Date post: | 16-Feb-2017 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | rhys-burnell |
View: | 52 times |
Download: | 0 times |
An Environmental and Social Assessment
of Communauté Hôtel-Dieu
Facilitated by:
Rayside-Labossière
Alexie Baillargeon-Fournelle & Christelle Proulx-Cormier
Prepared by:
Rhys Burnell / Alexandre Daigle / Neal Dixon / Yelim Oh / Sam Tocci
Supervisor:
Prof. Kevin Manaugh
McGill School of Environment
December 9, 2016
Executive Summary
Communauté Hôtel-Dieu (CHD) is the first Montréal urban renewal project of its kind.
The Coalition behind the project aims to transform the North-Eastern portion of Hôtel-Dieu into
an oasis of sustainability by uprooting the existing parking areas, populating diverse green space
and installing two new sustainable residential buildings among other initiatives. Aligned with
the objectives of this renewal project, this assessment centres on measuring potential changes in
the reformed site’s residential energy and water consumption, residential building design, urban
heat island effect, runoff, carbon sequestration, biodiversity, urban agriculture, and collective
living.
This interdisciplinary research employed a wide range of methodology. Primary among
those was a spatial GIS analysis which was used for materials comparisons and extensive runoff
and carbon sequestration analyses. However, other methodologies involving multiple avenues
were also presented.
The culmination of this research is the following set of recommendations to help
maximize the studied environmental and social benefits of CHD:
● Incorporate sustainable building design, such as proper insulation and water efficient
plumbing fixtures, to help achieve the most sustainable and lowest rates of energy use
and water consumption.
● Prioritize higher reflectance roof and pavement options, as well as generally increasing
vegetation on site, to reduce both localized temperatures and the Urban Heat Island
Effect.
● Consider the Runoff calculations presented here from the ‘current’ site to CHD in order
to acknowledge the approximate reduction in surface runoff if the plan were
implemented, along with viable technologies to capture and diminish further runoff in
CHD.
● Focus on planting a majority of hardwood trees, and maximizing growth rate for all tree
types considered to increase annual carbon sequestration.
● Increase biodiversity by selecting vegetation that supports an active, mostly native
ecosystem.
● Consider acquiring the north part of the site, currently held by the Religieuses Hospitalières
de Saint-Joseph, as it is an ideal location for the establishment of an urban farm.
● Design appropriate spaces to exercise collective living practices, encouraging
community cohesion.
Finally, future implications of this research are discussed in their potential consideration and use
by the Coalition in the planning process of CHD.
Table of Contents:
Introduction……………………………………………………..……...............5-7
Research Question & Predictions.……………………………..………………8-9
Methodology/Approach & Methods/Tools…………………..……….............9-16
Residential Building Design………………………………………………...17-27
Urban Heat Island Effect…………………………………………….............28-37
Runoff...………………………………….…………………………………..37-42
Carbon Sequestration…………………….………………………………….42-50
Biodiversity………………………..……………...…………………………50-51
Urban Agriculture……………………………….…………………………..51-57
Collective Living…………………………...………………………………..57-60
Conclusions & Recommendations…...……………………………....….......61-63
Glossary…....…………………………………………………….……...............64
Appendix…....……………...………………………………………..………65-84
References……………………………………………………………...........85-95
Introduction
Following the announcement of the relocation of the CHUM, multiple stakeholders
mobilized themselves to propose an integrative vision for the new development of the site; a
vision that would preserve the site’s status as a public domain rather than it be sold to the
private investors. This heralded the birth of the Communauté Hôtel-Dieu (CHD) project (CHD
2016).
The CHD, led by CDC Action Solidarité Grand Plateau, Coalition communautaire
Milton-Parc pour l'accès au logement et à la santé, Comité Logement du Plateau Mont-Royal
and facilitated by architecture firm Rayside-Labossière, aspires to build an inclusive and
sustainable community space within the heart of Montréal. This site is envisioned to house
vulnerable people such as students, freelance artists, seniors and the currently homeless.
Furthermore, they aim to build an innovative social hub that incorporates and respects the deep
heritage of the site. However, due to the complex nature of the site’s management and
ownership CHD looks to revamp and re-envision only the North-Eastern portion of the site.
This includes the Jeanne-Mance, Masson and Le Royer pavilions in addition to the land
covered by parking lots P-4 through P-8 (See Appendix - Figure 1). The site as it currently
stands is largely unproductive, with these large parking lots dominating much of the North-
Eastern corner of the complex, so the Coalition aims to completely revamp this section,
transforming the area into a place of social and ecological cohesion. Additionally, the
collective desires to continue the rich history of health functions of the site; centering concepts
of environmentalism and social consciousness on ideas of healthy living. Implemented green
space will not only decrease the environmental impact of the site but will allow urban
agricultural zones and collective gardens to flourish and greatly improve community
unification, sustainability and active living practices. Growing local food, composting, sharing
communal space, and relying on green energy will be commonplace in the Hôtel-Dieu of
tomorrow (CHD 2016).
There is also another element to the heart of the re-envisioning; the deep heritage of the
site. Hôtel-Dieu is at the heart of the identity of Montréal. Indeed, since its foundation in the
17th century, the history of Hôtel-Dieu has been intimately linked to the transformations of
Montréal’s society across the centuries (Gauthier 2016). Still today, the site reflects these
numerous distinct, yet cohabitating identities. Multiple intricately interconnected groups such
as the Religieuses Hospitalières de Saint-Joseph, the Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de
Montréal (CHUM), community involvement and government intervention all interact around
the management of the complex.
With the city being in need of more housing units, this mixed-living project may be a
forefront example of local and sustainable urban-planning. This sort of project has been
conducted in some capacity such as Park Hill, Sheffield or the Atlantic Station but has no real
equivalent in Montréal (De Sousa and D’Souza 2013; Urban Splash 2016). Conclusively,
Hôtel-Dieu will be the first heritage site conversion project in Montréal to so heavily
incorporate both social housing and environmental considerations.
Ultimately, the vision of the project is to integrate environmental, social, and economic
considerations into a sustainable and accessible living space at the heart of the city ties in with
the broader Sustainable Montréal 2016-2020 plan which has for priority the reduction of GHG
emissions, increasing the amount of green space and biodiversity of the city, ensuring access to
sustainable neighbourhoods, and gradually move towards a greener and more responsible
economy (Ville de Montréal 2016).
Within this context, the Coalition, and more directly the architecture firm Rayside-
Labossière have engaged McGill students enrolled in ENVR 401 to come up with an
environmentally-tuned but socially conscious vision for the site. Therefore, this investigation
has centered both on exemplifying the pronounced improvements that will follow the current
conception of CHD, but also how the Coalition might move forward beyond its current vision.
Multiple angles were considered, from residential energy and water considerations to urban
agriculture and collective living, arriving now at a comprehensive investigation of how the
Coalition might proceed going forward.
CHD has major implications for how heritage conversion projects will evolve both
within Montréal and globally. This research project therefore aims to inform and direct the
decision-making process to fully realize the community-based ecologically friendly complex
that they wish to construct. We also desire to make them aware the importance of environmental
and social considerations and sustainable practices which can then be pervasive throughout the
planning and implementation of CHD.
Certain abbreviations will be used throughout this paper. Primarily, CHD will refer to
Communauté Hȏtel-Dieu in the sense of the future site itself and the Coalition will refer to the
multi-faceted collective currently governing the project. Finally, Hȏtel-Dieu will simply refer to
the site as it currently stands, and its patrimonial aspects.
Research Question & Predictions
Following an extensive process to evaluate how we could properly approach the impacts
of CHD, and how we could ensure best practice in its conception through our research, we have
designed this research question:
What are the environmental and social benefits of the proposed Communauté Hôtel-Dieu and
how can they be maximized?
To best answer this question, we conducted an assessment of the potential benefits from the
changes brought forward by CHD. These we predict to be in the following fields:
- Resource Efficiency: Decreased residential energy and water consumption through
energy- and water-efficient residential building designs; Reduced runoff; Reduced urban
heat island effect
- Health: Reduced heat-related illness and stress; Mental well-being from agricultural
practices
- Increased Biomass: Increased habitat and biodiversity; Increased carbon sequestration;
Reduced urban heat island effect
- Community Cohesion: Increased social engagement through agricultural practices;
Increased social benefits through collective living
A few considerations have been omitted from our predictions. First and foremost, we are
not considering indirect or future usage impacts of the site such as transportation, food
consumption or resident behaviour as it is currently not a tangible research objective, beyond
what part of these categories are directly influenced by built form. This project and our
predictions instead deals with the built form of the site, and some investigation as to how some
social programs might influence behaviour. Furthermore, we are not considering the transitional
period of the construction of CHD, due to the unsure nature of the construction process, and an
acknowledgement that CHD’s long-term benefits will gradually and greatly outweigh potentially
damaging short-term ecological and social costs. Overall, the scale of the benefits will depend on
numerous decision-making factors, including decision-making as to the exact materials
composition of the site, promoting social-programs and dealing with the constraint of maintaining
the patrimonial and heritage aspects of the site.
Methodology/Approach and Methods/Tools
Our research covers many areas, and as such involves numerous methodologies.
Additional topics were examined through an extensive review of current academic literature.
Primary Spatial Tool and Analysis
The primary means of analysis were area calculations of the structures pertaining to our
study site in both the ‘Current’ and CHD sites. These areas (A) were projected in GIS maps using
ArcGIS software. First, satellite images of the current Hôtel-Dieu and rendered CHD sites were
obtained from Rayside-Labossière and placed on a Montréal base map from CanMap Streetfiles
(2001). Each site map was then georeferenced and rectified, to an appropriate coordinate system
of the Québec region (i.e. UTM 1983 MTM Zone 8) on ArcGIS software. Polygon shapefiles
were then traced over the structures on the map to enable area calculations for each structure or
area partition in their respective attribute tables. Vector maps (See Appendix - Figure 2 and
Figure 3) and area results (See Below - Table 1 and Table 2) for each site can be found below.
Table 1. Calculated areas (A) for specified areas on the ‘Current’ Hôtel-Dieu site.
Specified Areas On site Area (A)
Present Greenspace 271.804107m2
Parking 13100.8673m2
Le Royer Rooftop 1354.34773m2
Jeanne Mance Rooftop 2126.97673m2
Masson Rooftop 677.396282m2
Roundabout 1307.6217m2
Walkways 583.15982m2
Table 2. Calculated areas (A) for specified areas on the CHD site.
Specified Areas On Site Area (A)
New Green Area 4277.36316m2
Walkways 6156.52618m2
Residential Rooftops 4257.10091m2
Collective Gardens 2284.67185m2
Jeanne Mance Rooftop 2126.97673m2
Masson Rooftop 677.396282m2
Le Royer Rooftop 1354.34773m2
Limitations & Justification
There exists a small degree of discrepancy between the area values provided to us by
Rayside- Labossière and those calculated on ArcGIS. However, to keep our computations
consistent, a decision was made to use the areas calculated with the above tool and methods. We
believe that the deviation between the client’s areas and ours may be due in part to the image
renditions, and since we based our calculations on the current and future images provided by
Rayside Labossière, all calculated areas will be a reflection of any inaccuracies.
Residential Building Design - Residential Energy & Water Consumption
The methodology for calculating energy consumption of each residential building
involved taking average estimations using the Hydro-Québec’s Utility Estimator tool (Hydro-
Québec 2016). Fifteen random Montreal addresses for each housing unit size of interest were
inputted into the estimator, then an average energy consumption was calculated; from which
ranges were drawn out. For example, three 2-bedroom apartments (with a bathroom, a kitchen and
a living room) consume approximately 3,670 kWh, 4,070 kWh, and 3,730 kWh per year (Hydro-
Québec 2016). With these approximations, an average was calculated, then multiplied by the
number of units in each Pavilion or CHD residential building. For the average water consumption
of each building, the average residential water consumption per Montréal citizen was obtained
from the Ville de Montréal (Ville de Montréal 2003) which was an average of 225 liters per
person daily. Then, the number of residents per unit size were computed as a range with the
assumption that all residential units would be fully occupied. The number of residents was
multiplied by the number of units and then, multiplied by 225 L per person per day. Lastly, these
calculated ranges were converted to yearly residential water consumptions by multiplying them
by 365 days. The key limitation to calculating the differences in energy and water consumption
between now and CHD is that it is impossible to do so, since the residential buildings do not exist
in the current site.
Urban Heat Island Effect
To facilitate a comparison between the current and future state of the Hôtel-Dieu site, we
have elected to conduct a simple comparison of the albedo and reflectance between the current
site and CHD. This was done through the GIS analysis of aerial design photos provided to us
through Rayside-Labossière, and general albedo and reflectance ranges from the literature.
The areas of the various sections obtained through GIS were then sorted into general the albedo
and reflectance categories based on their dominant composite material. Albedo and Reflectance
estimates of these categories were taken from numerous sources to form a general estimated range
of albedo and solar reflectance.
Runoff
To mitigate Hôtel-Dieu’s potential contribution to urban runoff pollution in Montréal,
runoff volumes were calculated for the present site of Hôtel-Dieu and CHD. This was done to
obtain quantitative results on how much runoff (including potential urban pollution carried by this
runoff) would be reduced just through the implementation of the plan put forward by the
Coalition (addition of more green space, etc.). This also allows us and subsequently the Coalition
to gain a basis of what needs to be improved upon or put into the site to achieve the most
environmentally sound CHD.
In order to calculate the runoff of both the current and future sites of Hotel Dieu in our
studied area, the following equation was used:
Runoff Of Area (m3) = (I - S) * T * A
where ‘I’ is referred to as the rainfall intensity (m/hr), ‘S’ the infiltration rate of the surface
pertaining to a specified area (m/hr), ‘T’ storm duration (rainfall time) in hours, and ‘A’ the area
(m2) of the specified areas where the amount of runoffs were calculated. Surface runoff is defined
as the excess surface rainwater in a rainfall event that does not infiltrate into the ground surface
that it lands on. If the rainfall intensity ‘I’ is calculated to be larger than the infiltration rate that
the ground or soil is able to handle ‘S’ (its infiltration capacity), then the excess water will form
as surface runoff ‘R’ (Tarboton 2003) (See Below - Figure 4). The amount of this runoff that
forms then is also dependent on the amount of time this rain event occurs ‘T’ and the size of area
that this rainfall lands on ‘A’.
In order to calculate runoff volume of Hôtel-Dieu as it currently stands and of CHD, we
need to consider a storm event that can occur in the given area (Montréal) that can generate a
specified amount of rain at a given intensity ‘I’ and duration ‘T’. Rainfall depends on many
intricate, meteorological factors (temperature, wind, humidity, and season) that can greatly vary
over a specific time frame and over different geographical areas nearby. Therefore, we need some
sort of general and reliable method to obtain rainfall parameters, ‘I’ and ‘T’ to calculate runoff.
To do so, an Intensity Duration Frequency (IDF) curve graph was obtained from Environment
Canada in the McGill, Montréal region created with meteorological data spanning from 1906-
1992 (See Appendix - Figure 5). An IDF curve plots rainfall intensity ‘I’ over rainfall duration
‘T’ according to a storm even that could occur over a specified amount of years in a given
location (return period – usually plotted with 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100 return periods). For our study,
we chose a 10-year storm event happening for a span of an hour (T = 1hr). Using the following
graph, our rainfall intensity ‘I’ was found to be approximately 40mm/hr.
With both of these parameters found, the infiltration rate of the soil surrounding Hôtel-
Dieu needed to be solved. A soil sample was obtained directly across from the Hôtel-Dieu site. To
be able to find the soil infiltration rate, the soil type first needed to be identified. This was done
through the ‘Jar Test’ method. The soil sample was placed inside a glass jar with water filled up
to about 2/3 and shaken to de-aggregate the soil sample. Once this was done, the jar was then left
for a few hours. After this amount of time, the soil was completely stratified in the jar, showing a
sand layer at the bottom, a silt layer in the middle, and a minuscule clay layer on the top (See
Appendix - Figure 6). The layers were then measured using a ruler to find how much perfect of
sand, silt, and clay existed in the soil (See Appendix - Table 3). To do so, all three layers were
measured separately (sand = 2.3cm, silt = 1.0cm, clay = 0.2cm) using a ruler and then divided by
the total measurement of all three layers together (3.5cm) to get percent values. The soil sample
contained 65.71% sand, 28.57% silt, and 5.71% clay (See Appendix - Table 4). To define the soil
type of the sample, the soil texture triangle was used. Doing so gave a soil texture of sandy loam
(See Below - Figure 7). The infiltration rate of sandy loam soil was then taken from the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations and found to be in a range of 20 to
30mm/hr (See Appendix - Table 5). The average of these values was simply taken to solve for the
infiltration rate of the soil at Hôtel-Dieu (S = 25mm/hr) (See Appendix - Table 6).
Once this was obtained, runoff volumes were then calculated for each required structure
that generates/will generate runoff in our study site using the equation specified above. All
structure runoffs were then added together for the ‘Current’ and CHD sites. Runoff generated in
the ‘Current Site’ (770.090 m3) was then subtracted by the runoff generated in the CHD site
(528.068 m3) to obtain the reduction in runoff volume if the plan created by CHD were to be
implemented; resulting in 242.022 m3, about a 31% decrease in runoff volume. (See Below -
Table 7 and Table 8 for all variable values and calculations of runoff).
Figure 4. Visual representation of surface runoff formation. Rainfall intensity ‘I = 1.5cm/hr’
equaling soil infiltration rate ‘S = 1.5cm/hr’ producing no surface runoff on the left ‘R = 1.5cm/hr - 1.5cm/hr = 0cm’ (a). Rainfall intensity ‘I = 2.5cm/hr’ larger than soil infiltration rate ‘S = 2cm/hr’ producing surface runoff ‘R = 2.5cm/hr – 2.cm/hr = 0.5cm/hr *1hr = 0.5cm’ (b). Retrieved from: (Tarboton 2003) Table 7. Variables and runoff values calculated for each specified area involved in site runoff calculation for the ‘Current Site’ of Hôtel-Dieu.
Specified Areas I = Rainfall Intensity (m/hr)
S = Surface Infiltration rate
(m/hr)
T = Time Of Storm
Duration (hr)
A = Area Of Specified Areas
(m3)
R = Runoff (m3)
Present Greenspace 0.040m/hr 0.025m/hr 1hr 271.804107m2 4.0771m3
Parking 0.040m/hr 0m/hr 1hr 13100.8673m2 524.034m3
Le Royer Rooftop 0.040m/hr 0m/hr 1hr 1354.34773m2 54.174m3
Jeanne Mance Rooftop
0.040m/hr 0m/hr 1hr 2126.97673m2 85.079m3
Masson Rooftop 0.040m/hr 0m/hr 1hr 677.396282m2 27.096m3
Roundabout 0.040m/hr 0m/hr 1hr 1307.6217m2 52.304m3
Walkways 0.040m/hr 0m/hr 1hr 583.15982m2 23.326m3
Total Runoff Of Current Hôtel-Dieu Site = 770.090m3
Table 8. Variables and runoff values calculated for each specified area involved in site runoff calculation for the CHD site.
Specified Areas I = Rainfall Intensity (m/hr)
S = Surface Infiltration Rate
(m/hr)
T = Time of Storm Duration
(hr)
A = Area of Specified Areas
(m2)
R = Runoff (m2)
New Green Area 0.040m/hr 0.025m/hr 1hr 4277.36216m2 64.160m3
Walkways 0.040m/hr 0m/hr 1hr 6156.52618m2 246.261m3
Residential Rooftops
0.040m/hr 0.036m/hr 1hr 4257.10091m2 17.028m3
Collective Gardens 0.040m/hr 0.025m/hr 1hr 2284.67185m2 34.270m3
Jeanne Mance Rooftop
0.040m/hr 0m/hr 1hr 2126.97673m2 85.079m3
Masson Rooftop 0.040m/hr 0m/hr 1hr 677.396282m2 27.096m3
Le Royer Rooftop 0.040m/hr 0m/hr 1hr 1354.34773m2 54.174m3
Total Runoff of CHD Site = 528.068m3
Total Amount of Runoff Reduced = Runoff Amount in Current Site - Runoff Amount in CHD Site
= 770.090m3 - 528.068m3 = 242.022m3
Note: There is an approximate 31% reduction in surface runoff in the CHD site compared to the
‘Current Site’.
Carbon Sequestration
Our assessment of the potential carbon sequestration at CHD begins with developing a
method of determining an appropriate tree spacing in order to estimate the number of trees we can
expect at CHD. First, we found the average tree spacing of various locations around Jeanne-
Mance Park and Hotel Dieu. The total number of trees was then calculated based our spacing
recommendation, using ArcGIS calculations for Green Space at CHD (See Above - Table 2).
Carbon Sequestration was then calculated utilizing estimations from the U.S. Department of
Energy & Energy Information Administration (EIA), who in 1998 produced, “Method for
Calculating Carbon Sequestration by Trees in Urban and Suburban Settings”. This publication
provides estimates for mortality, growth rate, and carbon storage by various categories of tree
species (EIA 1998). Results were compared across categories to provide recommendations for
choosing species when planting.
Analysis
Residential Building Design
Residential Energy & Water Consumption
Residential resource use will be an essential element to an environmentally successful
CHD. However, our interest lies specifically in direct impacts of the site; namely the total energy
use of the proposed residential buildings and the three Pavilions (Masson, Le Royer and Jeanne-
Mance), and the total residential water use from those structures.
Residential Energy Discussion
In CHD, the two new residential buildings are anticipated to hold units for both families
and single/couple dwellers (Proulx-Cormier 2016). The family units may range in size from 2
bedrooms to 4 bedrooms and thus, vary in residential energy use. Furthermore, these units are
assumed to have one kitchen, one living room, and one bathroom. The assumed 81 units for
single/couple dwellers will range in size from studio to 1 bedroom. The studio units have the
living room, kitchenette and bedroom all combined into one room, and have one bathroom.
Whereas, the 1 bedroom units have one kitchen, one living room, and one bathroom. Lastly, the
current pavilions are also anticipated to be converted into housing units for single/couple dwellers
in the CHD site (Proulx-Cormier 2016). Hence, to account for this variability in unit sizes, the
energy consumption estimates will be given in ranges (See Below - Table 11).
Table 11. Table listing residential energy usage in kWh of buildings in the CHD site, using estimations from Hydro-Québec and their records of various housing units in Montréal (Hydro-Québec 2016). Building # of Units Size (# of
bedrooms) Energy use (kWh) per size per year
Total energy use (kWh) per building per year
First Residential (P7-P8) 36 units for families
2 to 4 3,670 - 4,490 132,120 - 161,640
Second Residential (P6-P5) 24 units for families
2 to 4 3,670 - 4,490 188,520 - 276,240
81 units for single/couple
Studio to 1 1,240 - 2,080
Pavilions (Masson-H4, Le Royer-H3, and Jeanne-Mance-H8)
332 units for single/couple
Studio to 1 1,240 - 2,080 411,680 - 690,560
Total: 732,320 - 1,128,440
In the CHD, the total energy use by all five social housing buildings is estimated to be
approximately 732,320 kWh to 1,128,440 kWh each year. To reduce these estimated values,
possible means to save domestic energy through the implementation of efficient technology and
use of heat retention materials are presented under Recommendations.
Residential Water Discussion
Next, the water consumption can be calculated with the assumption that all buildings, that
is, all housing units are full. According to the Ville de Montréal, the average Montréal resident
uses 225 liters of water per person per day for residential water consumption (Ville de Montréal
2003). The total water use in liters per building per year were then listed (See Below - Table 12).
Table 12. Table listing residential water consumption in liters of buildings in the CHD site, using the average residential water use of each Montréal citizen, provided by the Ville de Montréal (Ville de Montréal 2003). Building # of Units # of residents
per building Water use (L) per building per day
Total water use (L) per building per year
First Residential (P7-P8) 36 units for families
3 to 5 24,300 - 40,500 8,869,500 - 14,782,500
Second Residential (P6-P5) 24 units for families
3 to 5 16,200 - 27,000 12,565,125 - 23,159,250
81 units for single/couple
1 to 2 18,225 - 36,450
Pavilions (Masson-H4, Le Royer-H3, and Jeanne-Mance-H8)
332 units for single/couple
1 to 2 74,700 - 149,400 27,265,500 - 54,531,000
Total: 48,700,125 - 92,472,750
As shown above, the total residential water consumption of the CHD’s housing structures is
estimated to range from approximately 48,700,125 L to 92,472,750 L each year. These figures do
not include the water used on agriculture or green space, precisely community gardens, green
rooftops or open green areas, and is solely based on the assumption that the units in these
buildings are fully occupied. Furthermore, from the estimated total domestic water consumption,
10% is consumed for drinking and preparing meals, 25% for cleaning and laundry, 30% for toilet
flushing, and 35% for bathing (Ville de Montréal 2003). Rooftop rainwater catch along with
water from bathing (35%) and toilet flushing (30%) may be used as greywater for urban
agricultural practices and collective gardens. Overall, to reduce these estimated values, a set of
recommendations of water efficient technology is discussed below, under Recommendations.
Limitations
A key limitation for assessing the energy and water consumption of the CHD residential
buildings were that these computations could only be estimates, based off existing records of
various housing units of similar size. Since the two residential buildings are a truly tentative and
details are still under revision by Rayside Labossière, the energy usage calculations largely relied
on estimations and assumptions. Moreover, these assumptions and estimations persisted in the
calculations of the building’s water consumption, relying on the average residential water
consumption per capita, then projecting it to water use per building. Lastly, a major limitation was
that means to obtain the Pavilions’ past records on their energy and water consumption were
unsuccessful.
Moreover, since the two residential buildings do not exist in the current site, the total
energy consumption of the current Hôtel-Dieu would be less than that of CHD. Simply, because
there are fewer buildings in the current site. Nonetheless, we may argue that the proposed
residential buildings with energy- and water-efficient building designs, and these spaces aimed to
accommodate sustainable practices, are a more sustainable use of the land than parking lots.
Moreover, an accurate water usage value is very difficult to collect because, although some
boroughs practice water metering, many areas do not. Unlike other large Canadian cities, most of
Montréal do not meter residential water (Eau Secours 2005).
Recommendations
On average, buildings consume about 40% of all energy used worldwide (Autodesk
Sustainability Workshop n.d.). Efficiency of energy use within a building can be influenced by
factors such as a building’s envelope, which is defined as materials or building components that
separate the inside of the building from the outside (Homeowner Protection Office n.d.). Primary
components of a building envelope include roofs, walls, foundations, windows and doors that can
affect building heating, ventilation and cooling. Therefore, building envelopes are a critical
interest in reducing energy consumption while allowing more sustainable energy use from both
residential and commercial buildings (International Energy Agency 2013). That being said, a
building can be designed or retrofitted to minimize energy usage and costs, including providing
proper levels of insulation, implementing high performance windows within the building that
have either high heat transmittance (for heating) or low heat transmittance (for cooling), and
incorporating proper sealing of structures to prevent minimal air infiltration and loss of cool or
hot air (Environmental Energy Agency 2013). As previously stated, Montreal residents use a
considerable amount of water (225L/day) for the purpose of bathing (35%), toilet flushing (30%),
laundry (25%), and drinking and meal prep (10%) (Ville de Montreal 2003). Therefore, the
coalition also needs to consider more efficient water use and conservation strategies to achieve
sustainable water consumption for their residents.
To aim towards providing social housing for all 3 pavilions (Le Royer, Masson, and
Jeanne Mance) and the 2 new buildings (Nouvelle construction 1 and 2 - habitation) in CHD with
optimal energy and water use efficiency, the following topics are discussed below with
recommendations on how to do so:
Windows
Windows can have huge impacts on energy consumption in both residential and
commercial buildings. It is estimated that poorly insulating windows are responsible for upwards
of 5 to 10% of total energy consumption. That said, building designs need to implement proper
placement, technologies, and sealing of windows to allow as much passage of natural light into
the building while minimizing heat gain in the summer and maximizing heat gain in the winter
(International Energy Agency 2013). One simple tactic to reduce thermal loss from windows is to
install low emissivity window coatings. To clarify, low-e window coatings are very thin
transparent metal films that are designed to minimize both infrared and UV light without
minimizing the amount of visible light that is transmitted through the window. Doing so reduces
the emissivity of the window while improving its insulation (Glass Education Center n.d.). Low-e
windows are an appropriate solution for both winter and summer as the silver coating repels heat
from the outside to keep a cool climate inside the building and reflects the heat back inside when
it tries to escape to colder temperatures outside, keeping warm temperatures within the building
(See Appendix - Figure 9) (Glass education center n.d.). It is estimated that installing low
emission storm windows could reduce utility heat and cooling costs by as much as 12 to 33%
(Energy Gov n.d.).
Insulation
Proper insulation of walls, floors, and roofs, are also worthy of much consideration when
focused on efficient energy use for the CHD project, both for the construction of the two new
residential buildings and retrofitting of the three historical buildings - Jeanne Mance, Le Royer,
and Masson. Optimal insulation of the following building structures can have the potential of
reducing the amount of energy (electricity, gas, etc.) and energy costs needed to heat or cool the
building by better encapsulating the cooled or heated air inside. Structural Insulated Panels
(SIP’s) provide an excellent option for the two new buildings at CHD. SIP’s consist of an
insulating foam core (usually polyurethane or polystyrene) that can be placed between two
structural surfaces for the walls, floors, and roof of the building (ex. Concrete, see Appendix -
Figure 10). Many advantages include immense heating and cooling saving costs, reduced noise
pollution from the outside environment, mold and termite resistance, stronger building structure,
fire resistance, and limited air leakage (Solarcrete n.d.). In fact, studies have proven that SIP’s
have 85% greater air tight sealing potential than traditional wooden frame buildings and can
provide reduction in energy costs from between 25 to 50% (Panjehpour et al. 2012). Options also
exist in improving a building’s envelope through simple retrofitting. Since Hôtel-Dieu is an
historic site and the option of reconstructing buildings is out of the question, this is entirely
pertinent to the three buildings that exist on site: Jeanne Mance, Le Royer, and Masson. As one
option, spray foam can be installed in areas where the walls, roofs and floors provide poor
insulation and need to be improved. Two types of spray foam can be applied: open cell and closed
cell. In open cell foam, the foam cells are not entirely packed together and consist of space
between them while in closed cell foam, the opposite is true (The foam cells are very compacted
to allow no space between them to provide a higher resistance to heat loss value). Spray foam
controls the moisture levels of air inside the building by creating a barrier to inhibit moisture
movement, preventing heat loss. Since spray foam is made of inorganic material, it also impedes
mould growth and does not absorb moisture, enabling it to maintain its R-value (resistance to heat
loss) (Montréal Gazette 2012). Air sealing through applications of spray foam is known to
achieve savings of up to 10% to 20% in heating and cooling costs and possibly more in older
buildings while allowing a potential reduction of 25% in electricity use (CertainTeed n.d.).
Note: See Appendix - Figure 11 which compares R-value performance of closed cell spray
foam compared to other common insulation materials and its application.
Heating & Cooling
In junction with improved and proper installation of building insulation, space heating and
cooling also needs to be a huge focus in order to obtain an indoor building environment that both
efficiently generates hot and cool air while at the same time, is able to retain that air to a very
adequate extent. This being said, highly energy efficient conventional technologies are available
to help do so. One of these technologies are heat pumps; a viable, singular integrated unit that can
provide energy for all three services of space heating, cooling and water heating (International
Energy Agency 2013). This is possible as they are able to transfer thermal energy into a heat
source using a vapour compressor. Differing itself from other technologies, heat pumps have the
ability to convert low grade heat from outside and transform it into useful heat for the building’s
indoor environment using a natural temperature gradient (See Appendix - Figure 12). Heat
pumps can even achieve this in the winter, possessing the ability to extract heat from the cold air,
water or ground in a very efficient manner. They can also provide point-of-use efficiencies (the
instant production of useful heat that can be used without heat loss happening due to
technological inefficiency) of 250% as they produce a lot more energy (for heat, cool
conditioning, hot water) than what is needed to run the system (electrical power). Cold climate
air-source heat pumps are also available that are known to function in temperatures as low as
minus 25 degrees centigrade (International Energy Agency 2013). Ground source heat pumps
(GSHP) also exist that obtain their energy source from underground that generates a more stable
heat source. Although they are more expensive to install compared to air-source heat pumps, they
are often more efficient (International Energy Agency 2013). Referring to a study survey by U.S.
Department of Energy, 256 case studies were undergone to test the efficiency of installed ground
source heat pumps in various school, commercial, and residential buildings. Overall, ground
source heat pumps powered by electricity obtained a reduction of mean annual energy costs of
approximately 51%, 59%, and 57%, respectively (Lienau et al. 1995).
Water heating
Other than heat pumps, other energy efficient technologies are available in the case of
water heating. Water is usually heated through conventional water tank heaters that use gas or
electricity to heat water within the storage tank. These conventional storage tank water heaters
often have low energy efficiency due to the fact that the tank walls are not properly insulated. As
a result, large amounts of water heat loss can occur. Improvements in water tank insulation can
significantly reduce these high amounts of water heat loss. Furthermore, implementing newer and
more efficient storage tanks for water heating can provide energy efficiency rates as high as 90%
(Environment Energy Agency 2013). Tank-less, instantaneous water heaters provide a reliable
and energy efficient option. Rather than storing water in a tank, instantaneous water heaters
directly heat the water from water pipes by using heating coils (Consumer Reports n.d.). (See
Appendix - Figure 13 for conventional and instantaneous water heaters). Combining an
instantaneous water heater with a highly efficient system boiler can result in 40% more energy
efficiency than conventional storage water tanks (International Energy Agency 2013).
Interior and Exterior Lighting
When constructing or redesigning an energy efficient building, a major focus needs to be
on interior lighting. The amount of energy used for lighting can be significantly reduced by
simply improving the building design such that natural light can be allowed to enter the building
as much as possible. If used in conjunction with implementing highly efficient light bulbs, such a
building design has the potential of reducing the global energy consumption through lighting by
as much as 40% by 2050 (International Energy Agency 2013). Many case studies have been
found to reduce building energy and maintenance costs of up to 70% and 90%, respectively (U.S.
Department of Energy n.d.). More energy efficient lighting options, such as fluorescent lights,
LED lights and motion sensor lighting have shown to provide large success both in interior and
exterior lighting locations. For instance, at Chabot-Las Positas Community College in California,
conventional lighting (incandescent light bulbs) was replaced with LED lights in the campus
parking lots. By doing so, the school’s energy costs decreased by as much as 50% while
providing a reduction in carbon footprint, light pollution, and an increase in lighting quality
(Graybar Electric Company 2014). In another case study in Washington, D.C., LED lighting was
placed inside an underground parking garage with installed motion sensors to reduce electric
power draw about 10%. In doing so, the parking garage achieved an outstanding 88% in energy
savings compared to their use of high pressure (HPS) lighting previously (US Department of
Energy 2012).
Water Conservation
Undergoing water conservation strategies are another crucial component to planning a
wholly environmentally friendly building design. Taking precautions in reducing water usage can
have substantial cuts in both hydro and energy bills, especially since Canada is one of the highest
per capita users of freshwater in the world (Program On Water Governance n.d.).This being said,
about 98% of energy used to process and use this fresh water is obtained for the purpose of water
heating. Therefore, water conservation in buildings, such as Hôtel-Dieu, is a fundamental
construct in energy management planning for building construction and retrofitting (Bourg 2010).
An efficient plan to do so consists of three important strategies; implementing efficient water
systems designs while regularly detecting and repairing water leaks, enforcing water conservation
tactics, and creating water-recycling systems (Bourg 2010). A good starting point would be to
retrofit the building with water efficient plumbing fixtures. These include motion-sensor sinks,
water-efficient dishwashers and washing machines, low flow showerheads, and low flow toilets.
Land irrigation also accounts for a large section of water use (over 20% in facility water
consumption). Therefore, water conservation tactics should focus on developing water efficient
irrigation systems, scheduling practices and using low flow sprinkler heads (Bourg 2010). To
prevent wasting water, water-recycling methods can also be enforced, such as reusing greywater
for irrigation and toilet flushing and by designing rainwater catchment systems (Further
discussion located in Runoff under Discussion) (Bourg 2010).
Limitations
Although we feel that the following are the most suitable recommendations and
technologies to allow CHD to achieve the most sustainable community in both realms of energy
and water consumption, assessments will have to be done during the planning and design process
to see if they are truly feasible with new or better ideas that might be added and on site
restrictions that will occur (ex. social, religious, construction factors).
Solar panels were reasoned to be less feasible in the context of the CHD renewal project.
Two key reasons are the physical limitations due to the long winters in Montréal and the question
of the panel’s efficiency in generating energy. Firstly, the heavy snowfall and shortening of
daylight experienced in Montréal’s winters raises a challenge of maintenance and efficiency, if
implemented, ideally, on the rooftops of the proposed residential buildings. Secondly, there is
doubt that the cost-saving benefits of solar panels outweigh that of green rooftops, particularly in
Montréal. During winters, solar collectors cannot generate more energy than is demanded
(Maehlum 2012). In contrast, green rooftops aid in reducing energy consumption all year round,
acting as a cooler in the warmer months and as means of heat retention in the colder months (Jim
and Tsang 2011).
Urban Heat Island Effect
Background
It has been well-studied that multiple factors of the urban built environment have led to
pronounced urban-rural temperature differentials, now termed the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect
(Rosenfeld 1995; Santamouris et. al 2011; Taha et al. 1988; Taha 1997; Touchaei et. al. 2016).
Complex interactions between urban elements such as decreased solar reflectance, increased
anthropogenic heat emissions, decreasing evaporative areas, and the nature of ‘urban canyons’
have led to pronounced urban temperature increases around the globe (Chan et al. 2007; Smith
and Levermore 2008; Santamouris et al. 2011; Taha et al. 1988).
These effects are especially evident on clear and calm summer afternoons and nights,
which can find cities 2.5oC hotter than the surrounding rural areas (Chan et al. 2007; Oke 1987;
Rosenfeld et al. 1995). Overall, urban built environments find themselves subjected to hotter and
more chaotic climate conditions. Northern hemisphere urban environments have for example 12%
less solar radiation, 8% more clouds, 14% more rainfall, 10% more snowfall and 15% more
thunderstorms on average per year than rural areas (Taha 1997).
While urban heat islands contribute to reducing heating energy requirements in winter
(Smith & Levermore 2008; Taha 1997), UHIs are still of particular concern for their contribution
to heat stress and other health problems, in addition to cooling costs and air pollution, particularly
evident during the summer months. These effects are primarily felt by socially or physically
vulnerable populations including the sick, the very young or old, and the economically
disadvantaged; major groups envisioned to be part of CHD (Chan et al. 2007; Kestens et al. 2011;
Rosenfeld 1995; Santamouris et al. 2011; Smargiassi et al. 2009; Taha 1997). Furthermore, heat
islands can greatly increase air pollution both through the pollution generated by cooling-energy
consumption, and its high temperatures, more easily leading to smog and further damaging health
effects (Rosenfeld 1995).
Montréal has been well studied as an area of evident UHI effects due to its built
environment and anthropogenic emissions (CERFO 2013; Chan et al. 2007; East 1971; Taha
1997; Touchaei et al. 2016) and Hôtel-Dieu is no exception—being one component of a large
issue of heat concentration in the downtown core (CERFO 2013).
However, this heat is not uniform; varying wildly within the downtown core (Chan et al.
2007). Notably, Urban parks in Montréal can be 2.5oC cooler than the surrounding urban areas
(Taha 1997), and adjacent to Hôtel-Dieu, Mont-Royal exemplifies significant deviations in
temperature from its built surroundings (CERFO 2013).
Despite these circumstances, it is not impossible for urban planners to address heat
islands. It is generally agreed that three main strategies to mitigate UHIs are to: (1) implement
reflective surfaces and cooling materials (2) increase surface vegetation, and (3) reduce
anthropogenic heat emissions (from heating, carbon emissions, etc.) (Santamouris et al. 2011;
Touchaei et al. 2016). It has been well documented that cities can eliminate or reduce heat island
effects and their consequences through increasing the albedo and cooling potential of building
materials, and by planting trees in urban areas (Rosenfeld et al. 1995; Taha 1997). Simple
increases in albedo have seen decreases in annual average temperature of up to 2oC (or even 4oC
in more extreme albedo increases). Similar temperature decreases have also been found through
evapotranspiration from expanding soil-vegetation systems (Taha 1997). Studies such as that
conducted in Montréal by Touchaei et al. (2016) have shown that albedo enhancement through
reflective surfaces is proven as an effective mitigation method to reduce air temperature, energy
consumption, and even marginally improve air quality.
It is important to note that these UHI effects and solutions are not limited to the scope of
the city—heat islands can be even found around a single building or vegetative canopy—termed
as ‘micro-urban heat islands’ (Smargiassi et al. 2007; Taha 1997). Furthermore, the reduction of
heat-retaining materials and the increase of vegetation will decrease the solar heat retention and
surface temperature of the site itself (Smith and Levermore 2008), which will entail lowering both
cooling-energy use and peak demand for cooling in the complex (Rosenfeld et al. 1995;
Santamouris et al. 2011). Both these steps have been shown to easily conserve energy and to have
economic benefits; experiments show between 20-40% direct energy savings by increasing the
albedo of even a single building (Rosenfeld et al. 1995).
Furthermore, there are different levels within UHI which interact variably with the heat
and air pollution susceptibility of the future residents of CHD. Briefly, there are two levels of
UHIs—the urban canopy layer (UCL) (the area up to the height of the median building) and the
urban boundary layer (UBL) (located above the UCL) (Yuan and Bauer 2007). Of them, the UCL
is of particular concern to the occupants of CHD, who will be greatly impacted by increased local
temperatures in that level. Therefore, while UHI effects might not present themselves as being
particularly harsh from a remote-sensing operation, UCL effects could be much greater.
‘Thermal discomfort’ of both the internal and external components of the site could be
greatly alleviated through the greening and incorporation of reflective materials. A study in
Montréal from 1990-2003 found that reducing the temperature in micro-urban heat islands can
reduce the health impacts resulting from higher temperatures, which may be of particular concern
within CHD (Smargiassi et al. 2007). In any case, as emphasized in Smith and Levermore
(2008), ‘socio-economic characteristics which limit adaptive capacity’ should be considered
especially in diverse housing situations such as the one presented by CHD. To avoid potentially
detrimental effects, the Coalition should attempt to take the brunt of UHI effects instead of
leaving it to the reduced ability of its residents to deal with them.
It is therefore incredibly relevant that the Coalition be considerate of the effects it will
have on the local micro-climate, health, heating costs, and UHI effects on greater Montréal. CHD
could greatly benefit Montréal and itself, through integrating with the relatively cool presence of
Mont-Royal by increasing its vegetative cover, reducing emissions, and increasing the overall
reflectance of the site.
Methods
To effectively address all these elements, it is important to demonstrate the cooling effect
that the reconstruction of Hôtel-Dieu will have both locally and within Greater Montréal.
However, due to the intangible nature of predicting future anthropogenic emissions of the
residents of the conceived site, this methodology has concentrated itself primarily on the
importance of increasing the overall albedo and surface reflectance of the site through the
implementation of reflective surfaces and reduction of low albedo materials. To accomplish this,
we elected to conduct a simple comparison of the albedo and reflectance between the current site
and CHD. This was done through the GIS analysis of aerial design photos provided to us by
Rayside-Labossière, and using general albedo and reflectance ranges from an extensive literature
review.
The areas of the various sections (See Methodology Above - Table 1 and Table 2)
obtained through GIS were then sorted into general albedo and reflectance categories based on
their dominant composite material (See Appendix - Table 13 and 14). Albedo and reflectance
estimates of these categories were taken from numerous sources to form a general estimated range
of albedo and solar reflectance. Overall, as exemplified through our methodology in the following
Table 15, CHD as it is currently envisioned will have some notable overall albedo and reflectance
reductions.
Table 15. Materials comparison estimation using surface areas from before and after the implementation of CHD. Material types of extant buildings obtained from the City of Montréal (Ville de Montréal n.d.). General albedo estimations were obtained from similar investigations into the albedo of urban surfaces (Akbari et al. 1992; Akbari et al. 2012; EPA 2014; Marceau and VanGeem 2008; Santamouris et al. 2011; RLL 2009; Taha et al. 1988; Taha et al. 1992; Takebayashi and Moriyama 2009).
Material Type Estimated Albedo Range
Estimated Solar Reflectance
Range
Current Surface Area (Old) (m2)
CHD Surface Area (m2)
Surface Area Change (m2)
Weathered conventional asphalt
0.05-0.30 0.04-0.10 14408.4890 01 -14408.489
Weathered Copper Rooftops
0.30-0.502 0.2-0.62 1354.3477 1354.3477 --
Black Multilayered Membrane Roof
0.10-0.35 0.05-0.103 2804.3703 2804.37034 --
Open Green Surfaces (Grasses)
0.18-0.35, 0.165-0.259 271.80415 6541.7728 + 6269.9687
Park/Green Area 0.15-0.18 0.165-0.2596 05 4277.3632 +4277.3632
Light pavements7 0.35-0.6 0.36-0.69 583.1598 6156.5262
+5573.3664
1 The amount of asphalt present in the future site is subject to change, but appears to be minimal or nonexistent in the current plans. Ideal situation is presented here, whereby there is no asphalt in the current site, and walkways are replaced with another material. 2A weathered copper roof has a solar reflectance of approximately 0.245 according to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's Heat Island Group (RLL 2009), but it is unsure how accurate that source is. Therefore, range provided for both albedo and solar reflectivity is instead a general range of metal roofs, not including weathering effects which can drastically reduce that range (Santamouris et al. 2011). 3The multilayered membrane roof material of the extant pavilions is assumed to be a black membrane material, as it is not specified through the City of Montréal or Hôtel-Dieu Documentation. 4While rooftops in the future site appear to be unchanged, if replaced with white roofs (discussed in following section) this albedo range would come up significantly to approximately 0.60-0.70 (Akbari et al. 1992). However, this is dependent on heritage considerations, but could be applied to Masson & Jeanne-Mance pavilions. 5All ‘Green Area’ for the current site is assumed here to be open green space (grass). 6The reflectance of Green Area is assumed to be a similar range to that of the grasses (the green roofs). 7This section assumes that future walkways will be extended with lighter materials such as white-cement smooth concretes, or other higher-albedo and reflectance pavements (discussed in following section).
As exemplified here, materials change in CHD show evidence of a shift from lower
(<0.30) albedo to higher albedo in its artificial materials (>0.3) as well as a large-scale increase in
vegetation, which despite its low reflectance values will likely cool the site due to
evapotranspiration from soil-vegetation systems. However, to ensure the increase of site albedo as
exemplified here, asphalt must be replaced in favor of lighter concrete-like materials. Concern
must also be in vegetation types, which have a high impact on localized temperatures and can
vary wildly in their effects.
Limitations
The methodology done for this section is limited in several ways. First, materials
distributions for the current and future site were limited by the information provided to us through
the City of Montréal, Rayside-Labossière, and our own GIS analysis, which were vague in details
on exact materials composition, and devoid of discussion of albedo or reflectance. Secondly,
albedo and reflectance estimates were frequently not specific to the exact kind of material that
was present at Hôtel-Dieu, and further generalizations were therefore necessary. For example, the
reflectance and albedo values for the collective gardens and green roofs was estimated using
values in the literature for grass, which is not entirely accurate. Finally, there is no statistical
evidence presented here to confirm a trend, and instead we rely on evidence of individual
categories shifting, such as the removal of 14408.489m2 of low-albedo weathered asphalt and the
addition of 5573.3664m2 of higher reflectance pavements. Ultimately, to actually demonstrate a
reduction of UHI effects and localized temperatures at Hôtel-Dieu, it would be ideal to conduct a
remote-sensing satellite comparison such as that conducted by CERFO (2013). However, that is
not possible until the construction of the project has finalized. Despite these limitations, the UHI
findings still serve as a general view into the transition the site will experience in a major addition
of vegetation and a major transition from low-albedo materials to an abundance of higher
reflectance materials.
Discussion
Despite these limitations, there is evidence that substantial reflectivity benefits will arise
through the site’s redesign. However, it is important to remember the undeniable importance of
anthropogenic emissions and the permeability of surfaces in reducing the UHI effect, discussed in
Runoff and Residential Building Design. There are also some other major considerations in
reducing the UHI effect with the site’s redesign.
First, whatever the exact design of CHD, it is important that it remain relatively open. One
major element of the urban energy balance, is that condensed urban geometry frequently means
that radiation that would otherwise be emitted outwards in a rural area is reflected continuously
between surfaces (Smith and Levermore 2008). It is therefore important that the CHD structures
are kept an adequate distance away from each other, and—as it is currently planned—remain at a
low height to reduce the urban canyon effect, where heat is channelled and bounced between
irregular urban structures (Santamouris 2011). Heat islands are the most pronounced in the most
built up and dense cities in the world (Smith and Levermore 2008), so CHD must take special
care to mitigate the UHI effects that would naturally come from the transformation of the
relatively empty space into an increasingly populated residential neighbourhood.
Another particular concern is the retention of heritage buildings within CHD, which will
likely dominate heat retention and energy use metrics should they not be retrofitted properly as
previously discussed. Since they will not be demolished during construction, the existing
pavilions should be considered carefully for their likely large contribution to UHI effect inputs.
Refurbishing these buildings with higher albedo or vegetated roofs and surrounding them with
vegetation, as well as implementing the energy-saving measures proposed previously will be
extremely important to reducing their contribution to damaging processes.
Furthermore, the Coalition should take steps to ensure that in conjunction with a general
change over from pavement to vegetation, they apply ‘cool’ materials and techniques to further
reduce heat emanating from the remaining artificial surfaces. Preliminary efforts such as the
inclusion of green roofs and potentially living walls are a step in the right direction as they have
been proven to reduce UHI (Chan et al. 2007). However, there are some important considerations
for further initiatives that should be taken into account as the Coalition goes forward. One of these
steps is to engage in ‘cool’ materials. In terms of ‘cool’ pavements and roofs, three main design
objectives are in the modern literature: (1) to increase surface reflectance and reduce heat
absorbed by the pavement or roof, (2) to increase permeability which cools pavement through the
evaporation of water, and (3) a composite structure for noise reduction in pavement, which has
been found to emit lower levels of heat at night (Akbari 2001; Cambridge Systematics 2005;
Levinson and; Levinson et al. 2005; Santamouris et al. 2011).
Increasing Solar Reflectance and Decreasing Heat Retention
‘Cool’ materials should be characterized by high solar reflectance—‘a measure of the
ability of a surface material to reflect solar radiation’—and high infrared emittance—‘the measure
of the ability of a surface to release absorbed heat’ (Santamouris et al. 2011).
However, how all these objectives are accomplished is up to the Coalition. One possibility
is to paint extant surfaces with cool coatings. These coatings can either be in the form of near
infrared pigments which increase infrared reflectance, or by simply applying a lighter coat of
paint to increase solar reflectance (Levinson et al. 2007; Santamouris et al. 2011). White roofs are
an especially enticing option for heritage buildings such as Le Royer or Jeanne-Mance which
would otherwise see their share in heat contributions skyrocket under the current plan for CHD.
‘White topping’ is another interesting option. This process involves resurfacing an asphalt
pavement with concrete, producing the same reflective effect with low maintenance costs and a
long service life (Rosenfeld et al. 1995). This procedure could be done on existing asphalt to
reduce the amount that has to be removed. Another option is to ensure the installation of new
higher albedo materials such as white-cement smooth concretes (Levinson and Akbari 2001).
Another exciting avenue is in thermochromic coatings, which ‘present a thermally
reversible transformation of their molecular structure’ (Santamouris et al. 2011) which allows for
a change in colour of the material. This solves the potential issue of hurting winter heating costs
in favour of reducing summer cooling loads—especially relevant in Montréal. While which
thermochromic material is to be used in project development is not entirely conclusive at this
point, Torgal (2016) suggests Vanadium Dioxide as the current ‘thermochromic’ material of
choice due to its chemical properties shifting around room temperature—allowing for shifts in
colour properties around 20oC. While thermochromic coatings are currently not fully realized in
commercial project development, it may yet become fully viable closer to the construction of the
complex and should be examined closer to construction.
Conclusion
It is not entirely certain what the best avenue for UHI reduction is best for CHD.
However, it is important for designers to fully consider the solar and infrared reflectance,
permeability and noise properties of any material in use, as well as generally increasing the
biomass composition of the site and encouraging the future reduction in anthropogenic outputs
through the methods exemplified in the previous sections. If all these factors are considered, the
UHI effect will be greatly reduced locally. Subsequently, the site itself will see significant health,
environmental, economic and social benefits, through primarily the reduction in heat-related
illness and marginalization, energy savings in the warmer months and numerous environmental
benefits from the reductions in heat and carbon pollution.
Runoff
In order to develop CHD as a complex with an outstanding focus on mitigating its
environmental impact, a focus should be towards managing and reducing surface runoff on the
site. Urban development has had huge negative impacts on the environment through interferences
of the local environment’s natural processes. One of these impacts is the disturbance of local
hydrology. Due to increases in paved areas in urban development, surface water from rainfall
events and snowmelt are unable to infiltrate into the soil below. Therefore, while urban
development continues and areas are increasingly being paved (asphalt or concrete surfaces),
levels of surface runoff within the urban environment are also increasing dramatically
(Niemczyowicz 1999). Furthermore, natural water flows between the urban and rural
environments, essential to life around the area, are disturbed due to urban development. City
construction constantly diverts, dampens, or increases these natural flows such that they are
having a detrimental impact on various organisms and the environment. Human activities within
urban areas also generate large amounts of pollution that are then carried by the runoff and
drained into surrounding environments or into the river in which the basin drains into
(Niemczyowicz 1999). Urban pollutants include toxic metals (iron, nickel, zinc, copper,
chromium and lead) from automobiles and road construction, pesticides, various bacteria and
pathogens from sewage tank leakage and surrounding animals, organic contaminants such as
nitrogen and phosphorus, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH’s) and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB’s), and sulphate and cyanide from road salt usage (see Government Of British Columbia,
n.d. for entire list of urban runoff pollutants). Pertaining to Montréal, assessments in 2007 and
2008 indicated that approximately 100 storm drainage systems in the city are contaminated while
contaminated water is still greatly present along the river coast. This has been due to both sewer
overflow and urban surface runoff pollution, most significantly during rainy periods (Ville de
Montréal - Runoff n.d.). As a result, Hôtel-Dieu needs to incorporate proper on-site storm water
management practices and solutions to decrease amounts of surface runoff and water pollution in
Montréal.
Hôtel-Dieu has numerous options to remove excessive amounts of runoff, such as
implementing various artificial drainage systems that both rapidly remove runoff levels in the
area, increasing surface water infiltration, and reducing pollution. Structures can also be
constructed to store the water runoff that could be used as a water source for other things on site
(Hydrology for Urban Stormwater Drainage n.d.). One technique to reduce surface runoff and
pollution is through construction pervious pavements for walkways on the proposed Hôtel-Dieu
site. Pervious (also known as permeable) surfaces consist of brick blocks as pavers, and porous
asphalt and concrete that allow surface runoff to infiltrate through the large surface voids into the
ground below (See Appendix - Figure 14, Figure 15,and Figure 16) (Hydrology for Urban
Stormwater Drainage n.d.). A recent study at Guelph University has shown that pervious
pavements are able to reduce storm water outflow volume by as much as 43% compared to
impermeable conventional surfaces (asphalt, concrete, etc.) (Drake et al. 2012). These surfaces
provide many benefits other than reducing storm water runoff and urban pollutants. These include
replenishing ground water, reducing sewer flooding, diminishing ice buildup on the pavement
surface in cold climates, reducing the urban heat island effect, and decreasing emission
evaporation from parked automobiles (Lake Superior Duluth n.d.)
The reduction of UHI effect is done on a couple fronts. First, the ease of evaporation of
water from pervious pavements contributes to less heat being retained in the pavement and
instead being carried outwards from the surface. The composite nature of pervious materials also
facilitates less heat being retained, as compared to standard asphalt or concrete (Smith and
Levermore 2008).
Another benefit from these surfaces is the reduction of thermal pollution. Thermal
pollution is defined as an increase in water temperature in a body of water (for example, a lake,
ocean, or river) from human activity. The following can occur through discharge of urban runoff
into a natural water body. During warm temperatures, paved surfaces can become very hot and as
a result, water that occurs as runoff flowing along these surfaces can become significantly warmer
and enter into a water body, increasing its water temperature. Impacts include a decrease in
oxygen levels within the water body that can suffocate, inflict thermal shock, alter metabolic
rates, and affect reproductive systems of organisms and therefore, cause substantial biodiversity
loss (Conserve Energy Future n.d.). Pervious pavements consist of larger particle voids that allow
water to gradually infiltrate into the soil. These large particle voids can reduce noise and lead to
reductions in the UHI effect during the night. (Santamouris et al. 2011) Many designs exist where
a porous pavement is placed on the surface over layer components below to help filter and capture
pollutants while maintaining an even level surface. In a brick block design, this includes the paver
layer (brick), bedding layer, base material (control water percolation into the ground below) and
the geotextile layer (See Appendix - Figure 17). For porous concrete and asphalt, this includes a
porous surface on top with a granular sub base (sand), rock sub base, geotextile membrane and a
soil sub base (See Appendix - Figure 18). The geotextile layer prevents two things: sand entering
the base material that could reduce infiltration levels and micro pollutants (zinc, cadmium,
copper, etc.) from entering the groundwater (Scholz et al. 2006). Furthermore, as infiltrates
occurs, water is held in the voids of the pavement system that assist in hydrocarbon degradation,
turning the pollutant into carbon dioxide and water (Pavement Interactive 2010). A study by
Brattebo et al. 2003 compared both permeable and impervious asphalt surface. On the asphalt,
89% of runoff samples taken detected sources of gasoline and diesel while in the permeable
surfaces, these compounds were not found at all in their samples (Scholz et al. 2006). Moreover,
metal concentration of zinc, copper, and lead were considerably decreased in the permeable
surfaces, even way below reported nationwide average levels (Booth et al. 1999). Similarly, a
study by Lagret et al. also showed outstanding results in permeable pavements greatly reducing
levels of heavy metals and suspended solids of upwards of 64% and 79%, respectively (Lagret et
al. 1996). To further address their productivity, various long term studies have also found that
pervious pavements have had success in removing of sediments (82-95%), nitrogen (65%), and
phosphorus (80-85%) (Lake Superior Duluth n.d). According to Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), permeable pavements are considered as one of the Best Management Practices
(BMP) for management of storm water runoff (Pervious Pavements n.d.).
Although porous pavements seem like a viable options to reduce storm water runoff levels
and urban pollution, there are multiple negatives that are present. One of these downsides include
the required maintenance of the surface to maintain its efficiency. After three years of installation,
permeable pavements are prone to void clogging, reducing the surface porosity and therefore, its
runoff infiltration ability. (Cambridge Systematics 2005) The main causes behind this include
traffic pressing surface sediment into the pavement voids, waterborne sediments washing into
pavement voids, and shear stress induced by vehicles collapsing the pores of the permeable
pavement. If any of the following happens to totally clog the surface, the whole pavement needs
to be replaced, producing the fact that permeable pavements can be potentially very impractical
and expensive (Scholz et al. 2006). During the winter, sanding can also cause void clogging that
needs to be vacuumed up after snow melt (Lake Superior Duluth n.d.). To avoid this, these
pavements require frequent maintenance, some of which includes sucking up all the surface
sediment with industrial vacuums (Hydrology for Urban Stormwater Drainage n.d.).
Options are also available to trap and keep the surface runoff that occurs in the area to
treat and reuse for multiple purposes. One of the methods to do so includes implementing
retention (rainwater harvesting) tanks in your area of interest (See Appendix - Figure 19).
Stormwater retention tanks are tanks that are constructed either above or below ground that
capture storm water runoff through a piping system. As runoff flows through the inlet pipe
towards the tank, the water is first filtered (pre-treatment) to remove the existing pollutants before
entering the tank. These might include debris, sediment, hydrocarbons, and organic pollutants.
For instance, one company, Wahaso, designed a filter systems referred to as the Nutrient
Separating Baffle Box (NSBB) that is able to capture and filter these pollutants from up to 125
microns (See Appendix - Figure 20) (Wahaso n.d.). The storm water can then be sanitized
through UV light radiation or through chlorination, pumped up to the surface, and then be used
for many options such as toilet flushing, gardening and irrigation, and car washing (Wahaso n.d.).
The runoff may then be reused again in a greywater context. Although the retention tanks can be
placed either above or below the ground, underground is the most reliable option. There are many
reasons for this, including that they are unaffected by freezing temperatures and therefore, do not
have to be drained before every winter; they can last indefinitely considering they are unexposed
to weather; and they are kept in a cool, dark environment, inhibiting microbial and bacterial
growth to occur. This is significant, especially if the storm water is to be reused inside the
building (Conservation Technology n.d). Retention tanks can either be made of concrete,
fiberglass (Wahaso n.d.), or FDA grade plastic that are designed to retain water without leakage,
remain strong over a long period of time, and are engineered to prevent collapse when the tank is
empty (Conservation Technology n.d.). With reference to Hôtel-Dieu, retention tanks can be
constructed underground in respectable locations to catch surface runoff and rainwater originating
from rooftops to allow for sustainable water use while mitigating their environmental impact.
Limitations
In the case of Hôtel-Dieu, hydrological conditions on the site need to be understood in
order to implement these options. For instance, the location of the site within the river basin, the
site’s groundwater table characteristics, along with social, economic and cultural restrictions
could inhibit construction of these technologies. Furthermore, figuring out the types of pollutants
that are present on the site and the activities that allow them to be released are also important to
implementing runoff capturing and reduction options (Niemczyowicz 1999). In addition, further
research also needs to be done to determine the points where all runoff gathers during a rainfall
event to efficiently capture surface runoff.
Carbon Sequestration
Green space will present an important vector for the benefits of CHD to present
themselves. The increasing of vegetation biomass within Hôtel-Dieu will contribute to the
mitigation of local and global temperature increases through natural carbon sequestration. In an
effort to move toward net-zero environmental impact, carbon sequestration methods across all
future developments are necessary to combat upsets in the short- and long-term carbon cycle,
caused by humans through the consumption of fossil fuels and atmospheric pollution. By
increasing the amount of greenspace within its boundaries, the proposed Hôtel-Dieu site would
provide significant contribution to the mitigation of carbon emissions and atmospheric carbon via
biological carbon sequestration, namely in the form of CO2 and CH4.
Carbon sequestration refers to any process or mechanism by which carboniferous
greenhouse gases, aerosols or their precursors are removed from the atmosphere (Lorenz 2010).
In biological systems, atmospheric carbon is “fixed” as plants uptake CO2 during photosynthesis,
and return it to the atmosphere during respiration. However during this exchange, some carbon is
used by the plant to build plant mass as well as carbohydrates and other nutrients, resulting in a
net storage of carbon by the plant (Aguaron and McPherson 2012; Lorenz 2010; Thauer 2007).
Eventually this fixed carbon is released back into the atmosphere through oxidative weathering
and erosion. Processes of fixing carbon in various reservoirs and releasing carbon back into the
atmosphere, through weathering and erosion, occur simultaneously. As such, the rate at which
they occur determines how much carbon exists in each reservoir at a given time. Human
activities, primarily the burning of organic matter in the form of fossil fuels, have significantly
increased the rate at which terrestrial carbon in the form of organic matter is oxidized, decreasing
the amount of time carbon spends fixed in the Earth, and increasing the amount of atmospheric
carbon. Increasing carbon sequestration is one way of attempting to mitigate this harmful effect.
Biological sequestration occurs when there is an increase in the total amount of carbon
stored in vegetation, soils, and detritus pools over time (Lorenz 2010). Thus, to increase carbon
sequestration, we are looking to maximize the rate at which carbon is fixed, as well as the amount
of carbon that can be transferred to long-lived pools of secure storage. Residence times of carbon
in organic matter can range from months (leaf litter) to centuries (wood) to millennia (stable soil
organic matter), depending on how the carbon is fixed and environmental conditions leading to
erosion (Austin et al. 2010). In analysing and predicting the potential carbon sequestration done
by the CHD site, we focused on sequestration done by trees, as they are the primary source of
carbon sequestration from photosynthesis, and produce organic matter with higher residence
times for carbon storage due to higher density and lignin concentration (Austin et al. 2010;
Novaes 2010; Ververis 2004).
Due to the nature of how carbon is sequestered by plants, different tree species have
varying rates of carbon sequestration based on their growth rate, density, and size (McPherson
1994; Rattan 2012a; Rattan 2012b). Being that the environment in which trees are planted affects
their mortality rate, the estimations we are using from EIA are geared toward urban and suburban
trees, such as those planted individually along streets and in parks, where environmental stresses
are different from those in a forest setting (EIA 1998).
In order to estimate the number of trees per unit area that we are likely to find in the future
green space of Hôtel-Dieu, we have observed the surrounding Jeanne-Mance Park to identify the
average tree spacing for an urban park within a similar environment. Distances were
approximated using an online Google Maps Area Calculator Tool (DaftLogic Version 6.15) and
trees were counted using 3D satellite images from Google Earth. Several locations were selected
where trees were planted in a straight line and over long distances, such as along a city street or
pathway, so as to simplify measuring the average tree spacing. Two stretches along Avenue de
l'Esplanade (from Duluth to Rachel, and from Rachel to Marie-Anne Ouest) as well as within
Hotel Dieu, both along the walled perimeter on Avenue du Parc, and in the grid plot along the
walkway on the southern side of Hotel Dieu (See Appendix - Figure 8.1 and 8.2). In addition,
distances between trees were measured at the center of Jeanne-Mance Park and the average taken
for a non-linear spacing sample. For each sample, the average tree spacing is calculated as well as
the number of trees that this spacing would yield in CHD based on the total green space as
calculated with ArcGIS. The results can be seen in Table 16 below.
Table 16. Tree Spacing Averages in Selected Areas of Jeanne-Mance Park. Images sourced from Google Maps and distances sourced from DaftLogic Version 6.15.
Area Measured A. Distance B. Total # of Trees
C. Average Tree Spacing (A / B)
D. Trees per Acre with given Spacing (4047m2 / C2)
Avenue de l’Esplanade (Duluth - Rachel)
176m 18 9.8m 42.1
Avenue de l’Esplanade (Rachel - Marie-Anne O)
190m 17 11.2m 32.3
Parc-side Perimeter*
64m 16 4m 252.9
Grid Plot* 86m 13 6.6m 92.9
Center, Walking Space*
N/A N/A 8.7m 53.5
(See Appendix - Figure 8.1 and 8.2 for location)
The clear outlier, 253 trees/acre, is likely this dense due to its location near the edge of the
park up against a wall. In this area, no walking space is necessary for people to pass through,
allowing the trees to be planted in increased density. In CHD, this situation is not present,
therefore we are not considering density to be this high. The low density of trees along the sides
of streets, such as those measured from Duluth to Marie-Anne Ouest, are low due to the presence
of streetlamps, benches, and other obstructions that take the place of potential trees.
For our estimations, we are assuming a tree spacing of 7m. This is used as a middle
ground between open walking space, observed at the center of Jeanne-Mance Park, and density
for carbon sequestration, such as the density observed in the small grid of trees near the Hospital
(See Appendix - Figure 8.1 and 8.2). Given the total area of green space in CHD as measured
using GIS is 4,277.36 m, we are estimating the total number to be 87 trees.
Calculation tables were then constructed based on those provided by EIA (EIA, 1998),
which define two axes of species characteristics: density (through proxy by taxa, i.e. hardwood or
conifer) and growth rate (slow, moderate, or fast). These distinctions produce six possible
categories of tree species with different estimated survival and carbon sequestration rates,
dependent on growth and mortality rates. These coefficients also change based on the age of each
tree, however for the first five years mortality is estimated to be roughly the same and survival
rate is consistent across species. If our analysis were to extend beyond 5 years survival would
have to be adjusted individually per species. The survival factor and annual sequestration rates are
drawn from the table provided by EIA (EIA, 1998). Calculations predict the amount of carbon
that would be sequestered in a single year if each of the planted trees were entirely composed of
one the six possible categories outlined by EIA, given in lbs of carbon sequestered. Results were
then multiplied by the molecular weight of CO2 (3.67) to convert to lbs of CO2 sequestered from
the atmosphere. These calculations must be done separately for each year with the adjusted
coefficients for survival and sequestration rate. We have provided the calculations for the first two
years after planting, which can be seen in Table 17, Table 18 and Table 19 below.
Table 17. Carbon Sequestered in First Year (Age 0 - Age 1) for Each Potential Category. Survival Factor and Annual Sequestration Rate sourced from (EIA 1998).
A. Species Characteristics
B. Tree Age
C. Number of Age 0 Trees Planted
D. Survival Factor
E. Number of Surviving Trees (C x D)
F. Annual Sequestration Rate (lbs. / tree)
G. Carbon Sequestered (lbs.) (E x F)
H. CO2
Sequestered (lbs.) (G x 3.67) Tree
Type (H/C)
Growth Rate (S/M/F)
H S 0 87 0.837 72.819 1.3 94.665 347.4206
H M 0 87 0.837 72.819 1.9 138.356 507.7665
H F 0 87 0.837 72.819 2.7 196.611 721.5624
C S 0 87 0.837 72.819 0.7 50.973 187.0709
C M 0 87 0.837 72.819 1.0 72.819 267.2457
C F 0 87 0.837 72.819 1.4 101.947 374.1455
H=Hardwood C=Conifer S=Slow M=Moderate F=Fast. Table 18. Carbon Sequestered in Second Year (Age 1 – Age 2) for Each Potential Category. Survival Factor and Annual Sequestration Rate sourced from (EIA 1998).
A. Species Characteristics
B. Tree Age
C. Number of Age 0 Trees Planted
D. Survival Factor
E. Number of Surviving Trees (C x D)
F. Annual Sequestration Rate (lbs. / tree)
G. Carbon Sequestered (lbs.) (E x F)
H. CO2
Sequestered (lbs.) (G x 3.67) Tree
Type (H/C)
Growth Rate (S/M/F)
H S 1 87 0.798 69.426 1.6 111.082 407.6709
H M 1 87 0.798 69.426 2.7 187.450 687.9415
H F 1 87 0.798 69.426 4.0 277.704 1019.1737
C S 1 87 0.798 69.426 0.9 62.483 229.3126
C M 1 87 0.798 69.426 1.5 104.139 382.1901
C F 1 87 0.798 69.426 2.2 152.737 560.5448
H=Hardwood C=Conifer S=Slow M=Moderate F=Fast
In Table 17 and Table 18, the number of Age 0 trees planted (C.) remains the same since
we are starting with the same proposed initial plot of trees, however the survival factor (D.) is
adjusted to represent the increased mortality in the second year.
Table 19. Total carbon sequestered over 2 years by species category for comparison.
Tree Type CO2 Sequestered in First Year (lbs)
CO2 Sequestered in Second Year (lbs)
Total CO2 Sequestered over 2 years (lbs)
Fast-Growth Hardwood
721.5624 1019.1737 1740.7361
Fast-Growth Conifer 374.1455 560.5448 934.6903
Moderate-Growth Hardwood
507.7665 687.9415 1195.708
Moderate-Growth Conifer
267.2457 382.1901 649.4358
Slow-Growth Hardwood
347.4206 407.6709 755.0915
Slow-Growth Conifer 187.0709 229.3126 416.3835
Here it can be seen that species characteristics can have significant effects on
sequestration, even at a small project level. Fast-Growing Hardwoods provide the greatest per
capita annual sequestration, with nearly four times the carbon sequestered per year compared to
Slow-Growing Conifers. By analysing the sequestration rate of these two categories for future
years (EIA, 1998), it can be seen that the annual sequestration rate of Hardwoods remains greater
each year than that of Conifers in each respective Growth-Rate category. Additionally, it can be
seen that hardwoods sequester more carbon than the conifer of the next-highest growth rate tier.
For example, moderate-growth hardwoods sequester a greater amount of CO2 per year than fast-
growth conifers. For this reason, focus on planting hardwoods is recommended as a higher
priority than simply planting fast-growing trees. However, growth rate should be maximized as
much as possible when choosing tree species.
Limitations
Sequestration rates are estimated for the planting of nursery-raised trees sold in 15-gallon
containers (EIA 1998). These trees, designated as age zero (0), are assumed to be roughly one
inch in diameter, and 4.5 feet (EIA 1998). For the purposes of estimating the future Hôtel-Dieu
site, we will be keeping these same assumptions, however inaccuracies may result from variance
in tree size at the time of planting, which would need to be adjusted in further research at the time
of planting or with greater knowledge of exactly which trees are to planted and how.
For tree spacing calculations, sample spaces were limited to areas that were easily counted
using satellite images, and as such only 5 sample areas were used. However, the considered areas
provided a range of possible spacings, from which we were able to obtain a justifiable
recommended spacing.
Another important consideration is variation in tree spacing among species. We have
shown the calculations assuming the same number of trees planted for both hardwoods and
conifers. Conifers, however, have the potential to be planted much more closely together than
hardwoods. Numerous sources report that the possible number of conifers per area may be up to
twice that of hardwoods, potentially minimizing the benefits of planting hardwoods to carbon
sequestration (MSU department of Forestry; Ontario Natural Resources). Increasing the density of
conifers by this much is used typically for timber production, and not recommended for maximum
tree growth, wildlife, or aesthetic value. Thus for the purposes of this research we have kept the
number of trees the same across species.
It is important to note that our calculations only consider the direct effects of planting
trees. We have not incorporated sequestration from soil or other, smaller plants and grass that will
exist in the future site, and have instead focussed our efforts on making recommendations for the
greatest potential change in future carbon sequestration. Additionally, the method of calculating
carbon sequestration used here does not take into account indirect effects of planting trees. Trees
also provide shade and block wind as means of temperature control, which can lessen the need for
other means of temperature regulation, especially when located near buildings (Russ, 2002).
These indirect forces influencing carbon output must be calculated separately in order to increase
the accuracy of sequestration estimations.
Similarly, sequestration rates are estimates that are subject to variation based on species
and environmental conditions. Even within a single tree species there can exist significant
variation in density and moisture content, which leads to some anticipated error in using averages
when estimating density and growth rate (Aguaron et al. 2012). Accounting for environmental
factors in urban settings is dependent on human and animal interaction, and as such is highly
variable and there exists no universal method of calculation (Aguaron & McPherson 2012). A
more accurate and precise estimation would require specific knowledge of the tree species, age,
site erosion, and survival based on site-specific observation and measurement.
Biodiversity
Biodiversity is often viewed as a proxy for a healthy ecosystem, providing ecosystem
resilience as well as intrinsic and aesthetic value to natural land (OECD 2001). Similarly,
agricultural benefits associated with biodiversity include increased harvest potential and crop
pollination accompanying the presence of pollinating insects (Forrester et al. 2006; OECD 2001).
There are many avenues that the Coalition can take to obtain the benefits from increased
biodiversity with CHD.
First, by planting a variety of plant species, CHD can prolong blooming by choosing
plants that bloom during different parts of the season (Space For Life n.d.). The presence of birds,
for example, can be increased by planting diverse species of vegetation that provide food, such as
seeds, fruit and flowers, year round and by planting vegetation in clumps, which provide shelter
(OECD 2001; Space For Life). Similarly, the presence of pollinators can be supported by planting
complementary plant species, such nectar-producing plants (Space For Life n.d.).
When choosing plant species, one should be aware of invasive species and generally how
species will react to one another. Likewise, native wildlife can be promoted by planting native
tree and plant species that support the immigration of native animal species (Space For Life n.d.).
Though not all species must necessarily be native, it is recommended that the majority of plant
species introduced are native in order to help ensure non-invasive species dominance as well as
climate-oriented ecosystems, as native species are evolutionarily geared toward the environmental
conditions they originate from (National Audubon Society 2015; Space For Life n.d).
In addition to intrinsic value and ecosystem function, increasing green space and aesthetic
value of land is linked to increased property value and healthier living, which is explained further
in the following section Urban Agriculture (TEEB 2010; The Urban Institute 2004).
Urban Agricultural
The rich heritage left by Jeanne-Mance during the establishment of Hôtel-Dieu brought
with it a mandate of healing and a spirit of caretaking. This is the stepping stone of tradition tying
the Religieuses Hospitalières de Saint-Joseph and the Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de
Montréal (CHUM) together (Gauthier 2016). As Hôtel-Dieu is in the process of an important
restructuring, the underlying intention behind the development of the on-site urban agriculture
project is to carry on this cultural heritage across a new day and age: with a slight modification –
to create an environment where healing is preventive rather than prescriptive. By offering a place
for the cultivation of healthy and engaging relationships with both food and community members,
urban agriculture (UA) and community gardening (CG) are essential platforms for such a vision.
Theories Behind Gardening and Well-Being
The two main theories deemed appropriate for understanding the relationship between
gardening and mental health well-being are Kaplan’s attention restoration theory (Kaplan and
Kaplan 1989) and Ulrich’s psycho-physiological stress reduction theory (Ulrich 1983). Both
psycho-evolutionary theories are founded on the biophilia hypothesis, which is the idea that
human beings share an instinctive urge to bond with the natural living systems within which they
have evolved (Wilson 1984). In recent history, however, people have become increasingly
detached from the outdoor natural environments. Indeed, it is estimated that people typically
spend more than 90% of their time indoors (Klepeis et al. 2001). Both attention restoration theory
and psycho-physiological stress reduction theory propose that contact with natural ecosystems can
serve a restorative function but through different mechanisms (Clatworthy et al. 2013).
The focus of the first theory, attention restoration theory, is with the effect of nature on
cognitive functioning (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989). It is thought that the cognitive system most
dominant in natural environments such as gardens is fascination, a non-goal oriented mode of
attention that relaxes and restores cognitive functionality. Beyond providing opportunities for
cognitive fascination, it is suggested that gardens also offer three qualities that are essential to a
restorative environment such as being away (allowing a movement to another place, both
physically and mentally), extend (instilling a sense of being connected to a large world), and
compatibility (the ability of an environment to appeal to the needs and interests of a person)
(Kaplan and Kaplan 1989).
The focus of the second theory – psycho-physiological stress reduction theory – is rather
with the effect of nature on physiological and emotional functioning (Ulrich 1983). Ulrich attests
that people have a predisposition to relax to natural stimuli, and that exposing all senses to such
stimuli triggers a parasympathetic response resulting in an increased feeling of relaxation and
wellbeing.
More recent researches provide supporting physical evidence for the biophilia hypothesis.
Indeed, a specific strain of bacterium in the soil, Mycobacterium vaccae, was found to trigger the
release of serotonin, a neurotransmitter that elevates moods, decreases anxiety, and improves
cognitive functioning (Jenks and Matthews 2010; Lowry et al. 2007).
Meta-Ethnographic Critical Review
With these theories linking gardening and well-being in mind, looking at York and
Wiseman’s 2012 Gardening as an Occupation: A Critical Review study is relevant in assessing
whether the theoretical benefits can be actualized in practice. Indeed, their paper offers a meta-
ethnographic (method of combining qualitative data and concepts across studies) assessment of
the processes within the occupation of gardening in a natural environment, and through the
inclusion criteria they employed, four cases studies were retained: Fieldhouse (2003) which
explored the social cohesion experienced by members of an allotment group; Sempik (2005)
which explored the benefits of organized gardening activities for people deemed vulnerable
within society; Broker and Tearle (2007) which explored the early-effects of a garden-based
learning project for children aged between 7 and 14 years; and Jonasson (2007) which explored
the benefits of activities in a training garden for people with neurological impairment (York and
Wiseman 2012). Since CHD aims to create an inclusive community bringing together families as
well as vulnerable and marginalized people (CHD 2016), the qualitative data from these papers
are indeed relevant. The results of the meta-ethnography were grouped into first and second order
constructs arranged into four categories: outdoors, wellbeing, engagement, and environment and
community, and the third order construct highlights the study’s synthesis of each findings (See
Appendix - Table 20). From these results, the key findings of this study are that: “gardening in a
natural environment offers meaningful, satisfying opportunities to increase wellbeing and
recovery” and well as “social agent of change occurs through successful gardening projects,
leading to wider community integration,” (York and Wiseman 2012) and the following mind-map
highlights the key concepts and relationships that can emerge from urban agriculture and
community gardening.
Figure 21. Urban Agriculture and Individual, Collective, and Social Interactions Mindmap.
In conclusion, the claims that community gardening revitalizes relations at the individual,
community, and social levels as well as Kaplan’s and Ulrich’s theories linking gardening and
well-being appear to be validated by York and Wiseman’s study. Indeed, it was shown that
occupation gardening in a natural environment provided both a relaxing, neutral, destigmatized
platform where people felt connected themselves, others and to nature, and a place to do physical
activities increasing overall health and fitness. Gardening was also found to aid learning and
understanding by engaging people with an experimental and practical approach leading to
substantial results and outcomes. Finally, a process of individuals seeing themselves positively as
social agent of change by actively participating within a bigger societal movement towards
sustainability was identified (York and Wiseman 2012) – processes effectively stimulating the
personal, communal and societal growth that the Hôtel-Dieu project wishes to promote.
Proposed Agricultural Areas and Productive Capacity
While the current urban agriculture plan only includes community gardens, the northern
part of the site which currently falls on the nun’s property should be seriously considered by the
Coalition as it is an ideal location for the establishment of an urban farm. Assuming that this site
would be acquired and made accessible for farming, the proposed agricultural areas would include
two sites with different purposes: an urban agriculture plot for bio-intensive cultivation of
vegetables and as a learning ground to market gardening, and community gardens for more
personal uses. On one hand, the UA would be a 0.66-acre plot (241 feet by 120 feet). Following
Jean-Martin Fortier’s Market Gardener model for bio-intensive agriculture (Fortier 2014), the plot
would be divided by a 14ft buffer into two blocks, each having 60 raised beds (2.5 feet by 53
feet), for an actual cultivable area of 0.36 acres. While different crops have different yields, with
an average of 10,840 lb per acre (Kern 2016), there is potential to grow about 3,902.4 lbs of
produce on such land. Furthermore, as an organic farm, no pesticides and herbicides would be
used to promote ecosystem health and overall biodiversity. To account for part of the necessary
funding, this project would be based on a community-shared agriculture or community-supported
agriculture (CSA) model. CSA is a concept that bridges the gap between food producers and
consumers by cultivating relationships that support values associated with sustainable agriculture,
community development, and food security. Based on sharing, participants share both the real
costs of food production through fair prices for the farmer and by assuming part of the risk of
poor harvests, as well as the rewards that come through weekly baskets of fresh produce, the
development of fellowship, and the knowledge that they are part of an effort to eat locally
(Fieldhouse 1996). The amount of memberships and price would be dependent on the size of each
basket. Beyond the cultivation of local food, UA could be used as a learning platform through
volunteering opportunities, educational workshops and seasonal festivals. On the other hand, the
CG area would be located north of the Jeanne-Mance complex. A total of 0.56 acre subdivided
into 2 plots would be available to the resident for gardening. In line with the health heritage of
Hôtel-Dieu, medicinal herbs such as chamomile, lavender, sage, lemon balm, mint, thyme,
Echinacea, yarrow, mullein, and rosemary having a range of medicinal properties (carminative,
tonic, aromatic, relaxant, analgesic, expectorant, diuretic, stimulant, etc.) (Grieve 1971) could be
grown. Furthermore, a patch could be dedicated to flowering plants to attract pollinators and
promote local biodiversity. Thus, when taken together, the UA and CG areas offer interesting
opportunities for both local food production and community engagement.
Final Thoughts and Challenges
While UA has the potential to provide a platform for residents and the community to
thrive, a project of such extend is not without its set of challenges. The first thing to consider is
the fact that for it to be productive agricultural land needs to be nurtured which implies proper
management. Indeed, long-term planning is required to ensure that all factors influencing soil
quality such as soil type, soil structure, moisture content, organic matter content and nutrient input
are optimized through proper soil management practices such as crop rotation, mulch application,
and weed and pest management. This requires some sort of leadership and decision-making
structure. Furthermore, there remain some questions regarding the direction of such project: Will
its purpose be only educational? Will its goal be to provide produce to the residents-only? Or
perhaps to the greater community? Who will take care of and manage the project? And lastly,
where will the initial and yearly funding come from to buy seeds, tools and equipment, and to set
up all the fixed infrastructure needed such as storage facilities, water systems, and a greenhouse?
Beyond these interrogations, the chosen mandate will be crucial in determining the accessibility
of the space and the nature of its production. Cultivating relationships with nearby student groups
(e.g. McGill, UQAM, Concordia, etc.) and nearby NGO’s (Santropol 2016) will certainly play a
big part in promoting a wider-range community engagement and in providing additional helping
hands. All things considered, having a proper farm management structure will be essential to
ensure cohesion, productivity, and continuity for the project. If it manages to do so, CHD urban
agriculture project could indeed prove to be “an act of community revitalization and collective
efficacy that connect people to their food and land,” (MUSE 2016), as well as “a vehicle to break
social and economic isolation between generations and cultures in urban Montréal” (Santropol
2016).
Collective Living
Firstly, social Impacts are changes that occur at a community-level or an individual-level
caused by externally-induced stimuli. These changes may often have impacts on a community or
individual level; affecting lifestyle, health, and mental well-being (Mathur 2011). The nature of
this collective living section is more anticipatory than empirical, as its objective is to assist the
planning process by identifying the likely social implications of CHD before they actually take
place (Mathur 2011). Since the estimated future social implications are based on the existing
knowledge of similar communities (Mathur 2011), for the CHD site, the same logic will follow,
using existing collective living projects and case studies to address any potential social
implications of the renovated site.
A key social benefit of the CHD can be collective living. These social benefits may be
maximized by implementing common spaces and by encouraging aspects of collective living
initiatives, exemplified by existing collective living projects, such as Co-op Généreux and
ECOLE. The residential buildings in the CHD are envisioned to have integrated collective living
practices, such as various shared communal spaces (e.g. kitchens and living rooms). These
benefits and practices will be explored using two case studies as follows.
Communal living practices can be drawn from the Co-op Généreux project, a housing
experiment organized by a student group exploring sustainable living practices. The Co-op was an
adaptation of a larger project called MUCS, McGill Urban Community Sustainment Project (Dac
and Cities 2014). Being a house for 15 residents, resource sharing was essential, sharing
everything from “books and music to space and food” (Dac and Cities 2014). Collective living
enforced regular meetings as a milieu to discuss household logistics, long-term planning and
visioning. When it came to decision making, the collective relied on 100% consensus and
developed facilitation roles to help the meetings run efficiently. Moreover, Co-op Sundays were
organized for group outings to the park, and for skill sharing workshops or training sessions.
Mealtime was an important aspect of Co-op’s collective living experience. A team of cooks,
which rotated daily, prepared a meal for the entire household; vegan to accommodate everyone.
The house also had two other kitchens dedicated to personal cooking and snacking purposes.
Although the “meal preparation and clean-up take about four hours, each collective member only
has to do it once a week, and the rest of the week one can come home and sit down to a warm
meal” (Lammers 2005). Overall, the Co-op Généreux is more than a student-run experimentation,
it serves as a model of an alternative lifestyle possibility. It challenges the range of lifestyles that
is perceived as fulfilling, feasible, and healthy in North America. Co-op argues that this collective
living lifestyle acknowledges the impacts of choices one makes about food, money, decision
making, as well as socializing. Communal living may act as a remedy to “the loneliness and
disconnection that many in urban society feel” (Lammers 2005), as the collective members can
bond and share knowledge from their various backgrounds and cultures.
Furthermore, drawing from the case study of ECOLE (Educational Community Living
Environment), an urban sustainable living project for McGill and Montréal communities, social
benefits can be seen through its communal lifestyle (ECOLE 2016). Its collective living involves
sharing communal spaces such as the kitchen, the living room, work rooms, and the dining room.
The project not only promotes community building, but also student research, alternative
education, and experiential learning, bringing “together McGill students, faculty and staff, and
Montréal community members” (ECOLE 2016). A highlight of this project is its implementation
of alternative learning initiatives, such as skill-building workshops (e.g. gardening, art, and
cooking). As a possibility, similar workshops and communal living practices may be implemented
into the CHD’s residential buildings, holding agricultural workshops, group-cooking, and
composting in the communal kitchens. ECOLE also practices “consensus-based decision-making,
anti-oppressive practices, and materially sustainable approaches to consumption” (ECOLE 2016),
all themes that may align with the lifestyle envisioned by the Coalition. Commonly, collective
living projects involve multiple stakeholders including various resident groups, staffs and
Montréal community members. For this reason, collective members may also actively build
relationships and enhance community cohesion. As for families with children, children
playgrounds and community gardens (located near the residential building) may help promote not
only interactive social engagement, but also hands-on learning about sustainable living practices
like growing their own food, starting at a young age. Lastly, ECOLE allows for space booking by
student and outsider groups. If CHD were to adopt similar practices, the engagement with the
greater Montréal community may be important for the overall aim of community building on a
larger scale, not limited to the boundaries of the site.
CHD may benefit socially by implementing the practices employed by existing collective
living case studies. Their proposed green spaces can hold communal exercise session, such as
yoga, and shared kitchens may be used as a milieu for sustainable practices like composting.
Shared spaces do not only reduce energy consumption, replacing individual appliances with fewer
communal appliances, but they also provide space to learn from one another, and share skillsets
and personal knowledge. As mentioned before, one of Rayside-Labossière’s objectives is for
CHD to house vulnerable groups, for which collective living practices may play a significant role
in encouraging the social well-being of the residents and the greater Montréal community. We
recommend that the design of the two proposed residential buildings reflect a collective living
lifestyle and aim for an extensive implementation of spaces that will encourage community living
practices.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Communauté Hôtel-Dieu (CHD) has an enormous wealth of possibility. However, to
harness those possibilities, it is integral for the Coalition to realize the social and environmental
benefits that will arise from proper consideration of the elements discussed.
First, an optimal CHD design process will assess the domestic energy and water
consumption of all the buildings, both proposed and existing, within the area. This can be done
from numerous avenues which would greatly reduce the consumption values found in Residential
Building Design. In order to create a community that focuses on low environmental impact, the
coalition needs to greatly consider reducing its energy and water consumption to achieve doing so
in the areas of building envelope, heating and cooling, water heating, interior and exterior
lighting, and water conservation strategies. The Coalition is strongly advised to consider these
recommendations when designing, planning, and constructing the two residential buildings and
the 3 pavilions (Jeanne Mance, Le Royer, Masson).
It is also encouraged that the Coalition heavily consider the importance UHI and localized
temperature reduction as it will have a pronounced effect on the residents of CHD, as evidenced
in Urban Heat Island Effect. While the current plans show great potential to reduce the site’s
UHI through a general changeover to higher reflectance materials and increased vegetative cover,
it is important that the Coalition goes further; exploring and enacting best-practice options such as
thermochromic coatings and porous pavements.
As evidenced in Runoff, considering runoff is an integral part to a sustainable CHD. More
research needs to be done to try and understand the site to a greater extent; including research as
to the ground table characteristics, soil depth, and points of runoff accumulation on the site.
Incorporating these factors would produce more accurate results of runoff volume. However, very
efficient and viable technologies such as permeable pavements and retention tanks can greatly
reduce and capture this surface runoff regardless of the excess, and we strongly urge the Coalition
to consider those technologies in their future development. We believe that these will ultimately
help assist the coalition’s goal to create a CHD with the least environmental impact.
Furthermore as detailed in Carbon Sequestration, we recommend focusing on planting
hardwoods with an emphasis on fast-growth trees to maximize sequestration. The maximum
carbon sequestration would occur with the highest concentration of fast-growing hardwoods,
however efforts to increase carbon sequestration must also be met with efforts to increase other
functions of greenspace, such as aesthetic value, open space for human activity, and biodiversity.
Due to these other considerations, it is not recommended that carbon sequestration be maximized
in the strictest sense, however when planting trees at CHD, emphasis should be placed on fast-
growing hardwoods.
Additionally, as highlighted in the Biodiversity section, planting a diverse number of
native species of plants and trees as well as nectar-producing flowering plants to attract
pollinators are recommended to promote the local biodiversity of CHD, and extent the habitable
region of Mont-Royal insect and animal populations.
Moreover, as presented in the Urban Agriculture section, urban farm and community
gardens offer a platform where positive impacts can germinate at the individual, community, and
societal levels. Indeed, as hub of sustainability, such physical places could facilitate social
interactions and learning opportunities within CHD and to the greater Plateau Mont-Royal
Community all the while providing tangible results under the form of local food. Considering
acquiring the north part of the site for the urban farm is central to the actualization of this vision.
In addition to the well-being benefits provided by urban agricultural practices, a key
recommendation would be for Rayside Labossière and the Coalition to consider the social
benefits demonstrated in past and current case studies to design and implement spaces suitable to
exercise community living practices (e.g. implementation of communal kitchens and living
spaces). As emphasized in Collective Living, this is in order to promote community cohesion
among the residential and staff members of CHD as well as the greater Montréal.
Ultimately, while these are the solutions that we found would work most adequately with
CHD, more research will need to be done to during the planning process to see if these are truly
feasible and are the best options. Nevertheless, by considering these options, the Coalition will be
setting itself up for success with regards to an environmentally and socially conscious
Communauté Hôtel-Dieu.
Glossary
Building Envelope: A building’s efficiency of separating its indoor environment from the outdoor environment that include factors such as air, water, noise and light.
Built Form: Description of what a building, structure or complex looks like, such as how tall the structures are, where are they positioned, how much of a lot the structures take up or how expansive the gardens would be.
Coalition: The decision-making collective of organizations governing the construction of Communauté Hôtel-Dieu. Communauté Hôtel-Dieu (CHD): The proposed future site and vision of the project. Hôtel-Dieu: The area as it currently stands, or more generally referring to the complex in its entirety. Point-Of-Use: The instant production of useful heat from an appliance that can be used with little heat loss happening due to technological efficiency.
Rayside-Labossière: An architecture firm based in Montréal and the facilitator/point of contact client of this project. Residence Time: The amount of time that carbon is securely stored in a particular reservoir.
Runoff: Formation of surface water flow in an urban environment due to construction of impermeable surface (i.e. asphalt and concrete roads, buildings).
Appendix
Figure 1: Overview map of study site that coalition wants to redesign. Includes the North-East portion of the site (P4-P8, Le Royer, Masson, and Jeanne Mance).
Figure 2. Vector map of structures (polygons) used to calculate site runoff and UHI for the ‘Current’ Hôtel-Dieu site created in ArcGIS.
Figure 3. Vector map of structures (polygons) used to calculate site runoff and UHI for CHD created in ArcGIS.
(Tables 1 and 2 located in body text)
*(1) Finding Rainfall Intensity ‘I’*
Figure 5. IDF curve: I = 40mm/hr = 0.040m/hr - Environment Canada, location: McGill, Montréal, data time frame: 1906-1992. ftp://ftp.tor.ec.gc.ca/Pub/Engineering_Climate_Dataset/IDF/
*(2) Finding Soil Infiltration Rate ‘S’ - ‘Jar Method’ With Soil Sample*
Figure 6. Stratified layers (sand, silt, clay) of soil sample.
*Percent layer calculations*
Table 3. Measured layer values for each sediment layer from ‘Jar Method’ experiment in Figure 6 above. To measure each layer, a measuring tape was used. Measurements:
Three Layers Combined 3.5cm
Sand 2.3cm
Silt 1.0cm
Clay 0.2cm
Table 4. Percentage values of each sediment amount in each layer of the soil sample from the ‘Jar Method’ in Figure 6. The following was calculated by dividing the measured width of each layer by the overall width of all 3 layers (sand, silt, and clay). Percentages:
Sand 65.71%
Silt 28.57%
Clay 5.714%
● Sand = 2.3cm/3.5cm = 0.6571 x 100% = 65.71% ● Silt = 1.0cm/3.5cm = 0.2857 x 100% = 28.57% ● Clay = 0.2cm/3.5cm = 0.0571 x 100% = 5.714%
*Finding soil texture/soil type with soil texture triangle*
Figure 7. Soil Texture Triangle. Rot dot signifies that sandy loam was the soil texture/type found according to the resulting sediment findings (USDA - Soil Texture Calculator n.d.).
*Finding the infiltration rate of sandy loam soil*
Table 5. Infiltration rates of specific soils (mm/hour). Red text refers to the infiltration rate that we are interested in pertaining to our soil sample (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations n.d.).
Soil Type Infiltration Rate (mm/hour)
Sand > 30
Sandy Loam 20 - 30
Loam 10 - 20
Clay Loam 5 - 10
Clay 1 - 5
*Soil Infiltration Rate ‘S’*
Table 6. Calculated approximate infiltration rate of our soil sample based on FAO infiltration rates of various soils above. The result was obtained by averaging the two values of sandy soil infiltration rates ([20mm/hr + 30mm/hr/2] = 25mm/hr).
Soil Sample Infiltration Rate ‘S’ S = 25mm/hr = 0.025m/hr
*(3) Calculating Runoff of Both Sites*
Runoff of Area = (I - S) * T * A
Where: R = Volume of runoff (m3)
I = Rainfall intensity during a 10 year, 1 hour storm = 40mm/hour = 0.040m/hour T = Time of storm duration = 1 hour
S = Surface infiltration rate (m/hr) A = Area of specified area (vector polygons) (m2)
Total Runoff of Site = Addition of all Runoff Values at Each Specified Area
*Runoff Calculations of Current Hôtel-Dieu Site*
Table 7. Variables and runoff values calculated for each specified area involved in site runoff calculation for the ‘Current Site’ of Hôtel-Dieu. Note: The Parking, Roundabout, Walkways, and Le Royer, Jeanne Mance, Masson Rooftops in the current Hôtel-Dieu site have an infiltration rate of 0mm/hr due to the fact that all of their surfaces are impervious to water.
Specified Areas I = Rainfall Intensity (m/hr)
S = Surface Infiltration rate (m/hr)
T = Time Of Storm Duration
(hr)
A = Area Of Specified
Areas (m3)
R = Runoff (m3)
Present Greenspace
0.040m/hr 0.025m/hr 1hr 271.804107m2 4.0771m3
Parking 0.040m/hr 0m/hr 1hr 13100.8673m2 524.034m3
Le Royer Rooftop
0.040m/hr 0m/hr 1hr 1354.34773m2 54.174m3
Jeanne Mance Rooftop
0.040m/hr 0m/hr 1hr 2126.97673m2 85.079m3
Masson Rooftop 0.040m/hr 0m/hr 1hr 677.396282m2 27.096m3
Roundabout 0.040m/hr 0m/hr 1hr 1307.6217m2 52.304m3
Walkways 0.040m/hr 0m/hr 1hr 583.15982m2 23.326m3
Total Runoff Of Current Hôtel-Dieu Site = 770.090m3
*Runoff Calculations for CHD Site*
Table 8. Variables and runoff values calculated for each specified area involved in site runoff calculation for the CHD site. Note: There is an approximate 31% reduction in surface runoff in the CHD site compared to the ‘Current Site’.
Specified Areas
I = Rainfall Intensity (m/hr)
S = Surface Infiltration Rate (m/hr)
T = Time of Storm
Duration (hr)
A = Area of Specified
Areas (m2)
R = Runoff (m2)
New Green Area
0.040m/hr 0.025m/hr 1hr 4277.36216m2 64.160m3
Walkways 0.040m/hr 0m/hr 1hr 6156.52618m2 246.261m3
Residential Rooftops
0.040m/hr 0.036m/hr 1hr 4257.10091m2 17.028m3
Collective Gardens
0.040m/hr 0.025m/hr 1hr 2284.67185m2 34.270m3
Jeanne Mance Rooftop
0.040m/hr 0m/hr 1hr 2126.97673m2 85.079m3
Masson Rooftop
0.040m/hr 0m/hr 1hr 677.396282m2 27.096m3
Le Royer Rooftop
0.040m/hr 0m/hr 1hr 1354.34773m2 54.174m3
Total Runoff of CHD Site = 528.068m3
Total Amount of Runoff Reduced = Runoff Amount in Current Site - Runoff Amount in CHD Site
= 770.090m3 - 528.068m3
= 242.022m3
*(4) Assumptions*
1. Amount of runoff was generated in a 10-year return period storm with a storm duration of 1 hour. 2. Rainfall intensity (40mm/hr) for this return period and duration of storm event was obtained through Environment Canada from an IDF curve of the McGill, Montréal region from 1906-1992 (Figure 2). 3. ‘New Green Area’ assumed to have same sandy loam soil and therefore, has the same infiltration rate (S = 25mm/hr). 4. ‘Residential Rooftops’ are implemented with a green roof in the plan. The infiltration rate of the green roof was assumed to be S = 36mm/hr (0.036m/hr) following ‘Growing Green Guides’ recommended intensive green roof design infiltration rate (Growing Green Guide n.d.). 5. ‘Collective Gardens’ locations were assumed to also have sandy loam soil as their underlying substrate (S = 0.025m/hr). 6. ‘Walkways’ in CHD were assumed to be an impermeable surface (therefore, an infiltration rate of 0mm/hr). 7. All of the stated specified areas below are/were considered impermeable surfaces (concrete and asphalt surfaces) and therefore, had an infiltration rate of 0m/hr (refer to vector maps of ‘Current’ and CHD sites):
- Current Site: ● ‘Parking’ ● ‘Le Royer Rooftop’ ● ‘Jeanne Mance Rooftop’ ● ‘Masson Rooftop’ ● ‘Roundabout’ ● ‘Walkways’
- CHD Site: ● ‘Walkways’
8. Runoff calculations were calculated without implementing recommended runoff mitigating technologies discussed (permeable pavements, retention tanks). 9. ‘Urban Agri Zone’ area (polygon) on the map of CHD (Figure 3) was not incorporated in the runoff calculations. This was due to the fact that it is not part of our studied site and should not be involved in the runoff calculations. 10. Amounts of evapotranspiration during the 10-year storm event were not taken into account when calculating the above runoff calculations since it is dependent on other factors such as temperature, wind, relative humidity, season, vegetation type, soil moisture content, depth of the water table and more (Ryerson n.d.) As a result, it is therefore extremely difficult to determine this parameter and needs more intensive analysis to solve. 11. The amount of runoff that occurs is dependent on the type of precipitation (rain, snow, sleet, etc.) (USGS 2016) and only rain was taken into account. 12. Amount of runoff neglected factors of interception (rainfall that falls and wets the surface of above ground structures, such as trees that doesn’t reach the ground).
(Tables 9 and 10 are located in the body of the text)
Figure 8.1. Sample areas used for calculating Tree Spacing at upper Jeanne-Mance. Green and Red circled areas represent Avenue de l’Esplanade samples from Duluth to Rachel, and Rachel to Marie-Anne O, respectively.
Figure 8.2. Sample areas used for calculating Tree Spacing at lower Jeanne-Mance. Green shows the Parc-side Perimeter sample. Blue shows the “grid plot” along the walkway. Red shows the area used for the non-linear average spacing taken from the center of this are of the park.
(Tables 11 and 12 are located in the body of the text)
Figure 9. Diagram to show how low emissivity glass works (Buzzle 2016).
Figure 10. Picture showing the construction of Structural Insulated Panel Concrete (Sipcrete n.d.).
Figure 11. Efficiency of closed cell spray insulating foam compared to other material and a photo showing its application process (CertainTeed n.d) (Young 2015).
Figure 12. Diagram representing the components and functioning of a heat pump (International Energy Agency 2013).
Figure 13. Diagrams of conventional tank water heater on the left (Energy.Gov - Conv. water heaters n.d.) and instantaneous water heater on the right (Energy.Gov - Tankless Water Heaters n.d.).
Table 13. Sections of current Hôtel-Dieu Site, and their assigned ‘dominant material category’, based on their primary component material. Sections obtained from Table 1 in Methodology.
Section of Current Site Dominant Material Category
Present Greenspace Open Green Surface
Parking Lots Weathered conventional asphalt
Roundabout Weathered conventional asphalt
Le Royer Rooftop Weathered Copper Rooftops
Jeanne Mance Rooftop Black Multilayered Membrane Roof
Masson Rooftop Black Multilayered Membrane Roof
Walkways Light Pavements
Table 14. Sections of Communauté Hôtel-Dieu, and their assigned ‘dominant material category’, based on their primary component material. Sections obtained from Table 2 in Methodology.
Section of CHD Dominant Material Category
New Green Area Park/Green Area
Residential Rooftops Open Green Surfaces
Collective Gardens Open Green Surfaces
Le Royer Rooftop Weathered Copper Rooftops
Jeanne-Mance Rooftop Black Multilayered Membrane Roof
Masson Rooftop Black Multilayered Membrane Roof
Walkways Light Pavements
(Table 15 located in body text)
Figure 14. Pervious surface of brick blocks as pavers (URIPS n.d.)
Figure 15. Pervious pavement of porous concrete (Pavement Interactive 2010)
Figure 16. Pervious pavement of porous asphalt (YouTube 2015)
Figure 17. Design components of pervious brick block surface (Schulz et al. 2006)
Figure 18. Design components of porous concrete or asphalt surface (Schulz et al. 2006)
Figure 19. Drawn out design of a retention storm water tank (Kowalsky n.d.)
Figure 20. Picture of Nutrient Separating Baffle Box (NSBB) (Wahaso n.d.)
(Figure 21 located in body text)
Table 20. Emerging metaphors and meanings from the four studies on gardening and well-being
References
Aguaron, E., and G. McPherson. 2012. "Comparison of Methods for Estimating Carbon Dioxide Storage by Sacramento’s Urban Forest." Carbon Sequestration in Urban Ecosystems. Dordrecht: Springer, 2012. 43-71. Print.
Akbari, H., S. Davis, J. Huang, S. Dorsano, and S. Winnett. "Cooling Our Communities: A
Guidebook on Tree Planting and Light-colored Surfacing." 1992. Accessed November 20, 2016. doi:10.2172/10155334.
Akbari, Hashem, H. Damon Matthews, and Donny Seto. "The Long-term Effect of Increasing the Albedo of Urban Areas." Environmental Research Letters 7, no. 2 (2012): 024004. Accessed November 18, 2016. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/2/024004/pdf.
Austin A.T., and C.L. Ballaré. 2010. "Dual role of lignin in plant litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107, no. 10: 4618-22.
Autodesk Sustainability Workshop. “Environmental Issues and Building Design”.
sustainabilityworkshop.autodesk.com. Retrieved from: http://sustainabilityworkshop.autodesk.com/buildings/environmental-issues-building-design (accessed October 17, 2016).
Booth, Derek B., and Jennifer Leavitt. 1999. "Field evaluation of permeable pavement systems
for improved stormwater management." Journal of the American Planning Association 65, no. 3: 314-325.
Bourg, Joseph. 2004. "Water conservation". Brattebo, Benjamin O., and Derek B. Booth. "Long-term stormwater quantity and quality
performance of permeable pavement systems." Water research 37, no. 18 (2003): 4369-4376.
Buzzle. “The Working Principle, Properties, and Advantages of Low-E Glass”. Retrieved from:
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/low-e-glass-working-principle-properties-and-advantages.html (accessed December 7, 2016).
CanMap Streetfiles. 2001. “CanMap Streetfiles”. DMTI. Retrieved from:
https://www.mcgill.ca/library/find/maps/canstreet (accessed November 21, 2016).
Centre D'enseignment Et De Recherche En Forestrie De Saint-Foy Inc. (CERFO). Identification Et Localisation Des îlots De Chaleur Et De Fraîcheur Pour Tout Le Québec Urbain. CERFO. January 01, 2013. Accessed November 15, 2016. https://www.donneesquebec.ca/recherche/dataset/c60da948-3bdf-422c-aeae-0ae378132e6d/resource/6cff2279-6431-4b3d-aa1d-277f56a255a6/download/technoteilotschaleur2013-01.pdf.
CertainTeed. “The Benefits of Spray Polyurethane Foam in Commercial Applications”.
certainteed.com. Retrieved from: http://www.certainteed.com/resources/IG_SprayFoam_CommericalWhitePaper.pdf (accessed November 27, 2016).
Chan, Chee F., Julia Lebedeva, Jose Otero, and Gregory Richardson. “Urban Heat Islands: A Climate Change Adaptation Strategy for Montreal”. Report. School of Urban Planning, McGill University. Montreal, QC, 2007.
Communauté Hôtel-Dieu. 2016. “Projet en Dévelopment” Montréal: CDC Action Solidarité Grand Plateau, Coalition Communautaire Milton-Parc, Comité Logement du Plateau Mont-Royal.
Clatworthy, Jane. et al. 2013. “Gardening as a mental health intervention: a review”. Retrieved
from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/MHRJ-02-2013-0007 (accessed November 25, 2016).
Conservation Technology. “Rainwater Storage”. conservationtechnology.com.
http://www.conservationtechnology.com/rainwater_storage.html (accessed November 13, 2016).
Conserve Energy Future. “What Is Thermal Pollution?”. Conserve-energy-future.com.
Retrieved from: http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/causes-and-effects-of-thermal-pollution.php (accessed November 7, 2016).
Consumer Reports. “Water Heaters”. consumerreports.org. Retrieved from:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/water-heaters/buying-guide.htm (accessed October 17, 2016).
Dac and Cities. 2014. “Montreal: Creating Sustainable Urban Communities”. Dac and Cities.
Retrieved from: http://www.dac.dk/en/dac-cities/sustainable-cities/all-cases/social-city/montreal-creating-sustainable-urban-communities/ (accessed November 10, 2016).
Douglas Lantagne, and Melvin Koelling. October, 2011. “Tree Planting in Michigan”. Michigan
State University Department of Forestry. Extension Bulletin E-771. June 1989 (Revision) DaftLogic Version 6.15. “Google Maps Area Calculator Tool”. Retrieved from:
https://www.daftlogic.com/projects-google-maps-area-calculator-tool.htm (accessed November 20, 2016)
Drake, Jennifer. “Evaluation Of Permeable Pavements In Cold Climates”. sustainabletechnologies.ca. Retrieved from: http://www.sustainabletechnologies.ca/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/KPP-Final-2012.pdf (accessed November 13, 2016).
East, Conrad. "Chaleur Urbaine à Montréal." Atmosphere 9, no. 4 (June 2, 1971): 112-22. April 18, 2011. Accessed November 15, 2016. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/00046973.1971.9676592?scroll=top&needAccess=true.
Eau Secours. 2005. “The myth of water meters”. Coalition Eau Secours. Retrieved from:
http://eausecours.org/esdossiers/compteurs_ang.pdf (accessed October 28, 2016). ECOLE. 2016. “ECOLE McGill and Sustainability at McGill”. ECOLE McGill. Retrieved from:
http://ecoleproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ECOLE-McGill-and-Sustainability-at-McGill.pdf (accessed November 11, 2016).
Energy.Gov. “Conventional Storage Water Heater Basics”. energy.gov. Retrieved from:
http://energy.gov/eere/energybasics/articles/conventional-storage-water-heater-basics (accessed December 7, 2016).
Energy.Gov. “Savings Project: Install Exterior Storm Windows With Low-E Coating”. energy.gov. Retrieved from: http://energy.gov/energysaver/projects/savings-project-install-exterior-storm-windows-low-e-coating (accessed November 27, 2016).
Energy.Gov. “Tankless Or Demand Type Water Heaters”. energy.gov. Retrieved from:
http://energy.gov/energysaver/tankless-or-demand-type-water-heaters (accessed December 7, 2016)
Environment Canada. 2012. “Index Of Pub Engineering Climate Dataset IDF archive”. Retrieved
from: ftp://ftp.tor.ec.gc.ca/Pub/Engineering_Climate_Dataset/IDF/archive/IDF_v_2.200_2012_02_09/IDF_Files__Fichiers/ (accessed November 29, 2016).
Fieldhouse, Paul. 1996. “Community shared agriculture”. Retrieved from:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01538226 (accessed November 20, 2016). Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). “Annex 2 Infiltration rate and infiltration test”.
Fao.org. Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/s8684e/s8684e0a.htm (accessed November 29, 2016).
Forrester et al. 2016. “Mixed-species plantations of Eucalyptus with nitrogen fixing trees: a
review”. Forest Ecology and Management 233: 211–230. Accessed November 10, 2016. http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0378112706003252/1-s2.0-S0378112706003252-main.pdf?_tid=00c8644c-bd8b-11e6-afe5-00000aacb361&acdnat=1481231719_e52f02d23bf6b1a0821fbe703a68412a.
Fortier, Jean-Martin. 2014. “The Market Gardener”. Print. Gauthier, Élaine. 2016. “Le Site de l’Hôtel-Dieu de Montréal.” Énoncé de l’Intérêt
Patrimonial. Retrieved from: http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PATRIMOINE_URBAIN_FR/MEDIA/DOCUMENTS/%C9NONC%C9%20SITE%20HOTEL-DIEU_1.PDF (accessed November 18, 2016).
Glass Education Center. “What Is Low-E Glass”. educationcenter.ppg.com. Retrieved from:
http://educationcenter.ppg.com/glasstopics/how_lowe_works.aspx (accessed November 27, 2016).
Government of British Columbia. “Runoff”. env.gov.bc.ca. Retrieved from:
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/nps/BMP_Compendium/Municipal/Urban_Runoff/Urban_Runoff.htm (accessed November 13, 2016).
Graybar Electric Company. 2014. “Parking Lot Lighting Upgrade Helps Reduce Energy Costs
For California Community College”. leepcampaign.org. Retrieved from: http://www.leepcampaign.org/uploads/7/4/8/7/7487823/case_study_chabot_las_politas_comm_college.pdf (accessed October 17, 2016).
Grieve, Madelaine. 1971. “A Modern Herbal: Vol I and II”. Print. Growing Green Guide. “Substrate Properties”. growinggreenguide.org. Retrieved from:
http://www.growinggreenguide.org/technical-guide/construction-and-installation/green-roofs/substrate-properties/ (accessed November 29, 2016).
Holmes, Mike. “Closed-cell spray foam tops home insulation options”. Retrieved from:
http://www.montrealgazette.com/homes/home-renovating/block+moisture+make+stucco+last/7594628/story.html (accessed November 27, 2016).
Hydro-Québec. 2016. “Estimate the Electricity Cost of a Home”. Hydro-Québec.
Retrieved from: http://www.hydroquebec.com/residential/customer-space/moving/estimate-electricity-costs.html (accessed October 12, 2016),
Institute for Water Education. “Hydrology for Urban Stormwater Drainage”. Retrieved from:
http://ocw.unesco-ihe.org/pluginfile.php/445/mod_resource/content/1/Urban_Drainage_and_Sewerage/3_Urban_Hydrology/Urban_Hydrology/Urban_hydrology_note.pdf (accessed November 7, 2016).
International Energy Agency (IEA). “Transition to Sustainable Buildings: Strategies and
Opportunities to 2050.” iea.org. Retrieved from: https://www.iea.org/media/training/presentations/etw2014/publications/Sustainable_Buildings_2013.pdf (accessed October 17, 2016).
Jenks, M., and Dorothy Matthews. 2010. “Ingestion of Mycobacterium vaccae influences
learning and anxiety in mice”. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23454729 (accessed November 15, 2016).
Kaplan, R., and S. Kaplan, S. 1989. “The Experience of Nature: A psychological perspective”. Retrieved from: http://willsull.net/resources/270-Readings/ExpNature1to5.pdf (accessed November 5, 2016).
Kestens, Yan, Allan Brand, Michel Fournier, Sophie Goudreau, Tom Kosatsky, Matthew Maloley, and Audrey Smargiassi. "Modelling the Variation of Land Surface Temperature as Determinant of Risk of Heat-related Health Events." International Journal of Health Geographics 10, no. 1 (2011): 7. http://ij-healthgeographics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-072X-10-7.
Klepleis, Neil., Nelson, WC, Ott., WR., Robinson, JP., Tsang, AM., Swtizer, P., and Behad, JV.
“The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): a resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants”. Retrieved from: http://www.nature.com/jes/journal/v11/n3/full/7500165a.html (accessed November 25, 2016).
Kowalsky, Greg. “Cistern Design Considerations for Large Rainwater Harvesting Systems”.
conteches.com. Retrieved from: http://www.conteches.com/knowledge-center/pdh-article-series/cistern-designs-large-rainwater-harvesting-systems (accessed November 29, 2016).
Lake Superior Duluth Streams. “Pervious Pavement”. Retrieved from:
http://www.lakesuperiorstreams.org/stormwater/toolkit/paving.html (accessed November 9, 2016).
Lal, R. 2012. “Climate Change and Soil Degradation Mitigation by Sustainable Management of
Soils and Other Natural Resources”. Agricultural Research 1, no. 3: 199-212. Lal, R., and B.J. Augustin. 2012. “Carbon sequestration in urban ecosystems”. Dordrecht:
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. Lammer, J. 2005. “The Co-Option”. The Dominion. Retrieved from:
http://www.dominionpaper.ca/environment/2005/10/05/the_coopti.html (accessed November 15, 2016).
LandOwner Resource Centre and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1995. “Planning for
Tree Planting”. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Retrieved from: http://www.grca.on.ca/plng_tr_plnt.pdf (accessed November 12, 2016).
Legret, M., V. Colandini, and C. Le Marc. 1996. "Effects of a porous pavement with reservoir
structure on the quality of runoff water and soil." Science of the Total Environment 189: 335-340.
Levinson, Ronnen, and Hashem Akbari. 2001. "Effects of Composition and Exposure on the Solar Reflectance of Portland Cement Concrete". Accessed November 2, 2016. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0008884602008359.
Levinson, Ronnen, Hashem Akbari, Steve Konopacki, and Sarah Bretz. 2002. "Inclusion of Cool Roofs in Nonresidential Title 24 Prescriptive Requirements". Accessed November 5, 2016. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421503002064.
Levinson, Ronnen, Hashem Akbari, and Joseph C. Reilly. "Cooler Tile-roofed Buildings with Near-infrared-reflective Non-white Coatings". Building and Environment 42, no. 7 (2007): 2591-605. Accessed November 15, 2016. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036013230600151X.
Lienau, et al. 1995. "Ground-source heat pump case studies and utility programs." Geo-Heat
Center, Klamath Falls, OR: 82. Lorenz, K., and R. Lal. 2010. “Carbon sequestration in forest ecosystems”. Dordrecht: Springer. Lowrly. C. A. 2007. “Identification of an immune-responsive mesolimbocordial serotenergic
system: Potential role in regulation of emotional behavior”. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1868963/ (accessed November 20, 2016).
Marceau, Medgar L., and Martha G. VanGeem. 2008. "Solar Reflectance Values of Concrete". Concrete International. Accessed November 22, 2016. http://www.cement.org/docs/default-source/fc_concrete_technology/sn2982a-solar-reflectance-values-of-concrete.pdf.
Mathur, Hari. 2011. "Social Impact Assessment". Social Change 41, no. 1 (2011): 97-120. Accessed October 27, 2016. doi:10.1177/004908571104100105.
MUSE. 2016. “Urban Agriculture”. Retrieved from:
https://musemcgill.wordpress.com/research/urban-agriculture/ (accessed November 11, 2016).
National Audubon Society. 2015. “Why Native Plants Matter”. Audubon. Received From:
http://www.audubon.org/content/why-native-plants-matter Niemczynowicz, Janusz. 1999. "Urban hydrology and water management–present and future
challenges". Urban water 1, no. 1: 1-14. Novaes, et al. 2010. “Lignin and Biomass: A Negative Correlation for Wood Formation and
Lignin Content in Trees”. Plant Physiology 154, no. 2: 555–561. Accessed November 10, 2016. http://doi.org/10.1104/pp.110.161281.
OECD. 2001. “Valuation of Biodiversity Benefits: Selected Studies”. Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development. OECD Publishing, Paris. Accessed November 28, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264195844-en.
Panjehpour, M., A. A. A. Ali, and Y. L. Voo. 2013. "Structural Insulated Panels: Past, Present, and Future." Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management 3, no. 1: 2. Retrieved from: http://search.proquest.com/docview/1365672901?accountid=12339
Pavement Interactive. “Permeable Pavements”. pavementinteractive.org. Retrieved from:
http://www.pavementinteractive.org/article/permeable-pavements/ . (accessed November 7, 2016)
Pavement Interactive. “Permeable Pavements”. pavementinteractive.org. Retrieved from:
http://www.pavementinteractive.org/article/permeable-pavements/ (accessed November 13, 2016)
Pervious Pavements. “Pervious Concrete Pavement”. Retrieved from:
http://www.perviouspavement.org/ (accessed November 13, 2016) Program On Water Governance. “Water Use & Consumption In Canada”. Retrieved from:
http://watergovernance.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/FS_Water_Use.pdf (accessed October 17, 2016)
Proulx-Cormier, Christelle, e-mail messages to client, November, 2016. Rosenfeld, Arthur H., Hashem Akbari, Sarah Bretz, Beth L. Fishman, Dan M. Kurn, David
Sailor, and Haider Taha. "Mitigation of Urban Heat Islands: Materials, Utility Programs, Updates." Energy and Buildings 22, no. 3 (1995): 255-65. Accessed November 17, 2016. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037877889500927P.
Russ, Thomas H. “Site Planning and Design Handbook”. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill
Professional Publishing, 2002. ProQuest ebrary. (Accessed December 8, 2016). Ryerson University. “A Holistic Approach to Stormwater Management”. Retrieved from:
http://www.civil.ryerson.ca/stormwater/menu_4/index.htm (accessed November 29, 2016).
Santamouris, M., A. Synnefa, and T. Karlessi. "Using Advanced Cool Materials in the Urban
Built Environment to Mitigate Heat Islands and Improve Thermal Comfort Conditions." Solar Energy 85, no. 12 (December 2011): 3085-102. Accessed November 27, 2016. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X10004020.
Santropol Roulant. 2016. “Mission”. Retrieved from: http://santropolroulant.org/en/mission-2/
(accessed November 15, 2016). Scholz, Miklas, and Piotr Grabowiecki. 2007. "Review of permeable pavement systems."
Building and Environment 42, no. 11: 3830-3836. Sipcrete. “Sipcrete SCIP Structural Concrete Insulated Panels ICF”. http://sipcrete.com/
(accessed December 7, 2016)
Smargiassi, A., M. S. Goldberg, C. Plante, M. Fournier, Y. Baudouin, and T. Kosatsky. "Variation of Daily Warm Season Mortality as a Function of Micro-urban Heat Islands." Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 63, no. 8 (2009): 659-64. Accessed November 15, 2016. http://jech.bmj.com/content/63/8/659.full.pdf html.
Smith, Claire, and Geoff Levermore. "Designing Urban Spaces and Buildings to Improve Sustainability and Quality of Life in a Warmer World." Energy Policy 36, no. 12 (2008): 4558-562. Accessed November 11, 2016. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421508004825.
Solarcrete. “Solarcrete”. Accessed November 27, 2016: http://www.solarcrete.com/ Space For Life. “Biodiversity Garden”. Ville de Montreal. Accessed November 27, 2016:
http://espacepourlavie.ca/en/biodiversity-garden Space For Life. “Bird Garden”. Ville de Montreal. Accessed November 27, 2016:
http://espacepourlavie.ca/en/bird-garden
Space For Life. “Monarch Oasis”. Ville de Montreal. Accessed November 27, 2016: http://espacepourlavie.ca/en/monarch-oasis
Taha, H., D. Sailor, and H. Akbari. "High-albedo Materials for Reducing Building Cooling Energy Use." 1992. Accessed November 22, 2016. http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/7000986/.
Taha, Haider, Hashem Akbari, Arthur Rosenfeld, and Joe Huang. "Residential Cooling Loads and the Urban Heat Island—the Effects of Albedo." Building and Environment 23, no. 4 (1988): 271-83. Accessed November 15, 2016. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0360132388900339.
Taha, Haider. "Urban Climates and Heat Islands: Albedo, Evapotranspiration, and Anthropogenic Heat." Energy and Buildings 25, no. 2 (1997): 99-103. Accessed November 15, 2016. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378778896009991.
Takebayashi, Hideki, and Masakazu Moriyama. "Study on the Urban Heat Island Mitigation Effect Achieved by Converting to Grass-covered Parking." Solar Energy 83, no. 8 (2009): 1211-223. Accessed November 18, 2016. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X09000309.
Tarboton, David. G. Chapter 5. “At a Point Infiltration Models for Calculating Runoff”.
Hydrology.usu.edu. Accessed November 27, 2016: http://hydrology.usu.edu/RRP/userdata/4/87/ch5.pdf
TEEB. 2010. “Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB”. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. Accessed November 27, 2016: http://doc.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/Study%20and%20Reports/Reports/Synthesis%20report/TEEB%20Synthesis%20Report%202010.pdf
Torgal, Fernando Pacheco. “Nano and Biotech Based Materials for Energy Building Efficiency”. Switzerland: Springer, 2016. Accessed November 15, 2016. http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-27505-5.
Touchaei, Ali G., Hashem Akbari, and Christopher W. Tessum. "Effect of Increasing Urban Albedo on Meteorology and Air Quality of Montreal (Canada) – Episodic Simulation of Heat Wave in 2005." Atmospheric Environment 132 (2016): 188-206. Accessed November 15, 2016. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231016301467.
Ulrich, R. S. 1983. “Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment”. In I. Altman & J.
F. Wohlwill, Eds., Human Behavior and Environment: Advances in theory and research 6. Accessed November 15, 2016. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4613-3539-9_4.
Ulrich, R.S. 1991. “Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments”.
Retrieved from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494405801847 U.S. Department Of Energy. “Lighting Energy Efficiency in Parking Campaign”.
betterbuildingssolutioncenter.energy.gov. Accessed November 27, 2016: https://betterbuildingssolutioncenter.energy.gov/alliance/technology-campaigns/lighting-energy-efficiency-parking-campaign
U.S. Department Of Energy. “Use of Occupancy Sensors in LED Parking Lot and Garage
Applications: Early Experiences”. eere.energy.gov. Accessed November 27, 2016: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/2012_gateway_sensors.pdf
U.S. Department of Energy & Energy Information Administration. 1998. “Method for
Calculating Carbon Sequestration by Trees in Urban and Suburban Settings”. Retrieved From: https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/method-calculating-carbon-sequestration-trees-urban-and-suburban-settings.pdf (accessed November 16, 2016).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. “Heat Island Reduction Initiative”. Cool Pavement
Report. Cambridge Systematics. Accessed November 16, 2016. http://rodoviasverdes.ufsc.br/files/2010/05/CoolPavementReport_Former-Guide_complete.pdf.
U.S. Geological Survey. “Runoff (surface water runoff)”. Retrieved from:
http://water.usgs.gov/edu/runoff.html (accessed November 29, 2016).
United States Department of Agriculture. “Soil Texture Calculator”. Retrieved from:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/?cid=nrcs142p2_054167 (accessed November 29, 2016).
United States of America. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Roof Albedo. By EPA.
August 2014. Accessed November 15, 2016. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-08/documents/roof_albedo.pdf.
URIPS. “Permeable Pavers In Florida”. Retrieved from:
http://urips.com/get-more-advantages-with-permeable-pavers/permeable-pavers-in-florida/ (accessed November 29, 2016).
Ververis, et al. 2004. “Fiber dimensions, lignin and cellulose content of various plant materials
and their suitability for paper production”. Industrial Crops and Products 19, no. 3: 245-254. ISSN 0926-6690. Accessed November 11, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2003.10.006.
Ville de Montréal. “Improve the Quality Of Runoff Water”. Retrieved from:
http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/portal/page?_pageid=7137,79233626&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL (accessed November 7, 2016).
Ville de Montréal. "Hôtel-Dieu De Montréal". Le Site Officiel Du Mont-Royal. Accessed November 15, 2016. http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/siteofficieldumontroyal/hotel-dieu-montreal.
Ville de Montréal. 2003. “Financement de l’eau - Document d’orientation”, Ville de Montréal. Retrieved from: http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/pls/portal/docs/page/commissions_perm_v2_fr/media/documents/Document_reseau_bleu_20061101.pdf (accessed November 2, 2016).
Wahaso Water Harvesting Solutions. “Stormwater Harvesting Systems From Water Harvesting
Solutions”. Retrieved from: http://wahaso.com/stormwater_harvesting.php (accessed November 13, 2016).
Walker. 2004. “The Public Value of Urban Parks - Beyond Recreation: A Broader View of Urban
Parks”. The Urban Institute & The Wallace Foundation. Retrieved from: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/311011-The-Public-Value-of-Urban-Parks.PDF (acessed November 5, 2016).
Weng, Qihao, Dengsheng Lu, and Jacquelyn Schubring. "Estimation of Land Surface Temperature–vegetation Abundance Relationship for Urban Heat Island Studies." Remote Sensing of Environment 89, no. 4 (2004): 467-83. Acessed November 11, 2016. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425703003390
Wiseman, Tanya. and York, Michelle. 2012. “Gardening as an occupation: a critical review”. Retrieved from: http://eprints.brighton.ac.uk/10932/1/York%20Wiseman%20-%202012%20-%20Gardening%20as%20an%20occupation%20a%20critical%20review.pdf (acessed November 5, 2016).
Wilson, E.O. 1984, “Biophilia”. Retrieved from:
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/mcgill/reader.action?docID=10315842 (accessed November 4, 2016).
Young, Megan. “Closed Cell Spray Foam Insulation”. Retrieved from:
http://meganyoungmee.com/closed-cell-spray-foam-insulation/ (accessed December 7, 2016)
Youtube. “Porous Asphalt”. Youtube.com. Retrieved from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHqpRKlpWzw. Image: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/AHqpRKlpWzw/maxresdefault.jpg (accessed November 13, 2016)
Yuan, Fei, and Marvin E. Bauer. "Comparison of Impervious Surface Area and Normalized Difference Vegetation Index as Indicators of Surface Urban Heat Island Effects in Landsat Imagery." Remote Sensing of Environment 106, no. 3 (2007): 375-86. Accessed November 10, 2016. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425706003191?np=y.