Looking back at season six

Geoff Capelle: I’m Geoff Capelle.

Jen Hancock: And I’m Jen Hancock. This is Building Good. As we wrap up season six, we’re looking back in order to look forwards. 

Geoff Capelle: After speaking with a dozen guests, a few themes kept popping up. First — people want to make sustainable choices. But there are still massive hurdles to jump over. We’ll talk about some of them today. 

Jen Hancock: Second — we need to involve people who are directly and indirectly impacted by the choices we make in the construction industry. People resist change when they don’t understand it. The more we educate ourselves about the things impacting our world, the better off we’ll all be.

Geoff Capelle: And third — we’ll need to get even more creative to solve the toughest problems ahead. Many sustainable solutions (like reclaimed wood or biomaterials) could be cost-competitive, yet widespread adoption has been slow. Often, the barrier to going green is having enough green. Money talks, and the high cost of implementing sustainable alternatives can be a massive barrier to implementation. This season, we heard from people on the vanguard of new technology that could make sustainable building materials a lot more affordable. Like Eric Law, the CEO and Founder of Urban Machine, who we spoke to in episode one. He’s using advanced robotics to make reclaimed lumber, an expensive, boutique building material, a lot more affordable.

Eric Law: Reclaimed lumber is one of the few recycled materials where it’s actually higher quality than the virgin one. You know, if your average lumber is about a buck a board foot at your local lumber yard, if you look at reclaimed lumber today, forty a board foot. We want to take away the price premium that comes with reclaimed. So this way you can get your FSC-certified reclaimed lumber at the same price as your virgin lumber.

Geoff Capelle: Reclaimed lumber sells for a premium because of the manual labor involved.

Eric Law: It's typically processed by hand. So they're hand de-nailing it and pulling the metal fasteners out. Once it's metal free, then everybody can reuse it. This is also a process that's pretty laborious and hard on the human body. So nobody's really done this at scale. Because it's going to just be too expensive to have, you know, fifty humans pulling nails all day long on an assembly line. That's pretty hard stuff. And in my past, working with robots, you know, when somebody says, “Hey, it's a highly repetitive process, it's dull, dangerous or dirty and humans don't like doing it.” It's like, that's a great one for robots. And so that's what got us started on this journey almost three years ago.

Geoff Capelle: We’ve entered the age of timber-futurism. 

Eric Law: And what's interesting is talking with the demolition folks is they're like, prior to you guys, there's been no market for reclaimed lumber. Right? There was no economic incentive to take the building apart. Since we've been working here in the Bay area, a bunch of the demolition folks have decided to start pulling material out of buildings and doing kind of partial deconstruction for larger materials, larger beams, and sending it to us because it's less expensive, because now they have an economic incentive to recycle the material there. Like we do this for concrete, we do it for steel. We want to do it for wood. We just need a market or a value for it. It's like the people want to do the right thing. They just need the economics to pencil out for them, right? Like most projects in construction, everything we do has to pencil. And so that's what we're doing with our technology.

Geoff Capelle: But sometimes, the barrier isn’t just money. It can also be regulatory. 

Eric Law: So depending on where you are, the building codes have a couple options for you. In the U.S., you can use reclaimed lumber for structural applications. In Canada, you can’t use it for structural loads. You could use it for partition walls, no problem. But in structural applications, the Canadian code doesn’t allow it. The U.S. one requires it to be regraded. And then we actually have two states in the U.S. — Oregon and Washington — where they're saying all reclaimed lumber gets a number two. Because nobody puts a number to anything worse than a number two into a building. So they're like, why do we have to regrade it? Everything's two or better historically in the buildings, as long as there's no rot or decay, you know, do a quick visual inspection. You should be good to go. And we're going to see, there's actually a proposal to update the Canadian building code to allow reclaimed lumber and structural use because it's actually better structural characteristics than the virgin stuff today.

Heather Taylor: When I consider the pace of tech change, the pace of the standards with regards to sustainability, we haven't seen anything like this. 

Jen Hancock: That’s Heather Taylor, a partner at EY in the Climate Change and Sustainability Services practice. We spoke to her in episode nine.

Heather Taylor: This is really happening, it's unfolding at an unprecedented pace. No one person could ever keep up with the change. Just even in the last eighteen months, the International Sustainability Standards Board released their standards. There have been certain states in the U.S. that have released their requirements. Canada has released theirs. The International Public Sector Board has released theirs. Europe has released theirs. Like, all in eighteen months. And if you think about the ability to understand and apply, you know, organizations are absolutely challenged to keep up.

Jen Hancock: It’s a lot for anyone to keep track of. That’s not to say that standards aren’t important. But they can be a big hurdle to overcome when developing new materials.

Geoff Capelle: Which is what Dr. Amir Mofidi, an engineering professor at Brock University, is doing right now. We spoke to Amir in episode eight about developing and testing engineered bamboo for use in the built environment.

Dr. Amir Mofidir: We need to make the future. We need to make sure we can do it locally. So now, in Niagara region, we are separating the cold hardy bamboo species out of a thousand species that is out there, and we are planting them to make sure that they are cold hardy. We also hand-pick the ones that are providing strong mechanical properties for construction as well. And then the next step is the standards or design sheet. This shouldn't take like decades. We have the technology, we have people that they can do research in Canada, but we need investment from the government…

Jen Hancock: …Speaking of government investment, getting decision makers to invest in green solutions requires… a strategic approach. It’s something that Heather Taylor has a lot of experience with.

Heather Taylor: When I was in government, we did a lot of evaluation around consequence versus incentive, and when you look at policy levers that government considers, it's really the carrot or the stick.

Jen Hancock: For private businesses, regulatory sticks can be sweetened by financial carrots.

Heather Taylor: Because I think businesses might be saying, listen, I've got competing priorities, you know, slow down in the economy, high inflation, high interest… I've got other challenges. 

So I'm actually pivoting that conversation and looking at the aspect of sustainability, knowing full well that it actually can become an economic advantage. Globally, right now, there is far more advancement in Asia, in Europe, in Australia in their thinking around climate and how they are driving businesses to think and report on climate. And so, if a company is actually doing business in a global sandbox outside of the North American borders, they're going to be subject to different rules and regulations. There's economic opportunities in the sense of market share competitiveness. And so if you decide to pay attention to this, it changes your profile. This really is about economics. It's not driven by compliance. 

Jen Hancock: Even when federal governments, corporations, and municipalities are in alignment, community resistance can derail even the best ideas. So, in episode four, we spoke to Farhaan Ladhani, CEO of Goodbit, to find out whether digital engagement tools can help.

Farhaan Ladhani: And so, we created a gamified learning platform, and in this playful dynamic, what you're doing is, you're exposing yourself to a way of thinking about those topics that you may not have considered.

Jen Hancock: Community consultation is a necessary, but sometimes frustrating, part of the development process.

Farhaan Ladhani: All throughout the lifecycle of the project, it's about a belief in whether or not we want communities participating in the built environment. But it's also a way of mitigating the risk of the kinds of friction that inevitably occur. Things are always going to go wrong. Things are always going to be delayed. And in the face of those problems, either the community is with you or they're not. And every time the community is with you, all of a sudden the rate of problem solving and remediation improves.

Jen Hancock: Gamification and AI-driven engagement tools can help make sure everyone’s at the table.

Farhaan Ladhani: One of the first things we learned was that not everyone's in the conversation. They're not left out on purpose. Oftentimes, there's a lot of goodwill at the level of communities to include as many voices as they can find. The very structure of those conversations, a meeting at nine o'clock at night or seven o'clock at night on a Tuesday evening, by design, actually leaves a bunch of people out. That was our first lesson learned, which was who's in, who's out. Number two, are you actually helping them arrive at a better understanding of what the benefits and the genuine costs are of having this construction take place? And then build around the ones that are not going to be so good for them to figure out how to reduce the harmful effects. And if you can do that, then you've got all sorts of ownership by the community on this project. And as a consequence, not only are they gonna support it, they're gonna populate it, they're gonna tell people about it, and they're gonna encourage more of it. 

Geoff Capelle: But what if we went beyond just asking communities for feedback, and instead, made them investment partners in the infrastructure that will directly impact their lives? In episode five, we spoke to Mark Podlasly, Chief Sustainability Officer of First Nations Major Projects Coalition. They’re a national nonprofit that’s working with over one hundred and seventy First Nations member groups to establish investment partnerships. These partnerships will ensure that they are co-producers in the projects developed on their lands and territories.

Mark Podlasly: These are not equity grants. These are options. The Nations will need to invest in these projects so they become full co-partners. These are Nations who've come together to negotiate better outcomes for major projects proposed in their territories. This includes projects over one hundred million dollars in capital expenditure, and run the gambit now from clean energy to mining to transmission corridors for energy or natural gas. And all of these projects will require the consent of Indigenous people to proceed. The nations are not against projects, but they want to see a different outcome than what has happened in the past, where nations were bypassed or regulated to the side.

Geoff Capelle: Sometimes, buy-ins are a lot more lucrative than buy-outs. 

Mark Podlasly: The risk in doing a project or attempting to bypass the First Nation is a nation will go to court. They will exercise their rights to ensure that their principles and values are reflected in their own lands. So you could end up in a situation as a proponent facing a twenty, twenty-five year court battle. Now, does a company have twenty-five years to wait on capital that it's invested in a project? No. The same with international buyers. Will they wait twenty-five years while a company that has tried to bypass Indigenous rights forces a project through to the market? No. It's no longer a question of just ramming through a project. It's now layered in complexity, and First Nations understand that they have a large part to play in that. 

Geoff Capelle: Development isn’t just about building structures; it’s about shaping the future of communities in a way that respects cultural identity, land stewardship, and long-term well-being. In episode seven, we spoke to architect and McGill professor, Dr. Avi Friedman, who co-authored a book with his former student, architect Alexandra Pollock.

Alexandra Pollock: I think a main pattern that came up time and time again through our research is urban sprawl. And the construction of cities that require you to travel long distances in your car to reach basic services, work, family, friends, outdoor spaces. This reliance on the car, I think we're all familiar with the connection between that, a sedentary lifestyle, pollution, time spent commuting, and the contribution to feelings of stress and the poor impacts on mental health.

Geoff Capelle: If Mark’s perspective pushes us to rethink development at a community-wide level, Avi and Alexandra zoom in on the individual experience — rethinking how we design physical spaces that shape our everyday lives. 

Dr. Avi Friedman: The surgeon general in the United States identified isolation as an illness. And I believe that creating these hubs, these places, these parks, squares, in which people can gather, is extremely important.

Geoff Capelle: How can we design neighborhoods that truly reflect the needs of the people who inhabit them, while making them adaptable, sustainable, and affordable?

Dr. Avi Friedman: My neighbourhood, I live in a neighborhood called Notre-Dame-de-Grâce in Montreal, the mayor took one of the parks and every Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, there are activities. It is like a fair, and there are music and dancing and so on.

And people started to move there and come and visit, not only from the neighborhood and other places. I have no doubt that the mental effect on such activity, when I go there, I feel inspired.

Geoff Capelle: Encouraging decision-makers to include plans for open space, sidewalks, and connectivity benefits us all — now, and as we age.

Alexandra Pollock: There's evidence to support how being active throughout your life allows you to stay active later. And it’s through these sorts of routine movements — taking the stairs, carrying your groceries home — can be a really positive contributor for healthy aging. I also think as vision declines or as cognitive function declines, having places to go in your neighborhood that maybe don't require driving and that are easily accessible to you allow you to maintain social connections later in your life, which can be really essential. 

Jen Hancock: Another guest who brought up healthier aging was author and science journalist Emily Anthes, who we spoke to in episode six.

Emily Anthes: We're dynamic. All of our bodies are dynamic. A lot of us, if not all of us, are going to flow in and out of different degrees of ability and disability throughout our lives. So it's pretty short sighted for someone to sit here and say, “Oh, you know, because I don't have a movement disorder right now, I'll always be able to move fine.” I mean, just natural aging, we know, is a problem. And in terms of what that means for design, it's tricky because here I've just listed all these different types of ways people might experience the world differently or how their abilities might change. And you know, the natural question might be, well, how do you design for all those people? And I think one sort of generally good principle is variety and choice. So, providing different ways to navigate to a destination or you know, easily accessible stairs and elevators, rooms for big gatherings and smaller spaces where people can, you know, retreat when they're overwhelmed that maybe have fewer sensory stimuli. The idea is that people sort of seek out what they need and buildings can sort of make it possible for people to find what they need.

Jen Hancock: There are lots of different ways to approach human-centered design inside the built environment. 

Emily Anthes: Some of the basic ones people will be familiar with and are the ones that have been regulated the most. So like, providing alternatives to stairs and elevators and things like that, but other design choices that can be challenging are less obvious. PTSD is something that can make people hypervigilant out in public, and it can be stressful for people with PTSD to take blind corners or walk down very narrow halls that feel confining. Lighting is a big one. You know, a lot of institutional buildings have fluorescent lighting. And those lights can flicker and that can be a problem for people with migraines. They can be distracting and a problem for people with autism, for people with epilepsy. Some of these design, I guess, flaws, if you wanna call them that, can be problematic for people with a wide range of conditions and experiences. I think one of the few things that I would basically universally recommend to anyone in any environment is like incorporating nature in some way, whether that's you know, actual plants, a view of trees, some sort of incorporation of nature. It seems like it just has huge benefits.

Jen Hancock: Someone who doesn’t need convincing of the benefits of nature is designer and futurist Dror Benshetrit, who we spoke to in episode two. Dror believes that, instead of forcing rigid, human-centred designs onto landscapes, we should let cities grow more like natural ecosystems. 

Dror Benshetrit: I mean, if you're working within a rich biodiversity and a very thriving ecosystem, then the goal is how can I minimize the impact of my urban intervention over here. And second, what are the specific nodes within a given area that we need to preserve, that we must protect?

Jen Hancock: Dror’s vision of cities as living, breathing ecosystems pushes us to rethink urban planning from the ground up. But once we reshape the way we plan cities, what about the materials we use to build them? That’s exactly what Dr. Mercedes Garcia Holguera is doing with her research into biomaterials. We spoke to her in episode three. She’s exploring how we can use fungi, agricultural waste, and other organic materials to create sustainable, self-regenerating buildings.

Dr. Mercedes Garcia Holguera: If we know that we are going to have an extremely hard winter, and we are estimating that we will need two additional inches of insulation to reduce the amount of energy that we need to use in our building, it would be great if we could grow, naturally, that extra two inches of insulation, and then when springtime comes, that naturally decays, or we are able to remove it in an easy or natural way. 

Jen Hancock: Using materials designed to biodegrade could be the flexible solution that remote communities need.

Dr. Mercedes Garcia Holguera: We think that these communities would be able to set up small community based biolabs where they could, for example, decide, “Okay, we're going to do this project. Let's grow our own insulating panels in community.”

Jen Hancock: When it comes to biomaterials, perhaps we need to take a “don’t knock it, til you’ve grown it” approach. 

Dr. Mercedes Garcia Holguera: The fact that most biomaterials have shorter lifespans means not necessarily that they are weaker or not as good, but simply that they have different characteristics. It requires us to change our perception of how we think about the permanence of buildings and structures.

Geoff Capelle: One thing that came up time and time again this season? The world is changing, quickly. From supply chain interruptions…

Eric Law:  One of the things that COVID highlighted was how fragile that supply chain is. 

Geoff Capelle: To climate catastrophe…

Dr. Avi Friedman:  We are now facing a climate emergency.

Geoff Capelle: We have to adapt and build resilient solutions for whatever might come next. Like finding new ways to keep production close to demand and reduce the risk of shipping complications.

Eric Law: We're locally sourced in the metropolitan areas. ‘

Jen Hancock: Resilience and innovation go hand in hand. Needing to find new solutions opens up the opportunity to dream and try all sorts of new ideas…

Dr. Mercedes Garcia Holguera:  I don't think that we will get rid of traditional construction materials. And we don’t want to.

Jen Hancock: With the hopes that those ideas inspire someone else along the way…

 Eric Law:  if we can get people thinking about, “Okay, we can recycle one hundred per cent of the building products.” That's a huge win.

Jen Hancock: Especially when we consider the wealth of talent and creativity we have to work with, right here at home…

Mark Podlasly:  This is a Canadian question. We look at the world right now and the challenges we face globally in not only climate change and geopolitical stability and environmental protection, and we as a country have a role to play that could be a model for how things should be done going forward.

Jen Hancock: Thanks for listening to our sixth, and final, season of Building Good. 

We’re still having conversations about changing construction for the better, so if you want to be part of those conversations – keep in touch at buildinggood.ca. That’s b-u-i-l-d-i-n-ggood.ca.

Building Good has been a Vocal Fry Studios production in partnership with Bird Construction and Chandos Construction.

The producers are Jay Cockburn, Katie Jensen, and Sabrina Brathwaite, with production assistance from Jessica Loughlin and Joanne Hignett.

Jen Hancock: I’m Jen Hancock

Geoff Capelle: I’m Geoff Capelle. 

Jen Hancock and Geoff Capelle: Thanks for listening.