Why heritage preservation is climate action

Why we fight to save existing buildings and stop the construction of new useless and frivolous ones.

Photo: Norm Di Pasquale at Enoch Turner Schoolhouse in Toronto

I was asked by the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario to give the keynote address at their annual awards event. Since I spent yesterday working on the speech instead of my post, and since it summarizes so many of my thoughts about carbon these days, I am posting it here.

Dickens wrote, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times," and things feel pretty Dickensian in the Province of Ontario right now. In many ways, this is the worst of times for heritage in this Province, with a so-called Conservative government doing root-and-branch destruction of everything we fight for, from the gutting of the Heritage Act with Bill 23 to the destruction of Ontario Place and the Science Centre. 

A dozen years ago, I spent my term as President of the ACO fighting to save our charitable status because a developer got us audited for being too political, so we can't tell you how to vote. But I looked it up: today's rules are "charities may advocate to retain, oppose, or change a law, policy, or decision, of any level of government in Canada." And we have a lot of advocacy to do with this government. We have trees to hug and some beautiful concrete to defend. Looking at the website, it’s clear that the ACO has been busy, commenting on heritage conservation districts, provincial planning statements, Ontario Place and the spa, the so-called "More Homes Built Faster" act, and even finding time to weigh in on 24 Sussex Drive. President Diane Chin, the Board, the Policy Committee and Government & Community Relations Committee, the branches, Will, Alex, and the crew in the office must be exhausted trying to fight all these fires. 

But in many ways, this is the best of times for heritage advocates. There is a fundamental change happening in the way we look at existing buildings. A dozen years ago, everyone worried about energy, and we had to justify saving buildings in the face of those who would say they are energy hogs that need replacement with new, more efficient buildings. Today, we worry more about carbon, and those who want to tear down existing buildings must justify what’s called the upfront carbon, or the emissions from making building materials and building new structures, that happen before the building is even occupied. We worry about NOW emissions, whereas we used to worry more about LATER emissions.

The IPCC set out hard budgets limiting how much carbon dioxide can be added to the atmosphere before we bust 1.5 or 2 degrees, and showed us graphs that tell us we must cut consumption by half by 2030. However, one can be much more straightforward and just say that every tonne of CO2 added to the atmosphere contributes directly to climate change and brings us closer to busting the budget, and we have a moral obligation to try and stop unnecessary emissions.

Many in Canada don’t get this yet, and they certainly don’t in Ontario, but chopping down a heritage landscape and building a spa out of concrete, glass and aluminum emits 31,000 tonnes of CO2, according to Spa builder Therme, and I think they are fudging the numbers- I thought it would be much higher. (See The Therme Spa at Ontario Place in Toronto is a carbon bomb that must be defused)

Replacing a perfectly good, in fact, beautiful Science Centre uselessly emits greenhouse gases. (see Up close and personal at the Ontario Science Centre). Demolition by neglect of 24 Sussex Drive sends exactly the wrong message.

Earlier this week, the prominent British architect David Chipperfield said in the Architectural Review, “‘We have to move [on tackling upfront carbon]. The move has to be not ‘what’s the reason for keeping [the building]’ but ‘give us a convincing reason why you can’t keep it’.

After a recent major victory for heritage in the UK, Henrietta Billings of Save British Heritage said, “The dial has moved: the age of automatic demolition and rebuild has come to an end.”

It used to be different. A dozen years ago, we heated with fossil fuels, and the only way to reduce energy consumption was to do extensive and expensive renovations. Today, we have new technologies that can reduce carbon emissions by using a lighter touch on the renovations and electrifying everything with heat pumps.

A dozen years ago, we knew about climate change, but most of us had not yet personally witnessed the heat waves, fires, floods, and other disasters that have become regular events. Today, we value the resilience of older buildings with their thicker walls, thermal mass, and weather-resistant materials.

A dozen years ago, nobody thought twice about building new with steel, concrete, aluminum, and glass; today, we know that construction is responsible for 14% of global carbon emissions, and we have to use less of all these materials.

That's why there is a new hierarchy, a new order of doing the building business:

Build nothing and ask: Is this building really needed at all?
Build Less: repurpose, refurbish, reuse.
Only after you have tried that do you "build clever with carbon-efficient materials" and not tonnes of concrete and aluminum.

The World Green Building Council says we must "question the need to use materials at all, considering alternative strategies for delivering the desired function, such as increasing utilization of existing assets through renovation or reuse." 

Engineer Will Arnold summarizes it all with "Use less stuff."

Because every building we save and fix means less carbon is emitted than if it was lost and replaced. 

And this is why we are here to honour those advocates and activists leading the fights to save and fix existing buildings, rebuild our walkable communities, and stop the chainsaws. Our trees and landscapes absorb carbon dioxide; reusing our existing buildings avoids upfront carbon emissions. Former ACO President Catherine Nasmith had a motto, “landmarks, not landfill,” but we have moved beyond landmarks and have to think of every existing building.

That's why heritage preservation is climate action.