Development Rumours

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

I can't help but think that this mass timber movement is a forestry industry lobbying effort with exaggerated benefits etc.. What I'd really like to see is the forests left alone for a few generations. Our forests are a pale shadow of what they were prior to European settlement.

I wonder if mass timber is more sustainable because the beams are engineered and don't have to come from old growth trees. A certain amount of logging can be done sustainably.

One inconsistency that seems to exist in Halifax is that there is so much lip service paid to climate change and the environment but there's tons of neglect and demolition of functional buildings while there are still many empty lots. Governments and institutions might be the worst offenders.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

I wonder if mass timber is more sustainable because the beams are engineered and don't have to come from old growth trees. A certain amount of logging can be done sustainably.

One inconsistency that seems to exist in Halifax is that there is so much lip service paid to climate change and the environment but there's tons of neglect and demolition of functional buildings while there are still many empty lots. Governments and institutions might be the worst offenders.

Indeed. The carbon footprint of steel and concrete is huge. Mass timber is more environmentally friendly; the wood used for these presumably isn't coming from virgin forest. My assumpation is that it's coming from woodlots, where trees are destined for harvest.

[ArchAficionado]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

I can't help but think that this mass timber movement is a forestry industry lobbying effort with exaggerated benefits etc.. What I'd really like to see is the forests left alone for a few generations. Our forests are a pale shadow of what they were prior to European settlement.

Forestry in this century is (generally) a very sustainable practice, where care is taken to balance planted/new growth with what is cut. Mass timber is often manufactured lumber that is assembled from smaller constituent pieces from younger trees, whereas the "timbers" of old were cut recklessly by the "pioneers" of yesteryear.

I recently was reading an article on the tallest trees in North America, and most of the former tallest were cut in the late 19th/early 20th century, almost as trophies ... I'm glad that our collective consciousness has changed in that regard to coexist as part of nature rather than try to conquer it.

Lastly, I'll mention the plight of the great Appalachian chestnut trees, which were almost completely exinct by the mid-20th century as a consequence of a disease from asian trees - interesting business!

TL;DR forestry the way we do it now is fine and sustainable and mass timber is a very ecological building material even at scale.

[Antigonish]

Dutch Elm disease was the most catastrophic. I think it really started mass killing the trees in the 1980s. I was too young to remember the pre-blight days but I remember the trees still standing but slowly rotting away. Out here in Saskatoon the elms are still present but there has been a few cases of blight just in the past year or so. My street is a 1940s grid street with elms lining both sides. During the summer the entire street becomes a giant tree tunnel it's absolutely gorgeous!

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

I can't help but think that this mass timber movement is a forestry industry lobbying effort with exaggerated benefits etc.. What I'd really like to see is the forests left alone for a few generations. Our forests are a pale shadow of what they were prior to European settlement.

Part of that may be true but not all. There are huge logging operations in places like Northern Maine and in Quebec and Ontario that plant softwood trees for harvest every 40 years in a continuous cycle. Those can be used for paper production but also for manufacturing building materials like OSB and glue-lam beams. It is not all that different than growing food crops except the harvest cycle is much longer. Like anything those products have their pros and cons - the glues used in their production, while letting them act as structural members, also tend to make structures go up like a book of matches when fire breaks out.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

Dutch Elm disease was the most catastrophic. I think it really started mass killing the trees in the 1980s. I was too young to remember the pre-blight days but I remember the trees still standing but slowly rotting away. Out here in Saskatoon the elms are still present but there has been a few cases of blight just in the past year or so. My street is a 1940s grid street with elms lining both sides. During the summer the entire street becomes a giant tree tunnel it's absolutely gorgeous!

I was in Stanley Park in Vancouver last week, since 2020 the park lost 160,000 hemlock trees as a result of disease.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

I can't help but think that this mass timber movement is a forestry industry lobbying effort with exaggerated benefits etc.. What I'd really like to see is the forests left alone for a few generations. Our forests are a pale shadow of what they were prior to European settlement.

Interesting points. Situations are so complex and the way information is curated these days, it has become difficult to discern hard facts from ulterior motives.

I think it would be difficult/impossible to see forestry put on hold for generations, but I agree with the sentiment. It would be nice to preserve more, larger areas of forest without harvesting, that would allow for some significant old-growth. As others have mentioned, though, there are other things such as disease and insect infestations that would not allow the forests to grow to pre-European settler times, at least not with the same mix of trees... but taller ones, though... and habitats to support wildlife unencumbered by removal of their environment from time to time.

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Indeed. The carbon footprint of steel and concrete is huge. Mass timber is more environmentally friendly; the wood used for these presumably isn't coming from virgin forest. My assumpation is that it's coming from woodlots, where trees are destined for harvest.

I'm curious about the carbon footprint thing. Would the lifespan of a timber building be the same as one made from concrete/steel? If its lifespan is shorter, then number of replacements over a period of time would factor into its overall footprint, not just comparing one new build to another. Also, there is a manufacturing element to the 'engineered wood', which will have a larger footprint than simply cutting and milling lumber... not sure how the materials compare, though. I'm sure someone on here has "data".

One also might wonder if the wooden structures would require more maintenance, which also requires cost, energy (carbon footprint), or replacement of structural elements in the case of minimal or deferred maintenance.

Just random thoughts... nothing valuable to add to the discussion (as usual).

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Part of that may be true but not all. There are huge logging operations in places like Northern Maine and in Quebec and Ontario that plant softwood trees for harvest every 40 years in a continuous cycle. Those can be used for paper production but also for manufacturing building materials like OSB and glue-lam beams. It is not all that different than growing food crops except the harvest cycle is much longer. Like anything those products have their pros and cons - the glues used in their production, while letting them act as structural members, also tend to make structures go up like a book of matches when fire breaks out.

But softwood? My impression is that in 'the old days' that most wooden structures would have been built with hardwood, that would likely have resulted in a longer lifespan than softwood, even when "engineered" by bonding with adhesives (except for sheet plywood with alternating grains perhaps?). Additionally, introducing bonding agents doesn't always end up having product with an improved lifespan over a solid piece of wood. Anytime water is introduced (by a roof leak, for example), the lifetime of the product is reduced significantly. Presumably the glues will have a lifespan of their own, through offgassing or some other physical condition that leads to deterioration (UV, humidity, etc).

Anecdotally, carpenters have told me that they've pulled hundred year old wood from outside structures like stairs, etc., that were still in good shape, whereas the 'new wood' that they were building with might last 10 - 15 years. Can't validate that except these guys have done a lot of work on a lot of places. Maybe there was something with the curing methods or growing cycles (tighter rings, for example) of 'the old days' that resulted in more durable lumber. Maybe they were using species that are no longer available or have become too expensive. I don't know.

[Wannabe Economist]

But softwood? My impression is that in 'the old days' that most wooden structures would have been built with hardwood, that would likely have resulted in a longer lifespan than softwood, even when "engineered" by bonding with adhesives (except for sheet plywood with alternating grains perhaps?). Additionally, introducing bonding agents doesn't always end up having product with an improved lifespan over a solid piece of wood. Anytime water is introduced (by a roof leak, for example), the lifetime of the product is reduced significantly. Presumably the glues will have a lifespan of their own, through offgassing or some other physical condition that leads to deterioration (UV, humidity, etc).

Anecdotally, carpenters have told me that they've pulled hundred year old wood from outside structures like stairs, etc., that were still in good shape, whereas the 'new wood' that they were building with might last 10 - 15 years. Can't validate that except these guys have done a lot of work on a lot of places. Maybe there was something with the curing methods or growing cycles (tighter rings, for example) of 'the old days' that resulted in more durable lumber. Maybe they were using species that are no longer available or have become too expensive. I don't know.

My house is from 1866 and has old growth lumber framing. As I understand it, it's all still softwood - softwood has always been used because it is easier to work/cut, especially back in the days before electric saws. That said, the difference in the durability between old softwood and new softwood comes with age. Once a tree grows old and large enough, say 100-200+ years old, a usable amount of "heartwood" forms in the middle of the tree. The outer sections of the log are called sapwood. New lumber is all sapwood, which is more moist and less dense than heartwood. Heartwood softwood performs similar to hardwood despite being softwood. It's denser and therefore more water and bug resistant than what is used today.

I've always wondered how much my house would weigh in comparison to a similar size house built today, considering how thick and heavy all of the timbers are and the deep stone foundation.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Wannabe Economist

My house is from 1866 and has old growth lumber framing. As I understand it, it's all still softwood - softwood has always been used because it is easier to work/cut, especially back in the days before electric saws. That said, the difference in the durability between old softwood and new softwood comes with age. Once a tree grows old and large enough, say 100-200+ years old, a usable amount of "heartwood" forms in the middle of the tree. The outer sections of the log are called sapwood. New lumber is all sapwood, which is more moist and less dense than heartwood. Heartwood softwood performs similar to hardwood despite being softwood. It's denser and therefore more water and bug resistant than what is used today.

I've always wondered how much my house would weigh in comparison to a similar size house built today, considering how thick and heavy all of the timbers are and the deep stone foundation.

Fascinating! Thanks so much for the education.

I’ve wondered about this, and also whether environmental changes have impacted the strength of wood over the centuries. Seems I’ve seen somewhere, old wood compared with new wood, and the old trees tended to have tighter rings, indicating less thickness (and thus growth) per growing season. Presumably this would result in denser, stronger wood?

Also I can imagine all of the know-how that’s been lost in terms of building with wood since your house was built. Some of the knowledge that was built up over the generations would have been lost as technology changed how we build. Other factors have changed how we harvest and what wood is used and we are now depending upon technology to make up the gap. I guess in 100 years we’ll know whether it was sufficient or not?

In my area, there are some 40ish-ft pines that literally snapped in half, like 10-20 ft from the ground during some of the hurricanes and more severe wind storms that we’ve had over the last 20+ years. While I am sure that the type of wind activity is a factor (speed, direction, cadence, tree grouping, etc.), I was surprised that they didn’t simply uproot, since most are growing in relatively shallow topsoil over bedrock. These pines were a good foot and a half thick, yet they snapped off like twigs. Makes me wonder what is going on there, like whether newer softwood is less resilient to bending stresses than the old (100-150 years ago), for whatever reasons.

Typically haven’t seen maples fall in this manner, even though they are in full leaf during hurricane season, but to be fair they are not as tall and thus would be exposed to less severe winds. I have seen some smaller spruce break off as well. Anyhow, a bit of a tangent, but interesting (to me).

[Wannabe Economist]

Fascinating! Thanks so much for the education.

I’ve wondered about this, and also whether environmental changes have impacted the strength of wood over the centuries. Seems I’ve seen somewhere, old wood compared with new wood, and the old trees tended to have tighter rings, indicating less thickness (and thus growth) per growing season. Presumably this would result in denser, stronger wood?

Also I can imagine all of the know-how that’s been lost in terms of building with wood since your house was built. Some of the knowledge that was built up over the generations would have been lost as technology changed how we build. Other factors have changed how we harvest and what wood is used and we are now depending upon technology to make up the gap. I guess in 100 years we’ll know whether it was sufficient or not?

In my area, there are some 40ish-ft pines that literally snapped in half, like 10-20 ft from the ground during some of the hurricanes and more severe wind storms that we’ve had over the last 20+ years. While I am sure that the type of wind activity is a factor (speed, direction, cadence, tree grouping, etc.), I was surprised that they didn’t simply uproot, since most are growing in relatively shallow topsoil over bedrock. These pines were a good foot and a half thick, yet they snapped off like twigs. Makes me wonder what is going on there, like whether newer softwood is less resilient to bending stresses than the old (100-150 years ago), for whatever reasons.

Typically haven’t seen maples fall in this manner, even though they are in full leaf during hurricane season, but to be fair they are not as tall and thus would be exposed to less severe winds. I have seen some smaller spruce break off as well. Anyhow, a bit of a tangent, but interesting (to me).

Interesting to me as well!

Yes, I've heard that newer trees grow faster since they are farmed for the purpose of making lumber and are therefore adequately spaced to ensure fast growth. Old lumber comes from real forests with more competition for sunlight, therefore leading to slower growth and tighter rings.

One cool thing about these old houses is that my framing doesn't have a single nail in it anywhere. Back then they would join the framing members with mortise and tenon joinery and wood pegs, like how high-end furniture these days would be made. No nails or spikes, just a big 3D handcrafted puzzle.

Trees can grow quite large before developing the heartwood, probably what happened to those pines. If they were fairly isolated and got full sun all the time they can get really big without getting very dense. Even a 50 year old tree is not that old for a tree, yet it can be larger than a 200 year old tree of the same species depending on its surroundings.

The maple would be stronger than the pine and spruce likely just by virtue of it being a hardwood would be my guess. Not that I'm a tree expert but I certainly find them quite interesting! It's amazing to look around and think of all the things we rely on wood for.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by Wannabe Economist

Interesting to me as well!

Yes, I've heard that newer trees grow faster since they are farmed for the purpose of making lumber and are therefore adequately spaced to ensure fast growth. Old lumber comes from real forests with more competition for sunlight, therefore leading to slower growth and tighter rings.

One cool thing about these old houses is that my framing doesn't have a single nail in it anywhere. Back then they would join the framing members with mortise and tenon joinery and wood pegs, like how high-end furniture these days would be made. No nails or spikes, just a big 3D handcrafted puzzle.

Trees can grow quite large before developing the heartwood, probably what happened to those pines. If they were fairly isolated and got full sun all the time they can get really big without getting very dense. Even a 50 year old tree is not that old for a tree, yet it can be larger than a 200 year old tree of the same species depending on its surroundings.

The maple would be stronger than the pine and spruce likely just by virtue of it being a hardwood would be my guess. Not that I'm a tree expert but I certainly find them quite interesting! It's amazing to look around and think of all the things we rely on wood for.

You may not be a tree expert but I learned a ton.
Thankyou

[Wannabe Economist]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

You may not be a tree expert but I learned a ton.
Thankyou

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Wannabe Economist

Interesting to me as well!

Yes, I've heard that newer trees grow faster since they are farmed for the purpose of making lumber and are therefore adequately spaced to ensure fast growth. Old lumber comes from real forests with more competition for sunlight, therefore leading to slower growth and tighter rings.

One cool thing about these old houses is that my framing doesn't have a single nail in it anywhere. Back then they would join the framing members with mortise and tenon joinery and wood pegs, like how high-end furniture these days would be made. No nails or spikes, just a big 3D handcrafted puzzle.

Trees can grow quite large before developing the heartwood, probably what happened to those pines. If they were fairly isolated and got full sun all the time they can get really big without getting very dense. Even a 50 year old tree is not that old for a tree, yet it can be larger than a 200 year old tree of the same species depending on its surroundings.

The maple would be stronger than the pine and spruce likely just by virtue of it being a hardwood would be my guess. Not that I'm a tree expert but I certainly find them quite interesting! It's amazing to look around and think of all the things we rely on wood for.

It’s interesting that you mention your framing not using any nails or metal fasteners of any type. I admittedly don’t know much about the minutia of how most old wooden buildings were constructed, but my impression is that they would have used nails handmade by a blacksmith, or later in the industrial age manufactured in an early factory. I’m not sure if that was the norm here, or even if it was a regional thing.

I do know, however, that in areas where wooden ship building was a prominent industry, that many buildings were constructed using similar techniques to ship building. That would cover most of NS in the 1800s and early 1900s, so it wouldn’t surprise me if the people who built your house were very comfortable with framing without metal fasteners to hold it together. Plus, even though they wouldn’t have been certified “engineers”, they would have understood the concept of loading and how to place beams and joints such that the loading helped to hold the structure together, relying less on fasteners to do so. It was truly a glorious meshing of art and science that went into these old buildings.

I was reminded of this by the rebuilding of St. John’s Anglican Church in Lunenburg after it was almost completely lost to fire on Halloween 2001. To rebuild the church as an exact replica of the original, they had to employ people who still had expertise in building wooden ships. I’m sure there are a million stories about how this was done that would be most fascinating. With your enlightenment regarding wood, I am now wondering what type of wood they used, how they sourced it, etc. Again I appreciate your sharing your insight with us.

Regarding the maples, I’m sure that the fact of them being hardwood is the most significant factor. I was also surmising that the taller trees would have been affected by higher wind speeds due to the effect of wind shear during a hurricane situation, plus the fact that their “foliage” was distributed higher up on the tree, as well as the greater bending moment on the trunk due to the longer “lever” effect on the tree.

[terrynorthend]

AllNS is reporting a US based group working with local developers is planning a massive 1.5 billion dollar sports and entertainment park across the 102 from the airport, near the Wellington connector. It's centerpiece is a 27,000 seat stadium designed by Populous that will host a CFL franchise and other events and possibly lacrosse and a women's soccer league team.
No government money or assistance beyond water/wastewater service.
CFL team would start in 2027, playing at St. Mary's University, until stadium is ready 2030. Full complex build out by 2033/34.

[Offshore1]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

AllNS is reporting a US based group working with local developers is planning a massive 1.5 billion dollar sports and entertainment park across the 102 from the airport, near the Wellington connector. It's centerpiece is a 27,000 seat stadium designed by Populous that will host a CFL franchise and other events and possibly lacrosse and a women's soccer league team.
No government money or assistance beyond water/wastewater service.
CFL team would start in 2027, playing at St. Mary's University, until stadium is ready 2030. Full complex build out by 2033/34.

"No government money..." Hmm... and you can take that to the bank.

[IanWatson]

That's the same distance from downtown as the Ottawa Senators are from downtown Ottawa. And that arena is widely maligned as being way too far from anything.

[JC1994]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

That's the same distance from downtown as the Ottawa Senators are from downtown Ottawa. And that arena is widely maligned as being way too far from anything.

Though this is true, we do need a LRT from the airport to DT.... What better reason to build that infrastructure. IMO, that's where it should start anyway. Yeah, it's far, but who is going to avoid a 25 minute train ride when they can watch CFL in Halifax? Makes sense for travelling teams as well, and travelling fans.

I would like to have it downtown, or near, but the reality is our city is needing some special attention to essential infrastructure, of which would be heavily impacted by adding this too close to the DT core.

[JC1994]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

AllNS is reporting a US based group working with local developers is planning a massive 1.5 billion dollar sports and entertainment park across the 102 from the airport, near the Wellington connector. It's centerpiece is a 27,000 seat stadium designed by Populous that will host a CFL franchise and other events and possibly lacrosse and a women's soccer league team.
No government money or assistance beyond water/wastewater service.
CFL team would start in 2027, playing at St. Mary's University, until stadium is ready 2030. Full complex build out by 2033/34.

Any chance you can share more of this so we don't have to pay $15 a month to read about this?

[Jstaleness]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

AllNS is reporting a US based group working with local developers is planning a massive 1.5 billion dollar sports and entertainment park across the 102 from the airport, near the Wellington connector. It's centerpiece is a 27,000 seat stadium designed by Populous that will host a CFL franchise and other events and possibly lacrosse and a women's soccer league team.
No government money or assistance beyond water/wastewater service.
CFL team would start in 2027, playing at St. Mary's University, until stadium is ready 2030. Full complex build out by 2033/34.

Hmmm. "Kanata enters the chat" This is why Ottawa is looking to build their new arena closer if not in Downtown. This gives the fan better walking/transit options as well as much better pre and post game experiences. There are a lot of YouTubers who are very vocal about the area the CTC is in. A sea of parking lots with chain restaurants. Pardon me if I don't want to "tailgate" at the local Subway or Burger King.

Hoping if this does happen we see major growth and better options than Ottawa experienced.

[icetea93]

I don’t have access to the full article either, but based on the summary given it sounds like this is pretty detailed and much more than just in the early planning stages. I hope there is planned accordingly to get people there and back from the city centre.