ensure these resources are not wasted through the current centralized treatment centre in Vancouver, we propose a small 0.2 ha Black water processing facility that is capable of processing 40,000 gallons of black water/day. The effluent of a living machine system can be utilized in orchard or landscaping uses as is common at ecovillages around the world (Worrell Water Technologies, 2008). The effluent of a living machine system is of potable quality, though current restrictions prohibit its use on leaf crops. A living machine system could produce up to 172,152 kg/yr mature compost and 13,963,440 gal/yr water of tertiary quality for use on landscaping or outflow for aquifer recharge.The footprint from such a system can be seen in Figure 8-8, excluding personal collection bins and transport requirements.Once again, it is highly likely the cumulative footprint of the living machine facility would take up significantly more room given transport, piping and effluent requirements. To contextualize this project, observe the Figure 8-9 that demonstrates the source, processing and use of the organic resources flowing from east to west towards the UBC farm.figure 8-8 Recommended footprintFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use120 121plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Water RecommendationsThe recommended improvements to the current proposed plan fall into two main categories: 1. Demand Reduction; and 2. Systems Integration. The first category includes the water efficient technologies and water metering systems that have been recommended for implementation, but takes it a step further. In order to bring about a shift in the way the community perceives water management, we propose large scale community investment in sustainable water management systems. By eliminating the need for external public infrastructure and treatment facilities, a significant cost savings through property tax reductions can be achieved. Rather than putting those savings in the bank, we recommend that it be invested into self sufficient systems, which are certain to grow in value with increasing demand for sustainable communities and the depletion of cheap available resources. figure 8-9: Organic Resource flowWith water metering and billing at the unit level, consumers can be billed by the amount of water consumed. This serves to increase awareness of the true value of potable water and encourage more responsible consumption patterns. This also assures that the full life cycle of the product (water) is included in its pricing. Proceeds from water billing will be invested back into the community through onsite water treatment facilities and services such as community laundry pick-up and delivery, which provides a means to carefully control inputs to one of the most water intensive uses. In order to make investments into the community more valuable, effective integration of these systems is required. This can be achieved through recycling of stormwater as a source of potable water, grey water for onsite uses such as flushing toilets and a community laundry facility, and blackwater for landscape irrigation. This type of system would require an adjustment from standard building practices. For example, separation of grey water from black water would require separate piping to be installed for each output type and recycled rainwater would have to have separate piping from the recycled grey water. Onsite capture of rainwater could completely replace the need for fresh water distribution off the Municipal grid. Figure 8-10 below illustrates this concept.figure 8-10: Water Management CycleFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use122 123plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009The system illustrated by the figure could be implemented with the use of individual rainwater, grey water and black water treatment facilities for each building or, alternately, using central facilities that service the entire community. Rainwater HarvestingThe average amount of rainfall received by the UBC campus annually is more than sufficient to make up all of the potable water demands in a typical community of this size. The accounting of annual precipitation and site characteristics is shown below.Table 8-2: Precipitation AccountingAverage Annual Precipitation* 1,200 mmSite Area 327,900 m2Projected Effective Imperviousness 60%Population 4,782Collectable Rainfall 135 l/cap/day* 8 Environment Canada, 2004. Comparing these values to average consumption rates by usage type suggests all potable water usages can be supplied by rainwater.Table 8-3: Water Use by TypeWater Use Average Demand (l/cap/day)Potable Required Faucets 30Showerheads 33Other/Unknown 15Leaks 8.3Total 86.3Potable Not Required Toilets 30Clothes Washers 35Outdoor Use 117Total 182* 9 Mayer, Peter W., et. al., 2001 This method of accounting simplifies how the system would operate in reality by comparing annual average demand and supply. It is important to note that the total annual volume of precipitation will not be uniformly distributed over time. In cases of large storm events, runoff flow rates could be in excess of the treatment facility capacity. In order to address this issue, sufficient storage would have to be included in the design to accommodate infrequent, but large storm events and to stockpile potable water supply in wet months to be drawn down dryer months.In terms of water quality, rainwater would likely require primary treatment including filtration and disinfection. Generally, rainwater collected in roof drains contains the least amount of contaminants and would require less treatment. This, however, represents a relatively small amount of water compared to the entire site drainage. Therefore, it is recommended that site drainage, including roof drainage, be collected and detained in a series of ponds before being conveyed to a central rainwater treatment facility.Grey and Black Water Recycling Based on the water use table shown above, indoor potable water demands in an integrated system are in excess of the indoor non-potable water demands. This means that non-potable uses such as toilet flushing and laundry could be supplied by treated grey water. The level of contaminants in grey water and the proposed uses for the treated outflow do not demand that the water be treated to the same level as potable water. This could be achieved by use of a similar process of primary treatment as in the rainwater harvesting. The final iteration of water treatment and recycling would occur through treatment of black water for use as landscape irrigation.This proposed integrated resource management system optimizes efficiency by cycling water through the various uses three times before ultimately releasing it back into the surrounding ecosystems. Site DrainageWith water distribution and wastewater management systems fully integrated under the proposed configuration, the final system to be integrated is the site drainage. As described above, site drainage is to be collected for reuse as potable water. This will be achieved through a combination of infiltration swales, storm water infrastructure and constructed ponds. Some of the Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use124 125plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009collected rainwater should be directed to the surrounding creeks to maintain base flows with excess flows during high rainfall events directed to the existing south campus drainage infrastructure. This should be minimal considering the infiltration, flow diversion to streams and water recycling proposed for this site.Possible Synergies with Other SystemsThis section focuses on the integration of resource management systems to maximize efficiency, reduce life cycle costs and decrease the demand on municipal infrastructure. There is great potential for integration with other systems within the site and these should be explored further. A few examples of possible synergies with other systems would be:Energy reduction through material recapturing• Social and economic benefits through increased localized employment • and sector developmentPower generation using micro turbines in water conveyance • infrastructure;Reuse of solid organic material from black water treatment for fertilizer;• Heat capture from black water flows; and• Recreational and aquaculture uses of detention ponds.• The systems proposed in this section are relatively untested and break with conventions of development and construction. As a result, higher capital costs and challenges with public perception should be expected. Tradeoffs will have to be made with other system within the site. For example, onsite water treatment and storage facilities will consume open space that might be preferable to be used for agriculture or recreation. The recommendations in this report highlight what could potentially be achieved. How these proposed systems relate to availability of land and other potential land uses will have to be determined during the design phase.9.0 Food System9.1 BackgroundThe term “food system” is used frequently in discussions about agriculture, food, community economic development, health and nutrition. It is an interconnected network of practices, processes and places that cover all aspects of food -- growing, harvesting, processing, packaging, transporting, marketing, consuming and disposing of food and food packages. It also extends outwards to include the inputs needed (e.g. soil, water, sunshine, fertilizer/compost, machinery and energy to run the machinery) and outputs (e.g. food, waste and recyclables) generated at each step, which is also dependent on human resources that provide labour, research, development and education. Given the nature of food systems, which have biological, physical and socio-economic aspects, there is a high degree of reciprocation both among the subsystems and with the larger environment.Figure 9-1. Goals of a Community Food SystemSource: Region of Waterloo Public Health, Urban Agriculture ReportFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use126 127plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Agriculture has changed dramatically due to new technologies, mechanization, increased chemical use, specialization and government policies that favor maximizing production, and these changes have allowed fewer farmers with reduced labour demands to produce the majority of the food in North America. Although these changes have had many positive effects and reduced many risks in farming, there have also been significant costs, including topsoil depletion, groundwater contamination, the decline of family farms, increasing costs of production, and the disintegration of economic and social conditions in rural communities. As such, there is a need for restructuring the current agricultural processes, which impose extremely high health, social, and environmental costs, particularly a high dependency on fossil fuels that can have a multiplier effect on food prices as fossil fuel prices rise (Dahlberg, 1994).Goal StatementFood systems can be characterized as, “local”, regional” and “global.” The distinctions between these different systems are based on the distances between the sources of the food (where it is grown, raised or caught) and the place where it is purchased for consumption. Another important distinction between these systems is the hidden costs and benefits of each that do not show up in the price we pay for food. For example, the global system uses anywhere from four to seven times as much energy (fuel to transport the food), and produces five to 17 times more CO2 (from the burning of the fuel) than a regional or local food system (Cornell University). Local food systems, or “community food systems” are thought to benefit the local economy by keeping food-related enterprises nearby and employing residents of a community, by keeping local farms in business, and by keeping the rural landscapes agricultural. Because food is marketed directly, local food systems are generally confined to a relatively smaller geographic area – what can be delivered by truck within a few hours. In such a system, there is an emphasis on the development and maintaining of relationships between people in different sectors in the food system – farmers, processors, distributors, and consumer, for example. Therefore, the goal for the UBC South Campus (Northeast Sub-Area) Neighbourhood is:To increase local self-reliance by promoting a community food system, where all processes in the food system occur in one spatial area and have positive benefits to the environmental, economic, social and nutritional health of that area. Community food systems result in increased food security and greater community self-reliance. These food systems will allow residents the opportunity to support people in their community, gain access to fresh, organic food, and develop social systems that can support social sustainability. The emphasis of community food systems is strengthening existing (or developing new) relationships between all components of the food system. This reflects a prescriptive approach to building a food system, one that holds sustainability - economic, environmental and social - as a long-term goal toward which a community strives.System CharacteristicsCharacteristics of the food system include: Food Production. Refers to the farming and gardening practices that • produce the raw food products (fruits, vegetables, dairy, and meat) that form the basis of our diet. Sources can include local, national, and international farming, as well as, urban agricultural initiatives with the community.Food Processing. Refers to the transformation from its raw state to • something that is eaten. It can include activities like canning and preserving food or extracting and refining constituent parts from one raw food product for use elsewhere (e.g. sugar from cane).Food Distribution. Refers to the means of moving food from the • producer to the consumer. Activities include Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) programs and farmers’ markets. Food Access. Refers to the ability to obtain healthy and nutritious food • via grocery stores and markets.Food Consumption. Refers to the use of food; the activity of purchasing • or eating. Waste Management. Refers to the manner and means of dealing with • the material remains of food (waste and compostables, packaging, effluents and pollution) that are produced by the various components of the food system. Rather than being the end of the cycle, good waste management can begin the process to growing more food.Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use128 129plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Figure 9-2. Food System ComponentsSource: City of Vancouver Social Planning DepartmentFour aspects distinguish community food systems from the globalized food system that typifies the source of most food eaten: food security, proximity, self-reliance and sustainability (Cornell University).Food security is a key goal of community food systems. Community • food security addresses food access within a community context, especially for low-income households. It has a simultaneous goal of developing local food systems.Proximity refers to the distance between various components of • the food system. By narrowing the distance between producers, processors, and consumers, community food systems have a greater chance of reducing externalities (e.g. less fossil fuel is burned, less pollution generated and less wear and tear on trucks and roadways resulting from the transportation of food). Additionally, this proximity increases the likelihood that enduring relationships will form between different stakeholders in the food system - farmers, processors, retailers, restaurateurs, consumers, etc. Self-reliance refers to the degree to which a community meets its own • food needs. While the aim of community food systems is not total self-sufficiency (where all food is produced, processed, marketed and consumed within a defined boundary), increasing the degree of self-reliance for food is an important aspect of a community food system.Sustainability refers to following agricultural and food system practices • that do not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their food needs. Sustainability includes environmental protection, profitability, ethical treatment of food system workers, and community development. Sustainability of the food and agriculture system is increased when a diversified agriculture exists near strong and thriving markets; non-renewable inputs required for every step in the food system are reduced; farming systems rely less on agri-chemical fertilization and pest control; and when citizen participation in food system decision-making is enhanced.9.2   Best PracticesWithin the context of the UBC South Campus Neighborhood, the following best practices have been identified as activities that can most likely be implemented. The majority of these best practices focus on production as a strategy for intensifying urban agriculture activities that can reduce the dependence on an energy-intensive global food economy.ProductionRooftop GardensThe terms rooftop gardens and green roofs are often used interchangeably as both refer to the modification of a flat roof to grow vegetation. This is usually done by covering part or the entire roof with layers that include a barrier to prevent root growth, a growing medium (usually soil), and then seed or plants. A Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use130 131plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009rooftop garden is focused on producing food or herbs (in addition to plants and flowers), and therefore requires more attention and upkeep, and often a greater soil depth than a green roof (Region of Waterloo Public Health, 2005). Research on the environmental and economical benefits of green roofs have not focused on rooftop gardens specifically, however, many of the benefits of green roofs are benefits that rooftop gardens provide as well. Rooftops provide growing space in urban areas where agricultural land is limited. In theory, just about any plant can be grown on a rooftop garden including small fruit trees. Benefits of rooftop gardening include:Taking advantage of the heat output of a building which can extend the • growing season by as much as three weeks;Improving building insulation and reducing heating costs;• Improving the local micro-climate and reducing heat-island effect;• Absorption of rainfall, reducing the pressure on the storm-water and • sewer system;Providing places where residents, who would otherwise never meet, • congregate for social activities and rally around the common interest of gardening; andExtending the life of a flat roof by protecting the waterproof membrane • although careful consideration has to be given to the materials used and construction methods used.There are a number of factors that need to be taken into account when deciding if an existing roof is adequate for installing a rooftop garden or designing a new building. These are:The type of membrane used for waterproofing purposes. If of suitable • quality and laid as a three layer system, it should be capable of lasting 50-60 years for asphalt and 20 years for bitumen (Barrs, 2002).The load-bearing capacity of the roof. A conventional soil profile at a • depth of one metre will impose the considerable load of 2,000 kilograms per square metre. It should be noted that the load the garden will impose depends mainly on the thickness of soil but also whether any large trees or rainwater storage barrels will be used (large point loading) and whether any live loads in the form of heavy machinery or people will be present. Generally live loads can be expected to be around 150 kilograms per square meter giving a total load of around 510 kilograms per square meter. Where weight is a serious problem that cannot be easily overcome, hydroponic systems can be used or we can make use of extremely light growing mediums (Barrs, 2002).Building code requirements. As an occupiable space, the garden may • require a code-compliant stairway or elevator, as well as guardrails or fencing around the roof edge.Irrigation method and drainage. An adequate means of watering the • garden needs to be in place especially considering the thinner soils and higher winds on a roof garden will facilitate rapid drying. This could be either a rainwater collection and storage system, municipally supplied water, or recycled wastewater from the building. Wind protection. Roof gardens need protection from the wind especially • if they are on higher buildings. This is necessary to prevent rapid drying of the soil, trap warm air in the garden to facilitate growth and to prevent plant damage. CharacteristicsAn intensive green roof is one in which the substrate (soil) depth is 15 centimetres or more. The minimum depth to support a large variety of vegetables, however, is 46 centimetres of growing medium, which is typically an organic/mineral matter; conventional topsoil and potting soil are inappropriate media due to their weight (Bay Localize, 2007). Intensive green roofs need the durability to hold roughly 243 kilograms per square metre and upwards (Bay Localize, n.d.). Because of their greater substrate depth – and, hence, their greater weight – they are not usually installed over large roof areas. These systems require greater maintenance than extensive green roofs, much of which is associated with normal vegetable gardening activities. Demands would include regular irrigation, pruning, weeding, fertilizing, and pest control. Water needs could be increased relative to ground-level gardening due to higher rates of heat- and wind-induced evaporation.  Flat-roofed concrete buildings are ideal candidates for rooftop gardens as they require little additional structural reinforcing to accommodate a roof garden. Initial costs depend greatly on the type of labour that is used, accessibility and size of the roof, and planting method. The estimated cost for a 400 square metre Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use132 133plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009rooftop with the installation of deep lightweight soils, irrigation, duck boards and a tool shed and picnic table is $143.00 per square metre (not including structural, access or safety premiums) (Holland Barrs, 2002). Concrete buildings will require an additional one to two centimetres thickness in roof deck (a very small percentage of total building structural cost).PrecedentThe Fairmont Waterfront Hotel in Vancouver has been considered the best example of a rooftop garden in Vancouver, which provides herbs, vegetables and fruit to its restaurant. The 2,100 square foot garden, managed by  Master Gardeners and community volunteers, saves the Hotel approximately $30,000 to $40,000 per year in food costs, in which much of these savings are spent on garden costs. The garden is completely organic and the Hotel uses special suppliers of organic soil amendments and fertilizers, of which has a depth of over 1.5 feet to three feet. There is no greenhouse and risk of pests and odour prevents the Hotel from being able to compost.Hydroponic Rooftop Gardens / GreenhousesHydroponics is a horticultural method that supplies plant roots with liquid nutrients, eliminating the need for organic material that provides nutrients under conventional methods. Plants are provided with nutrient solution, and are either grown in an inert mineral substrate or are suspended above the solution without substrate. Hydroponic vegetable growing techniques can be applied on rooftops or urban commercial greenhouses. The trend for modern greenhouses is towards large, technologically advanced, hydroponic greenhouse operations that produce a single crop, most commonly tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers, or lettuce (Holland Barrs, 2002). Hydroponic rooftop gardens combine many of the benefits of Intensive Green Roof-Vegetable Gardens with those of Rainwater Harvesting. In terms of energy efficiency, the hydroponic containers would shade the roof and vegetation, and would provide ambient cooling through evapotranspiration, but the thermal mass benefits would be less than a conventional green roof (Bay Localize, 2007). Additionally, the reduced weight (compared to intensive green roofs) provides a benefit for rooftop gardens. Overall, the major benefit to hydroponic techniques is that it can produce a large percentage of the community’s food needs, potentially reducing significant transportation requirements for shipping and residents traveling to obtain food outside the community. Issues concerning this technique evolve around the trade-off of increased yield at the expense of a far larger ecological footprint. From an ecological perspective, hydroponic greenhouses can be less sustainable than other practices unless they can support by-waste products from the community (e.g. waste heat from buildings and passive solar gains). However, consideration should be taken when weighing the benefits against transportation related pollution.Input/OutputSince the nutrient supply and climate of hydroponic methods of cultivation are artifically controlled, it can be used very intensively, averaging 14 times the yield of conventional open field methods. Hydroponic greenhouses yield 380,000 kilograms per hectare; one year’s supply of fresh fruit and vegetables for one person could be grown using an average of only 4.2 square metres of greenhouse space (Holland Barrs, 2002).CharacteristicsThe hydroponic model substantially reduces the weight of vegetable cropping systems by eliminating the growing medium. It is moderate in weight at approximately 78 kilograms per square metre (Bay Localize, n.d). Planting methods may vary among vegetable types, but generally seedlings are transplanted into the substrate, where they have regular access to the nutrient solution. In general, hydroponic systems represent a more productive growing method than conventional gardening. Since sufficient nutrients are supplied close to the base of the plant, roots do not spread horizontally, allowing for closer spacing of plants. In addition, hydroponically grown plants have an advantage over soil based plants in that energy that would be expended in root growth is utilized instead for leaf, flower, and fruit growth. Furthermore, the hydroponic system can capture rainwater in the growing containers and drain it to the reservoir containers for reuse, distributing and minimizing the load of water storage across the roof. PrecedentThe Silwood Family runs a hydroponic farm in an inner suburb of Auckland, New Zealand. With an average year-round labour force of seven, the farm produces 18 crops of gourmet lettuce on about 700 square metres; the same amount of lettuce would require the equivalent of 6,000 square metres of growing area in Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use134 135plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009an ordinary greenhouse. The current revenue is more than NZ $400,000 a year; a duplicate start up may cost only about NZ$200,000. Fresh lettuce output is boosted significantly by using sterilized water, three tiers of hydroponic growing channels, ‘daylight’ lights for extended growing time, added carbon dioxide and judicious heating. The sustained, year-round supply is sought by six local supermarket buyers and 30 local restaurant owners. All the farm’s customers are within 10 minutes delivery time. Edible Landscapes Edible landscaping is the use of food producing plants in place of more commonly used ornamental plants. An incredible opportunity for urban food production is presented with the potential for new trees to be planted that could produce an abundance of food for bird, animal and human populations. Many of these plants still provide ornamental quality while also producing edible leaves, flowers, nuts, and berries. In this way, edible plants provide a multi-functional use by enhancing outdoor spaces and gardens, and by providing local and healthy food. Benefits of edible landscapes include:Education. Provides opportunities for people to see how different foods • grow and learn about new food plants.Community. Leads to community building as people learn about new • plants while working together to plant, maintain, and harvest their own produce.Recreation. Provides opportunities for people to interact with the • landscape through growing, harvesting, and consumption. Environment. Enhances biodiversity by replacing common ornamental • plants or filling unplanted areas with plants that are also part of local ecosystems, providing food for birds and beneficial insects.Economic. Supplementing diets and grocery budgets by growing and • harvesting food from your own yard or shared space.Health. Ensuring that no chemicals are used by participating in growing • and harvesting your own food.Sustainability. Enabling growth of more food in the city and enhancing • access to local food, while potentially decreasing fossil fuel emissions, reducing our dependence on shipped foods (City of Vancouver, n.d.).Some concerns with edible landscapes include the issue of possible messes and liability (e.g. fallen fruit damaging property or attracting pests). As such, there is a need to ensure that pruning is undertaken correctly and harvesting is done at the right time. Costs should be equal to or somewhat less than the planting of traditional ornamental landscapes.CharacteristicsEdible landscapes can be applied across nearly all planted areas, including public, semi-public and private realms. It provides an opportunity to integrate the visual, privacy, habitat and other vegetation criteria in parks, rights-of-ways, and semi-private garden plantings with the added advantage of enhancing the food production capacity of a community.  PrecedentThe Fruit Tree Project is a community based food project that collects unwanted fruit from backyard fruit trees, tends to neglected fruit trees, and distributes food to those in need and to food banks. The fruit is used as a source of food, with portions being preserved in community kitchens. There are now seven groups in the region - Victoria harvested 18,000 pounds of fruit last season and Vancouver harvested 3,500 pounds last year.Community GardensCommunity gardens are usually located on public land and consist of individual plots of land available for lease or large spaces that can be collectively tended, depending on the size and quality of the garden and the members involved. Most community gardens are open to the public, providing access to fresh produce and plants, as well as access to satisfying labour, neighbourhood improvement, sense of community, and connection to the environment. Community gardens are publicly functioning in terms of ownership, access and management, as well as typically owned in trust by local governments or nonprofits (Wikipedia). A common practice in urban areas is cleaning up abandoned vacant lots and turning them into productive gardens. Alternatively, community gardens can be seen as a health or recreational amenity and included in public parks, similar to ball fields or playgrounds. They offer social and environmental benefits by providing opportunities for social interaction and access to learning about the biology of food and habitats. Since gardeners, in most cases, do not own or control the land directly, access Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use136 137plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009to land and security of land tenure remains a major challenge for community gardeners and their supporters. Also, consideration needs to be taken with regards to water availability and soil contaminants, further limiting options to available land. As well, challenges are presented by the possibilities of theft and vandalism.As of 1997, the City of Vancouver and Greater Vancouver had a total of about 580 and 2,000 community garden plots, respectively, in 21 operating community gardens (Holland Barrs, 2002).Input/OutputThe yields obtained from allotment and backyard gardens vary tremendously. Various experts have estimated the amount of land, required to feed a family of four, fruit and vegetables for the year. Mike Levenston of City Farmer was told by a local gardenening expert that 2,400 square feet of land (40’ x 60’) can provide a family of four with ‘more than enough fresh vegetables plus sufficient to can or freeze for the winter,’ which is the equivalent to 26,000 kilograms per hectare (Holland Barrs, 2002).CharacteristicsIn the late 1980s and mid-1990s, two national surveys sponsored by the American Community Gardening Association, as well as other research, strongly supported the observation that there was no ‘standard’ community garden plot size. Individual plot sizes vary widely depending on many factors, including location, land available for gardening, and demand. Common plot sizes (Wikipedia) include:6m × 6m (larger gardens in parks)• 3m × 3m or 3m × 4.5m (inner city gardens on small lots)• According to Holland Barrs Planning Group, the minimum area required is 500 square metres (Holland Barrs, 2002). When designing community food systems, the UBC Design Centre for Sustainability recommends one community garden per 1000 persons, at a minimum of 100 to 500 square metres (True Consulting Group, 2007). The University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) identified the following sizing elements (Surls, 2001):Raised bed plots: No more than 1.2 metres wide (to facilitate access to • plants from the sides without stepping into the bed), and between 2.4 and 3.7 metres longInground plots: From 3m x 3m up to 6m x 6m• Pathways between beds and plots: At least 0.9 to 1.2 metres wide (to • allow space for wheelbarrows)There are many different organizational models for community gardens, including elected boards, appointed officials, non-profit organizations (e.g. community gardening association, a church, or other landowner), city’s recreation or parks department, and schools or Universities. In most cases, gardeners are expected to pay annual dues to help with garden upkeep (e.g. maintaining pathways) and the organization manages these fees. Overall, community gardens are an inexpensive landscape treatment. Based on providing topsoil, irrigation, perimeter boards and signage, and miscellaneous items, it is estimated that an area at 20m x 50m, 1 metre deep soil throughout with 335 metres of perimeter boards, the estimated cost is $49.00 per square metre, not including site premiums that could arise due to drainage, contaminated/compacted soils etc (Holland Barrs, 2002).PrecedentThe Strathcona Community Gardens is the oldest and one of the most successful community gardens in the city. It was established in 1985 on three acres of land owned by the Vancouver Parks Board. The association has developed two greenhouses, planted a mature orchard with standard and espaliered fruit trees, and bee hives in addition to the 200 individual plots (average size is 105 square feet). Additionally, the clubhouse features a composting toilet and solar powered electric system, which was partly built from recycled materials.School GardensMany schools have begun the process of transforming barren, unproductive areas to create more ecologically diverse landscapes, better learning opportunities for children, and improved nutrition through organic gardens. School food gardens can provide the benefit of improving children’s understanding of natural processes such as plant growth, soil formation, as well as enhance their understanding of nature. Growing food can also provide children access to healthy, nutritious food that might otherwise not be affordable or be used to supplement a school meal or snack program. Issues with school gardens evolve around maintenance throughout the summer months and getting Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use138 139plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009approval and support from the School Board, whom are often concerned about safety, conflicts with teacher-union contracts, aesthetics, and availability of faculty and volunteers providing supervision.CharacteristicsAny size of space is usable for this option, which is very similar to community gardens. To maximize learning potential, exposure to year round agriculture could be provided through the use of greenhouses. The cost of school gardens are comparable to community gardens, with the addition of the time required for staff to supervise the children. Tools and supplies will often be donated by local gardening suppliers. PrecedentWorking with a landscape architect, Grandview Woodlands School in Vancouver, transformed its traditional landscape into a highly ecological, learning landscape.Distribution and AccessFarmers MarketsThe primary function of a farmers market is to provide a direct marketing outlet for small scale food producers and processors, unlike public markets which fulfill a retail function. In the North American context, they are considered to be one of a number of integral conventions aimed at contributing to more sustainable food systems. Farmers markets attempt to foster a diverse, local food economy by providing a direct sales outlet for a variety of local farmers and food processors, as well as, aim to build relationships by linking farmers directly to consumers in both economic and social exchanges. They aim to foster food security by improving access to locally grown, fresh, nutritious foods, act as a catalyst for sustainable growing practices, and indirectly support farmland preservation and local economies by supporting the economic viability of small-scale, locally-owned farms. Additionally, farmers markets aim to reduce the ecological and social costs of long distance food transport by reducing the physical distance between farmers and consumers. Given that the average produce item in North America travels an estimated 2,500 to 4,000 kilometres from farm to plate, the locally-sourced farm products sold at farmers markets also require less energy in transport than their supermarket equivalents (Jacobsen, 2001).CharacteristicsTo conduct a farmers market once per week during the harvest season, an area of 370 to 740 square metres would be needed each week at a nominal cost, in order to allow vendors to set up 3 square metre stalls. The market could be conducted in an open area but protection from the rain would be preferable. PrecedentThe East Vancouver Farmers Market operates one day per week during the growing season on the Trout Lake Community Centre parking lot. The Farmers’ Market Society’s mission statement is: to foster community health and economic development through the creation of a venue where community members have greater access to safe, healthy, locally produced, environmentally friendly food and where B.C. growers and craftspeople can market their goods directly to urban consumers. In keeping with its community based goals, the Society has developed alliances with a number of local agencies of which three have programs to enhance the level of awareness of good nutrition, eating habits and food preparation. The Society also has a number of other initiatives designed to educate and bring the community together.Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)Community-supported agriculture (CSA) is a socio-economic model of agriculture and food distribution as it provides a method for the food buying public to create a relationship with a farm. A CSA consists of a community of individuals who pledge support to a farm operation so that the farmland becomes the community’s farm, with the growers and consumers providing mutual support and sharing the risks and benefits of food production. The focus is usually on a system of weekly delivery or pick-up of vegetables and fruit, sometimes dairy products and meat. By making a financial commitment to a farm, people become ‘members’ (or ‘shareholders’ or ‘subscribers’) of the CSA. Some CSAs also require that members work a small number of hours on the farm during the growing season. An advantage of the close consumer-producer relationship is increased freshness of the produce, because it does not have to be shipped long distances, which helps in reducing pollution caused by transporting the produce. Another benefit is the avoidance of pesticides and inorganic fertilizers.CharacteristicsA typical season runs from late spring through early fall. Typically, CSAs are Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use140 141plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009small, independent, labour-intensive, family farms. By providing a guaranteed market through prepaid annual sales, consumers essentially help finance farming operations. CSAs generally are in the practice of focusing on the production of high quality foods using organice or biodynamic farming methods, which operates with a much greater-than-usual degree of involvement of consumers and other stakeholders, resulting in a stronger consumer-producer relationship. In its most formal and structured form, CSAs focus on having a transparent, whole season budget for producing a specified wide array of products for a set number of weeks a year; a common-pricing system; and a ‘shared risk and reward’ agreement (e.g. the consumers eat what the farmers grow even with the unpredictability of seasonal growing). Thus, members do not pay for a particular amount of produce, but rather support the budget of the whole farm and receive what is seasonally ripe on a weekly basis, eliminating the marketing risks and costs for the producer and allowing them to focus on quality care of soils, crops, animals, labour, and serving their customers.The method of distribution is a distinctive feature in CSAs. In the U.S. and Canada, shares are usually provided weekly, with pick-ups on a designated day and time. CSA subscribers often live in towns and cities, where local drop-off locations are organized and convenient to a number of members. Shares are also usually available on-farm. Share prices can vary dramatically depending on location. Variables also include length of share season, and average quantity and selection of food per share. As a rough average, in North America, a basic share may be $350 to 500 for a season, for 18 to 20 weeks (June to October), with enough of each included crop for at least two people (perhaps 8-12 common garden vegetables) (Wikipedia). Food RecylingCompostingComposting can be done on- and off-site. On-site composting requires consideration for siting and operational issues. The Wastecap of Massachusetts website lists the following forms of composting:Unaerated Static Pile Composting: Organic discards are piled and mixed • with a bulking material. This method is best suited for small operations; it cannot accommodate meat or grease Aerated Windrow/Pile.Composting: Organics are formed into rows or long piles and aerated • either passively or mechanically. This method can accommodate large quantities of organics. It cannot accommodate large amounts of meat or grease.In-vessel Composting: Composting that occurs in a vessel or enclosed • in a building that has temperature and moisture controlled systems. They come in a variety of sizes and have some type of mechanical mixing or aerating system. In-vessel composting can process larger quantities in a relatively small area more quickly than windrow composting and can accommodate animal products.Vermicomposting: Worms (usually red worms) break down organic • materials into a high-value compost (worm castings). This method is faster than windrow or in-vessel composting and produces high-quality compost. Animal products or grease cannot be composted using this method.Waste ManagementWaste management is a critical component to the overall self-sufficiency and sustainability of a community. Human waste, including food waste and human byproducts, typically are seen as outputs or as “waste” when in fact they are valuable sources of nutrients for fertilizing plants to grow crops. Capturing these outputs and inputting them into the local food system will be critical in closing the loops in the overall system. There are various systems to capture human byproducts, food waste and water waste at both a small and large scale. Refer to the Waste Management section of this report for further details. Within the Waste Management section, two primary strategies were used to capture waste including both composting toilets and a large scale in-vessel system. According to the analysis in that section, the inclusion of composting toilets would yield  172,152 kilograms of mature compost per year. Furethermore, the invessel system would yield 703,818 kg of mature compost a year for a combined total of 875,970 kilograms per year. Recycled water estimations from the report indicate approximately 13,963,440 gallons of water per year would be available for re-use in other system components such as agriculture. Based on the capacity analysis in this report, most of the fertilizer needs for the neighbourhood food system would most likely be met by the waste management strategies. Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use142 143plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Beyond Best PracticesVertical FarmingVertical farming is a proposal to conduct large-scale agriculture in urban high-rises or ‘farmscrapers’. These buildings are envisioned to produce year round crops through the use of recycled resources and greenhouse methods such as hydroponics. Advantages that have been identified include protection from weather-related crop failures (droughts, floods, pests), restoration of ecosystem functions and services by returning farmland to nature, and the addition of energy back to the grid via methane generation from composting non-edibles. As climate change shifts agricultural output capabilities and rising energy prices reduces the ability to transport food great distances cheaply, large-scale, farming towers, may prove to be a vialble options of feeding the population. 9.3 AnalysisPolicy DevelopmentThe South Campus (Northeast Sub-Area) Neighbourhood Plan (SCNP) attempts to incorporate the core sustainability principles and practices. The approach taken to sustainability in the plan is summarized in section 2.2.1:“Sustainability objectives are based on a global concept of providing a good quality of life for all people today while ensuring future generations can also have an equally good quality of life….Neighbourhoods are a building block for global sustainability. South Campus will achieve a high level of performance in both the physical environment and consumption behaviour, within market constraints, with respect to factors such as energy and water use, waste, environment, community health and economic vitality.” (Page 8)In section 2.2.2 the plan also calls for the creating of a compact and complete community that is vibrant and ecologically sensitive and contributes to the larger UBC community. The plan however, deals with food production, an essential component to sustainability, in a limited capacity. In section 2.4.2 (Neighbourhood Parks and Open Space), community gardens are identified as a potential use for open space but only if residents desire to do so. Furthermore, the plan almost completely neglects the concept of food systems. Only one reference is made in the report that identifies a key linkage to food systems. In section 3.2.3 (Solid Waste Management), identifies that: “Composting facilities will be an option for households and businesses should they choose to have access to a community facility for composting organic waste, with linkages to re-use in community gardens where possible.” (Page 22)Design DevelopmentThere are however, components of the plan that do not directly address food systems planning but indirectly add to the potential food production capacity. The first three components relates to the design of the neighbourhoods and buildings. In section 3.5.14 (Green Buildings), it is acknowledged that green building design evolves requiring new technologies and material to be introduced. The report further notes that the foundation of sustainable community provides opportunities for green building initiatives that are economically feasible. This commitment is important in requesting design enhancements that promote food systems integration into buildings and the neighbourhood. In terms of neighbourhood design, as illustrated in Figure 7-3, the lowest height buildings are located furthest south of the site with building heights increasing further north. This gradual gradient change from the south to north permits minimal shadowing on adjacent buildings. This allows for more surface area to be covered by light which would maximize the food production potential of various sites on and around the building. Vertical farmingSource: The Vertical Farm Projectfigure 9-3. Land Use PlanSource: South Campus (Northeast Sub-Area) Neighbourhood Plan (SCNP)Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use144 145plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Another critical design feature of the neighbourhood is the orientation of the buildings. As seen in Figures 7-4 and 7-5, building citing will take into account solar orientation to maximize natural amenity and energy performance.  figure 9-4. Natural Environment ContextSource: South Campus (Northeast Sub-Area) Neighbourhood Plan (SCNP)figure 9-5. Illustrative PlanSource: South Campus (Northeast Sub-Area) Neighbourhood Plan (SCNP)Many of the building walls have a southern exposure which will not only maximize energy performance and provide natural amenity but will also provide the energy necessary to grow food on vertical walls, indoors, rooftops and community gardens. In addition to their orientation and citing, most of the buildings are designed with a flat roof. This is an important design feature as it will allow for the inclusion of rooftop gardens that could be used for food production provided the buildings are designed to handle the added load on the roof.  At a neighbourhood level, the urban design of the site, according to section 3.5.8, also requires that all parking for residential uses be within the profile of the building. By incorporating the parking below ground, more land is available for productive uses such as food production. In terms of open usable public space the site plan effectively minimizes the building footprint to create more public space. As seen in Figure 7-6, there are a series of usable pocket parks, greenways and green edge. figure 9-6. Natural Environment ContextSource: South Campus (Northeast Sub-Area) Neighbourhood Plan (SCNP)These spaces, especially the usable neighbourhood open space pocket parks provide opportunities for active and passive recreation. They would also provide for an excellent opportunity to introduce community gardens for the purposes of food production. The location of these parks and open spaces are within 400 metres of most residents providing for easy access to potential gardens. Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use146 147plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Capacity for Urban AgricultureDetermining the current capacity, as outlined in the plan, is important in assessing to what degree the projected population of the neighbourhood will be food self-sufficient. While the goal of being completely self-sufficient is an ambitious goal, realistically, an attempt should be made to have some reasonable capacity for food self sufficiency. Complete food self-sufficiency may be more attainable at the regional scale. It is estimated that, per person, an average of 0.07 acres or 283 square metres of land is needed to be nearly self-sufficient ( However, it does not take into account the possibility of using permaculture or greenhouses to increase yields. Another determiniate of food capacity is to determine the amount of food that is consumed per year by an individual.  According to the US Department of Agriculture, an average american eats 4.7 lbs of food per day (.5 lbs of meat, 1.6 lbs of dairy products, 0.2 lbs of fats and oils, 0.8 lbs of fruits, 0.7 lbs of vegetables, 0.5 lbs of grains, and 0.4 lbs of sugars per day). Based on the total projected population of the neighbourhood (4,782 persons) this would total to 8,234,400 lbs of food per year or 3,504,000 pounds per year for vegetables, fruits and grain.Current Capacity The current proposal does not specifically identify areas that will be exclusively and permanently used for food production. As mentioned previously in this report, the plan does permit the allocation of land on the pocket parks for community gardens but only if community demand is present. Furthermore, while the UBC farm is not directly part of the geographical area of redevelopment for this specific plan it is an integral component to the overall system functioning of the neighbourhood and environmental processes. Therefore, the UBC farm should be included in the current capacity assessment. UBC farm though, has an existing demand from campus and neighbouring neighbourhoods which is essential to take into account when computing the current capacity; the entire capacity of the UBC farm will not exclusively go to the new neighbourhood.  The UBC farm is 24 hectares (59 acres) of which 12 hectares is cultivatable land and of which two hectares are used for producing food for market sale. There are over 200 varieties of fruits and vegetables grown in the Market Garden which is available Saturdays from June to October. The demand for the food that is produced and sold is substantial and it would therefore be necessary to expand the productive capacity of the farm in terms of year round production through various means such as green houses and cultivating more of the land. To determine the build out maximum for food production in the existing plan it was assumed that all neighbourhood pocket parks could be converted to agricultural uses. This assumption, in reality, would not be realistic since there are other recreational needs that would be competing with these spaces. However, it is important to understand what the upper limit of food production is in the neighbourhood. According to the plan, there are 30,593 square metres of usable neighbourhood open space. This equates to about 6.39 square metres per person assuming a projected population of 4,782 persons. Given the assumption that each individual needs 0.07 acres or 283 square metres of land to be nearly self-sufficient, the current plan significantly falls short of supply in the land needed to be self-sufficient. Even if the remaining 10 hectares or 1,000,000 square metres of UBC farm was used to produce food for the neighbourhood it would only equate to approximately 25 square metres per person. Potential Capacity While the current plan does not provide adequate capacity for food production on site, there are opportunities to increase the current capacity to a capacity level that would reduce the overall reliance on external (outside community) food sources. In calculating the potential growing capacity, rooftop gardens, community gardens, hydroponic gardens and edible landscapes was accounted. Vertical gardens were not accounted for in the calcualtion due to a lack of literature specificying potential output yeilds of food. It was assumed that each building was designed to sustain the additional load of a rooftop garden. Realistically, economic constrictions and a lack of sufficient user interest would most likely prohibit the neighbourhood from reaching full self-sufficiency. A limited growing season is also another factor that reduces the probability of reaching maximum food self-sufficiency. Rooftop Gardens – Hydroponic and Conventional Rooftop GardensWhile there is a multitude of different arrangements of rooftop gardens possible, depending on the existence of fixed obstructions on the roof, it is estimated that this prototype would provide an average growing area of 60 percent of the total roof area taking into account fixed obstructions and space needed for paths and equipment. Total area of all residential and mixed use buildings was estimated at 49,366 square metres or 29,619 square metres of usable space for growing food either as hydroponics or traditional rooftop gardens. Statistics vary, but in Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use148 149plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009general, 1.5 pounds of food is produced per square foot of garden space and 2.5 pounds per square foot from hydroponics (Bay Localize, 2007).Edible LandscapesThe potential capacity for edible landscapes is assumed to occur within right-of-ways along primary arterials. Figure 9-7 identifies the Neighbourhood Collector and Local Streets; the boulevards identified in cross-sections show a width of 1.80 metres for both road classifications. Since yield potentials vary by crop, one tree type was selected to give an example of approximate yields that could potentially contribute to the community food system. figure 9-7. Roads ContextSource: South Campus (Northeast Sub-Area) Neighbourhood Plan (SCNP)Table 7-1. Maximum Yield Potential for Edible Landscapes (based on standard pear tree, Pyrus communis)1Approx. Distance (m)Approx. Area (ha)2Max. Trees Planted3Approx. Yield Potential (bu/yr)4A 700 0.25 7402,960B 680 0.24 7102,840C 340 0.06* 177708D 630 0.23 6802,720E 485 0.17 5032,012F 365 0.06* 177708Total 3,200 1.01 2,98711,948*Local Street A and D are located along the ‘green edge’. Since the pedestrian ‘green network’ was an integral part of the land use layout, it was assumed that edible landscapes would not be applied to that side of the street. 1 The pear tree was selected for the purposes of this calculation for its potential application in road right-of-ways; it is a hardy plant, suitable for the Vancouver region, with an attractive blossom display. Height is 4.5 to 9 metres; requires four to five years to reach bearing age. 2 R.O.W. width of 1.8 metres.3 Maximum planting density is 1,200 trees per acre (approximately 2,960 trees/hectare) based on USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA).4 Annual yield is 3 to 5 bushels according to Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service; calculation uses average of 4 bushels per tree. Community Gardens / School GardensThe OCP contains a requirement for Useable Neighbourhood Open Space (UNOS) based on anticipated population. The UNOS for this neighbourhood is 30,653 square metres, which are located at nodes in the network of greenways and green streets within 400 metre of most residences (Figure 7-3). As previously stated, space for community gardens in proximity to residences has been identified as an appropriate use based on residents’ preferences.Additionally, a school site not less than 3.0 hectares (including land for playing fields) will be located in South Campus. The school will be important for providing some of the recreation and social needs of the community, and can also contribute to the community food system while providing an educational benefit.Figure 9-8 references the open space and school area identified in Table 9-2.AbCDefFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use150 151plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Figure 9-8. Identification of Useable Neighbourhood Open Spaces (UNOS) and School Source: South Campus (Northeast Sub-Area) Neighbourhood Plan (SCNP)Table 9-2. Maximum Yield Potential for Community Gardens and School Garden1Approx. Area (sq. m)2Approx. Area (ha) Approx. Yield Potential (kg/yr)3UNOS A 9,028 0.90 23,400UNOS B 4,660 0.46 11,960UNOS C 3,040 0.30 7,800UNOS D 5,925 0.59 15,340UNOS E 8,000 0.80 20,800School 3,000 0.30 7,800Total 33,653 3.36 87,3601 Maximum yield reflects full build-out of all UNOS in site.2 Rough area calculation completed in SketchUp; adjusted to meet total identified area of 30,653 metres.3 Assumes conservative yield of 26,000 kg/ha/yr.Table 9-3. Total Calculations by Activity TypeActivity Type Area (ha)InputFertilizer (kg/yr)1InputWater  (gal/yr)2Avg. YieldOutputYield Potential (kg/yr)Percentage of Self-Sufficiency5Rooftop Gardens-Hydroponic (50% of usable rooftop space)1.28 Insufficient DataInsufficient Data380,000 (kg/ha)380,000  (approx)10.8Rooftop Gardens - (50% of usable rooftop space)1.28 1,239 85,855 26,000 (kg/ha) 206,66735.89Community Garden / School Garden3.06 3,260 205,325 26,000 (kg/ha) 87,360 2.49Edible Landscapes 1.01 978.5 67,770 101 (kg/tree) 303,49348.66SUB-TOTAL 27.84UBC Farm (remaining cultivatable site)10 9,785 670,997 161,458 (kg/ha)1,614,586346Total 73.91 Assumes distribution at a rate of 0.9 kg/9.3 m2 (converted from 2 lbs/100 ft2).2 Assumes 1 inch of water is needed every week (University of California, Davis).3 Assumes 1.5 lbs of food is produced per square foot of garden space.4 1 bu = 25.4 kg.5 Based on total neighbourhood pounds of food required per year (3,504,000 pounds for total population for one year or 2 lbs of food per day per person including fruits, vegetable and grains and excludes dairy, meat and fats) (USDA).9.5 Recommendations Food system interaction with other systems Sustainability cannot be achieved simply by breaking down the varioius system components and planning for them individually. Looking to natural ecological systems provides insight into the inhearant complexity natural and human systems are based on. Therefore, an examination of the linkages between food systems and other subsystems of the larger sustainability system is essential. Along these lines urban agriculture on buildings increases the overall building performance by reducing energy demands for heating in the winter and cooling in the summer and also reduces water run-off from buildings, thereby inhancing on-site water management. By reducing the overall temperature of the immediate air around the buildings, at a large neighbourhood scale, urban Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use152 153plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009agriculture helps reduce the urban heat island effect. Urban agriculture also impacts transportation systems by producing more food locally less miles travelled are need to diliver food which not only reduces congestion on roads but also improves airquality by reducing emissions. From a waste management system perspective, food systems provide a means of allocating compost and fertilizer produced by various waste capturing techniques. From a social and economic systems analysis, food systems has many benefits to enhance these systems. Food systems provides a means of enhancing social capital needed for social systems by providing a means for people to come together, collaborate and build social ties and frienships. Food systems also provide a means of generating income for urban farmers which in turn can be used to support local businesses. Furthermore, linkages can be created between the producer (urban farmer) and local businesses and social enterprises which can not only enhance relations between businesses and residents but also provide goods that are needed at a cheaper rate due to lower operational and transportation costs. Finally, producing organic food may lead to reduced probabilities of disease and will lead to improved health which, from a social systems perspective, leads to lower social service dilivery cost (health care costs). figure 9-9. food system interaction with other sustainability systems Policy Recommendations Land Use and Built FormThe potential capacity for producing food is limited by competing interests. Open space and parks provide areas for recreation, thus, community gardens should not occupy entire areas for this designated land use.Require the inclusion of rooftop gardens on new flat-roofed residential • developments, commercial buildings, and industrial buildings.Allow flexibility in height restrictions and FSR for the purpose of rooftop • greenhouses.Ensure that buildings are oriented to a southerly direction to maximize • solar gainEnsure buildings are sited in a manner that reduces shadowing on • critical pieces of land that may be used for agricultural purposes. Encourage edible landscapes in private yards by providing adequate site • coverage that will allow for enough open space in design guidelines Allocation of space to community gardens should be equal to the • demand, providing adequate land supply is available. Adopt a policy of context-appropriate planting fruit-bearing trees where • this is appropriate - on new sites and as trees need replacement. This should be encouraged by ensuring a planting medium is provided on each side of the street on all street types (i.e. local/arterial) Protect the UBC farm and use the remaining 10 hectares of cultivatable • land for neighborhood food production.Environmental Encourage planting of fruit trees in parks. • Water diversion practices of agricultural purposes should respect • the hydrology of the natural ecology of the neighborhood and large geographical area. Excessive fertilizer should not be used onsite to reduce soil pollution.• CirculationThe location of the community gardens should enable easy (pedestrian • Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use154 155plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009or bicycle) access to the nearest community garden by anyone in the neighborhood. There should be a clear separation and distance from roadways to • ensure minimal contamination of agricultural sites. Access to all urban agricultural projects should be child and elderly • friendly in that there should be adequate seating provided. Garden plots should be reachable to children and those with disabilities. Waste/Water ManagementUrban agricultural projects should use, to the extent possible, compost • and recycled water produced onsite increase overall community self-sufficiency. Excess food produced or any food scrapes should be recycled into the • waste management system.“Waste” generated should be stored in locations that will not negatively • impact neighboring residents.Social - Economic Development/MarketingProvide advice and guidelines about how to develop a rooftop garden, • capture and use rainwater, re-use grey-water on rooftops and grow food plants (i.e. useful species and cultivars that can tolerate shallow soil profiles).Encourage the formation of neighborhood stewardship groups who • would take on the responsibility of pruning and harvesting in return for keeping the fruit.The city should employ one or more full-time horticultural advisors • to promote community gardening, provide technical advice, identify suitable sites, liaise with land-owners, draw up lease agreements etc. Develop a linkage between local merchants and food producers to • supply local food to grocery stores and restaurants. School Boards should also be encouraged to form community garden • policies and to incorporate food growing into the curriculum. The school Board should also develop social linkages with other neighborhood groups involved in food production. EnergyUrban agricultural projects should utilize sustainable energy sources to • sustain operations.Building based urban agriculture should be encouraged based on its • building energy saving features to enhance community acceptance of urban agriculture and to highlight its multi-benefits.  Food Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand UseFood Water & WasteEnergyTransportationSocial & EconomicBuilt FormLand Use156 157plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 200910.0 Conclusion10.1  LinkagesThe following diagram illustrates the integrated nature of the various systems.  The base layer represents the ecosystem, which is the foundation upon which all of the other systems depend.  As outlined in the previous sections, there are several relationships between specific systems. For example, waste biomass is used to generate energy; blackwater is treated and used for agricultural purposes; land is shared for energy and food production.  Despite these relationships, connectedness and integration exists between all systems. There are interdependencies and synergies which result in an overall system that is more holistic and sustainable.  The South Campus development will only benefit from capitalizing on these synergies and creating a place which better coexists with the natural environment.158 159plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 200910.2 TradeoffsIncreased financial commitmentsA multi-system approach to planning considers the tradeoffs between all available options to ensure the best mix of opportunities are seized to provide a healthy, efficient and sustainable plan.  Many of the recommendations presented in this report will require increased financial support in order to implement a South Campus Neighbourhood Plan of the highest quality.  Increased financial commitments may result from: Expensive up-front costs of alternative energies in exchange for long-• term savingsSwitching from chemical fertilizers and pesticides to organic • maintenance practices Annual health inspections of interface and open space trees conducted • by certified arboristsInstallation costs of onsite water treatment (instead of remote treatment)• Cost premiums from unconventional plumbing• Video surveillance at transit stations to ensure neighbourhood safety • and securityThe replacement of traditional turfed open spaces with naturalized • landscapes. Tradeoffs between systemsEach system in this report evaluates the current South Campus Neighbourhood Plan against the best practices in each field to produce the most cutting-edge, sustainably-sound recommendations.  As these novel practices have yet to be simultaneously executed at once in the context of UBC’s South Campus Neighbourhood, this section analyses the recommendations for tradeoffs between systems.  The identified tradeoffs are summarized by Figure 10-1.160 161plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009EnergyTransportationWaterEnvironmentWaste ManagementSocial SystemsFood SystemsLand Use &Built FormSYSTEM TRADEOFFSAIBCDEFGHJKLfiigure 10-1. System TradeoffsThe affect of ENERGY on the ENVIRONMENTa.  Turbines producing wind energy may not be suitable for certain types of birdlife, which in turn may have an impact on the local ecosystem.The affect of ENVIRONMENT on LAND USE AND BUILT FORMb.  Increased green space from green fingers and greenedges remove land from other uses, such as housing.  Community gardens located near the village center may detract from land that could be used for other social amenities, for commercial retailers or for housing.  The affect of TRANSPORTATION on the ENVIRONMENTc.  Increasing the mode share of transit, reducing transit fare, increasing transit service frequency and implementing other transit service im-provements may lead to increased use of transit by those who would otherwise walk or cycle, increasing their ecological footprint.  Fur-thermore, increasing the use of diesel buses will produce significant amounts of air pollutants, as well as contributing to GHG emissions and road run-off.Improving cycling facilities will likely cause an increase of paved cycling routes, increasing impervious surfaces which may lead to covering current green space.The affect of TRANSPORTATION on SOCIAL SYSTEMSd.  Increasing residential and employment densities to support transit ser-vice in the absence of an increase in housing affordability will affect the demographic mix of the South Campus Neighbourhood.The affect of SOCIAL SYSTEMS on LAND USE AND BUILT FORMe.  The addition of a farmers’ market, recreational space for youth and increasing study or work spaces near the village centre may take away from land that can be used for other purposes  (E.g. community gardens mentioned in environmental and food systems).  Careful arrangement of these amenities around the village centre is necessary to ensure that all the necessary uses receive adequate and appropriate space.The affect of LAND USE on SOCIAL SYSTEMSf.  Removing the “future reserve housing” on current UBC Farm land and increasing density in other areas of the South Campus Neighbourhood does not guarantee housing affordability or the same housing mix.The affect of ENERGY on LAND USE g.  Geothermal plants require a large land share, which could otherwise be applied to other purposes. The affect of ENERGY on WATER h.  The introduction of solar paneling on roofs reduces the opportunities for green roofs and rainwater capture.The affect of WATER on FOOD SYSTEMSi.  The surface area required on roofs for rainwater collection conflicts with green roofs or rooftop agriculture.The affect of LAND USE on FOOD SYSTEMS j.  Increasing density of buildings may restrict solar access in adjacent areas, which will also limit the available spaces for community gardens or other agricultural purposes.The affect of ENERGY on WASTE MANAGEMENTk.  Using biogas capture prevents the direct composting of waste biomass and requires more infrastructure to carry out its processes.The affect of WASTE MANAGEMENT on LAND USE AND BUILT l. FORM On-site unit-centered waste-processing units (as opposed to regional waste-processing units) requires additional land space in the South Campus Neighbourhood which could have been allocated to other pur-poses, such as green space.162 163plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 200910.3  Market AppealThe University of British Columbia’s South Campus Neighborhood Plan has been designed to have the ambience of an urban village in the woods and has been planned with the environment in mind, allowing the natural landscape and ecology to determine how the development is carried out. The recommendations made for the South Campus Neighborhood Plan provide suggestions for extra steps that could be taken in order to ensure that the sustainability of the South Campus environment is protected and integrated as much as possible into the proposed development. Natural EnvironmentCurrent environmental best practices in landscaping include the use of native and site-specific vegetation. This allows the ecology of the area to continue engaging in natural processes, contributing to the sustainability of the region and of the earth as a whole with minimal human interference. The valuing of exotic over indigenous plants has led to a disintegration of many eco-systems as the processes that are required to sustain them are usually expensive, unnatural and often chemically based. Planting native species circumvents this expensive and environmentally degrading process, while enhancing the natural eco-system of the area – including local fauna – and allowing for the surrounding community to fully experience and find appreciation for the west coast environment they have chosen to live in.  Further recommendations for the South Campus Neighborhood plan would encourage the incorporation of the built environment into the existing natural environment. One method of doing this would be to restore the interface forest that borders the development in order to generate a smoother transition between forest and development. Implementing this interface would alter the traditional borders of the urban community and may require an adjustment in public perception about the purpose of urban-forest edges. Another environmentally-based adjustment the South Campus Neighborhood community may have to make is towards an increased involvement in the maintenance of an environmentally sustainable community by choosing to partake in eco-friendly practices such as owning and utilizing push lawnmowers, subscribing to chemical free gardens which require little maintenance and making room for edible plants so as to reduce the carbon footprint of each resident due to consumption of food.FoodThe UBC Farm is capable of providing the UBC South Campus Neighborhood with a more sustainable approach to food systems. Community food systems result in increased food security, greater self-reliance and allow for the potential to support those who are disadvantaged and not otherwise capable to have access to fresh, organic foods. Organic food systems have been shown to be better for the environment, farming practices and the health of those who cultivate and eat the products. Although organic food has become increasingly inexpensive due to a greater availability of on the market there is still often a noticeable price discrepancy between organic and non-organic products. The price differentials between organic and non-organic foods are necessary to ensure that healthy and sustainable farming practices are being followed - practices that will have positive effects on the present and the future, individuals and the environment. The presence of a farm nearby creates the potential for new ecosystems to be present within an urban context, an element many city dwellers may not be familiar with. It will be essential to create understanding within the South Campus Neighborhood community about how to cope with farm practices and issues such as new smells or animals who may frequent the residential areas. Green BuildingThe South Campus development will make a commitment to engaging in green building practices. Green buildings are healthier due to improved air quality and lack of toxic materials providing enhanced environments for their residents. The increased efficiency of many of the components of green buildings allow for a decrease in pollution for the environment and an increase in savings for the residents as less utilities are required to maintain lifestyle quality. The sustainable practice of installing durable products the plan’s built form is essential to the efficient and cost-effective long-term maintenance of the physical aspects of the development. Developing green materials is not as expensive as it once was, however public perception may not be keeping up with the latest trends in the construction of ecologically friendly building materials. Depending on the market it is possible that green buildings may have a higher initial cost than those that are traditionally built. However, due to the aforementioned characteristics of durability and efficiency the long-term costs of green buildings will be significantly lower than the average non-green home. 164 165plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009EnergySince the South Campus Neighborhood plan includes limited use of environmentally friendly energy sources, the recommendations for the South Campus Neighborhood plan are to ensure the inclusion of energy sources from the following sectors: solar, wind, geothermal and biogas. Alternative energy sources provide a community with clean, sustainable energy and a clean, sustainable environment to live and thrive in. Alternative energies require us to change how we view our utilization of land and space. Wind energy requires the installation of windmills that alter the view of the landscape and for many individuals will require an adjustment in perceived aesthetics of the built environment. Geothermal energies require large tracts of land while solar panels will require high up-front costs. These adjustments or initial costs should be viewed as investments into long-term decrease in cost, quality of life and the future of the planet and its inhabitants. Also, the incorporation of these eco-friendly technologies into a community signals to other developments that there is a belief that the environment and the movement towards an ecologically friendly lifestyle is an important and valuable investment for all individuals to begin making.Water & WasteWater is becoming an increasingly valuable commodity and must be preserved and recycled as often as possible. The Alternative South Campus Neighborhood plan recommends a number of different methods of helping the community preserve its water supply. Among these recommendations are a unit based metering system with the reinvestment of collected taxes into a more efficient water based infrastructure. This infrastructure would potentially be composed of: 1) rainwater harvesting and treatment for the use of potable water 2) grey water recycling for toilets and laundry facilities and 3) onsite black water (sewage) treatment for reuse as landscape and agricultural irrigation. These improvements are meant to provide the community with greater self-sufficiency as a community, reduced demand on the municipal water system, long-term decrease in taxes, and lessened impact on the surrounding ecosystems. These alterations to the water systems infrastructure involve newer technologies and public acceptance of the processes has not always favored installation of these technological advancements. The most environmentally friendly thing that a South Campus community member can do is become educated on how these technologies can be used to help limit our use of the earth’s precious water supply. For a sustainable vision of a South Campus Neighborhood to be fully articulated it is important to address the need for smart design of products and the implementation of true-cost strategies that address the real impact the material good is having on the environment. Through education and awareness programs South Campus community members will hopefully adjust to a less wasteful lifestyle, especially when it comes to material goods as many products still cannot be recycled or reused. TransitThe South Campus Neighborhood plan transit recommendations focus on catering to cycling traffic and pedestrians. Improvements include the installation of cycling lanes to make them safer, wider sidewalks, the creation of Pedways, and location-efficient land use patterns. These improvements shift the urban focus away from the vehicle and back to the pedestrian. It is important to understand that an individual who has become accustomed to a vehicle dependent lifestyle may have to reevaluate daily patterns and choices in order to appreciate a more pedestrian based existence. The reduction of street parking may be an issue that especially requires extra adjustment on the part of the community member. However decreased parking and increased parking fees encourage individuals to utilize alternative modes of transit which not only allow for greater interaction with the community but contribute to better physical and mental health by allowing for daily exercise to be easily fit into a hectic schedule. Social and EmploymentAlthough communities generally form their own characteristics and levels of cohesion and capital, there are elements that can be built into the South Campus Neighborhood plan which facilitate greater social interaction and community building activities. The development of a welcoming environment where individuals have reason to migrate outdoors and engage with the community and its surroundings is an essential part of social development and a good community can be somewhat dependent on expertly implemented built form, transit, employment opportunities and proper activity space for the community demographic. Many individuals moving into the South Campus Neighborhood may be accustomed to a large city experience where there is less community environment that can be attributed to place. Education about the 166 167plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009benefits of community cooperation may be beneficial in setting the tone of an inclusive and open social environment where it will be important for individuals to embrace and incorporate diversity into their daily life. 10.4  RecommendationsLand UseInstitutional/ManagementIncrease densities and relax height restrictions  - - particularly along Wesbrook Mall, informed by sightlines from primary pedestrian pathwaysStructural/EnvironmentalIncrease proportion of rental units  - to 20 percent within the South Campus Neighbourhood Plan AreaPropose ‘Alternative Eco-village Zone’  - as transition from UBC farm to SCNP areaEncourage innovative natural buildings  - (e.g. cob construction, strawbale construction) and zero-waste, carbon-neutral systemsWiden the proposed east-west greenway  - and work with PSRP and the UBC Farm to improve integration of these green spaces into a broader multi-functional green space networkEducationIncorporate market and/or research -  uses associated with UBC Farm into mixed-use coreEconomicExpand Mixed-Use  - designation South down Wesbrook MallBuilt FormInstitutional/ManagementIncorporate sustainable design principles -  to reduce, reuse, recycleStructural/EnvironmentalConsider the importance of building design - , especially site location as it greatly affects energy efficiencyDesign for adaptability, flexibility, and resilience -EducationDevelop academic programs  - and post-occupancy research assessmentConnect and integrate the UBC Farm -  both physically and energetically into the design of the built formUse design to encourage sustainable lifestyle habits  - - use of shared facilities and integrated waste disposalEconomicPrioritize efficiency  - - renewable energy, water efficiency, waste reduction, toxics reduction, indoor air qualityTransportationInstitutional/ManagementIncrease transit service frequency -Increase the mode share of transit  - - walking, and cycling for residents of UBCStructural/EnvironmentalReduce residential parking availability -  and increase parking fees for non-residential parkingImprove pedestrian facilities  - - ensure accessibility and efficiency in design; prioritize security and human scaleImprove cycling facilities -  - implement trails and storage facilitiesEducationBuild alternative transport awareness  - through UBC Bike Co-opImplement active transportation encouragement programs -EconomicReduce transit fare -  (e.g. community pass)168 169plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009EnvironmentInstitutional/ManagementCreate a biodiversity plan  - for the neighbourhood to help inform how to manage systems and servicesManage natural landscapes using organic maintenance  -practices and prohibit invasive plants and chemical fertilizers and pesticidesPrioritize preservation -  of the rich flora, fauna, biodiversity and natural features of local environmentStructural/EnvironmentalReplaced with turfed areas -  with natural landcapes; hardy groundcovers and low shrubs will be selected to grow under street treesDesign green fingers  - - extensions of the forest edge into development area to create a cohesive connection between the developed area and the forestBuild community gardens -  located close to residential centers for communal accessEducationProvide ecological gardening and food growing workshops  - at UBC FarmIntegrated forest edge -  into the built environment to create habitat corridors and opportunity for experiential learningEconomicIncorporate native/site specific vegetation -  to minimize the use of chemicals and encourage animal habitats reducing maintenance costsEnergyInstitutional/ManagementDesign an integrated energy supply scheme -  that would include all of the four following sources: solar• wind • geothermal• biomass• Become a model community  - for onsite renewable energy productionReduce non-renewable energy requirements -  without mechanical equipment by capturing natural energy from beneath the earth’s surfaceStructural/EnvironmentalDesign residential and community systems -Mount solar panels on roofs  - no requirement for additional land space on the groundBuild wind system -  as back-up to solarGeo-Thermal  - - at the house level, small physical footprint associated with installation (all equipment is underground or in the house)EducationEngage residents and business owners in localized  - management of energy systemCreate community specific energy capture systems -EconomicMake use of organic waste -  products to produce high quality fertilizer/compost feedstockUse additional revenue -  for community amenities/programsWaste and Water ManagementInstitutional/ManagementReframe waste as resource -  - design a community informed Integrated Resource Management System - for solid and water treatmentDevelop effective policy  - - regulatory guidelines with precise 170 171plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009terminology adequate staffing support to develop active programming, leadership that would stimulate and support behavioral changesStructural/EnvironmentalIn-vessel composting system -  - centralized composting facilities for yard Living machine system  - - propose a small blackwater processing facilityIntegrate water and waste metering systems -Incorporate 3-tiered water recovery and treatment technologies -EducationReduction at the source  - - eliminate disposal packaging from all commercial centresSupport policy with active  - public eduction campaign Design full lifecycle products -  based on the needs and resources of communityEconomicInvest in the Service Industry -  - increase in opportunities for service sector employment“True Cost” Accounting  - - cost recovery based on “Polluter Pays Principle” use taxes and subsidies as interventionReinvestment of generated income into public infrastructure -Food SystemInstitutional/ManagementIntegrate waste, water and energy systems -  through production of foodSupport community and social capacity -Structural/EnvironmentalReduce transportation demands -  by encouraging local productionImprove efficiency  - of built-form by maximizing green surface allocationIncrease water absorption and decrease energy requirements -  through ‘greening’ of building - vertical and rooftop growingEducationDesign education opportunities  - for residents to connect with food sources through programming at UBC FarmEconomicBuild relationships -  - between producer and local businesses and social enterprisesEncourage localized buying  - - from UBC Farm, community growers and community sourced food outlets172 173plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 200911.0 ReferencesA1 Organics. (2008) A1 organics – Colorado’s leader organic recycling. Retrieved  February 1, 2009, from: (2009). Adera new home communities. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from: nowselling/newcom Alsema, E.A., Wild-Scholten, M.J., & Fthenakis, V.M. (2006).  Environmental impacts of PV electricity generation: A critical comparison of energy supply options. Paper presented at the 21st European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, Dresden, Germany. American Wind Energy Association. (2001).  Wind energy applications guide. Retrieved January, 30, 2009, from: Wind Energy Association. (2007). The power of wind. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from: Wind Energy Association. (2009). American Wind Energy Association [homepage]. Retrieved January, 30, 2009, from: http://www.awea.orgAmos, Heather. (2009, January 6). UBC abandons electronic waste recycler. Ubyssey Online. Retrieved February 8, 2009, from:, R. (2002). Sustainable urban food production in the City of Vancouver: An analytical and strategy framework for planners and decision-makers. Urban Agriculture Notes. Retrieved February 6, 2009, from:, K.L., Vakil, C., Sanborn, M.D., Cole, D.C., Kaur, J.S., & Kerr, K.J. (2007). Cancer health effects of pesticides: A systematic review. Canadian Family Physician, 53(10), 1704-1711. Bay Localize. (2007). Tapping the potential of urban rooftops: Rooftop resources neighborhood assessment. Retrieved February 6, 2009, from: 175plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Bay Localize. (n.d.). Use your Roof: A guidebook of resources and considerations for rainwater catchment, roof gardens and solar power. Retrieved February 6, 2009, from: Hydro. (2009). Who we are. Retrieved February 1, 2009 from:, J. (2004) Social preservationists and the quest for authentic  community. American Sociological Association. 3(2), 135-156.Beauvais, C. & Jenson, J. (2002) Social cohesion: Updating the state of the research. Author: Beauvais, C. & Jenson, J. Retrieved from the Canadian Policy Research Network: Centre for Energy Information. (2008). Biomass. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from: Centre for Energy. (2008).  Hydropower – Overview. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from: Industrial Energy End-use Data and Analysis Centre (CIEEDAC). Energy Consumption and Supply in British Columbia: A Summary and Review. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from: Wind Energy Association. (2005). Small wind energy. Retrieved January 30, 2009, from: Wind Energy Association. (2006). Turbines and land use: The win/win of wind energy. Retrieved January 30, 2009, from: Wind Energy Association. (2008). Canadian Wind Energy Association [homepage]. Retrieved January 30, 2009, from: http://www.canwea.caCascadia Region Green Building Council. (2006). In depth case studies – seminar II: The Evergreen State College. Retrieved January 28, 2009, from: of Toronto. (2009). Solid waste management – green bin system. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from: of Vancouver. (1992). High-density housing for families with children guidelines. Retrieved February 9, 2009 from: of Vancouver. (2009a). Southeast False Creek green building strategy. Retrieved on February 2, 2009, from: of Vancouver. (2008b). Green building. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from of Vancouver. (2009). Vancouver green homes program. Retrieved February 4, 2009: of Vancouver. (n.d.). Edible landscaping brochure. Retrieved February 7, 2009, from: (n.d.). Insulation. Retrieved February 2, 2009, from:, S. (2003). Electricity generation using small wind turbines at your home or farm. Retrieved February 2, 2009 from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Ontario:    Copperhill. (2009). Photo voltaic panels. Retrieved February 1, 2009,  from: University (n.d.). A primer on community food systems: Linking food, nutrition and agriculture. Retrieved February 6, 2009, from: 177plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Cornell University. (n.d.). Lesson 3: Think globally, eat locally. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from:, K. (2004). Fostering change from within. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from:∞Culture Programme. (2008) The intercultural city: What it is and how to make it work. Retrieved February 9, 2009 from:, A. (2001) Social Capital and Sustainable Development. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from:, K.A. (1994, February). Localizing food systems. The Neighborhood Works. Retrieved  February 7, 2009, from: Wind Industry Association. (2003). Danish Wind Industry Association [homepage]. Retrieved February 2, 2009,  from: Rural Electric Cooperative (REC) Inc. (2009). Geothermal heating & cooling. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from: Porto, D., & Steinfeld, C. (1999). The composting toilet system book. Concord, MA: The Center for Ecological Pollution.De Wit, P., & Verheye, W. (2001). Land use planning for sustainable development. Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems.DiPippo, R. (2007). Geothermal power plants: Principles,  applications,  case studies and environmental impact.  Retrieved February 8, 2009, from: (2009). Working to build zero waste communities. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from: www.ecocycle.orgElectrigaz. (2006). FAQ.  Retrieved February 1, 2009,  from: (2009). Envirolet composting toilets. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from: http://www.envirolet.comEnvironment Canada. (2003). Canadian wind energy atlas [interactive map]. Retrieved January 30, 2009, from: l=v6t 1z2Environment Canada. (2004) Water use data. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from: Canada. (2006) Waste management – fact sheets. Retrieved February 8, 2009, from: Protection Agency (EPA). United States. (2005). Municipal solid waste generation, disposal and recycling in the United States: Facts and figures for 2003. Retrieved February 8, 2009, from: (n.d. –  a). Clover bar landfill gas generating station. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from: (n.d. – b). Landfill gas (methane) power. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from: Evans, G., & Foord, J. (2007).  The generation of diversity: Mixed-use and urban sustainability. In Porta, S., et al. (Eds.) Urban sustainability through environmental design: Approaches to time-people-place responsive urban spaces. Retrieved from, J. (2004). Transit scheduling and frequency: Traveler response to Transportation system changes (TCRP Report 95, Chapter 9). Retrieved January 29, 2009, from: 179plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Forestry Stewardship Council. (2009). Forestry Stewardship Council [homepage]. Retrieved on February 1, 2009, from:, K. (n.d.). Review of small scale, community bio-gas in the industrialized world. Retrieved February 7, 2009 from:, R., & Perl, A.  (2008). Transport revolutions: Moving people and freight without oil. London, UK: Earthscan.Geothermal Education Office. (2000). District heating. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from: http://geothermal., J. (2004) Encouraging mixed use in practice. Paper presented at the International Planning Symposium on Incentives, Regulations, and Plans, National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education, University of (2009). Self-Sufficiency. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from Gurwitt, R. (2005, April). Pride of place. Governing. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from:, P. (1997, March 1). Natural capitalism. Mother Jones. Retrieved February 8, 2009, from:, R.H. (Ed.) (1998). The Canadian system of soil classification, (3rd ed.).Ottawa, Canada: NRC Research.Hilborn, R. (2006). Calculations and information for sizing anaerobic digestion systems. Retrieved February 6, 2009, from: Barrs Planning Group. (2002). Southeast False Creek uirban agriculture strategy. Retrieved  February 7, 2009, from: of Canadian Municipalities. (2007). InfraGuide: The national guide to sustainable infrastructure. Retrieved February 2, 2009, from: Ground Source Heat Pump Association (IGSHPA). (2009). What is geothermal? Retrieved February 1, 2009, from: (2006). Green building 101: Energy & atmosphere – Keeping cool and staying warm. Retrieved February 2, 2009, from: (n.d.). Bringing wind energy to life: AT5-1. [Product brochure]. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from:, C.T. (2001). Planning for farmers markets and sustainable food systems [Masters thesis]. Retrieved  February 8, 2009, from: University College. (2006). Ecological footprint analysis and review. Retreived February 1, 2009, from: Study6847.pdfLee, S., Lee. Y.H. and Park, J.H. (2003). Estimating price and service elasticity of urban transportation demand with stated preference technique: Case of Korea. Transportation Research Record 1839, 167-172.Lighthouse Sustainable Building Centre. (2009). Welcome to Lighthouse. Retrieved on February 3, 2009, from: http://www.sustainablebuildingcentre.comLitman, T. (2008a). Accessibility. Online TDM Encyclopedia. Retrieved January 29, 2009, from:, T. (2008b). Bike/transit integration. Online TDM Encyclopedia. Retrieved from the World Wide Web on January 31, 2009, from: 181plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Litman, T. (2008c). Transportation elasticities: How prices and other factors affect travel behavior. Online TDM Encyclopedia. Retrieved January 27, 2009, from:, T. (2008d). Transit oriented development: Using public transit to create more accessible and livable neighborhoods. Online TDM Encyclopedia. Retrieved January 31, 2009, from:, T. (2008e). Valuing transit service quality improvements considering comfort and convenience In transport project evaluation. Online TDM Encyclopedia. Retrieved January 30, 2009, from:, T. (2008f). Walkability improvements strategies to make walking convenient, safe and pleasant. Online TDM Encyclopedia. Retrieved January 30, 2009, from:, T. (2009). Online TDM Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 2, 2009, from:, F., Sciortino, S., Fleck, J., & Lee, B. (2006). Pedestrian countdown signals: Experience with an extensive pilot installation. ITE Journal, 76(1), 43-48.Mata-Alvarez, J., Mace, S., & Labres, P. (2000). Anaerobic digestion of organic solid wastes: An overview of research achievements and perspectives. Bioresource Technology, 74, 3-16.Mayer, P.W., DeOreo, W.B., Dietemann, A., & Skeel, T. 2001 P.W. (2001). Residential efficiency: The impact of complete indoor retrofits. In American Water Works Annual (AWWA) Conference Proceedings, Washington, D.C.McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2002). Cradle to cradle: Remaking the way we make things. New York, NY: North Point Press. McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (1998, October). The NEXT industrial revolution. The Atlantic. Retrieved February 8, 2009, from: Vancouver. (1995). Solid waste management plan. Retrieved February 8, 2009, from: Miller, C. (2005) Food waste. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from Food Wastage: of Environment. British Columbia. (2008). Consumption footprint calculator. Retrieved February 1, 2009,  from:, T., & Mushamba, S. (2006) Integration of agriculture in urban land use planning and adaptation of city regulations. In Cities Farming for The Future. Retrieved on February 9, 2009, from the International Development Research Centre:, P. (2008) Placemaking pays off. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from Project for Public Spaces: Geothermal Power Inc. (2009). Environmental benefits. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from:, T., Markstahler, E., & Snyder, M. (1992). Commercial food waste from restaurants and grocery stores: A report for the Community Recycling Centre. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from: Newel, T., Markstahler, E., & Snyder, M. (2002). Identification, characterization, and mapping of food waste and food waste generators in Massachusetts. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Waste Prevention: Newman, P., & Kenworthy, J. (2006). Urban design to reduce automobile dependence. Opolis, 2(1), 35-52.182 183plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009O’Callaghan, S., & Pollard, C. (2001) Floor space per employee ratio: Office stock report for the city of London. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from: of Housing and Construction Standards. British Columbia. (2008). British Columbia green building code. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from, R. & Stark, S. (1996). Infrequent riders: One key to new transit ridership and revenue. Transportation Research Record 1521, 37-41. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from: Department of Energy. (2008). Biomass energy. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from: Office of Science and Technology. United Kingdom. (2006). Carbon footprint of electricity generation (POSTNote No. 268). London, UK: Author.Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. (2009). Walking school bus. Retrieved February 8, 2009, from: for Public Spaces. (2008). Creating a place. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from: Council of BC. (2002). Zero waste one step at a time. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from: Progress. (2009). Step 3: Calculate the land area needed to absorb those carbon emissions. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from:, W., & Wackernagel, M. (1996). Our ecological footprint – Reducing human impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.Region of Waterloo Public Health. (2005). Urban agriculture report. Retrieved February 6, 2009, from:$file/UA_Feasibility.pdf?openelementRoyal Roads University. (2008) Case sudies: Social capital and sustainable development. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from: Farm. (2009). Save UBC Farm from house development. Retrieved February 8, 2009, from: Club. (2001). Sprawl harms our health: The sprawl report. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from: Solar power construction techniques. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from: Statistics Canada. (2004). Waste management industry survey: Business and government sectors (Catalogue no. 16F0023XIE). Retrieved February 4, 2009, from: Canada. (2008). 2006 Census: Census tract profile for 0069.00 (CT), Vancouver (CMA) and British Columbia. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from Statistics Canada:, C. & Anderson, C. (2002). Water-wise toilets.  Mother Earth News. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from: Biogas. (2008). Welcome to StormFisher Biogas. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from: http://www.stormfisher.com184 185plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Surls, R. (2001). Community garden start-up guide. Retrieved February 8, 2009, from:, J.M. (n.d.). Fertilizing your vegetable garden. Retrieved January 29, 2009, from:, M.E., Rezola, S., & Sterns, J. (2006). Sustainable community development (Publication No. FCS7213-Eng). Retrieved February 9, 2009, from the University of Florida: Gas. (2009). About natural gas in BC. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from: _AboutNaturalGas/NaturalGasInBC/default.htmThe Weather Network. (2009). Statistics: Vancouver Int`l, BC, Canada. Retrieved January 30, 2009, from:, S.A, Ndegwa, P.M, Merka, W.C., & Webster, A.B. (2001) Reduction in manure weight and volume using an in-house layer manure composting system under field conditions.  J. Appl. Poult. Res., 10, 255-261.True Consulting Group. (2007). Best practices in urban agriculture: A background report for the City of Kamloops to support development of an urban agricultural strategy. Retrieved  February 7, 2009, from:, K., & James, P. (2004). Multifunctional urban green space networks. University of Salford, UK: The Research Institute for the Built and Human Environment.University of British Columbia (UBC). (1999). Retrieved on January 30, 2009, from: Campus &Community Planning (C&CP): (2003a). Campus transit plan. Retrieved on January 30, 2009, from C&CP:   UBC. (2003b). First ComPass study begins. Retrieved on February 8, 2009, from: (2004). Environmental assessment UBC South Campus Neighbourhood. (2004). Retrieved January 28, 2009, from C&CP: UBC. (2007). South Campus green corridors report. Retrieved January 28, 2009, from UBC. (2005). South Campus Northeast Sub-Area plan. Retrieved January 27, 2009, from C&CP: (2008a). UBC development handbook. Retrieved January 30, 2009, from C&CP: (2008b). Fall 2007 transportation status report. Retrieved on January 30, 2009, from C&CP:  UBC Waste Management. (2009). UBC compost project. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from: Sustainability Office. (2008). UBC Sustainability Home. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from: Sustainability Office. (2009). Residential environmental assessment program (REAP). Retrieved February 1, 2009, from: (2009). University Town – Economy.  Retrieved February 4, 2009, from: States Department of Agriculture. Agriculture Fact Book 2001-2002. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from 187plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009University of California, Davis. Efficient Water Use in the Vegetable Garden. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from Neighbourhoods Association (2008, February 12). Minutes of the Board of Directors. Retrieved February 8, 2009, from: Department of Agriculture. (2009). Conservation plant characteristics. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from: Department of Energy. (2003). A Consumer’s guide: Heat your water with the sun [brouchure]. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from: Department of Energy. (2009). Geothermal power plants – minimizing land use and impact. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from: Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). Green building. Retrieved on February 4, 2009, from: Green Building Council. (2007). Green homes 101. Retrieved February 7, 2009, from: US Green Building Council. (2008). Welcome to USGBC. Retrieved on February 9, 2009, from: Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1998). Technical methods for analyzing pricing measures to reduce transportation emissions (Report 231-R-98-006). Retrieved January 27, 2009, from: Green Building Council LEED. (2008). Welcome to USGBC. Retrieved February 7, 2009, from: http://www.usgbc.orgVestas. (n.d.). Creating more from less (Product brochure no. V82-1.65 MW). Retrieved February 9, 2009, from: (2007). Life cycle assessment (LCA). Retrieved January 31, 2009, from: (2009). Community gardening. Retrieved February 7, 2009, from: (2009). Community supported agriculture. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from: Water Technologies (2008). Living machines systems technical information. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from: Wright Environmental Management. (n.d.) Wright Environmental Management Inc. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from:  Zhang, R., El-Mashad, H. M., Hartman, K., Wang, F. Liu, G., Choate, C., & Gamble, P. (2007). Characterization of food waste as feedstock for anaerobic digestion. Bioresource Technology, 98, 929–935.188 189plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Appendices190 191plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Top ten most invasive plants in the lower mainland:This list is limited to those invasive plants that are available in the nursery trade. The list was provided by Evergreen ( Name Botanical NameScotch broom        Cytisus scoparius English ivy          Hedera helix Yellow flag         Iris Iris pseudacorus Periwinkle      Vinca minor Goutweed      Aegopodium podgraria Butterfly bush      Buddlei davidii Lamium       Lamiastrum galeobdolon Cherry laurel      Prunus laurocerasus English holly      Ilex aquifolium Spurge laurel      Daphne laureola. Native plants suitable for the South Campus Neighbourhood:These are plants that are commonly found in coastal forests and are readily available in local nurseriesTreesVine mapleMountain ashShrubsAcer circinatumSorbus sitchensisEvergreen huckleberry Vaccinium ovatum Red huckleberry Vaccinium parvifoliumSalalSalmonberryGaultheria shallonRubus parviflorumPerennialsAlum root Heuchera micrantha Bleeding heart Dicentra formosaBunchberry Cornus canadensisChocolate lily Fritillaria lanceolataFalse solomon’s seal Smilacena racemosaNodding onion Allium cernuumRed columbine Aquilegia formosaTiarella Tiarella cordifolliaAppendix A192 193plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Top ten most invasive plants in the lower mainland:This list is limited to those invasive plants that are available in the nursery trade. The list was provided by Evergreen ( Name Botanical NameScotch broom        Cytisus scoparius English ivy          Hedera helix Yellow flag         Iris Iris pseudacorus Periwinkle      Vinca minor Goutweed      Aegopodium podgraria Butterfly bush      Buddlei davidii Lamium       Lamiastrum galeobdolon Cherry laurel      Prunus laurocerasus English holly      Ilex aquifolium Spurge laurel      Daphne laureola. Native plants suitable for the South Campus Neighbourhood:These are plants that are commonly found in coastal forests and are readily available in local nurseriesTreesVine mapleMountain ashShrubsAcer circinatumSorbus sitchensisEvergreen huckleberry Vaccinium ovatum Red huckleberry Vaccinium parvifoliumSalalSalmonberryGaultheria shallonRubus parviflorumPerennialsAlum root Heuchera micrantha Bleeding heart Dicentra formosaBunchberry Cornus canadensisChocolate lily Fritillaria lanceolataFalse solomon’s seal Smilacena racemosaNodding onion Allium cernuumRed columbine Aquilegia formosaTiarella Tiarella cordifolliaAppendix BENERGY CALCULATIONSEnergy UseResidentialNumber of Residential Units 2481Energy Consumption per unit 26628 kWh/unit/yearTotal Energy Consumption 66064068 kWh/yearEnergy Consumption (heating) 48821346 kWh/yearEnergy Consumption (electricity) 17242722 kWh/yearCommercial / InstitutionalCommercial Centre (ground Floor) 6000 sq.mCommunity Centre 2000 sq.mSchool 7200 sq.mCommercial/Institutional Area 15200 sq.mEnergy Consumption Per Unit Area 717 kWh/sq.m/yearTotal Energy Consumption 10898400 kwH/yearEnergy Consumption (heating) 7018570 kwH/yearEnergy Consumption (electricity) 3923424 kwH/yearEnergy ProductionSolarAssumptions:- 20 inch x 44 inch 100 W panel- 5.5 hours sunshine per day (in Vancouver)Solar panel rating 200 wattsHours of sunshine 5.5 h/daySolar panel area 0.57 sq.mSolar panel energy output 704 kWh/year/sq.mSolar panel energy output 0.14 ha/GWhGeothermalAssumptions:- Land use requirement for geothermal plant is 0.5 acre/MW (range is 0.3-8 acres/MW)- Another source claims that land use requirement ranges from 1 - 8 acres/MWLand Use Requirement 0.5 acres/MWLand Use Requirement 0.0001 acres/MWhLand Use Requirement 0.02 ha/GWhMaximum Energy Output 1038.59 GWhPlant Size 118.56 MW- One source claims that land use requirement ranges from 1260-2290 sq.m/MW (0.3 - 0.6 acres/MW) or 160-290 sq.m/GWh (0.016 - 0.029 ha/GWh)- plant is operating at maximum capacity (i.e. 1 MW is equivalent to 8760 MWh...plant is operating at 1MW 365 days a year)194 195plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009WIND ENERGYVancouver Wind Speed (The Weather Network, 2009)Monthkm/hm/sJan123.3Feb123.3Mar133.6Apr133.6May113.1Jun113.1Jul113.1Aug113.1Sep102.8Oct113.1Nov123.3Dec123.3Average11.63.2UBC Wind Speedat 30m5.1(Environment Canada, 2003)at 30m5.1(Environment Canada, 2003)at 60m*5.7at 120m*6.4*Based on a 12% increase is speed each time elevation doubles (Canadian Wind Energy Association, 2005)Wind Energy ProductionManufacturerModelRated OutputRotor DiameterTower HeightCut In SpeedOptimal SpeedActual OutputRatio Actual to PotentialScenario 1: MaximumScenario 2: RecommendedScenario 3: Small WindSourceVestasV82-1.65 MW1,650 kW82m78m3.5m/s13m/s500 kW0.30152(Vestas, n.d.)IskraAT5-15 kW5.4m9 - 15m3.0 m/s2 kW0.30275(Iskra, n.d.)Actual Power Output7,500 kW1,000 kW413 kWPotential Power Output24,750 kW3,300 kW1,375 kWRatio: Actual to Potential0.300.300.30Actual Energy Output65.7 GWh/year8.8 GWh/year3.6 GWh/yearRatio to Total Site requirement (16GWh)4.110.550.23BIOGAS ENERGY Energy Production from MethaneEnergy Content of Methane 6.0 kWh/m3 (Electrigaz, 2006)Total Electricity potential of methane (33% efficiency) 2.0 kWh/m3 electricity (Electrigaz, 2006)Total Heat potential of methane (80%-33% = 47% efficiency ) 2.8 kWh/m3 heat (Electrigaz, 2006)Methane Production from Various FeedstocksMethane Produced from sewage sludge waste 125 m3/tonne wasteMethane Produced from food waste 144 m3/tonne waste (wet) (Zhang et al ., 2007) Energy Potential from Various FeedstocksSewage Slugde - Electricity Potential 250 kWh/tonne waste (electricity)Sewage Slugde - Heat Potential 353 kWh/tonne waste (heat)Food Waste - Electricity Potential 288 kWh/tonne waste (electricity)Food Waste - Heat Potential 406 kWh/tonne waste (heat)Annual Waste ProductionAnnual Food Waste per Capita 250 kg/person/year (Gell, n.d.)Community Size 3978 personsTotal Annual Food Waste 995 tonne/yearAnnual Sewage Sluge Waste 200 tonnes/yearTotal Energy Production: Scenario 1: MaximumPercent Sewage Slugde Used 100 %Percent Food Waste Used 100 %Sewage Electricity 50     MWh/yearSewage Heat 71 MWh/yearFood Electricity 286   MWh/yearFood Heat 403   MWh/yearTotal Electricity 336   MWh/yearTotal Heat 474   MWh/yearTotal Energy Production: Scenario 2: RecommendedPercent Sewage Slugde Used 100 %Percent Food Waste Used 50 %Sewage Electricity 50     MWh/yearSewage Heat 71 MWh/yearFood Electricity 143   MWh/yearFood Heat 202   MWh/yearTotal Electricity 193   MWh/yearTotal Heat 272   MWh/year196 197plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Energy Use By End Use(from 50.0% 55.6%Water 23.9% 8.8%Sub-Totals 73.9% 64.4%ElectricityAppliances 19.0% 0.0%Lighting 7.1% 12.4%Aux. Equipment 0.0% 13.7%Aux. Motors 0.0% 9.9%Sub-Totals 26.1% 36.0%Totals 100.0% 100.4%Ecological Footprints by Energy SourceResidentialCommercial / InstitutionalFor Electrical UseBC Hydro2N/A 23 487Solar PV325 N/A 145Wind411 N/A 64For Heating/Cooling UsesTerasen Gas N/A 44.5 2485Geothermal 15 N/A 229Biomass 10 N/A 153Notes:2. The ecological footprint (per unit energy) for BC Hydro was derived from The life cycle GHG emissions for solar PV range from 15 to 58 g CO2/kWh, based on the reviewed literature.4. The life cycle GHG emissions for wind range from 5 to 29 g CO2/kWh, based on the reviewed literature.5. The life cycle GHG emissions for geothermal was derived from 20Analysis_Research%20Papers/Hondo_Lifecycle%20GHG%20emission%20analysis%20of%20power%20geeration%20systems%20-%20Japanese%20case.pdf1. Ecological footprint has been calculated for each energy source assuming it is meeting all of the energy requirements (electricty OR heating) of South CampusEnergy SourceLife Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions (g.CO2/kWh)Ecological Footprint1Per Unit Energy (Ha/GWh) Total (Ha)Appendix CPost Consumer ResourcesSystem Example Spatial DimensionsCycling capacity (kg/yr)PrecedentComposting Toilet 0.63m x 0.84m 2 people full time  yr(Steinfeld and Anderson, 2009) (Envirolet, 2009)Living machine Tidal hybrid system51.09 m21000gal/day0.4 kwhr/1000gal/day(Worrell Water Technologies, 2009)Worm composter 1m/40cm/40cm 2kg/wk, 104 kg / yr(UBC Waste Management, 2009)Extra small kitchen compost container20cm x 30cm 0.02m3Toronto has a “greenbin” composting system servicing 510000 homes in the GTA.(City of Toronto, 2009)198 199plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Collection Small scale 50cm x 58cm 0.25m3Collection (med scale) 3m x 1m 3m3Restaurant, Grocery storagesmall: 7.6m3 = 2.43m by 3.66mlarge: 15.3 m3 = 5.5m by 2.4m7.6 m3 or 15.3 m3 Colarado: Whole foods sumpermarkt was able to compost 67% of waste.(Ecocycle, 2009)In-vessel  composting systemvessel:  15mx6mshelter:  12x18marea: 80mx80m5 tonnes / day inPrimary treatment: 14 daysSecondary treatmentMaturing: 12-15 weeksConversion factor: 61% by weight (remaining mass after  decomposition process)(UBC Campus, 2009)(Wright environmental group, 2009.)(Thompson et al, 2001)Transport 10m x 2.5m + access routes27m3Storage and Compost Maturing centres:eg. 2. Platteville Colorado40ac.  (16.2ha)16.2 ha to produce: 38,228 m3 to 76,455 m3 per year.(A1 organics, 2009)Post Consumer Resource Outputs:Output Example Spatial dimensionsRate and Quality Precedent:In vessel Composting System(food and yard waste)80m x 80m x 1 at 63% capacity1,153,800 kg/yr input.703,818 kg / yr output (accounting for mass loss during decomposition process)Revenue opportunities:  input:  $17/45kg, $435,880/yr pickup revenue.output: $186,031$60/yard(UBC Waste Management, 2009)(Thompson et. Al, 2001)Living Machine System(Blackwater andLand:  40x50m2 = 2000m2 or 0.2 ha at 100% capacityEnergy:  15 kwhr/day172,152 kg/yr mature compost AND 13,963,440 gal/yr water of tertiary quality for use on landscaping or outflow to recharge the aquifer.(Worrell Water Technologies, 2009)200 201plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Appendix DUBC Farm:Centre for Sustainable Food Systems202 203plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009SoilsA decade of work removing stumps and stones, installing extensive drainage and irrigation infrastructure, and adding amendments to the topsoil layer has helped improve the agricultural capability of the fields. Today, the farm benefits from the decades of soil improvement and can now grow a wide range of crops with summer irrigation.The coarse texture and good drainage allows students and equipment access during the winter months, when classes are in session. Teaching and Learning:Current:− Focused on experiential learning and applies a student-centred approach− The farm functions as a living laboratory and outdoor classroom− Community Service Learning projects− Community based action research− Aboriginal programs such as:− The UBC Institute for Aboriginal Health medicinal garden site− The Musqueaum First Nations Communiyt Kitchen programming− Maya in Exile garden project− Urban Aboriginal Community Kitchen Garden Project − International Students Initiative and international student internships− The Rooted Volunteer  program introduces student and non-student volunteers to all aspects of sustainable agriculture and organic farming− Aside from providing education opportunities for students and faculty UBC Farm also runs workshops and provides learning opportunities for community:- Tours, workshops and discussions- workshops for K-12Future possibilities:- Residents can aend workshops- Residents can volunteer with farming workshops- Play space for children- Farming as a family activity- Residents can learn about local ecologyBiodiversity and Habitat:204 205plan 587a. intro to physical planning & urban Design prof. M. senbel ubc south campus systems analysisfebrUArY 2009Current:UBC Farm practices agriculture in balance with surrounding ecological systems. They follow the BC Environmental Farm Plan’s (EFP) biodiversity assessment and planning guide. UBC Farm is creating their own biodiversity plan under EFP’s guidelines.Future possibilities:- The development plan could implement the UBC Farm biodiversity plan in as much that it would apply.- Landscapes could all be native and be planted and maintained to comply with the biodiversity planCommunity ConnectionsCurrent:- Elementary school garden projects- Aboriginal community kitchen - Farmers market- Maya  teaching garden- 4,800 volunteers in 2006- 20,000 site visits in 2007- Community outreach through conferences, media (radio, TV, and newspapers), and public and private events- Academic-community building opportunities such as student BBQs, the UBC Sustainability Ambassadors annual retreat, UBC events, meetings, conferences, and field dinners.Future possibilities:- Community garden- Brew pub and restaurant- Amenities for celebrations, conferences and public events- Learning opportunities- Family activitiesGreen InfrastructureCurrent:- Just mentions that UBC Farms follows UBC sustainability mandate- Mentions agriculture has potential to substantially mitigate global warming impactsFuture possibilities:- Stormwater, rainwater and greywater collection and storage for crop  irrigation,- Swales- Renewable energy features including geothermal heat exchange for greenhouses - Solar, wind and biogas systems- Net zero or net positive buildings - Regenerative farming practices,- Carbon sequestration opportunities- Agricultural carbon sequestration projectsFood PrecinctCurrent: − There is year-round production of a wide range of food crops.− The farm is a cherished source of high-quality, fresh produce for the campus community.− The farm has hosted large food celebrations - notably, the “Feast of Fields” event and the “Outstanding in the Field” dinner,  both of which provide powerful and positive motivation to connect good food with land and culture.Future possibilities:− Season extension with hoophouses − Annual and perennial crops− Apiculture and small livestock − New specialized farm equipment and shop for equipment fabrication − Equipment storage and access routes − Large-scale cold storage − Commercial kitchen − Expanded CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) box program and public market −Diversity of prepared foods at market −Field dinners and other food celebration events −On-site café −Increased connections with campus food system −Food processing facilities


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 119 5
Canada 72 0
China 49 1
Sweden 11 0
India 9 0
United Kingdom 8 0
Switzerland 7 0
Australia 4 0
Brazil 3 0
Zimbabwe 3 0
Russia 3 0
Mauritius 3 0
Germany 2 12
City Views Downloads
Vancouver 60 0
Unknown 54 12
Beijing 23 0
Redmond 22 2
Ashburn 16 0
Guangzhou 14 0
Stockholm 11 0
University Park 10 0
Washington 10 0
Zurich 7 0
Wilmington 6 0
Toronto 6 0
Shenzhen 5 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items