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.