Toronto's new green roof law a first for North America

Bylaw requires some new developments to devote almost 60% of roof space to vegetation.

By Michael d'EstriesTue, Jun 23 2009 at 8:34 AM EST
 47

A green rooftop Photo: 416style/Flickr
In a first for a North American city, Toronto recently passed a new law mandating "green" rooftops for all new developments. Any new construction with floor space of more than 2,000 square meters must devote between 20 and 60 percent of its roof to vegetation. The rule applies to residential, commercial, industrial and institutional structures.
 
As expected, developers are less than thrilled with the new mandatory rules — least of all that they come during an economic downturn. Some estimate that green roofs could add more than $177,000 to the cost of a project; not including the ongoing maintenance, replacement and repair costs. "I don't think anybody is warm and fuzzy about having a green roof bylaw impressed on them as a prescriptive method," one developer told Reuters.
 
Still, the benefits to the city in terms of energy savings and rainwater runoff management are seen as cost-effective in the long term. According to the organization Green Roofs for Healthy Cities, more than 3.1 million square feet of green roofs were installed in 2008, a growth rate of 35 percent over the previous year. Though Toronto may have the lead in proactive legislation, the city of Chicago retains the crown for having the most green roofs in North America at more than 600. Still, it should be interesting to see if our neighbors to the North can inspire some U.S. cities to follow their example.
 
CLOSE link:

Comments

Follow this conversation View:

anonymous
Michael Bradt 01/09/2011 13:55 PM

I was born and raised in Toronto and have just turned 50. I love living in T.O and wouldn't change it for anything. I'm so pleased and excited this green roof law was passed. Thank you to all those you voted for it!
The co-op I live in is right downtown, it has 3 buildings with 750 units and award winning gardens in between each building. Having said that, our gardens are beautiful, but they are not edible. Also, we do not have a roof top garden and not until just recently did we have a.... More

anonymous
Congratulations Torontofor this initiative to mandate green 12/20/2010 00:16 AM

Congratulation Toronto the city will be more greener and will help to prevent heat especially in the areas with many bulidings BUT WHAT ABOUT WHITE ROOFS ? IT IS THE CHEAPEST AND EFFICIENT SOLUTION TO REDUCE THE HEAT ..I THINK IT'S EVEN BETTER THAN SPENDING SO MUCH MONEY ON THE GREEN GARDENS AND THEIR MAINTENANCE ....

anonymous
Frank 11/12/2010 18:53 PM

Maybe an idea like this could help reduce the terrible smog in larger cities like Toronto.

anonymous
KP 10/06/2010 02:05 AM

well ... it would create more jobs and more business as far as gardening, fertilization, plant, and other like industries are concerned ... plus over the next few generations everything is becoming more environmentally friendly and more ethical and socially responsible companies will have a jump start on the competition which will soon be playing catch up since the up coming generation will soon expect them to do things like this instead of it being a bonus make the company look go .. it'll.... More

anonymous
fairfield 12/09/2009 22:32 PM

Good idea or bad, I wonder about maintenance. Every lawn or garden I've ever seen needs care, watering, weeding, fertilizing or mowing or something. Even a quasi-wild field needs something, and these are bound to be only inches deep and not huge. Is this part of the deal? If it dies, you have to replant? What about no watering periods during droughts? Anyone know details from Toronto or Chicago or elsewhere?

anonymous
Sahra 01/20/2011 01:17 AM

These gardens are for rooftops on new developments. I imagine in a condo the maintenance fees would go into your monthly condo fee.

I have lived in Toronto for 30 years and have never known it to have a drought. It's beside a giant freshwater lake.

anonymous
james 02/12/2010 15:09 PM

Green roofs of this scale are far from traditional gardens. They are most often planted with xeric plants- plants that can tolerate occasional wet conditions but prefer it hot and dry.

Additionally, the substrate is a soil less media, so that it does not invite rot, nor does it hold much water weight. General maintenance for an extensive green roof planted with sedums is once or twice yearly weeding, touch up, and possibly watering during an extended drought.

Generally, green roofs.... More

anonymous
Anonymous Today 19:01 PM

Whatever the contribution is to water management, CO2 absorption, heat dissipation blah blah blah, green rooftops will be one way to make a city considerably less ugly. I always think the aesthetics of any manmade space is improved by the addition of plants. There's also the potential to make the space a place to go for people to relax and enjoy, even have a cafe there, maybe.

anonymous
Anonymous 07/04/2009 10:08 AM

One might also look at this as just another quite reasonable building code requirement. Just as we require certain kinds of construction and land use to insure the public health and safety, this addresses real problems with heat islands and water runoff and any number of other issues that arise from insensitive construction.

As to the whinging from the "All regulation is bad and this is so unfair to the poor developer, yadda, yadda, yadda" crowd....The alternative is to have the costs.... More

anonymous
Brian in Knoxville 07/08/2009 10:31 AM

Very well said.

anonymous
Anonymous 07/03/2009 20:23 PM

The only reason this had to be mandated is because developers weren't doing it by themselves already. Any architect/developer/engineer who's any good can clearly see that concrete doesn't absorb rain and therefore in a concrete city, there'll be run-off... so they should've already been putting things in place, such as green rooftops to sort this out. But they weren't. Now they have to.

anonymous
Anonymous 07/03/2009 01:15 AM

I think that green roofing is a good idea (green-- including solar, possible small wind, etc projects) however, the goverenment mandating and getting into our lives even further is unnecessary and quite the opposite of what is needed.
If they want it, offer tax credits for doing it or offer some stipend to have it done. But ordering every new building to have it done will create cheap sloppy work resulting in damages and uncared for roofs and simply even more unhappy citizens.

anonymous
Jack Finley 07/03/2009 00:19 AM

Forty years ago I lived in Hyde Park, Chicago, Which is Obama's other home. The community surrounds the U of Chicago and at that time contained a sizable number of Progressive folks whose roots came from 1920-30's leftist beginnings. I belonged to a thriving Co-Op super market and we also had a neighborhood weekly Co-Op Food Bank. We even had a Co-OP babysitting arrangement. There were also a few large Co-Op apartment buildings that had been in existence for a number of years. I belonged to.... More

anonymous
Anonymous 07/02/2009 12:11 PM

I hope that they would count solar (heat or power) or some other type of green project as part of the % and not just a roof with plants on it. it is always scares me when gov seems to force people into one product and not into a range of solutions so privet sector can find the best answer for the different people/buildings. An example, privet homes have solar hot water but office buildings have plants and a roof top park.

anonymous
CaptainScorpio Today 12:14 PM

If it's not right now flexible enough to allow green technologies other than plants, it will be made so in short order. That sort of thing makes lawmakers look really good.

anonymous
Anonymous 07/02/2009 11:00 AM

Well.. in my city one of the mayors made it mandatory that every major development, as in shopping malls or sky scrappers, have to have a small park area. so similar to the roof idea but next to the building.

anonymous
wahdgfjasbkfk 07/02/2009 05:01 AM

Wow! This is amazing!! Thanks for sharing this!

anonymous
Kendra 07/01/2009 22:32 PM

The people who are complaining about this are ridiculous, as are all the developers. Green roofs can be expensive but they can also be very affordable. I recently did a project in my University course that looked at establishing a green wall on campus. I had to sift through a lot of information on green roofs and green walls to get my information and they are pretty cheap--100 per square METER of vegetation. Of course if you want exotic plants this will up the pricing. Also the benefits that.... More

anonymous
ME 07/01/2009 15:43 PM

Well Canada as other countries in the world should start taking initiatives for a greener world... now it is not fair to have it as a law, since its very costly and to tell the truth not as beneficial as other green solution, such as solar panels or wind turbines. To tell the truth a combination of all is the most immediate solution we have. Canada has one of the biggest unpopulated land masses of the entire world. Toronto as it is has one of the most extensive green areas in North America.... More

anonymous
Anonymous 07/01/2009 15:24 PM

Maybe I am the only one in the whole world right now that thinks this but I don't care I don't think the goverment should be putting all these by-laws into effect at all I think that it is the responsbily of the buyer a new development to buy what they feel is environmentaly impacting if thats what they feel is better. I don't like the goverment pushing things like this on us

anonymous
femme diabolique 07/01/2009 13:09 PM

How about making it optional with a substantial tax credit incentive for those who choose to participate? Will there be a rash of roofs collapsing on unsuspecting citizens in the future? Green roof weight + snow weight = trouble? Will there be government inspectors regulating if a roof is capable of sustaining the additional weight prior to compliance? I'm just askin' ...............

anonymous
Anonymous 07/14/2009 12:54 PM

Loads are taking into account at the START of the design of a building, including green roof weight & snow. Following proper engineering rules and guidelines ensures all of our structures and buildings don't collapse. Inspectors are only responsible for ensuring the proper installation of the green roof as well as the rest of the entire building. Inspectors are present throughout the entire construction process already. I'm just sayin' ..............

anonymous
Ganni 07/01/2009 04:58 AM

Looking down from a high building you realize how much roof space is unutilized. It can be profitably used for parking of cars, solar heaters, pv, roof gardens greenhouses and whatever.

anonymous
kungpow 07/01/2009 03:05 AM

I really don't see any problem with this, The streets of cities are dirty and depressing, and I've seen Chicago's green rooftops and it's like a slice of paradise. They can take the edge off a hot day and will help make the air just a bit cleaner, so what problem can people possibly have with this? It may sound bad, but anyone who would seriously oppose this is a moron or just loves to pick fights.

anonymous
Anonymous 06/30/2009 21:57 PM

stupid

anonymous
Tyler 06/30/2009 23:41 PM

gee, the guy below me seems to know just about everything, I should probably stop trying to get the city I live in to pass similar legislation since its "stupid." Cost aside, I can't think of any real negatives to green roofing. You seem to have though, please good sir, tell us more.

anonymous
Angela 07/05/2009 15:19 PM

, the real negative to green roofing is that it comes at a price, both to the wallet and to private property rights. Why in the world would you insist on cramming your lifestyle choices on others?

I have enough trouble finding time to mow the lawn, and I have zero interest in finding time to mow the roof.

Wait until the roof springs a leak. Trying to find it under tons of soil will be a joy.

anonymous
a student 07/13/2009 11:30 AM

your comment exposes your ignorance to how exactly a green roof works.

anonymous
Anonymous 07/05/2009 16:31 PM

"Why in the world would you insist on cramming your lifestyle choices on others?" wow you never lived in a neighborhood, let alone a real city. Get used to ordinances. The very act of crowding lots of people into a relatively small area changes many freedoms implicitly and dramatically. Some you are so used to you wouldn't even think of them. If you want to be more (but never completely) free of ordinances, don't build in a city, go to the country.

anonymous
Anonymous 06/30/2009 12:52 PM

I think its great that they're putting in green rooftops, I wish that they would make all suburban developers put in solar shingles on all new homes. that would offset a bunch of energy usage.
I hoping when its time for us to put on a new roof we can afford to include solar shingles.

anonymous
Anonymous 06/30/2009 12:28 PM

wow there is a lot of negative comments on here. people seem upset at the cost this is going to impose on businesses. but have you all thought of the cost that massive development has had on our society, transportation, environment and general infrastructure? poorly planned shopping developments that increase traffic, massive amounts of asphalt that cause temperatures to rise, excess urban sprawl that is now being abandoned b/c people can no longer afford it. so if you think that developers.... More

anonymous
a student 06/30/2009 10:17 AM

Draesdehn, where in the world did you get that statistic? I’m not refuting it, but I can’t find proof of that anywhere. Obviously, the US is a very spread out country. But the point is that urban areas are extremely dense with people and pollution. I think that many people don’t understand the purpose of green rooftops. The point of having a green rooftop is to offset the massive amount of impervious surfaces that urban areas create. Anonymous 9:01 AM, that is why solar panels and green.... More

anonymous
Henry 06/30/2009 17:24 PM

I would only add, that in the case of water run-off, a major source of pollution to rivers, lakes, & the like, comes when there is enough of a down pour, & city water processing units cannot handle the run-off, so the overflow goes from the sewage treatment (it has mixed with other "waste" water, etc.), as RAW sewage. Avoiding this condition, even somewhat, could be helpful... Of course, so could better designed water systems... Some city's are trying to use (say) wetlands for such.... More

anonymous
Anonymous 06/30/2009 09:01 AM

Green roofs are a nice idea maybe for smaller buildings with less access to sun, but I would say that putting in solar panels would be a lot more productive and effective use of roof space or a mini version of those concentrated solar towers?

anonymous
Draesdehn 06/30/2009 07:33 AM

The US is 90% natural land, Canada is over 98%. There will never be a time where either is even a third urban area. Common sense should tell you this. The only effect this has is raising the cost of renting, parking, and shopping in Toronto. Neither the Earth nor the Human race will benefit from this in any way. Hell, for people who live in the city to get away from allergies, it's simply hell. Stop with this lame feelgood nonsense that doesn't benefit anyone and come up with a nuts and bolts.... More

anonymous
Angus 06/29/2009 20:01 PM

If not for plants we wouldn't be able to breath. It's easy to forget that the necesseties of humans are greatly dependant on our environment. I think this law helps because at some point in our distant future there might not be non-urban areas, so it's important to integrate our necessary ecosystem into our continually confining environment.

anonymous
My Green earth Online 06/29/2009 12:54 PM

As we become more aware of our environment, these kind of systems are so needed for our survival, and this will cool down the heat effect of the standard roofs.
NICE

anonymous
Matt 06/28/2009 14:03 PM

Think about it, we've paved over so much of our world already, like a parasite in a host were slowly draining/killing the earth. so whats a little landscape on the roof anyway?

anonymous
Havvy 06/27/2009 21:54 PM

"I live in Toronto, and I'm pretty glad they implemented this bylaw. I have very little patience for the whining of developers who, even in a downturn, stand to profit millions of dollars from any large-scale development - especially in Toronto's overcrowded urban landscape. 170,000 dollars is a drop in the bucket to these people - it's the inconvenience that bothers them, and I couldn't have less sympathy for it."

You are glad you just lost the ability to not place plants on the tops.... More

anonymous
Your Mom 06/27/2009 12:21 PM

I live in Toronto, and I'm pretty glad they implemented this bylaw. I have very little patience for the whining of developers who, even in a downturn, stand to profit millions of dollars from any large-scale development - especially in Toronto's overcrowded urban landscape. 170,000 dollars is a drop in the bucket to these people - it's the inconvenience that bothers them, and I couldn't have less sympathy for it.

Meanwhile, green rooftops will do a lot to make the city more liveable -.... More

anonymous
Anonymous 06/27/2009 11:38 AM

I'd like one of those green roofs. I just wish we have the time and the means to put it up ourselves or the money to have someone else do it for us.

anonymous
iceboks 06/27/2009 05:21 AM

Like every one else said, its great for the envo and looks, great jobs I think why not

anonymous
Anonymous 06/27/2009 02:25 AM

All of you are looking at this from a narrow point of view. You complain of cost and effort but you don't look at the jobs created by this new law or the environmental benefits. Each plant pulls CO2 out of the atmosphere, so even if one dies and you have to plant another, the benefit out ways the cost. Besides, it looks a lot better than gravel on a roof. Stop complaining about how you have to change what you're doing and open your eyes.

anonymous
Anonymous 06/26/2009 19:59 PM

this law is bunk. I should be able to decide if i want a bunch of grass and **** on my roof. so again bunk on this

anonymous
Anonymous 01/19/2011 13:09 PM

Oh so you'd rather your roof continue contributing to heating up the city and generally being useless? Okay. Sorry for wanting to improve the urbanised area that you share with tons of people.

anonymous
mgl 06/25/2009 18:11 PM

I think a green house on the roof is a better idea. But you will have to put in some heavy duty joists.

anonymous
Bobby 06/27/2009 00:16 AM

"I think a green house on the roof is a better idea. But you will have to put in some heavy duty joists."

That kind of defeats the purpose of a green rooftop.

Add your comment

Sign in with one of these accounts or just add your comment below.
Used only for emailed comments and will not be displayed with your post
Notify me with an email when other people comment on this article.
The posting of advertisement, profanity or personal attacks is prohibited.
Click here to review our Terms of Use

ADVERTISEMENT

TOP MEMBERSJoin Now

ADVERTISEMENT