IN ST inm O N A L BARRIERS TOCUMATIE RESPONSIVE DESIGN IN
COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT IN PRINCE GEORGE, B.C.

by

Laura Marie Ryser
B.A., University of Northern British Columbia, 1996

T^HESIS; SIJBIvHTTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

© Laura Marie Ryser, 2002
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA

June 2002

All rights reserved. This work may not be
reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or
other means, without the permission of the author.

1 ^ 1

National Library
of Canada

Bibliothèque nationale
du Canada

Acquisitions and
Bibliographic Services

Acquisitions et
services bibliographiques

395 Wellington Street
Ottawa ON K1A0N4
Canada

395, rue Wellington
Ottawa ON K1A0N4
Canada
Yourf^ Yotre rôfér@nc&
OurSte Notre

The author has granted a non­
exclusive licence allowing the
National Library of Canada to
reproduce, loan, distribute or sell
copies of this thesis in microform,
paper or electronic formats.

L’auteur a accordé une licence non
exclusive permettant à la
Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de
reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou
vendre des copies de cette thèse sous
la forme de microfiche/film, de
reproduction sur papier ou sur format
électronique.

The author retains ownership of the
copyright in this thesis. NeiÜier the
thesis nor substantial extracts from it
may be printed or otherwise
reproduced without the author’s
permission.

L’auteur conserve la propriété du
droit d’auteur qui protège cette thèse.
Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels
de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés
ou autrement reproduits sans son
autorisation.

0-612-80675-8

CanadS

APPROVAL
Name:

Laura Marie Ryser

Degree:

Master of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies

Thesis Title:

INSTrrmrONAL BARRIERS TO CLIMATE RESPONSIVE
DESIGN IN COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT IN
PRINCE GEORGE, B.C.

\

Examining Committee:

Chair: 1
Dean, College^of Aqts, Social ani
UNBC

ealth Sciences

Supervisor: Dr. Greg^Mseth
Associate Professor, GeograpEy Program
UNBC

Cofnmittee Member: Dr. Peter Jackson
Associate Professor, Environmental Studies Program
UNBC

Committ e Member: Alistair McVev, MA
Campus "rincip^Lfb^ Albemi Canjpus
North Islknd College

External Examiner: Norman Pressman, MM Arch (Urban Design)
Professor Emeritus, Urban and Regional Planning
University of Waterloo

Date Approved:

ABSTRACT
Climate responsive design principles enhance the efficiency of city maintenance and
improve the livability of urban spaces. Through on-going commercial redevelopment, Prince
George, B.C., has had an opportunity to implement climate responsive designs. It can do this
because development proposals require review by the city’s Advisory Design Panel and
approval by City Council. Regardless, most projects have failed to incorporate climate
responsive designs.
This research examines institutional barriers which may inhibit climate responsive
design in commercial redevelopment. To explore these institutional barriers, key informants
in two commercial redevelopment case studies were interviewed to assess their knowledge
about climate responsive design and to identify institutional barriers to incorporating such
design principles into these commercial redevelopments. Findings suggest a range of barriers
including educational (lack of awareness and infrequent training opportunities), financial
(fear of economic loss), psychological (lack of interest), structural (insufficient design panel
membership and lack of time), information barriers (lack of exchange of information),
regulatory (insufficient regulations and guidelines), political barriers (sense of powerlessness
and conflict of interest), maintenance barriers, and social and security barriers. However,
each barrier also contains some inherent internal contradictions. By using triangulation, this
research provides an examination of the validity of the barriers impeding the incorporation of
climate responsive design in the commercial redevelopment process in Prince George.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
Acknowledgements
Chapter One

Chapter Two

Chapter Three

Chapter Four

1
ii
iv
V

vi
Introduction
1.1 Identified Research Needs
1.2 Rationale of the Research
1.3 Research Questions
1.4 Organization of the Thesis
A Framework for Evaluating Institutional Barriers to
Climate Responsive Design
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Defining Urban Design
2.3 Climate Responsive Design
2.4 Tools for Implementing Climate Responsive Design
Principles
2.5 The Change Process
2.6 Conclusion
Historical Context of Climate Responsive Design in
Prince George
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Physical and Climatic Characteristics of Prince
George
3.3 Historical Context of Climate Responsive Design in
Prince George
3.4 The Commercial Redevelopment Process
3.5 Conclusion
Methodology
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Selection of Methodology
4.3 Unit of Analysis
4.4 Selection of Case Studies
4.5 Selection of Interview Participants
4.6 Interview Methodology
4.7 Method of Analysis
4.8 Limitations
4.9 Conclusion

1

2
2
3
3

5
5
6
6
15
17
25

26
26
26
27
32
34
35
35
35
35
36
39
40
43
44
44

Ill

Chapter Five

Local Knowledge about Climate Responsive Design
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Climate Responsive Design Principles Identified by
Participants
5.3 Conclusion

46
51

Chapter Six

Examining the Case Studies
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Case Study One: Computime
6.3 Case Study Two: Sight and Sound
6.4 Discussion

52
52
52
57
61

Chapter Seven

Institutional Barriers to Climate Responsive Design in
Commercial Redevelopment
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Institutional
Barriers to Initiating Change
7.3 Institutional
Barriers to Implementing Change
7.4 Institutional
Barriers to Evaluating Change
7.5 Discussion

63
63
64
74
101
104

Conclusion
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Summary of Findings
8.3 Future Research
8.4 Closing Comment

112
112
112
115
118

Chapter Eight

Bibliography
Appendices

46
46

119
Appendix A: Consent Form
Appendix B : UNBC Ethics Approval
Appendix C: Interview Schedule
Appendix D: Coding Manual
Appendix E: Participant Recommendations to Overcome
Institutional Barriers to Climate Responsive Design in
Commercial Redevelopment
Appendix F: List of Education Opportunities for Climate
Responsive Design
Appendix G: Written Permission of Copyright Holders

129
131
133
137
140

142
143

IV

List of Tables
Page
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 4.1
Table 5.1
Table 5.2
Table 5.3
Table 5.4
Table 5.5
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 6.3
Table 6.4
Table 7.1
Table 7.2
Table 7.3
Table 7.4
Table 7.5
Table 7.6
Table 7.7
Table 7.8
Table 7.9
Table 7.10
Table 7.11
Table 7.12
Table 7.13
Table 7.14
Table 7.15
Table 7.16

Kettner et al.’s Model for Change
19
A Framework to Examine Institutional Barriers for Climate
Responsive Design
20
Key Informant Categories
40
Summary of Climate Responsive Design Principles Identified by
Participants
47
Solar Design Principles Identified by Participants
47
Precipitation Principles Identified by Participants
49
Wind Protection Principles Identified by Participants
50
Other Climate Responsive Design Principles Identified by Participants
51
Computime - Climate Responsive Design Principles Incorporated
54
Computime - Climate Responsive Design Principles NotIncorporated
55
Sight and Sound - Climate Responsive Design Principles Incorporated
59
Sight and Sound - Climate Responsive Design Principles Not
Incorporated
60
Summary of Institutional Barriers to Climate Responsive Design
in Commercial Redevelopment
63
Education Barriers to Initiate Change for Climate Responsive Design
65
Summary of Educational Opportunities for Climate Responsive Design
66
Financial Barriers to Initiate Change for Climate Responsive Design
69
Psychological Barriers to Initiate Change for Climate Responsive Design 70
Financial Barriers to Implement Change for Climate Responsive Design 75
Structural Barriers to Implement Change for Climate Responsive Design 80
Regulatory Barriers to Implement Change for Climate Responsive
Design
86
Political Barriers to Implement Change for Climate Responsive Design
93
Information Barriers to Implement Climate Responsive Design
96
Maintenance Barriers to Implement Climate Responsive Design
99
Security / Social Barriers to Implement Climate Responsive
Design
100
Barriers to Evaluating Change for Climate Responsive Design
102
A Framework for Institutional Barriers to Initiating Change for Climate
Responsive Design
106
A Framework for Institutional Barriers to Implementing Change for
Climate Responsive Design
108
A Framework for Institutional Barriers to Evaluating Change for Climate
Responsive Design
109

List of Figures
Page
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.2
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.4
Figure 4.5
Figure 6.1
Figure 6.2
Figure 6.3
Figure 6.4
Figure 6.5
Figure 6.6
Figure 6.7

Street Orientation and Solar Patterns
Wind Flow Patterns Around Buildings
British Columbia
Downtown Grid Pattern in Prince George
Location of Case Studies
The Computime Building - A
The Computime Building - B
The Sight and Sound Building - A
The Sight and Sound Building - B
Site and Landscape Plan - Computime
The Computime Building - Landscaping
The Computime Building - Canopies
Site and Landscape Plan - Sight and Sound
The Sight and Sound Building - Deciduous Trees
The Sight and Sound Building - Canopies
The Sight and Sound Building - Landscaping

10
11
27
29
37
38
38
38
38
53
54
55
57
58
60
60

VI

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I feel very fortunate to have been able to interact with so many supportive individuals. It bas
been an incredible growing experience. I will remember it always!
First and foremost, I would like to thank my Mom and Dad for their support. Mom, your
frustrations and struggles to get around in our winter environment were always at the front of
my thoughts as I conducted my research. Dad, your incredible hard work ethic and humility
made you a role model that I hold to the highest esteem.
I would also like to thank the support of my friends and fellow peers who were frequently
willing to hear my frustrations and provide me with sound advice when 1 needed it. Special
thanks to Lana Sullivan and Brian Stauffer who provided greatly appreciated feedback and
support throughout this entire process. To Chris Jackson, Joe Ackerman, Regina Halseth,
Max Blouw, and Kevin Hall, thank you also for providing so much emotional support and
inspiration when 1 needed it. To Jim Windsor, Alistair McVey, Cliff Raphael, and Bruce
Loerke (College of New Caledonia), if it wasn’t for your passion about geography 1 would
not be here right now.
Thanks to Darren Janzen and Scott Emmons (UNBC), as well as Wendy Nordin (City of
Prince George) for their help with the maps for this thesis. 1 would also like to express my
gratitude to Vladimir Matus, Bill Waechter, Fergus Foley and Dan Condon for providing
permission for the use of additional figures in this thesis. Thanks to Paul Zanette for his
early input into my project, as well as John Curry who also provided equipment support for
the interviews.
My sincerest wishes to Jason Llewellyn, Kent Sedgwick, George Paul, Frank Blues, and Don
Schaffer (City of Prince George) who provided logistical support with ease. To Anne
Martin, your passion and support will continue to ignite my enthusiasm for the Winter Cities
Movement for a long time.
Many thanks to the City of Prince George, B.C. Hydro, the Canadian Association of
Geographers and the University of Northern British Columbia for their financial support.
1 would like to thank all of my interview participants for their time with such openness
throughout the interview process. It will always be greatly appreciated.
It was a great pleasure to be able to have Dr. Norman Pressman as my external examiner. 1
would like to thank him, as well as my committee members Dr. Peter Jackson and Alistair
McVey for all their support, time and effort. Foremost, 1 would like to thank my supervisor.
Dr. Greg Halseth. 1 feel very fortunate to have been able to have you as my mentor as 1
ventured off to Mongolia and especially as 1 dealt with the struggles throughout my thesis
experience. You exemplified to me all the qualities of an incredible role model: hard work,
openness, wisdom, commitment, patience, caring, and trust! 1 will remember it always !
Best wishes, Laura Ryser.

1

Chapter One: Introduction
As we move towards sustainable urban development, it becomes increasingly
important to incorporate climate responsive design principles into the urban landscape.
These principles can assist communities towards sustainability by decreasing the resources
they consume while improving the livability of urban spaces. Communities that do not
incorporate climate responsive designs in their urban landscapes face several consequences,
including high energy use, poor pedestrian movement, and low social interaction during less
favourable climatic conditions.
Most contemporary North American cities are not compact (Yeates 1998). Streets
sprawl out over the land without attention to solar orientation or wind protection; and tall
buildings shade streets and other buildings from solar access. This form has contributed to
social decentralization and social alienation (Owen 1994a). This has been suggested as a
particular problem during winter months (Owen 1994a) when people spend 60-70% of their
time indoors. Pressman and Zepic (1986, 12) assert that "some studies have indicated that
during long winter months, the majority of northern residents - especially in sub-arctic
regions - spend as much as 95% of their time indoors”. A report on the quality of life in
Prince George demonstrates that an unattractive centre city area, along with long cold
winters, weather, and an isolated location are reported by residents as among the worst things
about the City (State of the City 1997). For communities that experience periods of low
sunshine, cold winters, and feelings of isolation, it is particularly important to maximize
interaction with the outdoor environment by extending the outdoor season. This can be done
by optimizing climate responsive design principles.

1.1 Identified Research Needs
While the urban climate had been studied for decades, significant contributions to
climate responsive design principles accelerated after the energy crisis of the 1970s (Yuen
1995; Pressman and Cizek 1988; Moffat and Schiler 1981). Unfortunately, few have been
able to incorporate climatic variables effectively into the information base for decision­
making (Marsh 1991). There is a general lack of planning regulations pertaining to climate
(Marsh 1991). Broadway (n.d.) further notes that most of the literature which does exist
focuses on larger centres such as Montreal, Toronto, and Calgary. Few have assessed the
degree to which climate responsive designs have been adopted in smaller urban centres
(Broadway n.d.). Overall, there has not been a thorough investigation of the steps needed to
change public policy to reflect climate responsive design (Pressman 1999b, 1989). Such a
framework needs to be developed with knowledge of how to stimulate effective change
through the initiation, implementation, and continued evaluation of climate responsive
design.

1.2 Rationale of the Research
Prince George is a low-density city in the Central Interior of British Columbia, which
is undergoing substantial commercial redevelopment. Redevelopment can bring significant
improvement, since local government can exercise more control in transforming urban
landscapes (Leung 1989). Local government control stems from the development permit
process where designs are reviewed by a design panel and city staff prior to discussion and
approval by a local council. This provides an opportunity to implement climate responsive
design principles into commercial redevelopment as a part of the development permit
process. This thesis will provide a critical review of institutional barriers, which constrain

the incorporation of climate responsive design into commercial redevelopment in Prince
George.
1.3 Research Questions
To understand why climate responsive design principles are not incorporated in
commercial redevelopment projects, this thesis explores institutional barriers by responding
to the following questions:
1. What do key participants involved in the development permit process know about
climate responsive design?
2. How were climate responsive design principles incorporated or not incorporated
into commercial redevelopment case studies? and
3. What are the institutional barriers impeding the incorporation of climate responsive
design in commercial redevelopment?

1.4 Organization of Thesis
This thesis is divided into eight chapters. Following this introduction. Chapter Two is
a review of climate responsive design principles and application tools. Organizational
change theory is introduced as a framework to explore institutional barriers to climate
responsive design in commercial redevelopment.
Chapter Three is an introduction to the case study. It includes a brief description of
the physical and climate conditions of Prince George, as well as a review of past
development schemes, proposals, and regulations that have attempted to incorporate climate
responsive design in the city. This chapter also describes the commercial redevelopment
process in Prince George.

Chapter Four is a description of the exploratory case study methodology used for the
thesis. This includes a justification for the selection of the case studies and interview
participants. It also includes a review of the open-ended interview questions used for data
collection. Additional sources used for analysis and triangulation will also be noted,
including the Municipal Act, the Official Community Plan, zoning bylaws, and development
permit guidelines.
The three research questions are answered in Chapters Five through Seven. Chapter
Five reviews what participants knew about climate responsive design. Chapter Six examines
how the two case study sites incorporated climate responsive design principles, and whether
there was a discrepancy between what participants knew and what knowledge was actually
applied. Subsequently, Chapter Seven is a critical examination of the institutional barriers
impeding the initiation, implementation, and evaluation of climate responsive design in
commercial redevelopment in Prince George.
The final chapter is a review of the research findings. Moreover, the implications this
research has on organizations and communities pursuing change towards climate responsive
design are discussed. It also includes a review of future research questions that need to be
carried out in order to enhance the incorporation of climate responsive design.

Chapter Two: A Fram ew ork for Evaluating Institutional Barriers to Climate
Responsive Design
2.1 Introduction
Particularly over the last two decades, significant research has been completed to
create climate responsive design guidelines for urban spaces. A review of this literature
serves two purposes. First, if we want urban spaces to be climate responsive, we need to
obtain a solid understanding about what influences the micro-climate of spaces surrounding
buildings. However, a firm understanding is also needed about how these spaces are formed,
including how they are influenced by the regulations, policies, organizations, and
professionals who influence urban design. It is also important to understand how change in
institutions, which are a part of commercial redevelopment, takes place. Second, the
literature review will allow for appropriate interview questions to be developed. Walton
(1992) acknowledges that framing the case study involves theoretical choices about the
causal forces that distinguish and critically affect the case. These theoretical choices must
come from knowledge obtained from secondary data prior to conducting the research.
Subsequently, this chapter describes the climate responsive design principles that may
be incorporated into the commercial redevelopment process. However, while climate
responsive design principles can be applied at the city level, the neighbourhood level, and the
site level, this thesis will focus only on the site level. Next, the process of institutional
change is explored in order to provide a framework for the research. This will include a brief
discussion about why some researchers believe that there are barriers to incorporating climate
responsive design into the change process.

2.2 Defining Urban Design
Climate responsive design at the site level occurs through urban design. It is
important to recognize that there are many definitions of urban design. Tibbalds (1988, 11)
provides a variety of definitions of urban design including "spaces between buildings,
"everything you can see out of the window", or "the coming together of business,
government, planning, and design”. Another definition includes, "the design of the built-up
area at the local scale, including the grouping of buildings for different uses, the movement
systems and services associated with them, and the spaces and urban landscape between them
(Madanipour 1996, 93)”. The Central Business District Study (1980, 62) for the City of
Prince George defines the urban design framework as “the spaces between buildings and
circulation systems accommodating physical movement and establishing appropriate space
relationships within the CED”. For the purposes of this research, the latter definition will be
used. The space between buildings is critically important in providing connectivity between
buildings that affect the comfort and ease movement throughout the urban landscape.
2.3 Climate Responsive Design
Many communities in Canada experience the negative and positive aspects of the
seasons. However, these experiences may be more profound in the winter. There are
increased costs for snow management, as well as health implications related to accidents,
falls, and psychological depression during the winter. Citizens, particularly those with
special needs or seniors, experience decreased mobility and social interaction during the
winter (Baird 2000; Pressman 1999b; Semenak 1997).
Consequently, climate responsive design principles seek to improve pedestrian
comfort and use of urban spaces. For example, studies in Sweden show that park benches

generally start being used when the temperature is around 10°C under dry conditions but, in
well-sheltered places with direct solar radiation, the microclimatic conditions can approach
comfort levels at lower air temperatures (Culjat and Erskine 1988).
Exploring the relationships between the design of communities, urban climate, and
urban comfort starts by understanding how the urban climate works. Chandler (1976),
Landsberg (1981), and Oke (1987) have produced notable works to describe the relationship
between urban form and urban climates. Landsberg (1950), (1959), Lowry (1967), Hutcheon
(1967), Page (1970), Givoni (1987), Fujibe (1988), Guterbock (1990), and Owen (1994a)
offer additional work to demonstrate the relationship between the built environment and the
urban climate. This understanding is critical if any individual or organization desires to
change this environment.
Regardless, climate responsive design is not new. Pressman and Cizek (1988)
identify 233 references that explore human needs, building design, urban and landscape
design, and applied climatology between 1947 and 1986. Yuen (1995) also provides an
annotated bibliography that identifies numerous publications that deal with climate
responsive design. Aside from these, other literature contributions about climate responsive
design principles have been completed by Moffat and Schiler (1981), Pressman and Zepic
(1986), Matus (1988), Pressman (1995), and Givoni (1998). Therefore, climate responsive
design is not new.
As knowledge evolved about the relationship between human comfort and urban
form, the literature in the 1980s began to explore modelling applications and climate
responsive design guidelines to distribute to design professionals, decision makers, and the
general public (Pressman 1995; Waechter 1993, 1985; de Schiller and Evans 1990/1991;

Westerberg 1990/1991; Dunin-Woyseth 1990; Hough Stansbury Woodland Ltd. 1990;
Philips 1988; Thurow 1983; World Meteorological Organization 1982). The Livable Winter
Cities Association (formerly Winter Cities Association) was formed in 1982 to provide an
international fomm for communities to talk about ways to improve the design of cities to
reflect all seasons (Hanen 1999). During the same year. Mayor Itagaki of Sapporo, Japan
invited mayors from northern cities to exchange information about winter city development
problems (Royle and Martin 2002).
The following sub-sections are a description of commonly referenced climate
responsive design principles for solar design, as well as ways to reduce the negative aspects
of ice, precipitation, and wind. There is also a description of other design features such as
art, street furnishings, colour, and lighting that can make urban settings more inviting, safe,
and comfortable.
Solar Design
Many communities experiencing winter have low periods of sunshine. Solar
principles are designed to utilize solar radiation. First, sun pockets are southern exposed
enclosed areas that collect warmth from solar exposure to improve pedestrian comfort.
However, narrow courtyards surrounded by high buildings will have less sun and can become
cold, dark, and damp places. As well, large courtyards surrounded by low buildings can
become so large that the micro-climate is lost (Hough Stansbury Woodland Ltd. 1990).
Low-density buildings also contribute to other problems, including higher costs for snow
removal personnel, equipment, chemicals, and upkeep (Guterbock 1990). To maximize solar
radiation gains for sun pockets in southern exposed areas, enclosure should be provided

along at least two contiguous sides. Enclosure on three sides would create a more protected
environment (Hough Stansbury Woodland Ltd. 1990).
Street orientation also determines the annual and diurnal patterns of solar radiation
into the spaces between buildings, thus affecting the comfort of pedestrians (Givoni 1998;
Hough Stansbury Woodland Ltd 1990; Matus 1988). Streets with commercial uses can be
oriented north-south (Jeffersonian Grid), or on a 45 degree angle (Spanish Grid) to the north
in either direction (Figure 2.1). A north-south orientation would ensure solar access to the
street during the noon hour while a 45 degree angle to the street would ensure that at least
one part of the street would be sunny throughout the year, particularly during winter when
there are low periods of sunshine (Pressman 1995; Hough Stansbury Woodland Ltd 1990).
However, if the grid pattern consists of a north-south orientation, the result may be a street
that is shaded for much of the day during the winter. Increasing building set backs or
reducing building bulk on the south side of the street can minimize the problem. Public
benches, chairs, and seating areas should also face a southerly orientation (Pressman 1995).
If the snow has thawed or become too compacted, sidewalks can be dangerously icy.
This is especially a problem when it is combined with sloped surfaces. Furthermore, without
well lit sidewalks, it can be difficult for pedestrians to see ice (Coleman 2001). Pavement
heating with the use of recycled heat from refuse combustion or district heating plants
(Pressman 1996) can be used to melt snow. Blacktop absorbs the sun’s radiant energy and
snow melts and evaporates on it (Moffat and Schiler 1981). Bricks, slate, and sandstone also
absorb the sun’s heat, enhancing warmth of urban spaces (Sutherland 1998; Moffat and
Schiler 1981). In contrast, light-coloured materials such as natural concrete tend to reflect
light, which is uncomfortable to the pedestrian’s vision (Rubenstein 1992).

10

Figure 2.1 : Street Orientation and Solar Patterns
0900

1200

19:00

DEC 21

JL

MAR. 21

JU

IL_M_

JUNE 21

Ji

Il

nr

1200

15:00

0900

I2<00

1500

IL

JEFFERSONIAN GRID

+

0000

SPANISH GRID

X

-HAMILTON GRID

«A

Source: Matus 1988, 147.
Finally, deciduous trees provide shade during the summer months while allowing
incoming solar radiation to reach urban spaces during the winter months. To enhance shade
protection for pedestrians and buildings throughout the year, shape of trees must be
considered along with density (Moffat and Schiler 1981).
Designing fo r Wind
The orientation and height of urban structures can influence pedestrian comfort in
urban spaces by influencing the direction and speed of wind. First, the orientation of tall,
narrow urban canyons parallel to prevailing winds can accelerate wind speeds at the
pedestrian level (Pressman 1995). Second, tall buildings in low-density areas create high
ground-level winds (Figure 2.2). This is because tall buildings create a low pressure area
immediately downwind. High wind speeds at the windward comers of the tall building occur
because there is direct exposure of the building face to the winds (Pressman 1995). A

11

building should be regarded as having likely high wind-exposure problems if more than the
upper half of the building projects above the upstream buildings in any particular wind
direction (Thurow 1983).
Figure 2.2; Wind Flow Patterns Around Buildings

'WIND

SHEUEK
WlNDWAW?

Source: Waechter 1993, 4.
One wind control measure is to streamline a building’s shape with the prevailing
wind. The longest axis of a building should be oriented along the same axis as the prevailing
wind. Stepping the comers, or cutting them on a 45 degree angle would further streamline
the building (Hough Stansbury Woodland Ltd. 1990; Waechter 1985). Uneven alignment
with buildings, building materials with rough textures, canopies, and dense tree planting help
to diffuse winds before they reach pedestrian levels (Hough Stansbury Woodland Ltd. 1990;
Waechter 1985).

12

Whenever wind flows over a solid barrier there is increased pressure upwind (where
the wind blows from) and a protected, low pressure area immediately downwind (where the
wind blows to) (Moffat and Schiler 1981). However, this sheltered low pressure area would
also be susceptible to the collection of snow and other wind entrained elements such as litter,
vehicle exhaust, or industrial fumes. Therefore, this area would be a poor location for fresh
air intakes or entrances that may experience snowdrifting problems (Waechter 1993). On the
other hand, the turbulent wind flow on the windward side of the building scours snow away
from the building face by several metres. While the windward building face could, therefore,
be a potential good location for doors because of reduced snowdrifting against the building
face, it would still be a windy area (Waechter 1993). In developing a project, a designer
must decide if air quality or snow drifting is more of a concern.
Landscaping provides pedestrian protection from the wind, aesthetic qualities, a
contribution to better air quality, and insulation. Whyte (1980) notes that, if people are
seeking warm urban spaces, then the absence of winds and drafts are as critical as solar
access. Air which passes through the windbreak emerges on the leeward side at a slower
velocity (Pressman 1995). The effectiveness of windbreaks and shelterbelts is influenced by
their placement, height, density, length, width, and configuration (Pressman 1995). To offer
the greatest protection from wind flow patterns, windbreaks and shelterbelts should be placed
perpendicular to prevailing winds (Pressman 1995; Moffat and Schiler 1981).
Designing fo r Precipitation and Ice Control
Pressman (1999a), Givoni (1998), Maitland (1992), Waechter (1985), and Whyte
(1980) identify the need to provide a variety of ways for the pedestrian to be protected from
precipitation. Examples include gallerias, canopies, arcades, atriums, covered pedestrian

13

streets, skywalk systems, and underground passages. Urban designs should also strive to
provide snow deposit areas and drainage for melting snow (Pressman 1999b). Care should
be taken to modify curb details, since snow and ice can gather along curb cuts (Pressman
1999b). Some cities put drains in the centre of the roads rather than at the curb, draining
slush away from the sidewalks (Peritz 1994). Icy conditions may also be reduced for
pedestrians with the use of raised crosswalks, as well as all-season ramps, stairs, and
walkways designed with increased surface traction and more gradual slopes (Coleman 2001;
Hanen & Associates 1999). Wider road lanes can serve as snow storage areas in the winter,
and as bicycle paths in the summer (Hough Stansbury Woodland Ltd 1990).
Other Principles
People are uncomfortable when they are unable to distinguish who or what is around
them. This may be particularly problematic in the winter where pedestrians experience
shorter days. Lighting can reduce feelings of insecurity as well as improve crime prevention
through environmental design (Pressman 1999a; Radway et al. 1989). Public spaces may
also become more pedestrian friendly with the addition of artificial lights (Pressman 1999b;
Hough Stansbury Woodland Ltd 1990).
Coloured buildings and roofs brighten the landscape during winter. Materials such as
wood and brick have natural colours and are viewed to create a warm atmosphere (Hough
Stansbury Woodland Ltd 1990). Cold colours like bright greens, light blues, and violets
invoke feelings of cool temperatures. Yellow, gold, brown, and red are warm colours that
create a warm ambiance in cold climates (Hough Stansbury Woodland Ltd 1990; Radway et
al. 1989; Broadway n.d.). Sidewalks can even be changed from the usual gray tones of
concrete to rust coloured interlocking paving stones. Coloured pigments may also be added

14

to concrete as a less expensive method to add colour (Radway et al. 1989). Flags, banners,
murals, evergreens, and mountain ash were other ways to add colour to an urban winter
landscape (Radway et al. 1989). Finally, the use of ice and snow sculptures also add a
festive spirit to urban spaces (Pressman 1999b; Hough Stansbury Woodland Ltd 1990).
There is a dilemma in selecting climate responsive principles to create comfortable
spaces for people with a wide range of preferences and needs throughout the year.
Obviously, all of these principles cannot all be accomplished in the same space as some are
contradictory to others. For example, some people may prefer sunny spaces, while others
prefer shade or protection. However, urban spaces will be comfortable for a wider range of
pedestrians if they offer a range of choices for moving or enjoying these spaces in areas
within relatively close proximity to each other.
Furthermore, climate responsive design will have to be co-ordinated with other social
planning principles to improve social interaction. Li (1994) notes that location and urban
context, programmed activity, visual attraction, cultural dimension, and people’s attitudes
towards winter may be more important factors than some climate responsive design
principles. Culjat and Erskine (1988, 359) notes that the most important fact to realize is that
“a space will possibly be more utilized but will not become better if a roof is put over it,
unless it already possesses the basic elements of a good public place”. Therefore, it is
important to acknowledge that the utilization and success of urban spaces is based upon the
relationship of a complex set of variables. However, this thesis will only focus upon climate
responsive design.

15

2.4 Tools for Implem enting Climate Responsive Design Principles
Climate responsive design principles can be implemented through a series of
calculations, reference tools, studies, and policies. Design professionals such as engineers,
architects, urban designers, and landscape architects must have access to climate statistics
showing the frequencies and duration of suitable combinations of wind speed / direction, air
temperature, humidity, and solar radiation, arranged according to season and time of day
(WMO 1982). The Winter Severity Index is one tool that describes the intensity, duration,
extremes, and variations of 18 climate parameters, including the length of winter, sunshine
hours, windiness, fog, blowing snow, wetness or dryness, air quality, severe weather, and
various forms of precipitation that affect pedestrian comfort (Pressman 1989; Phillips 1988;
Phillips and Crowe 1984). However, a major constraint to the use of this index has been the
availability of data in a suitable and affordable format (Pressman 1989).
Wind planning charts provide references for determining the degree of windiness
(Westerberg 1990/1991). Wind tunnel and water flumes have been used to model wind flow,
snow drifting, and pollutant dispersion (Phillips 1988; Waechter 1985; Thurow 1983). Such
studies have been conducted in Toronto, Regina, Buffalo, and Ottawa (Waechter 1985;
Thurow 1983). The testing of buildings during the design process allows for modifications
to improve wind conditions (de Schiller and Evans 1990/1991). Still, problems hindering the
wide spread use of urban climate models include scarce appropriate data sets as well as
model constraints to their use such as idealized conditions with no cloud or advection (Oke
1984). For developments of modest scale, the expense of collecting the data needed to
generate such models often outweighs the value of the product (McPherson 1984b).

16

Toronto, Calgary, Boston, Edmonton, and some other cities usually require an
investigation into a proposed building’s pedestrian level wind effects as part of the planning
process (Waechter 1985; Thurow 1983). For example, wind-impact and shadow pattern
studies are required for any new building over four stories in Edmonton. Such impact
statements must include an estimation of wind speeds anticipated to occur on a weekly,
monthly, and seasonal basis in the summer and winter for public spaces, demonstrating the
frequency and extent to which the wind comfort criteria may be exceeded (Thurow 1983).
Shadow pattern studies are conducted for proposed developments by showing their impacts
on public roadways, parks, plazas, walkways, and open spaces on March 21st, June 21st,
September 21st, and December 21st (Thurow 1983).
In 1987, Winnipeg introduced a special urban design review process that included
guidelines for climatic impact statements, sunlight access, shadow configurations, and wind
tunnel simulation (Pressman 1995). Kitchener has a building bylaw that increases building
set backs to improve solar access (Pressman 1995). Hough Stansbury Woodland Ltd. (1990)
produced a design manual for Sault Ste. Marie that covers topics such as sun pockets, wind
control, building orientation, wall configurations, and snow drift control. More recently.
Prince George (Development Services and Winter City Committee 1999) developed a
booklet describing such climate responsive guidelines as wind control, solar access for
pedestrian spaces, and snow storage.
The development of climate responsive design principles, tools, regulations, and
guidelines has provided educational materials about urban climates and the built environment
for developers, planners, architects, and engineers. Smaller cities, however, do not encounter
the same amount of high-rise development seen in large urban centres, and it may be argued

17

whether wind tunnel or snow simulations studies are needed. There are fewer tall buildings
to transport high winds to the street level to create uncomfortable conditions, or to shade
urban spaces. However, this does not mean that smaller urban centres should ignore such
considerations in the development of guidelines because high-density development projects
in the future could create uncomfortable climatic conditions.
Overall, many urban development professionals continue to practice southern design
principles not appropriate for multi-season cities. Subsequently, while the literature has
explored climate responsive design, little research has been done to explore why it is difficult
to initiate, implement, and evaluate change towards incorporating climate responsive design.
2.5 The Change Process
To explore the incorporation of climate responsive spaces in our communities, there
needs to be a greater understanding about how to achieve change. There is literature that
discusses various stages of the organizational change process (Yeung et al. 1999; Argyris
1997; Dunn 1997; Heffron 1989; Kettner et al. 1985; York 1982). By reviewing literature on
the change process, a better understanding can be obtained about how change is possible, as
well as why change may fail. The subsequent review of organizational change focused on
literature regarding public or planning institutions, since this is the subject of this thesis.
Hage (Heffron 1989) created a four-step model for change. It involves evaluation,
initiation, implementation, and routinization. Evaluation involves recognizing a performance
gap that triggers the demand for change. Without such measurement of performance, no
information on performance gaps is available and there can be no impetus for change
(Heffron 1989). Initiation involves the development of a plan for change. It requires a clear
understanding of the source of the problem and of what type of change is needed to solve that

18

problem. Implementation involves appropriate personnel and financial resources, as well as
cooperation amongst the key individuals. Finally, the change effort must be routinized
through behaviour, attitudes, and values (Heffron 1989). However, initiating change may not
only come from evaluation, but can also start from knowledge external to the organization.
Using evaluation as a first step assumes there is structure or knowledge in place. This may
not be useful when pursuing new areas of knowledge external to the organization.
Kettner et al. (1985) created a more detailed model for change that consists of nine
phases (Table 2.1). First, actors identify the change opportunity. This involves identifying
the initiators of change, the people likely to benefit from change, the target of change, and
the people likely to be involved in planning and implementing change. The second phase
involves analyzing the change opportunity. The definition of the condition, problem, and the
data gathered during the identification phase are studied. Third, goals and objectives give
direction to the change effort and facilitate the transition from study to action. Designing and
structuring the change effort involves making decisions about the focus and content of the
policy, program, or project to be initiated. Next, resource planning involves the creation of
formal relationships and lines of accountability. This entails analyzing the resources needed
and determining the allocation of those resources. During the implementation of the change
effort, coordinated activities are then initiated, the structure is put in place, and the objectives
are carried out. The monitoring process checks to ensure activities are completed on time
and as anticipated. Adjustments are made. Evaluation provides information to make the
change episode effective and efficient. This phase provides an overall review of the process
and final adjustments are made to the change effort during the final phase.

19

Table 2.1; Kettner et al.’s Model for Change
Phase One:
Identifying the Change Opportunity
Phase Two: Analyzing the Change Opportunity
Phase Three: Setting Goals and Objectives
Phase Four: Designing and Structuring the Change Effort
Phase Five:
Resource Planning
Phase Six:
Implementing the Change Effort
Phase Seven: Monitoring the Change Effort
Phase Eight: Evaluating the Change Effort
Phase Nine: Reassessing and Stabilizing the Situation
Source: Kettner et al. 1985, pp 26-30.
For the purposes of this research, the simplified model in Table 2.2 will provide a
basis to examine institutional barriers to the initiation, implementation, and evaluation of
change towards a greater incorporation of climate responsive design principles in commercial
redevelopment. With this model, it is also important to define ‘institution’ to provide a
context for exploring institutional barriers. Stinchcombe (1968, 107) defines an institution as
“a structure in which powerful people are committed to some value or interest”. These
powerful roles are surrounded with “rewards and punishments that make it in their interests
to believe in that value (Stinchcombe 1968, 107)”. In this research, the interest that is
explored is climate responsive design. Powerful people are those involved in the commercial
redevelopment process who are guided by regulations and policies.
Initiating Change
Initiating change begins by identifying the problem, as well as the change required to
solve that problem (Dunn 1997; Heffron 1989; Kettner et al. 1985). At times, stakeholders
construct different representations of the problem on the basis of their own interests and
experience and, therefore, they have affected the change effort. As Dunn (1997, 281) notes,
“We seem to fail more often because we solve the wrong problem than because we get the
wrong solution to the right problem”.

20

Table 2.2; A Framework to Examine Institutional Barriers for Climate Responsive Design
Phase One: Initiating Change
Identify the problem.
Identify the change needed to solve the problem.
Identify the target of change.
Identify people to be involved in planning and implementing change.
Acquire knowledge and skills regarding the change issue.
Phase Two: Implementing Change
Allocate appropriate human and financial resources.
Develop goals and objectives.
Develop content of regulations, guidelines, programs, and policies.
Formalize responsibilities.
Implement / monitor the change through the structural framework.
Phase Three: Evaluating Change
Identify goals and objectives to be assessed.
Select criteria for evaluation.
Select an evaluation design.
Conduct the evaluation through a standardized process.
Distribute results.
Make adjustments.__________________________ _____________

However, change also requires professional knowledge and skill regarding the change
issue (Agocs 1997; Kettner et al. 1985). Otherwise, change may be stalled in the presence of
ignorance (Dunn 1997) or through learned behaviour as people commit the same errors at
different times and places (Argyris 1997). This may be difficult for people in the commercial
redevelopment process because it requires change agents, such as planners or councilors, to
reexamine assumptions and test their judgements in changing conditions. This may be
difficult to accomplish in any organization where people operate under the stress of multiple
and conflicting demands on limited resources and tight time constraints (Argyris 1997).
Therefore, a conducive learning environment may not be in place.

21

Initiating change also requires key players to identify the target of change as well as
the benefits of change. It is also important to identify people who will be involved in the
planning and implementing of change (Kettner et al. 1985). But initiating change may be
stalled because individuals fear the unknown or uncertainty (Agocs 1997; Moore 1997).
There may be denial of the legitimacy of the case for change, as well as refusal to recognize
responsibility to address change (Agocs 1997). To address change, there must be a
“commitment to cooperation that leaves little room for the view that it is ‘not really my
problem (Kettner et al. 1985, 8)”’.
Literature that examines barriers to initiating change towards climate responsive
design focuses on the lack of understanding about climate data and research. For example,
de Schiller and Evans (1990/1991) feel that research publications are not usually read by
practicing architects and planners. Therefore, practical application and requirements for
implementation of research results may not be clear. Oke (1984) draws from Page to point
out that "potential users of any scientific information may end up rejecting it because they
consider it to be irrelevant, incomprehensible or inapplicable”. Pihlak (1994) notes that
urban spaces are often left unimproved because of difficulty altering outdoor temperatures.
This results in the degradation of urban design as buildings are incorrectly oriented causing
over shadowing or wind tunnel conditions. Finally, Philips (1980) notes that many potential
users also do not know what role the national weather service has in providing climate
information.
Second, to pursue climate responsive design principles there must be sufficient
information and technology available. Phillips (1988) notes that few large cities have climate
information that is of direct use to architects and builders. At the local airport, wind speed

22

and direction are normally recorded at a height of 10m and may not accurately reflect wind
flow at the pedestrian level or up the side of a skyscraper (Phillips 1988). Herrington
(1984a) felt that radiation data was not very useful since they are given in terms of minutes
and / or percent of available sunshine. Averaged over the day or a longer period, this
information has limited value because it does not indicate when, on the average, the sun is
shining (Herrington 1984a).
Other users of climate responsive design concepts believe that certain concepts cause
more problems than they solve. For example, while sloped windows are suggested to
enhance solar access, they get dirty faster, and they are more costly to install (Labs 1985).
Sloped windows have also been found to contribute to summer overheating and glare
problems. It is also asserted they waste interior floor area and require additional east and
west projecting wall area (Labs 1985).
Other users debate the use of skywalk systems since the ownership of walkways and
malls remain with private companies and reduce street level activity. Portions of the skywalk
systems may be closed at night or on weekends for security reasons, which detracts from
accessibility (Broadway n.d.). Use of climate responsive design principles such as
shelterbelts and windbreaks may be limited in urban areas due to safety and security concerns
(Pressman 1995). Therefore, the literature warns that key change agents may question the
legitimacy and value of climate responsive design. The literature also indicates a level of
uncertainty about the impact of climate responsive design on the comfort level of urban
spaces.
However, if research publications are not read by practitioners, it is not clear how key
change agents, and their respective organizations, effectively learn about these concepts and

23

incorporate them into the change process (De Schiller and Evans 1990/1991). This is
particularly important if practitioners have limited time to dedicate to additional learning.
Implementing Change
The implementation phase focuses on the institutional framework that implements
what key agents have learned during the initiation phase. First, goals and objectives must be
defined, and appropriate regulations, guidelines, programs, and policies must be developed
for the consistent implementation of these goals and objectives (Kettner et al. 1985). It
involves the allocation of human and financial resources and responsibilities to pursue
implementation (Heffron 1989; Kettner et al. 1985). Monitoring activities early on are useful
to ensure that activities are completed as anticipated, and to allow for early adjustments to be
made (Kettner et al. 1985). Together, these elements will facilitate evaluation.
Challenges also arise when implementing change. There is a tendency to support
initiatives without considering what will be required to implement them, including who will
pay for them and what should be done (Comfort 1997; Dunn 1997; Moore 1997). Many of
these problems are carried over into the development of implementation policies and
programs. Ambiguous goals may be a sign that the problem is not well understood or that
there is no clear understanding of what action is needed. If the policy instruments are
unclear, it will be more difficult to establish clearly defined boundaries for allocating
resources and responsibilities to pursue the goals and objectives (Dunn 1997).
Change may also be stalled from fear of losing constituent support and fear of losing
control or power (Agocs 1997; Filion 1997; Moore 1997; Beer 1983). In order for
implementation to be effective, there must be compliance with the original plan of action.

24

including consensus of the processes and intentions of the change effort (Kettner et al. 1985).
However, issues of power and financial concerns can impede this compliance.
These certainly arise in the application of climate responsive design principles. As
technical solutions are developed, decision makers will often present evidence that action
would be expensive (Bregha 1992). Or when positive suggestions, such as landscaping, are
made, many are seen as being unrealistic and adding substantially to basic construction costs
(Pountney and Kingsbury 1983). For example, transplanting trees is viewed to be expensive,
particularly if metal grates and special paving is needed (Thurow 1983; Moffat and Schiler
1981). Other examples of economic barriers include inadequate financial resources, existing
funds that are pre-allocated to ongoing programs, and unwillingness to pay more taxes to
fund the changes (Moore 1997).
However, many of the implementation challenges explored in urban development
have not been directly applied to the climate responsive design issue. There has been little
research to examine the success of regulations and guidelines in pursuing the implementation
of climatic design. Furthermore, it is unclear how responsibilities to implement climate
responsive design are defined under the varied levels of financial and human resources in
smaller cities.
Evaluating Change
Carley and Harrald (1997) and Kettner et al. (1985) note that the significance of
evaluation is to measure satisfaction and accuracy with the change effort. The evaluation
process must identify the goals and objectives to be assessed, as well as the criteria for
evaluation. This involves choosing a standard to evaluate the program (York 1982). Finally,
data is analyzed and the results are distributed (York 1982). Once a performance gap is

25

recognized in the evaluation, change is initiated again (Heffron 1989). No literature was
found which examined the evaluation of efforts to incorporate climate responsive design.
2.6 Conclusion
This chapter has shown that, while there exists significant literature about climate
responsive design principles and tools, there has been little research done to understand why
it may be difficult to incorporate in the commercial redevelopment process. This requires an
understanding of how to stimulate effective change through the initiation, implementation,
and continued evaluation of the change effort. However, little research has been done to
investigate how design professionals and councilors learn about climate responsive research
or ideas. Furthermore, there is a lack of research about the degree of success regulatory or
structural frameworks can have in encouraging the implementation of these principles, or
about the human and financial resources available to facilitate this change. This thesis is a
critical review of institutional barriers to climate responsive design in the commercial
redevelopment process in Prince George.

26

Chapter Three: Historical Context of Climate Responsive Design in Prince George
3.1 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to review the physical and historical context in which
the research takes place as well as introduce the commercial redevelopment process that will
be examined. This includes a description of how climate responsive design has been
considered in the development of urban spaces in Prince George over time. Consequently, it
will be shown that while climate responsive design issues are not new to the city, these
principles have not been implemented on a consistent basis.
3.2 Physical and Climatic Characteristics of Prince George
Prince George experiences a variety of climatic conditions throughout the four
seasons that influence the mobility and aesthetic quality of the urban landscape. The City is
located in the Cordillera Climatic Region, influenced by a valley topography that reaches an
average elevation of approximately 676 metres above sea level (Environment Canada 1998)
(Figure 3.1). Due to the mountains located east and south-east of the city, easterly winds are
infrequent and light (Atmospheric Environment Service 1973; Environment Canada 1998).
The region in which Prince George is located (The Interior), however, is open to cold air
masses from Alaska and the Yukon (Robinson 1989), though these are also infrequent and
light. The winds throughout the year are predominantly from the south, south-west
(Environment Canada 1998).
Prince George experiences daily mean temperatures below freezing between
November and March, as well as relatively cool summers with daily mean temperatures
reaching 13. TC in June, 15.3°C in July, and 14.6°C in August respectively (Environment
Canada 1998). Extreme temperatures in Prince George have ranged from 36°C (1983) to -

27

50°C (1950) (Environment Canada 1998). The City is subject to a relatively dry climate with
approximately 614.7 mm of total precipitation of which 233.8 cm is in the form of annual
snowfall (Environment Canada 1998). This makes Prince George drier than coastal
communities such as Prince Rupert and Vancouver, but wetter than inland communities
located in the Southern Interior such as Kamloops (Phillips 1990). Prince George is a mid­
latitude city located at 53°53' north latitude; giving the city longer days of summer and
shorter days in the winter than cities further south (Environment Canada 1998).
Figure 3.1: British Columbia

3.3 Historical Context of Climate Responsive Design in Prince George
Climate responsive design is not new in Prince George. Numerous development
schemes were proposed over the years to deal with at least some climatic elements. Despite
numerous attempts, however, few of these proposals were ever implemented.

28

Prince George was a planned town laid out by a Boston landscape firm called Brett,
Hall, and Company employed by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway using the City Beautiful
model (Llewellyn 1999; City of Prince George 1993; Urban Forum Associates et al. 1992).
This model encompasses “monumental public buildings, grand boulevards, squares, and park
systems (Pressman and Zepic 1986, 45)”, as well as diagonal avenues leading to city squares
and circular streets (Hodge 1991). However, the model rarely reflected the topography and
climate of the communities for which they were made. Pressman and Zepic (1986, 45) note
that “in almost all cases, the architects and engineers who prepared them came from outside
Canada. Some of them created plans without ever visiting the actual cities” . The plan for
Prince George was based upon a topographic map and a brief visit to the site by the architects
in September 1912 (Sedgwick 1989).
In Prince George, the layout of downtown streets was set off true north-south in order
to align it with the railroad tracks (Sedgwick 1989). There is some speculation that Mr.
Frederick Burden, the local surveyor, may have laid out the streets aligned with magnetic
north, and then he may have aligned the railway perpendicular with the streets. A second
possibility may be that Mr. Burden laid out the railway first. Sedgwick feels that the railway
line may have been influenced by the topography. There is only a narrow piece of land
where the line could ran along the Nechako River due to the steep slopes. Therefore, the line
was laid flat between the tip of Cache Island (Point A, Figure 3.2) to the narrow section of
land along the Nechako River where the railway line continued out to Prince Rupert (Point
B) (Sedgwick, personal communication October 4, 2000). As a result, the grid pattern of the
downtown is oriented roughly 10 degrees off true north-south, affecting the reception of solar
radiation along the streets. While such a grid pattern will not receive as much solar radiation

29

as a pattern with a 45 degree angle, the streets will receive more solar radiation than a true
north-south orientation (Figure 3.2).
Figure 3.2: Downtown Grid Pattern in Prince George

Cache Island

Adapted from City of Prince George 2002.
Since the 1960s, a number of proposals emerged to provide comfortable spaces to
pedestrians in the downtown area. The Miracle Plan (1964) called for the covering of Third
Avenue with a dome from Victoria to George Street and underground access and overhead
covered passages linking both sides of the street, and the new parkade on Brunswick Street
and Second Avenue (Citizen Staff 1994). Only the parkade on Second Avenue was
completed.
The Centrum Plan (1967) also called for Third Avenue to become a covered shopping
mall. Other components included an elevated monorail between Parkwood Mall and
downtown, a CN tower, and multi-storied office and apartment buildings intended to boost
winter shopping (Llewellyn 1999; Citizen Staff 1994). Therefore, the plan attempted to

30

provide mixed land use as well as protection and choice of movement for pedestrians. Both
of these plans were seen as uneconomical and many of their components were not
implemented (Llewellyn 1999). Only a canopy system, erected in the 1970s, was credited
with mitigating pedestrian discomfort with climatic elements in the downtown area (A.E.
LePage et al. 1980). Regardless, a 1980 study found that “one of the greatest obstacles to
moving from store to store in the retail area is extreme cold, real and perceived, which can be
experienced for close to half the year (A.E. LePage et al. 1980, 60)”.*
The Cadillac-Fairview Town Centre Project (1980) proposed a two-level, four block
mall including Second and Fourth avenues and Dominion and Brunswick streets. A
pedestrian walkway was to be built over Second Avenue to connect both sides of the street
and the city’s parkade directly to the development. At the same time, however. Woodward’s
announced that it wanted to triple the size of Parkwood Mall. City Council and residents
became divided when Council decided to turn down the Woodward’s application for
expansion. As a result, in the 1981 civic election residents voted against three aldermen in
favour of candidates who supported the Woodward’s application. The new Council voted to
withdraw support for the Town Centre development. As a result, the Cadillac-Fairview
developers dropped the project (Llewellyn 1999; Citizen Staff 1994).
In 1989, a report by the Prince George Region Development Corporation was
released that affirmed the preference for improving pedestrian comfort and safety to
encourage more downtown consumer activity (Prince George Region Development
Corporation 1989). The report called for low-maintenance landscaping, including the use of
evergreen trees that would add colour, and the development of an indoor or covered public

* Unfortunately, after contacting the consultants and the City, the original survey data could
not be located.

31

space as a year round park or winter garden (Prince George Region Development
Corporation 1989).
In 1992, a proposal for downtown revitalization was completed by Urban Forum
Associates, the DM Group Landscape Architects, and McElhanney Engineering. Deciduous
trees, notably Patmore Green Ash and Chokecherry, were preferred for their ability to
provide colour in the spring, summer, and fall without absorbing as much light as coniferous
trees. Enhanced lighting was also described to provide an element of warmth during the
winter months, as well as increase the security of pedestrians. Further, the proposed public
artwork in the plan called for a water feature that would flow in the summer and provide a
frozen abstraction during the winter months. A winter steam component was also included
(Urban Forum Associates et al. 1992, 13).
In 1993, Parker reviewed the climate and social functions of the canopies along the
downtown shopping streets. They were noted for their ability to provide shelter from rain,
snow, sun, and dust, as well as their ability to provide savings in air conditioning loads on
sun exposed areas. Protective canopies were also noted for their ability to encourage
comparison shopping during poor weather when it is raining, snowing, or too hot (Parker
1993). However, the proposal called for under canopy lighting to enhance security and
brighten the environment. The proposal also called for the installation of skylights, seasonal
planters, and an event banner program that would add colour (Parker 1993).
Unfortunately, despite these attempts to incorporate some climate responsive
principles, few were ever implemented. It may be argued, however, that interest in climate
responsive development continued. Hanen & Associates (1999, 18) noted.

32

“The growing consciousness of its Winter City-ness is evident in the city’s coat of
arms, mission statement, 1993 plan policy objectives, Winter City Committee, and
sponsorship of a number of local winter season related events. The city has also
engaged in Winter City conferences, sits on the Winter Cities Association (WCA)
Board of Directors, hosted the WCA 1999 Conference and houses its Secretariat at
the College of New Caledonia”.
Furthermore, the Development Services Department and the Winter City Committee
completed a booklet entitled “Climate Sensitive Design for the City of Prince George” in
1999. However, this document has no legal status, and the extent of its use remains unclear.
To date, the barriers for incorporating climate responsive design in commercial
redevelopment remain largely speculative and unclear.
3.4 The Commercial Redevelopment Process
This section is a brief review of the commercial redevelopment process in Prince
George, including the policies and regulations that influence the process. This description is
important because it provides the basis for the research design discussed in Chapter Four and
the institutional barriers discussed in Chapter Seven.
Commercial redevelopment projects begin by submitting a proposal to the Planning
Division. This department determines if the property is properly zoned, if the project
requires Advisory Design Panel review, and if the property is located in a Development
Permit Area (Development Services Department June 1994b). Proposed plans are forwarded
to the Building and Engineering Divisions and, depending on the scope of the project, to the
Parks Division and Fire Services. Plans are checked for conformity with City bylaws and
required changes are forwarded to the applicant (Development Services Department June
1994b).
Next, the applicant, developer, and property owner present the proposal to the design
panel. The Advisory Design Panel is mandated to advise the development community on the

33

design merits of the proposed project. The panel consists of volunteers appointed for one
year terms. The composition of the panel includes a landscape design professional, a housing
industry representative, an architect, a community-at-large member, a Prince George
Construction Association member, a professional engineer, a RCMP representative with
training in crime prevention through environmental design, and a member from the Special
Needs Advisory Committee (Development Services Department June 1994b).
The Advisory Design Panel is asked to consider “public health, safety, security,
convenience, and aesthetic design, not only in respect of the development under
consideration, but in the context of surrounding development and the overall built
environment of the City (Development Services Department June 1994b, 3)”. With regards
to commercial development, the Advisory Design Panel reviews all developments in a
Development Permit Area, all new commercial developments and commercial renovations
which affect the external design of the building and have a value in excess of $75,000
(Development Services Department June 1994b). The community plan depicts development
guidelines for each area designated on a map. The Advisory Design Panel forwards a
recommendation to Council on whether the permit should be granted. Construction cannot
occur in a Development Permit Area unless a permit has been granted by Council. A
security deposit is usually required to ensure that site amenities such as landscaping, fencing,
and paving are completed as proposed (Development Services Department June 1994b).
However, the Municipal Act does not provide the Advisory Design Panel with any
legal status to implement recommendations. On the other hand, the Act gives the
municipality the legal framework for adopting planning regulations and guidelines (Hodge
1991), which could include climate responsive guidelines. This allows the City to

34

communicate its intentions to builders, developers, and design professionals through the
community plan and zoning bylaws. Finally, zoning bylaws communicate regulations for the
use of a parcel of land, the coverage of the parcel by structures, and the height of buildings
(Hodge 1991). This is important because the relationship between building height and
intensity of land use impact the quality of views, amount of solar radiation / shading, and
access to air and light (Owen 1994b).
3.5 Conclusion
Prince George has a relatively dry, cool climate with periods of low sunshine. As
noted earlier, the commercial redevelopment process provides an opportunity to incorporate
climate responsive design as proposals are reviewed by the Advisory Design Panel and City
Council. However, despite numerous commercial redevelopment schemes, few proposals
have implemented climate responsive principles. Explanations for this trend are speculative
and unclear. Subsequently, it is important to examine how institutions, including their
policies and regulations, shape the ability to initiate, implement, and evaluate change towards
a greater incorporation of climate responsive design in commercial redevelopment.

35

Chapter Four: Methodology
4.1 Introduction
The ‘exploratory case study’ methodology selected for this research was chosen to
examine institutional barriers impeding the incorporation of climate responsive design in
commercial redevelopment in Prince George. The evaluation of regulations, policies, and
site designs, as well as the analysis of open-ended interviews from two cases, will identify
institutional barriers within the commercial redevelopment process. Additional sources of
evidence include a review of the literature, reports, project files, drawings, and photographs.
The use of multiple sources of evidence allows triangulation to enhance the validity of the
research.
4.2 Selection of Methodology
An exploratory case study methodology was selected because the objective of the
research is to learn as much as possible about the institutional barriers impeding the
incorporation of climate responsive design in commercial redevelopment. A case study tries
to “illuminate a decision or set of decisions: why they were taken, how they were
implemented, and with what result (Yin 1989, 22)”. It is important to realize, however, that
case studies allow the research to generalize theory and expand earlier understandings, but
not to enumerate frequencies (Walton 1992; Yin 1989).
4.3 Unit of Analysis
Yin (1989) refers to the primary unit of analysis as the type of organization studied,
but notes that case studies have been done about decisions, implementation processes, and
even organizational change. In this research, the unit of analysis is the commercial

36

redevelopment process, more commonly referred to as the development permit process, in
Prince George.
4.4 Selection of Case Studies
Two commercial redevelopment case studies were used to examine institutional
barriers to incorporating climate responsive design. Multiple case studies are valuable “for
dealing with problems of explanation by allowing for a refinement of explanation not
available in a single historical or geographic setting (Halseth 1998, 56)”. However, not more
than two case studies were selected for comparative research due to the in-depth nature of the
interview process, limited resources, as well as the time required to analyze the large amount
of qualitative data obtained through interviewing key players for each commercial
redevelopment project.
Projects were selected using a purposeful sampling method. This entails the
identification of “information rich cases from which one can learn a great deal about issues
of central importance to the purpose of the research (Patton 1990, 169)”. As a result, the
research examined two cases of similar use and size. The case studies selected are
representative of the type of redevelopment in the downtown area of Prince George since
most of the commercial buildings in the area are one to two story buildings. Both buildings
use 100% coverage of the lot, including space for minor landscaping and parking. The key
players in the two projects were also local or relatively accessible.
The two case studies include the Computime and the Sight and Sound buildings in the
downtown core (See Figure 4.1). These projects were approved and built in the five year
period prior to the commencement of this research. The five year timeline was chosen to
allow key players to recollect events and decisions that would influence the incorporation of

37

climate responsive design principles. Completed projects were also selected because they
allow for photographic evidence to be taken for triangulation with other data sources.
Figure 4.1: Location of Case Studies

VICTORIA ST

I
CMC PLAZA

I

m tlN S W C K ^

HR
W BETS

1
DOMINION S T

DOMINION ST

---

N

—

GEORGE ST

N

Legend
Computime Building Hi
Sight and Sound Building

Adapted from the City of Prince George 2002.

38

The Computime Building
Figure 4.2: The Computime Building - A

Figure 4.3: The Computime Building - B

View from Second Avenue

View from Quebec Street

The Computime building is a two storey commercial building of approximately 1208
m“, located on lots 18 and 19, Block 21, District Lot 343, Cariboo District, Plan 1268 (City
of Prince George 1994b). The first floor was intended for the sale and service of computers,
while the second floor was created for a business college (City of Prince George 1994b). It is
located at 1270 Second Avenue. The Development Permit No. 94/17 received unanimous
support from Council on May 30, 1994 (City of Prince George 1994a).
The Sight and Sound Building
Figure 4.4: Sight and Sound Building - A

View from Victoria Street

Figure 4.5: Sight and Sound Building - B

Sight and Sound Parking Lot

39

The Sight and Sound building is 1360

in size, built as a music and electronic sales

store, and located on Parcel B (X38703), Parcel C (X38704) and Parcel E (PB22828), Block
182, District Lot 343, Cariboo District, Plan 1268 (Report to Council April 16, 1996). The
site is a half block in the CBD Central Business District designation of the Official
Community Plan, located at 760 Victoria Street. The Development Permit No. Dp 96/11
received unanimous support from Council on April 29, 1996 (City of Prince George 1996a).
Both case studies are in the Central Business District Development Permit Area described in
Section 17.7 and Schedule G7 of the 1993 Official Community Plan (City of Prince George
1997).
4.5 Selection of Interview Participants
Key informants are individuals selected for their knowledge or expertise who provide
a unique perspective the researcher is unable to obtain elsewhere (Gilchrist 1999; Hycner
1999; Pettigrew 1995; Patton 1990). Key informants were selected through stratified random
sampling (Yegidis et al. 1999). In some cases, however, where the sample was very small,
all individuals were selected.
Table 4.1 outlines the key informants selected for each case study. Only design panel
members with related professional training and experience in commercial development were
interviewed. Results are reported by grouping the planner, the project designer, the
developer, and members of the Advisory Design Panel together as informants in the ‘pre­
approval process,’ while councilors are grouped together as informants in the ‘approval
process.’ This clustering enhances anonymity and confidentiality (Morse 1998). The City
was able to provide a list of design panel members from 1992 onwards. The population from
which the sample of design panel participants were drawn from between 1992 and 1998 /

40

1999 is 18 (City of Prince George 1992, 1996d, 1998). The population from which the
sample of councilors were drawn for the same period is 14 (City of Prince George 2002).
Table 4.1: Key Informant Categories
Key Informants

Eligible Interview
Participants for Case
Studies

Number of Eligible
Participants
Interviewed

Pre-Approval Participants
Developer
Planner
Project Architect / Engineer
Advisory Design Panel
Construction Association Rep.
Engineer
Architect
Landscape Architect
Total

4
2
2

2
2
2

1
1
1
1
12

1
1
1
1
10

Approval Participants
Councilors
Total

8
8

3
3

4.6 Interview Methodology
Individual interviews were selected over focus groups to enhance anonymity for the
participants. It is hoped individual interviews will also improve validity and reliability, since
it will allow the interview participant to be unbiased by others thoughts and perspectives.
The interviews were conducted in person, and were recorded and transcribed. The interviews
lasted between 40 minutes to 3.5 hours. Interviews were conducted at a location convenient
for the interviewee ranging from City Hall to the University of Northern British Columbia
(UNBC), as well as various offices and homes. Prior to each interview, participants signed a
consent form to affirm that they understood the intent and use of the research, as well as the
voluntary nature of the interview. The consent form was approved by the UNBC Ethics

41

Review Committee (Appendix B). Design panel minutes, photographs, and architectural
drawings were used in the interviews to refresh participants’ memories about design issues.
Interview questions were open-ended in nature to encourage participants to express
and explain the complex conditions that influence the incorporation of climate responsive
design principles into design considerations (Appendix C). As much as possible, the
progression of questions was organized to reduce bias in later responses (Frey and Oishi
1995). However, they were also designed to follow the logical progression of stages within
the development process. The interview schedule was also designed to answer the research
questions outlined in Chapter One. The first part of the interview asked what each
participant knew about climate responsive design. Initially, questions 3-5 asked participants
to determine how they were exposed to these ideas through educational opportunities. This
helped to develop an understanding about barriers to obtaining knowledge to initiate change.
Next, participants identified climate responsive design principles (questions 6-9), as well as
any climate data and tools used to promote awareness or incorporate climatic design into
commercial redevelopment (questions 14-17). This information will demonstrate if key
change agents have the ability to pursue change.
The second part of the interview required participants to evaluate whether or not the
case studies incorporated climate responsive design (questions 18-20). Participants recalled
any advice or comments about climate responsive design that were exchanged between key
players during the review of the design (questions 21 and 22). This explores discrepancies
between participant knowledge about climate responsive design with knowledge that is
actually applied in the process. It must be noted that the knowledge possessed at the time of
the interview and the knowledge that was applied during the process may be different

42

because of intervening educational opportunities. Where possible, key informants were
asked to evaluate any discrepancy. For example, if key informants felt they had been
exposed to climate responsive design, they were asked to identify educational opportunities.
More specifically, if journals or professional publications were identified, key informants
were asked to recall any specific publications that highlighted climate responsive design
principles. This helps to evaluate the validity of statements made by participants and to
investigate the degree to which participants are attempting to perform well for the interview
to disguise a potential lack of awareness about climate responsive design.
The third part of the interview explored institutional barriers to incorporating climate
responsive design. Since regulations and guidelines develop the framework by which
concepts are implemented, participants were asked if the Municipal Act, the Official
Community Plan, or the zoning bylaws provided any barriers to climate responsive design
(questions 23-25). This involved examining whether the goals and objectives set out by the
regulations and policies provide sufficient direction for key change agents to implement
climate responsive design (questions 24, 25, 28). In addition, questions were asked about the
stmcture and mandate of the Advisory Design Panel, and the ability of the panel to engage
issues about climate responsive design (questions 26-29).
Subsequently, councilors recalled any discussions about climate responsive design
prior to, or during. Council meetings (question 32). This question, along with questions 21,
22, and 31, examined the exchange of information about climate responsive design between
pre-approval participants and councilors. Furthermore, councilors suggested additional
information that would facilitate their review of projects (question 33). Key participants also

43

identified organizations or departments that could play a role in encouraging and
implementing climate responsive design in commercial redevelopment (question 35).
An understanding of social, environmental, economical, political, or aesthetic
incentives for climate responsive design gauged the understanding of these principles, their
importance as a change issue, as well as to gauge the participants’ ability to use such
information in promoting or implementing climatic design (question 36). From this, each
participant revealed any additional institutional barriers impeding climate responsive design
(question 37). Finally, participants discussed possible solutions for these institutional
barriers (question 38).
4.7 Method of Analysis
The descriptive cross-case analysis was used, which entails grouping together
answers from different people to common questions (Patton 1990). The analysis involved
identifying, coding, and categorizing the patterns and themes from the data (Hycner 1999;
Patton 1990). QSR Nudist was used to code the interviews, as well as provide for rigourous
analysis of the data (Patton 1990). Every paragraph in every interview was assigned a
number. Each analysis category and sub-category was given a number (Appendix D). Every
paragraph in every interview was then coded with as many numbers as necessary to describe
the contents of that paragraph (Patton 1990).
Triangulation of sources was used to validate responses from participants.
Triangulation involves comparing and cross-checking the consistency of information derived
at different times and by different means within qualitative methods (Pettigrew 1995; Patton
1990). The Municipal Act, the Official Community Plan, zoning bylaws, climate data, letters
of correspondence between Development Services and project designers, and Advisory

44

Design Panel reports were utilized to check responses by participants. Responses were also
compared between participants. Furthermore, responses were compared with previous
literature to improve the validity, and provide a wider generalizibility, of the research
(Hycner 1999; Eisenhardt 1995). This is particularly important since the findings are based
on a limited number of case studies (Eisenhardt 1995).
4.8 Limitations
Many interviewees were involved in both case studies, which limited the ability to
obtain information from divergent sources in comparative case study analysis. It would have
been preferable to assess the knowledge of participants prior to the case study rather than five
years after the fact to obtain a more accurate description of their knowledge at the time of the
case studies. But completed case studies were selected to allow an investigation of whole
processes and outcomes, as well as the ability to benefit from photographic evidence.
The interviews were conducted over a six-month period between December 2000 and
May 2001 due to difficulties scheduling interviews convenient for participants. This may
have provided participants with the opportunity to talk to each other and influence others’
responses. Furthermore, because case studies such as in this thesis lack quantitative gauges,
the research design is less able to assess which are the most important relationships and
which are unique to a particular case study (Eisenhardt 1995). Further quantitative research
is needed to gauge the extent or significance of barriers identified in this thesis.
4.9 Conclusion
The exploratory case study methodology provides insight into the reasons for
decisions to incorporate or not to incorporate climate responsive design in two commercial
redevelopments. Key informants were selected for their ability to explain decisions made in

45

the case studies as a result of their involvement and professional expertise. The interview
schedule was developed to explore barriers to the organizational change process in
commercial redevelopment outlined in Chapter Two. A descriptive cross-case analysis was
selected to identify patterns and themes from the interviews. Additional sources, such as
regulations, climate data, and design panel minutes, were used to check participant responses
through triangulation to improve the validity of the results.

46

Chapter Five: Local Knowledge about Climate Responsive Design
5.1 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to examine what key informants know about climate
responsive design, and to discover any gaps that may exist between key informants’
knowledge and the literature. Participants identified a range of solar design principles,
principles that reduce the negative impacts of precipitation and wind, and other principles to
enhance the aesthetic quality of the urban landscape throughout the year. This information
provides an understanding of participants’ abilities to initiate change towards the
incorporation of climatic design.
It is important to note that responses represent participants’ knowledge of climate
responsive design at the time of their interviews rather than prior to their involvement in the
case studies. Therefore, the results may be influenced by intervening educational
opportunities. This will become important when examining discrepancies between what
people know about climate responsive design with what was applied in the case studies
(Chapter Six). The description of the discrepancies may be further biased by participants
painting a more favourable picture of their knowledge at the time of the interview.
5.2 Climate Responsive Design Principles Identified by Participants
A total of 46 climate responsive design principles were identified by respondents
(Table 5.1). Approximately 37% of the principles identified focused on ways to mitigate the
negative effects of snow, rain, and icy sidewalks. Other principles, such as outdoor art and
lighting, made up about 28% of the principles discussed. Principles to mitigate the effects of
wind comprised almost 20% of the principles identified, and just over 15% of the principles
focused on solar design.

47

Table 5.1: Summary of Climate Responsive Design Principles Identified by Participants
Climate Responsive
Design Principles
Solar Design
Precipitation
Wind
Other
Total

Total of
Principles
Identified
7
17
9
13

% o f Total
Principles

46

100.0

Total # of Responses

15.2

20

3&9

42
16
23

19.6

% o f Total
Responses

1&8
4L6
15.8

2Z8

101

100.0

Source: Interview Participants, 1999-2000.

Table 5.2 provides a listing of 7 solar design principles noted by participants. The
only solar design principle noted by a majority of participants was the importance of southern
orientation of windows, building facades, and street furniture. Just under 25% discussed
skylights and solar panels. Even fewer discussed solar landscaping principles, such as the
use of deciduous trees. There are some gaps between the literature and the knowledge
possessed by key informants. For example, individuals did not discuss the influence of street
orientation (grid pattern) on the solar reception of urban spaces throughout the day and year.
Sun pockets were also not identified.
Table 5.2: Solar Design Principles Identified by Participants
Solar Design Principles

Orientation o f Buildings and Spaces
Southern orientation
Avoid over shadowing other buildings
Locate building mass close to sidewalks
Skylights
Solar Panels
Solar Landscaping Principles
Deciduous trees
Avoid over shading

Pre-Approval /lO

Councilors
/3

Total /13

6

3
1
1
1
1

9
1
1
3
3

6^2
7.7
7.7
23.1
23.1

1

2
1

15.4
7.7

2
2
1
1

% of
Total

Source: Interview Participants, 1999-2000.

Table 5.3 provides a listing of 17 principles identified by participants to mitigate the
negative effects of precipitation. Not surprisingly, canopies were noted for their ability to
protect pedestrians from rain and snow by 85% of participants. Canopies have been a

48

fervently debated topic in Prince George since their construction in the 1970s (Parker 1993;
A.E. LePage etal. 1980).
While just over 33% of participants noted skywalks as an alternative path between
buildings, few participants discussed alternative methods including covered malls,
underground passageways, and covered pedestrian streets. These results were somewhat
surprising given the discussion of these principles in the Miracle Plan and Centrum Plan in
the 1960s (Citizen Staff 1994). However, the responses may result from a preference to
pursue principles that require a lower cost commitment, such as was demonstrated by
revitalization proposals in the 1980s and 1990s (Parker 1993; Urban Forum Associates et al.
1992; Prince George Region Development Corporation 1989).
Approximately 30% of participants discussed heated slabs and sidewalks, and fewer
than 25% discussed sidewalk slopes to reduce icy conditions. Covered bus stops and
multiple entrances for easy access under poor weather conditions were both noted by 15% of
participants.
Interestingly, there were some principles identified that have not received much
discussion in the literature. For example, one pre-approval participant preferred placing
landscaped areas next to steep pitched roofs to allow snow to fall off the roof without landing
on sidewalks. Furthermore, the literature does not discuss the suggestion made to raise
sidewalks above surrounding landscaped areas to reduce snow and rain from flowing onto
the sidewalk and causing icy conditions. However, participants did not discuss principles to
reduce slush and ice build up on pedestrian paths such as locating drains in the centre of the
streets, as well as the use of raised crosswalks.

49

Table 5.3: Precipitation Principles Identified by Participants
Precipitation Principles

Pre-Approval /lO

Councilors /3

Total /I3

8
1
3
2
2
1
1
1
2
2

3

11

Canopies
Double Doors
Skywalks (+15 passageways)
Covered Malls
Underground Passageways
Covered / Enclosed Pedestrian Streets
Multiple Entrances for Easy Access
Covered Bus Stops
Sidewalk Slopes
Covered Parking
Drainage Design
Landscaping
Drip lines
Ice stops
Asphalt shingles
Snow Storage
Darker Sidewalks
Heated Slabs and Sidewalks

2

1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
3

% o f Total

1
5
2
2
1
2
2
3
3
1
1
1

1
1

1

854
7.7

3&5
154
154
7.7
15.4
15.4

23T
23T
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7

1

7.7

4

30.8

Source: Interview Participants, 1999-2000.

Table 5.4 presents 9 principles to mitigate negative effects of wind on pedestrians.
Just under half of the participants discussed the use of coniferous landscaping as windbreaks.
Interestingly, approximately 15% of participants noted that canopies protect pedestrians from
wind that may flow down the face of the building. This is lower than more than around 75%
of participants that identified canopies to protect people from precipitation, indicating that
canopies are seen to serve a more limited purpose. Likewise, the ability to use fences to slow
down or redirect wind, as well as to mitigate snow drift, was discussed by about 15% of key
informants.
While participants were able to identify the basic principles for mitigating the
negative effects of wind, the description of the principles were vague at times. For example,
there was no description about the placement, height, length, width, and configuration of
wind breaks under different design conditions by most participants. Furthermore, there was
no description about how the design or orientation of buildings themselves influences the

50

wind flow pattern in the surrounding spaces, which would ultimately influence decisions
about whether other design measures are needed. The lack of knowledge about designing for
wind may be influenced by the fact Prince George is not a windy place (Phillips 1990), and
participants may not have practical experience dealing with the problem.
Table 5.4: Wind Protection Principles Identified by Participants
Wind Protection Principles

Pre-Approval /lO

Councilors /3

Total /13

Canopies
Underground passageways
Enclosed malls
Buffers
Coniferous landscaping
Fencing
Walls
Screens
Covered Garbage
Placement of Entrances

1
1
1

1

2
1
I

15.4
7.7
7.7

4
1
1
1
1
1

2
1

6
2
1
1
1
1

4&2
15.4
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7

% of Total

Source: Interview Participants, 1999-2000.

Table 5.5 shows 13 climate responsive design principles identified by participants to
improve lighting, colour, art, and recreational spaces. None of these principles were noted by
a majority of key informants. The use of winter gardens and coniferous trees to add colour to
a winter landscape was discussed by just more than 33% of participants. Decorative lighting
and ice rinks were both described by nearly 25% of participants. The use of colour palettes
and more lighting in general were recalled by about 15% of participants. The remainder of
the principles including sled hills, cross country ski trails, controlled lighting, canopy
lighting, outdoor furniture, and outdoor art (ie. ice and snow sculptures) were noted by
individual participants. These results are somewhat lower than expected given the discussion
of these principles by revitalization proposals in the last two decades (Parker 1993; Urban
Forum Associates et al. 1992; Prince George Region Development Corporation 1989).

51

Furthermore, there was no discussion of the use of natural materials and different textures to
add an element of warmth to urban spaces.
Table 5.5: Other Climate Responsive Design Principles Identified by Participants
Other Responsive Design Principles
Recreational Spaces
Ice rinks
Sled hills
Cross country skiing trails
Use of Colour
Winter gardens / coniferous trees
Colour palettes
Lighting
Controlled lighting
More lighting
Decorative Christmas lighting
Outdoor Art
Ice and snow sculptures
Wooden sculptures
Fountains
Murals
Outdoor Furniture

Pre-Approval /lO

Councilors /3

Total /13

1

2
1
1

3
1
1

23.1
7.7
7.7

3
1

2
1

5
2

3&5
15.4

1
1
1

1
2

1
2
3

7.7
15.4
23.1

1
1
1
1
1

2
1
1
1
1

15.4
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7

1

% of Total

Source: Interview Participants, 1999-2000.

5 3 Conclusion
The responses indicate that, while participants collectively have some awareness of
climate responsive design principles, their individual knowledge is less adequate. Southern
orientation of buildings and urban spaces, as well as canopies were the only principles that
received discussion by a majority of key informants. Hence, the problem is that the working
environment must rely on the involvement of all key informants if all these principles are to
be discussed during the development and evaluation of proposals brought to the Advisory
Design Panel. By examining the application of this knowledge in two commercial
redevelopment case studies, the next chapter provides a critical evaluation of the application
and exchange of information about climate responsive design.

52

Chapter Six: Examining the Case Studies

6.1 Introduction
This chapter is a discussion of how key informants felt the case studies incorporated
or did not incorporate climate responsive design principles. A review of comments
exchanged between the designer, members of the Advisory Design Panel, the planner, and
the developer help identify discrepancies between what people know versus what they do. It
is important to note that while there was discussion of principles to improve energy
efficiency inside the case study buildings, only comments regarding the climate responsive
design of spaces between buildings is included.
6.2 Case Study One: Computime
Background information for this project consisted of the Report to Council, the Advisory
Design Panel comments sheet, and the Department of Development Services Record Sheet
for Design Panel Projects. There were no other letters of correspondence between
Development Services and the project designer. It should be noted that due to limited
responses, pre-approval and councilor responses are grouped together to enhance anonymity.
Nine key informants were interviewed for this case study. This includes the
developer, planner, engineer, a second engineer (ADP), landscape architect, architect (ADP),
and three city councilors. None of the key informants, nor the Construction Association,
could recall who the Construction Association representative was on the design panel for this
proposal. Attendance records were not kept at this time, and one possibility is that there
simply was no representative for the Construction Association at this meeting.
Seven climate responsive design principles were felt to be incorporated into the
Computime design (Figure 6.1). Many comments about the Computime design were

53

Figure 6.1; Site and Landscape Plan - Computime

û
n n
AREA PLA N

I®
o u ffaee

ar.

exhibit ^
n®*^,7

T*- tM A a p M E N - r p a K M ir

fy

xwctuBcs Dwtjipias AJfc i/j
Z /3

• T*«

S IT E »

WW.*.

«w aypw *.

•

LAWPaCAPg PLAN

®fi

a _

s :« ..
1/5
PACCES^
Source: Access Engineering
identified by individual participants (Table 6.1). Canopies were an exception, where 40% of
participants felt canopies were added to protect consumers as well as reduce the need to
shovel snow. The use of evergreens for colour was noted by just under 25% of participants
(Figure 6.2). All the remaining principles were recalled by individual participants. For
example, one participant noted the steep pitched roof was incorporated to allow snow to slide
off into a landscaped area immediately adjacent to the building instead of onto sidewalks.
However, a small section of the building on Second Avenue does not extend out far enough
for snow to slide off onto that area. Attention to sidewalk design was also cited to avoid
awkward slopes that might lead to lawsuits. Furthermore, sidewalks were raised above the
landscaping to mitigate water flowing onto the sidewalks resulting in icy conditions (Figure

54

6.2). Other principles discussed include southern building orientation, green trim on the
building (for colour), as well as sufficient lighting for both the street and sidewalk areas.
Figure 6.2: The Computime Building - Landscaping

Raised sidewalks were identified to mitigate
water from flowing onto the sidewalk causing
icy conditions.

Table 6.1: Computime - Climate Responsive Design Principles Incorporated as Identified by
Participants
Climatic Design Principles Incorporated
Appropriate sidewalk slopes
Canopies
Colourful trim
Evergreens
Lighting
Pitched roof
Southern orientation

Total Responses /9
1
4
I
2
1
1
1

% o f Total Participants
11.1
44.4
11.1

222
11.1
11.1
11.1

Source: Interview Participants, 1999-2000.

While some participants felt the Computime building had success in incorporating
some climate responsive design features, others noted features that were missing or
inadequate (Table 6.2). Over 50% of the participants felt there was insufficient canopy
protection around the building (Figure 6.3). On site snow storage was a problem for 22% of
participants. Currently, the snow is stored on site, resulting in a loss of parking stalls each

55

winter. There were snow accumulation concerns with the roof as a result of the clock tower.
Finally, a small set back was suggested to allow for more landscaping and street furniture.
Table 6.2: Computime - Climate Responsive Design Principles Not Incorporated as
Identified by Participants
Climatic Design Principles Not Incorporated
Building orientation
Insufficient landscaping
Lack of canopy protection
Pitched roof - sliding snow
Set backs
Snow storage
Snow accumulation - Clock tower

Total Responses /9
1
1
5
1
2
2
1

% of Total Participants
11.1
11.1
55.6
11.1
222
222
11.1

Source: Interview Participants, 1999-2000.

Figure 6.3: The Computime Building - Canopies

If

am #
Insufficient canopy protection was identified as a problem by key
informants.

When informant responses were compared with Advisory Design Panel comments,
there were discrepancies between informants’ knowledge of climate responsive design and
the advice exchanged between key informants in the review process. Originally, the design
incorporated canopies supported by posts on the sidewalk. Key informants felt that the
Advisory Design Panel had concerns that the posts might be damaged during snow removal
operations. Therefore, the posts were removed and the canopies were modified. However,
the minutes did not include concerns about snow removal issues (Development Services
Department 1994a). The Engineering Division was not in favour of the canopy supports at

56

the curb line. Overhead clearance had to be checked, which is probably an indication of
snow removal concerns (Development Services Department 1994c).
Participants noted the panel expressed concern that a steep roofline would allow snow
to slide off onto the sidewalk. However, there was no indication the panel expressed these
concerns in the design panel minutes. It was only noted that the designer told the panel the
roof material would be heavily textured asphalt shingles (Development Services Department
1994a). Furthermore, some participants commented that concerns about trees and
landscaping expressed at the meeting were not included in the panel minutes. There is also
no indication that participants discussed issues related to snow storage. Furthermore, there
was no recollection or documentation that participants discussed outdoor furniture, building
orientation, or set backs during the design panel review.
Some participants felt that discussion in the review process had more to do with
aesthetics than climate responsive design. For example, participants suggest that both
canopies and landscaping were pushed not for their climate responsive benefits, but to
beautify the city. Therefore, some principles are perceived to have happened by accident.
Other principles identified in Chapter Four that were not noted in the Computime
proposal design panel minutes, included the use of colour and multiple entrances for quick
access under poor weather conditions. Covered parking, heated slabs and sidewalks, black
top sidewalks, decorative lighting, skylights, and outdoor art were also not discussed in the
design panel minutes for this case study. Since these issues appear to not have been raised
during the process, it is unclear how much the key informants knew about these principles
and how the developer would have reacted.

57

6.3 Case Study Two: Sight and Sound
Ten key informants were interviewed for the Sight and Sound case study including
the developer, planner, two architects, landscape architect, engineer. Construction
Association Representative, and three councilors. Background information for this project
consisted of the Report to Council, the Advisory Design Panel comments sheet, and the
Development Services Department comment sheet.
Table 6.3 lists eight climate responsive design principles participants felt were
incorporated into the Sight and Sound design (See Figure 6.4). Half of the participants liked
the glazed canopy that allows the sun to reach the pedestrian level. Less than 33% noted the
use of the multiple entrances to provide quick, easy access under poor weather conditions.
Twenty percent noted the use of colour on the building, as well as the use of deciduous trees
Figure 6.4: Site and Landscape Plan - Sight and Sound

1'___

/'

Æf

tu » f

_

Mr H

_____

P R O PO S E D BUILDING

'■SfiS.'sfev,
^ R E V IS E D PARKING U Y D Ü T

SITE PLAN
LAN DSCAPE PLAN

Source: Dan Condon, Architect

58

along Victoria Street to provide colour and shade in the summer without blocking the sun
from pedestrian spaces in the winter (Figure 6.5).
Figure 6.5: The Sight and Sound Building - Deciduous Trees

Use o f deciduous trees provides colour and shade
in the summer without blocking sun in the winter.

The remainders of the principles were noted by individual participants. First, a flat
roof was credited for mitigating sliding snow onto sidewalks. Another participant favoured
the allocation of the building mass near sidewalks to enhance snow and ice removal from
reflective heat from the building. Set backs were feared to cause snow removal challenges,
as well as concerns with de-icing products invading vegetation or corroding street furniture.
One participant felt the parking lot layout consisted of safe slopes, as well as easy access for
snow ploughs.

59

Table 6.3: Sight and Sound - Climate Responsive Design Principles Incorporated as
Identified by Participants
Climatic Design Principles Incorporated
Building mass - reflective heat
Flat roof
Glazed canopy
Multiple entrances
Safe slopes
Snow removal access - parking lot layout
Street trees
Use of colour

Total Responses /lO
1
1
5
3
1
1
2
2

% of Total Participants
10.0
10.0
50.0
30.0
l&O
10.0
20.0
2&0

Source: Interview Participants, 1999-2000.

Key informants identified ten climate responsive principles that were not incorporated
into the case study design (Table 6.4). Thirty percent of participants felt that the canopy only
covers part of the sidewalk and protects the edge of the building (Figure 6.5). At times, snow
was noted to slide off the canopy over entrances onto the sidewalks (Figure 6.6). Participants
felt parking should not have been directed towards the back because it excludes the street.
The main entrance was oriented towards the parking lot in the back because the owners felt
there was not going to be a lot of pedestrian traffic. Landscaping was also viewed to be
mostly directed to the parking lot. More evergreens would have been preferred for colour.
Set backs were suggested to provide more space for landscaping and street furniture. One
participant would have preferred a landscaped wall over a sloped landscape treatment on the
south side of the parking lot because people could sit on the wall while allowing the plant
material to grow better. The sloped landscaping treatment causes concerns of ice formation
because ice forms at the base of the slope along the sidewalk (Figure 6.7). Insufficient
lighting, awkward slopes in the parking lot, and a lack of snow storage were not considered
successful in a winter climate. Another participant felt a higher density building could
improve the use of space.

60

Table 6.4; Sight and Sound - Climate Responsive Design Principles Not Incorporated as
Identified by Participants
Climatic Design Principles Not Incorporated
Awkward slopes
Canopy - inadequate protection, sliding snow
Higher density
Insufficient landscaping
Insufficient lighting
Lack of evergreens - colour
Orientation of parking
Set backs - to provide street furniture
Sloped landscaping treatment
Snow storage

Total Responses /lO
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1

% of Total Participants
10.0
30.0

IffO
100
10.0
10.0

200
20.0
10.0
10.0

Source: Interview Participants, 1999-2000.

Figure 6.6: The Sight and Sound Building
Canopies

Figure 6.7: The Sight and Sound Building
Landscaping

Snow was noted to slide off the glazed canopy.

The sloped landscaping treatment causes concerns
o f ice formation because ice forms at the base of
the slope along the sidewalk.

Again, not all of the comments raised in the evaluation of this case study were
recorded during the review process. No comments surrounding canopy concerns were found
in the design panel minutes (City of Prince George 1996c; Advisory Design Panel Comments
Sheet August 30, 1995; Advisory Design Panel Comments Sheet June 21, 1995), and there
was no indication that concerns about snow storage, awkward slopes, sloped landscape
treatment, or higher density issues were raised during the review process. Insufficient
lighting, street furniture, and concerns about sliding snow off the canopy were also not

61

mentioned. Finally, principles concerning outdoor art, heated sidewalks, decorative lighting,
and skylights were not discussed.
6.4 Discussion
Participants did not apply the same knowledge of climate responsive design
demonstrated in Chapter Four to the evaluation of the case studies. However, there were also
discrepancies between their recollections of concerns expressed at the design panel meeting
and those recorded on the design panel comment sheets. Therefore, the recollection of
climate responsive design comments from the design panel review would not be as numerous
as they might be today. This may signify that a learning process has been taking place about
climate responsive design. It is interesting, however, that while issues related to street trees
and colour may not have been raised during the review of the Computime proposal (1994),
these issues were later raised during the review of the Sight and Sound proposal (1996) a
couple of years later.
On the other hand, discrepancies may also be explained by a participant’s desire to
perform well during the interview. Since the interviewees knew I was interested in research
about climate responsive design, they may have enhanced their discussion in the interview in
comparison with the design panel discussions where many other competing issues are being
considered at the same time.
Discrepancies could also be the result of a recording error in the design panel
minutes. However, if climate responsive design issues were not raised, it is unclear how the
designer or developer may have reacted to the advice. Secondly, if comments are not
recorded in the design panel comments, they cannot be reviewed by Council who is making
the decision about the development permit. If information is not exchanged about new ideas.

62

organizational learning cannot be expanded. If concerns are not frequently expressed, they
may not gain support amongst decision makers or the general public. It also makes it
difficult to evaluate whether or not concerns are being pursued or expressed on a regular
basis.

63

Chapter Seven: Institutional Barriers to Incorporating Climate Responsive Design into
Commercial Redevelopment

7.1 Introduction
This chapter examines the final research question about institutional barriers
impeding the incorporation of climate responsive design in commercial redevelopment in
Prince George. In this chapter, responses from participants in both case studies are pooled to
enhance anonymity. This includes an examination of barriers that impede the initiation,
implementation, and evaluation of change summarized in Table 7.1. Subsequently, these
institutional barriers will be integrated with the various stages in the model for change
developed in Table 2.2.
Table 7.1: Summary of Institutional Barriers to Climate Responsive Design in Commercial
Redevelopment as Identified by Participants
Institutional Barriers

Total
Responses by
Pre-Approval
Participants

Total
Responses by
Councilors

21
2
16

4
6
3
13

25
8
19
52

8
3
5
5
2
1
2
26

34
30
25
19
14
12
11
145

3
5
1
9

13
21
1
35

Total
Responses by
all
Respondents

% of Total
Responses

Barriers to Initiating Change
Educational Barriers
Financial Barriers
Psychological Barriers
Total

39

48.1

15.4
36.5
100.0

Barriers to Implementing Change
Structural Barriers
Financial Barriers
Regulation Barriers
Political Barriers
Information Barriers
Maintenance Barriers
Security / Social Barriers
Total

26
27
20
14
12
11
9
119

23A
20.7

17.2
13.1
9.7

8.3
7.6
100.0

Barriers to Evaluating Change
Regulation Barriers
Structural Barriers
Psychological Barriers
Total
Source: Interview Participants, 1999-2000.

10
16
0

26

37T
60.0

2.9
100.0

64

7.2 Institutional Barriers to Initiating Change
Successful change occurs with appropriate skills and knowledge, as well as the will to
pursue change. Three major categories were constructed to describe institutional barriers to
initiating change towards climate responsive design. These include educational, financial,
and psychological barriers. Together, these barriers pose challenges to providing key change
agents with the proficiency necessary to pursue the change effort.
Educational Barriers
Seven education and information barriers to initiating change for climate responsive
design were identified by participants (Table 7.2). Results from Chapter Four indicate that
few climate responsive design principles are known by a majority of participants. In fact,
over half of the principles were only identified by individual participants. The lack of
exposure to climate responsive design ideas became even more apparent as one pre-approval
participant claimed, “nobody's ever developed anything you know that's for a winter city or a
winter architecture (personal communication 2000)”. However, there is a lot of literature
that examines climate responsive design principles (Pressman 1999a, 1999b, 1995; Givoni
1998; Li 1994; Pihlak 1994; Westerberg 1994; Keeble et al. 1990/1991; Matus 1988, 1985a).
In addition, there may also be a lack of awareness of local climatic conditions. One
councilor incorrectly identified a building thought to be oriented towards the sun that was in
fact oriented northwest (personal communication 2000). However, a pre-approval participant
noted that the use of landscaping to enhance the environment visually and climatically is just
becoming a part of the normal vocabulary of key players. Another informant noted, “the
question of course is what does ignorance have to do with principles. You gotta know about
the principles before you can implement them (personal communication 1999)”. Yet there

65

had been a lot of literature on climate responsive landscaping principles prior to the
development of the case study designs (Pressman 1995; Hootman and Kelsey 1992; Knox
1992; Radway et a l 1989; Pressman and Cizek 1988; Jones and Oreszczyn 1987; Bematzky
1982; Moffat and Schiler 1981). Therefore, it is important to investigate why there is a lack
of awareness about climate responsive design principles.
Table 7.2: Educational Barriers to Initiate Change for Climate Responsive Design Identified
by Participants
Educational Barriers

Lack o f Awareness
Lack of Opportunities
Lack of Participants
Opportunities are not Promoted
Opportunities Fail to Recognize Local Needs
Organizational Barriers for Educational
Opportunities
Lack of Exchange of Information

PreApproval
Participants
/lO
2
7
4
2
1
1

Councilors
/3

Total of
Responses
/13

3
0
0
0
0
0

5
7
4
2
1
1

38.5
53.8
30.8
15.4
7.7
7.7

4

1

5

38.5

% of
Total

Source: Interview Participants, 1999-2000.

Key participants identified twelve opportunities to learn more about climate
responsive design (Table 7.3). While there appear to be numerous educational opportunities
available, few are experienced by a wide range of participants. Journals were the most
frequently identified opportunity to learn more about climate responsive design, followed by
on-the-job learning, federal programs, and the Internet. This is somewhat surprising given
that de Schiller and Evans (1990/1991) point out that research publications are not usually
read by practitioners. Further research would be needed to examine the range of journals that
are most often read by professionals that also offer regular material about climate responsive
design. Organizations and personal travel were both a source of learning for approximately
15% of participants.

66

Further research could be done to explore if time constraints contribute to the types of
educational opportunities, or lack of, that are pursued. Journals, on-the-job learning, and the
Internet are all opportunities that can be pursued under the time convenience of key players.
Journals and on-the-job learning may also be viewed as the most conventional way of
learning for professionals and decision makers.
Table 7.3: Summary of Educational Opportunities for Climate Responsive Design Identified
by Participants
Opportunity

Lecture
Federal programs
Journals
On-the-job learning
Seminars
Internet
Institutional research materials
Company brochures
Media
Climate Sensitive Design Guidelines
Organizations
Personal travel

Pre-Approval
Participants
/lO
2
5
4
1
1
1

Councilors /3

1
1
2

2

1
1
1

1
1
1

Total of
Responses
/I3
1
3
7
4
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
2

% of Total

7.7
23.1

53^
3Œ8
7.7

23T
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7

154
15.4

Source: Interview Participants, 1999-2000.

However, success of these opportunities will be influenced by the quality, frequency,
and awareness of the opportunity. Unfortunately, more than 50% of the participants stated
there is a lack of opportunities to learn about climate responsive design. Many participants
noted that professional journals, seminars, and conferences do not cover topics related to
climate responsive design. There is also a perception courses are never offered in Prince
George on these topics. However, while there were no university or college courses offered
by UNBC or the College of New Caledonia (CNC) respectively that focus solely on climate
responsive design, knowledge about urban climates and climate responsive design principles
are included in other courses. Regardless, some participants may not have been exposed to

67

educational opportunities that would affect their knowledge and ability to pursue change
towards climate responsive design.
Other participants felt that Prince George is too isolated to hear about educational
opportunities. Furthermore, professional organizations have not offered courses for climate
responsive design. Promises to offer distant learning were viewed to be “lip service (personal
communication 2000)”. Difficulty finding materials in local book stores was also cited.
Professionals must pick up materials in bookstores in larger cities because they have sections
pertaining to specific professional needs.
The 1999 Winter Cities Forum in Prince George was helpful for promoting a fairly
new concept. However, time is needed to allow these concepts to take hold in the design
community and the public in general and, therefore, more opportunities are needed. One
participant suggested a bi-monthly or bi-annual magazine about climate responsive design
would be a good idea. Interestingly, a Winter Cities Magazine already exists. Regardless,
quality opportunities for learning more about climate responsive design will be needed on a
more frequent basis if change is to gain momentum and be sustained.
Just under 33% of participants felt there was a lack of enrolment for educational
opportunities. At times, courses are cancelled on short notice due to a lack of participants.
Frustration results from a lost educational opportunity, as well as financial losses for airfares
that cannot be recovered. Seminars have also been poorly attended by developers, builders,
and architects. Only 20% of the pre-approval participants attended the 1999 Winter Cities
Forum in Prince George.
Educational opportunities for climate responsive design will not be pursued if key
participants are unaware that educational opportunities exist. Insufficient awareness or short

68

notice about educational opportunities may explain poor attendance of key players at
conferences like the 1999 Winter Cities Forum in Prince George (personal communication
2000). Furthermore, the Winter Cities Forum was not perceived to recognize local needs and
solutions as information was exchanged from Scandanavian communities that have different
tax structures. Tax structures can influence incentives to encourage climate responsive
design. Evaluation surveys could gauge educational opportunities and information gaps that
were not covered by the initiative.
If educational opportunities are not sufficiently organized for the convenience of the
target audience’s needs, they will be poorly attended. The timing of educational
opportunities in the Lower Mainland were not suitable for professionals in northern B.C. For
example, it was not financially feasible to fly down for an evening in mid-week to attend a
one day course or a lecture series in Vancouver. A three to four day session, however, was
deemed to be more feasible.
More than 33% of respondents feel that there is a lack of information about the
benefits and principles of climate responsive design. A professional community in Prince
George does not exist for the exchange of ideas. There are just too few professionals. In
addition, architects and engineers attending conferences would be using vocabulary foreign
to other participants. Professional divisions also appear to inhibit the exchange of
information, as one participant noted they do not obtain information from other professions.
At the time of the interviews, Prince George was the only city in British Columbia that was a
member of the Livable Winter Cities Association. It is important to explore why other
communities are not involved. This further inhibits the exchange of success stories and,
therefore, the ability to leam through experience.

69

Participants also felt promotional materials are needed to inform developers about the
questions they should ask designers to make urban spaces climate responsive (See Appendix
F). Moreover, as new councilors are elected, they should be provided with information about
climate responsive design guidelines. Since there is a regular turnover on Council and staff,
an orientation program or package could be developed by senior City staff responsible for
providing technical expertise, research capability, and policy advice in the decision making
process (Tindal and Tindal 1990).
Financial Barriers
Resources are critical to provide key change agents with the opportunity to pursue
and promote the incorporation of climate responsive design principles. This section will
explore four financial barriers that have inhibited the availability of educational opportunities
(Table 7.4).
Table 7.4: Financial Barriers to Initiate Change for Climate Responsive Design Identified by
Participants
Financial Barriers

Lack of Funds to Pursue Educational Opportunities
Transportation and Registration Costs
Non-Governmental Organizations Lack Funds
Cost of Publications

PreApproval
Participants
/lO
0
1
0
1

Councilors
/3

Total of
Responses
/13

2
2
1
1

2
3
1
2

% of
Total

15.4
23.1
7.7
15.4

Source: Interview Participants, 1999-2000.

All of the financial barriers in Table 7.4 were identified by less than 25% of
participants. First, there is a lack of funds to pursue educational opportunities. Councilors
noted they were only allocated approximately $3,000 to attend conferences (City of Prince
George 1996b). In fact, prior to 1995, councilors were only allocated $2,000 per year for
travel and accommodation (City of Prince George 1995). With limited funds, choices had to
be made between competing educational priority areas. This is because transportation costs

70

and registration fees to attend conferences are high, particularly for conferences in Eastern
Canada where travel costs can consume the bulk of funds.
The Livable Winter Cities Association lacks membership and money to pursue
educational initiatives. The Association is operated purely on a volunteer basis and there is a
sense that until resources are obtained, the Association will not be able to develop
promotional activities. Finally, educational journals for climate responsive design can also
be expensive to operate and distribute. Some best practice guides from Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corporation cost up to ninety dollars each (http://www.cmhcschl.gc.ca/boutique/en/).
Psychological Barriers
Interest and willingness to pursue new information is critical to initiating change.
Nevertheless, interest in pursuing change comes with recognition of a problem. Almost 85%
of key informants felt there is a lack of interest to incorporate climate responsive design into
commercial redevelopments (Table 7.5).
Table 7.5: Psychological Barriers to Initiate Change for Climate Responsive Design
Identified by Participants
Psychological Barriers

Lack of Interest / No Need for Change
Fear of Being Singled Out
Convenience Matters
Community Maturity

PreApproval
Participants
/lO
8
3
3
2

Councilors
/3

Total of
Responses
A3

3
0
0
0

11
3
3
2

% of
Total

84.6
23.1
23.1
15.4

Source: Interview Participants, 1999-2000,

In a non-competitive environment, a mentality emerges that “if you build it, they will
come, so why bother spending extra money (personal communication 1999)”. As a result,
there is no sense of urgency or perceived need to leam about climate responsive design.
Second, developers have their ideas of what works in other communities. As a result, they

71

are not receptive to modify their design to fit with the local climate. There is also a
perception that “we really don’t need unique architecture (personal communication 2000)”.
This fits with a perception that if you live in the north, winter is one of the things you have to
live with. Icy sidewalks “just sort of goes with the territory (personal communication

2000)".
Another perception exists where the perceived change is unnecessary. As one
participant noted,
“My complaint about these people who always want to address winter cities plans,
they don't want to address winter cities plans, they want to bring Vancouver up
here... Forget it. You know throw the coat on, start the car, wait for the bus, or
whatever it is. The cold spell only lasts two or three weeks. To produce an area
enclosure so that everybody can walk around in their t-shirt and shorts....it's this
pining for something we're not... Are we going to change everything just because
somebody feels uncomfortable for two weeks of the year (personal communication
2000)".
Therefore, this informant felt climate responsive design was not necessary as a result that
such ideas would only benefit pedestrians in the urban landscape for a short period of time.
Further, there is a lack of interest in pursuing climate responsive design in favour of living
for the summer. One participant felt that evergreens were fairly dull:
“If you ask anyone on the street, they'll say well we prefer to have the leafy trees
because at least we know when spring is here and we can have all this sort of
excitement in the summer, and we'll deal with the bleakness of the winter (personal
communication 2000)”.
Another informant felt that if the weather is poor, there would be no pedestrians outside
anyways (personal communication 2000). These comments demonstrate a perception that no
problem exists or that the problem is so insignificant that it is not worth the change effort.
More education and research is needed about the impacts of climate responsive design on the
use and function of urban spaces. There could also be research on the impact of icy

72

sidewalks on injuries, such as fractures. This information is currently not collected or
available by health organizations in Prince George or provincial statistics. Such information
could help to evaluate the need for climate responsive spaces.
Climate responsive design was not discussed, promoted, or considered to be a priority
by key players at the time of the case studies. Councilors were perceived to have no interest
in pursuing climate responsive design since they never requested additional information
about the design of any commercial projects. Therefore, there was no indication of any
problem and no impetus to pursue additional information.
There is a perception that small-scale developers do not care about how their building
affects other buildings, so they will not pursue new ideas. Their main concern is to ensure
they maintain a successful and profitable business through having lower costs. Developers
also do not pursue educational opportunities if their building is already built. Therefore, if
they decide to develop additional buildings in the future, they will have missed intervening
educational opportunities about climate responsive design in the form of conferences,
seminars, or community lectures. Developers, builders, and architects were also noted to not
be interested in attending conferences or seminars.
In addition, there are no professional organizations in Prince George to promote new
ideas. There is also a perception that the younger design professionals emerging from the
system will be able to promote climate responsive design. Therefore, it becomes somebody
else’s problem to deal with (Kettner et al. 1985). Finally, the Construction Association is
perceived to be more concerned about generating contracts (personal communication 1999).
Research and education about the impact of climate responsive design on capital and
operating costs may help to change this lack of interest.

73

Less than 25% of participants felt there was a fear of being singled out. Behaviour
will only change if everyone involved changes at the same time. Others feel there must be a
critical mass of people already doing it successfully before small developers buy into new
ideas. Change must also be demonstrated through the City and institutional buildings such as
the courthouse and the University of Northern British Columbia.
There is a perception that local residents want to park outside the commercial
building in the downtown area regardless of the season or condition. Convenience is what
matters. There is also a belief that climate responsive design will not influence pedestrian
habits, so why bother pursuing the matter. There may not be enough public support to
establish climate responsive design as a priority concern. Again, more research about the
impact of climate responsive design on the use of urban spaces would be useful.
Finally, some participants felt support for more amenities in urban spaces, as well as
more landscaping, has not materialized because individuals did not have a commitment to the
community. They were not going to retire in Prince George. However, expectations were
perceived to be changing with community maturity, which may result in higher expectations
from citizens (personal communication 2000).
Conclusion
Overall, participant responses indicated that a lack of interest was the most significant
barrier impeding the initiation of change for climate responsive design. If there is a lack of
interest, no problem will be identified and change will not be pursued. The only other barrier
noted by more than half of the participants was a lack of educational opportunities to learn
about climate responsive design. Further, findings from Chapter Four clearly indicate there

74

is a lack of awareness about these principles and, therefore, key players may not have the
knowledge and skills required to take on responsibilities for implementing change.
The perception of a lack of educational opportunities must be questioned given that
almost half of the key informants did not identify this as a barrier to initiating change, and
given that participants overall identified a range of educational opportunities to leam about
climate responsive design. After all, many journal subscriptions or books that are not
immediately found available in local bookstores can be ordered through these bookstores or
through the Internet. They may also be ordered through inter-library loan through the UNBC
or CNC. Given that so few identified promotional or organizational barriers to pursuing
educational opportunities, along with the lack of participants at the Winter Cities Forum in
Prince George in 1999, may be an indication of a lack of interest rather than lack of
opportunity. Further, few identified transportation, registration, or publication costs as
barriers to pursuing educational opportunities. Beliefs that there is no need for change are
more prominent.

7.3 Institutional Barriers to Implementing Change
The implementation phase is concerned with planning, implementing, and monitoring
actions laid out in goals, regulations, and guidelines. It is concerned with defining roles and
responsibilities, which are accompanied with appropriate resources, to pursue change. But
the implementation phase must also address the intangibles that evolve from political or
economic interests that affect the change process. This section explores institutional barriers
that inhibit the implementation of climate responsive design. These barriers are discussed

75

through seven categories including, regulatory, structural, information, political, financial,
maintenance, and security / social barriers.
Financial Barriers
Over 75% of key informants felt costs, both real and perceived, were a barrier to
pursuing climate responsive design (Table 7.6). Covered streets were perceived to be
expensive because of the amount of glass that would have to be installed to allow sunlight
through. There were also cost concerns associated with constructing, beating, cleaning, and
ventilating skywalks, underground passages, and canopies. Skywalk systems were felt to
pose architectural challenges and cost challenges for connecting buildings that consist of
floors with different heights.
Table 7.6: Financial Barriers to Implement Climate Responsive Design Identified by
Participants
Financial Barriers

Climate Responsive Design is too Expensive
Climate Responsive Design Can be Considered
in the Future
Additional Costs for Labour and Studies
Lack o f Capital
Fear o f More Taxes
Incentives Are Not Enough
Fear o f Economic Loss
Jobs Remain a Higher Priority
Perception Special Interest Groups add Costs

Pre-Approval
Participants /
10
8
1

Councilors
/3
2
0

Total of
Respondents
/1 3
10
1

3
3
3
0
5
3
1

0
0
0
1
0
0
0

3
3
3
I
5
3
1

% of
Total
76.9
7.7
23.1
23.1
23.1
7.7
38.5
23.1
7.7

Source: Interview Participants, 1999-2000.

Skylights were cited as being too expensive to construct and operate because of heat
loss through the roof; a problem previously noted by Labs (1985). The scale of development
also influences the financial feasibility of skylights. Inserting skylights into small multi­
storey developments could result in a loss of rentable space. There are extra costs for dye for
darker sidewalks that would absorb heat to melt sidewalks. Heated slabs were also cited as
too costly for small scale developments.

76

Landscaping costs were felt to be too expensive for some developers who want
landscaping decisions to be considered after the project is completed as money becomes
available. Developers were also surprised with the additional costs for commercial
landscaping. For example, there must be a cast tree grate with a steel guard to protect each
tree, which may cost approximately $2,100.00 each (Urban Forum Associates et al. 1992).
Others felt developers were less likely to spend money on landscaping because it does not
generate income. If developers feel landscaping costs are too expensive, the City is less
likely to impose strict guidelines that may jeopardize the viability of any development.
The first five years are critical to establishing landscaping plans. Plants must survive
weather and salt, as well as damage from cars or people. If the plants die, the owner is not
likely to replace them. So there is an incentive to install larger plants. But larger plants are
another cost to the developer. Therefore, key informants felt developers prefer to install
smaller plants that are less expensive. Maintenance costs for landscaping are also an issue.
Concerns expressed by participants about additional costs for landscaping and maintenance
have also been previously reported by Thurow (1983) and Moffat and Schiler (1981).
Almost 40% of informants fear economic losses. There is a fear that climate
responsive design will result in fewer parking spaces, and that fewer parking spaces would
mean fewer customers because people do not have easy access to their businesses.
Maximizing economic returns on investments was a higher priority for developers than
climate responsive design, particularly since investors are relying on them to make a profit.
Furthermore, there is a perception that because the City will receive lots of taxes from a
prospective business, whatever the owner wants, the owner gets. Otherwise, the City would
lose revenue.

77

Under 25% of participants felt developers do not have the capital to incorporate
climate responsive design features. There is also a challenge convincing people that Prince
George should no longer be a horizontally developed community. Cost is always a barrier to
higher density buildings. One reason that was speculated for this problem is because Prince
George is land rich with no pressures from physical barriers, such as mountains or
agricultural land. Unfortunately, low-density areas are difficult to make lively and inviting,
even during the winter.
Nearly 25% of participants cited fear of more taxes as an inhibition towards change; a
problem that has been noted by Moore (1997). Sometimes, cost-sharing arrangements can be
negotiated to facilitate the incorporation of design features. However, there is a perception
there will never be many incentives because eventually taxpayers will have to pay for them.
As well, the mill rate tax system was perceived to penalize developers who wish to make
property improvements that may include climate responsive design. This is because
municipal taxes are based on the market value of properties (B.C. Assessment 1997).
However, all of the taxes come out of the same pool. Therefore, business owners who have
done no improvements to their property see a relative reduction in property taxes because the
business owners who have made improvements pay a larger relative share because their
property is now worth more. Therefore, developers are less likely to consider climate
responsive design for fear of what such improvements may do to their property taxes.
Almost 25% of participants noted the public is not enthusiastic to pursue
environmental concerns during economically challenging times. Jobs are more important.
The Construction Association and the Home Builders Association were noted to be more
concerned with generating contracts and business.

78

Climate analysis, wind tunnel, and snow simulation studies were perceived to be
expensive by approximately 25% of participants. A wind tunnel study was perceived to cost
$30,000 to $40,000. However, according to Rowan Williams Davies & Irwin, wind tunnel
studies are normally $10,000 to $15,000. An expert system evaluation can cost
approximately $3,000 and take just one week (Williams, personal communication May 9,
2000). There was also a perception there would be extra costs for the architect or engineer to
put more hours into the design (personal communication 2000). Regardless, one informant
noted large-scale developments would have to be done to justify the cost. Therefore, it
would be difficult to legislate the use of climate studies, such as solar impact statements or
wind impact statements, because of the additional costs it would add to a project. However,
such studies are not used for low-density projects anyways. Edmonton, for example,
stipulates that only projects four storeys or higher must produce solar and wind impact
statements (Thurow 1983). But without such legislation, future large scale developments,
even in smaller cities, may produce uncomfortable conditions for pedestrians and increased
city maintenance costs.
On the other hand, cost-sharing incentives are not always enough. As a part of a
downtown revitalization project, merchants were offered 30% funding assistance from
municipal and provincial sources as an incentive to replace canopies and upgrade facades.
The City was going to take care of the road rehabilitation, sidewalk enlargements, lighting
improvements, tree planting, and assist with the canopies. However, the proposal was not
supported by the merchants (personal communication 1999). Further research would be
needed with developers and business owners to explore if they have any suggestions for
workable incentives.

79

Just under 10% of participants noted that developers feel some climate responsive
design features, such as landscaping, can be added in the future. Some design features,
however, such as heated slabs, are expensive to retrofit. Consequently, it is unlikely that
climate responsive design features will be added after the project has been completed.
However, one pre-approval participant suggested that if the developer cannot afford to install
a feature initially, wiring can be installed to allow heated slabs, for example, to be added
when the developer has more money (personal communication 2000).
Finally, there is a cost to allowing different committees to be involved in the
development of projects. This adds time, and potentially money, to the development
approval process (personal communication 2000). It can especially be a problem if
representatives do not agree on the proposals. Therefore, it may be difficult to convince
some key players to allow participation by a representative of the Winter City Committee.
Structural Barriers
Structural barriers affect the operations of public institutions. Care must be taken to
ensure the appropriate human and financial resources are in place to implement the goals,
objectives, and guidelines outlined in the change initiative. Clear responsibilities must also
be laid out to ensure compliance with the stated goals and objectives throughout the
institution’s hierarchy. This section will describe seven structural barriers to implementing
climate responsive design (Table 7.7).

80

Table 7.7: Structural Barriers to Implement Climate Responsive Design Identified by
Participants
Structural Barriers

Insufficient Membership on Design Panel
Membership Does Not Change
Lack o f Design Professionals
Lack o f Time to Engage in the Process
Lack o f Human Resources
Lack o f Awareness about the Process
Roles and Obligations are Unclear

Pre-Approval
Participants /
10
3
1
6
3
1
4
8

Councilors
/3
1
0
1
3
0
1
2

Total of
Respondents
/ 13
4
1
7
6
1
5
10

% of
Total
30.1
7.7
53.8
46.2
7.7
38.5
76.9

Source; Interview Participants, 1999-2000.

The most significant structural barrier was that roles and obligations to promote,
implement, and pay for climate responsive design are unclear. Architects and engineers are
perceived to be the ideal players to promote climate responsive design because they are
perceived to have the most credibility through their professional training. In addition,
members of the design panel were perceived to be receptive to promoting climate responsive
design since it is their role to comment on anything that falls onto the streets or public areas.
However, one participant felt that dealing with climate information is a design issue dealt
only by the architect and not an issue that is reviewed at the design panel. Another
participant noted, “If you’re not dealing with the building, you’re dealing with planning
issues (personal communication 2000)”. As noted earlier, the Advisory Design Panel is
asked to consider “public health, safety, security, convenience and aesthetic design, not only
in respect of the development under consideration, but in the context of surrounding
development and the overall built environment of the City (Development Services
Department June 1994b, 3)”. This is more than just the building. Therefore, pre-approval
participants are possibly unaware of the full role of design panel on which they serve.
Another pre-approval participant felt that the process is flawed because each design
panel member focuses on their own issue area. Since climate responsive design relies on the

81

relationship between buildings and spaces, there was a perceived need to have someone
examine the overall design. This will require developing more specific guidelines and terms
of reference for the design panel.
There is a perception that if the planner is not interested in climate responsive design,
no one else will because they will not be aware of it (personal communication 2000). The
architect and the planner were perceived to be responsible for negotiating an agreement
between the owner and the City. For example, negotiations occurred to determine who
would pay for the street lighting for the Sight and Sound development (personal
communication 2000). Another pre-approval participant noted the Construction Association
could share in the responsibility for promoting climate responsive design principles amongst
their members because the association deals with commercial construction (personal
communication 1999).
In addition to a disagreement about who is responsible for promoting climate
responsive design, there is also disagreement about who is responsible for creating and
maintaining climate responsive urban spaces. Some feel it is up to the merchants to
determine if they want to pursue climate responsive design because they must take the extra
risk.
There is disagreement about who is responsible for replacing or erecting canopies, as
well as developing and maintaining the space outside the building, including vegetation,
lighting, and snow and ice maintenance for sidewalks. The City enacted a bylaw for the City
to clear snow from the sidewalks with the costs being added to the owner’s property taxes
(Prince George Region Development Corporation 1989). Thus, one pre-approval participant
felt that since owners perceive they are not responsible for snow removal, they prefer to do

82

little sidewalk maintenance (personal communication 2000). Furthermore, it was unclear
who is financially responsible for climate studies for commercial projects.
Nevertheless, participant responses affirm Comfort’s (1997) comments that it is far
more difficult to sustain change when one attempts to specify what should be done, who
should do it, how it should be done, and who should pay for it. These contentious themes
emerged as participants identified different perceptions of who should be responsible for
promoting climate responsive design, as well as who should be responsible for creating and
maintaining urban spaces. This may reflect that mandates are unclear or that regulations and
policies are not communicated sufficiently.
Over 50% of the participants felt there is a lack of engineers, architects, and
landscape architects to draw from to sit on the Advisory Design Panel. Some design
professionals have served on the design panel in the past and are not willing to serve again.
In addition, there are time and business constraints that prevent design professionals from
volunteering. This drains the pool of expertise the community can draw from to provide
advice about climate responsive design. It is difficult to fix the problem in small to medium
sized communities that cannot support a large population of design professionals.
Almost half of key informants find they do not have enough time to engage in the
process; a possible symptom that there is lack of human resources to deal with the demands
of the task. Time and business constraints influence how much time design panel volunteers
can commit to reviewing projects. With less time available, participants will be more likely
to stick to the basic requirements rather than explore climate responsive design concepts.
Tindal and Tindal (1990) note that the Municipal Act does not differentiate between large
and small cities in designating stipulations of what must be done. Smaller cities have fewer

83

Staff and resources to complete the range of responsibilities assigned to them. Second,
participants were concerned more time would be needed to incorporate climate responsive
design into preliminary drawings or computer models to show to clients. This results in
additional costs for the designer, as well as additional challenges to meet client deadlines.
Third, it was difficult for councilors to accomplish goals in two year terms (personal
communication 1999). They must channel their energies to produce change, or to expand
their education about new concepts such as climate responsive design. Furthermore, time
constraints were perceived to limit community involvement largely to lobby groups.
Therefore, public meetings may not be the best way to obtain public input. One suggestion
was to utilize the services of UNBC to gauge public support for climate responsive design
(personal communication 1999). This would determine the level of priority, and thus
resources, allocated to pursuing the promotion, implementation, and evaluation of climatic
design in commercial redevelopment.
Finally, it takes time for the community to internalize goals laid out in the community
plan. Therefore, one councilor suggested there was not enough time for the design panel to
internalize goals of the 1993 Official Community Plan to improve climate responsive design
in the case studies. Furthermore, the development community, investors, and consumers
were not expected to have knowledge of these expectations (personal communication 1999).
Unfortunately, there were no pre-determined phases or timelines to accomplish the goals or
to promote awareness. As a result, there is no real way of determining the success or
efficiency of implementing climate responsive design.
Almost 40% of informants felt there was a lack of awareness about the commercial
redevelopment process. Consequently, developers view climate responsive design

84

suggestions as additional demands rather than as a part of the process. Therefore,
compliance with regulations and guidelines would be difficult to achieve on a consistent
basis. It is also difficult to incorporate landscaping principles because they are the last
component to be considered in the development of the site and budget (personal
communication 2000). Landscaping was perceived by many developers as a frill that does
not provide rent (personal communications 2000). Subsequently, landscaping is not
considered during the early stages of the design (Thayer 1984).
Another pre-approval participant suggested developers who lack experience with
commercial buildings feel that architects, planners, landscape architects, and engineers are an
‘unnecessary evil’ to deal with to get the building completed (personal communication
2000). Developers also do not seek interaction with planners prior to the Advisory Design
Panel meeting. Thus, by the time developers interact with the design panel, they are so far
along in the project, they are reluctant to make changes (personal communication 1999).
Finally, there is a perception the development community is confused as to where the
Advisory Design Panel’s comments fit into the process. Some developers may be more open
to design panel suggestions regarding climate responsive design, while others may ignore the
panel and put pressure on Council to approve the project for economic benefits to the
community.
Approximately 30% of participants felt there was no design panel member who could
offer sufficient advice about climate responsive design. Some participants felt it would be
appropriate to have a member sit on the Advisory Design Panel with a mandate to
specifically evaluate climate responsive design. This could include representation from the
Winter City Committee. Otherwise, a Community-at-Large Representative could be selected

85

who has knowledge about climate responsive design (See Appendix E). However, it was
debatable whether there should be experts, representation, or just someone willing to follow
guidelines.
Other barriers were noted by individual participants. For example, design panel
members need to be changed more regularly because their recommendations do not
necessarily gamer the same respect over time. If the membership changed, and the same
issues kept emerging, there would be more credibility and legitimacy associated with the
recommendations. There is also a lack of human resources to distribute responsibilities
throughout the process. While consultants could be a solution for sharing responsibilities,
one pre-approval participant felt they are not likely to become an option for design panels
because it puts too much onus on the design panel resource person to determine the
conditions from project to project when a consultant would be contacted (personal
communication 1999).
Regulation Barriers
Regulations provide the organizational framework for which policies will be
implemented. Standards and expectations must be clearly represented in regulations to
communicate with key change agents. However, there must be a willingness to enforce and
pursue changes in regulations in order to communicate that the City is serious about pursuing
climate responsive design. This section explores barriers that weaken the institutional
framework and reduce the ability of key change agents to implement climate responsive
design in commercial redevelopment (Table 7.8).

86

Table 7.8: Regulatory Barriers to Implement Climate Responsive Design Identified by
Participants
Regulation Barriers

Lack of Awareness o f Regulations / Guidelines
Lack of Sufficient Regulations
Regulations are not Enforced
Regulations Do Not Have Flexibility
Lack of Appropriate Regulatory Incentives
Lack of Sufficient ADP Guidelines
Regulations Add Additional Costs

Pre-Approval
Participants /
10
2
5
2
4
1
5
1

Councilors
/3
1
1
1
0
0
2
0

Total of
Respondents
/ 13
3
6
3
4
1
7
1

% of
Total
23.1
46.2
23.1
30.1
7.7

53.8
7.7

Source: Interview Participants, 1999-2000.

Over 50% of the participants felt there were insufficient guidelines for the Advisory
Design Panel to systematically review commercial projects. According to one pre-approval
participant, the City’s unwritten policy was “taking what you can get, never mind what it
looks like (personal communication 1999)”. Further, some participants did not feel the
design panel had the mandate to evaluate climate responsive design. If the design panel was
specifically given the mandate to evaluate climatic design, it would have more credibility to
question these issues.
Some participants identified a checklist as a useful tool for ensuring climate
responsive design is covered in the review of commercial projects (See Appendix E). The
checklist would also be handy for councilors to review the evaluations given to them.
Checklists have been developed in the past. For example, a checklist for individual building
projects was developed for the Central Business District Study in 1980 and included
orientation to the sun. Natural light penetration was encouraged for exterior walls, roofs,
courtyards, sky lights, and atriums. Tunnels, sky walks, elevated malls, and submerged malls
were also encouraged (A.E. LePage et al. 1980). In addition, bonusing provisions were
recommended for amenities such as set backs, sheltered walkways, landscape features,
skating rinks, and sculptures (A.E. LePage et al. 1980). However, one pre-approval

87

participant stated that the checklist rating system became complicated and cumbersome.
Regardless, the participant noted that at least a checklist may keep panel members on track
with reviewing climate responsive designs. Instituting clear guidelines into the design panel
mandate will also help developers understand where the City is going with respect to climate
responsive design (personal communication 1999). However, change efforts to develop a
regulatory framework to encourage climate responsive design will have to deal with fears
that regulations add costs to the project.
Just under half of the participants identified there were insufficient regulations. For
example, the 1993 Official Community Plan advocates the use of climate responsive design
as one of its major tenets:
“Prince George is a ‘Winter City.’ It is a member of the International Winter City
movement which now encompasses about 100 cities in more than 20 countries. It
shares northern characteristics and problems in an international circumpolar context.
Not only should design and infrastructure of the built environment reflect this fact but
the city can build upon the international ties to improve the cultural and social life of
the city. The City, in cooperation with the University of Northern British Columbia,
has an opportunity to educate and promote Winter City thinking (City of Prince
George 1997, 5)".
Yet, many participants noted that the community plan is unclear about how to achieve this
goal. The Official Community Plan tenet to promote winter city development was perceived
to be a ‘motherhood’ statement (personal communication 2000). Some participants
commented that many key players were not even sure what ‘winter city’ development meant.
This coincides with earlier arguments by Moore (1997) that there is a tendency to verbally
support initiatives without considering what will be required to implement them. The goals
were ambiguous or unknown; a problem also identified by Dunn (1997). Consequently, the
required activities and allocation of responsibilities to pursue implementation and evaluation
will also be unclear.

88

Second, some climate responsive design principles are inconsistently encouraged in
the Official Community Plan. For example, out of 16 development permit areas in the City,
snow management plans are only encouraged for commercial developments in the Victoria /
Patricia Commercial Development Permit Area as well as multi-family developments in
three development permit areas in sections 17.8, 17.9, and 17.10 (City of Prince George
1997). Bright colours are also encouraged for commercial developments in the Victoria /
Patricia Commercial Development Permit Area because “bright accents are especially
appreciated in winter (City of Prince George 1997, 115)”. However, it is unclear why these
principles are not encouraged in other development permit areas, including the downtown. It
is important to note that both case studies are in the Central Business District Permit Area.
Overall, regulations were perceived to be too general as they did not discourage or
encourage climate responsive design. Therefore, if regulatory tools are unclear, the required
action is also unclear. Zoning bylaws were felt to give everything away from the beginning.
Yet one pre-approval participant suggested if bylaws were more restrictive, the City would
improve its position to encourage climate responsive design. For example, set backs could
be required. If climate responsive design elements are added to the project, then the building
could encroach towards the property line (personal communication 2000). Zoning bylaws
were perceived to be the most important regulatory tool since they, along with development
permit requirements, communicate what needs to be included to the developer, designer, and
design panel.
Under 33% of participants cited there is a lack of flexibility built into the regulations.
There is a perception that zoning bylaws already have strict set back and parking
requirements for retail outlets that limit opportunities to incorporate higher densities, public

89

spaces, and landscaping into small scale redevelopment (personal communication 2000).
Consequently, buildings encroach the property line with little or no room left for landscaping
or public space.
However, the community plan affirms that commercial developments in the Central
Business Development Permit Area ‘should’ extend to the front and side property lines to
create a continuous streetscape “except where a public space as an amenity is provided in the
development (City of Prince George 1997, 94)”. This would leave some design decisions to
create climate responsive urban spaces to the discretion of the key players in the project.
One key informant suggested parking requirements could be reduced if the developer
promises to allocate that space for landscaping or walkways (See Appendix B). But perhaps
this last suggestion would conflict with developer fears that fewer parking spaces means
fewer customers.
On the other hand, according to Section 19.1 (2) ‘Projections into Yard
Requirements’ of the Prince George Zoning Bylaw, canopies may project into the front, side
or rear yard provided that “such projections do not exceed 1.20 m (4 feet) or 50 percent of
the width of a required yard, whichever is less (City of Prince George 1999, 183)”. This may
reduce difficulties for snow removal operations, as well as the growth of street trees.
However, the problem is that four feet may not be enough to provide adequate protection
from rain or snow for pedestrians. Additional measures would need to be taken to reduce ice
build up on sidewalks. This regulation played a role in the canopy designs of both the Sight
and Sound and the Computime projects.
However, there is also a perception regulations would impose of uniform set of rules
on everyone without flexibility. Subsequently, strict guidelines would hamper a designer’s

90

creativity and limit the number of options that may be used (personal communication 2000).
However, Whyte (1988) noted that ambiguity as to what the developer must provide is an
invitation to provide little. Tough guidelines would mean more freedom for the architect
(Whyte 1988).
Almost 25% of participants indicated there is a lack of awareness or an unclear
understanding about regulations and guidelines. Consequently, these regulations cannot be
utilized to their full potential. Further, if regulations are misunderstood, responsibilities
cannot be distributed and resources cannot be properly allocated.
There also appears to be confusion about what the Municipal Act allows communities
to do. There is a perception the Municipal Act does not allow municipalities to deal with the
colour, surface material, fencing, or aesthetics of a building in the permit process (personal
communications, 1999-2000). However, Section 976.6 of the Municipal Act allows
development permits to include requirements respecting “the character of the development,
including landscaping, and the siting, form, exterior design and finish of buildings and
stractures”. The Municipal Act does not define character. This is left up to the communities,
which should allow opportunities to deal with climate responsive design through the
development permit process.
In addition, Section 945.4 of the Municipal Act (Province of B.C. 1995) allows
official community plans to designate areas for the “establishment of objectives and the
provision of guidelines for the form and character of commercial, industrial or multi-family
residential development”. According to Section 945.4, the community plan should also
“describe the special conditions or objectives that justify the designation”, as well as the
guidelines by which the conditions will be alleviated; and how the objectives will be

91

achieved. This gives communities the opportunity to incorporate climate responsive design
guidelines into commercial redevelopment by designating an area in the community plan
where such ideas are to be encouraged.
Some participants were not familiar with the Municipal Act or the Official
Community Plan. Further, since councilors are not provided with information about the
climate responsive design guidelines, they may be unaware of climate responsive design
principles. Therefore, key players cannot use the regulatory tools effectively in reviewing or
developing designs for commercial projects.
In order for regulations and guidelines to be effective, there must be a strong will to
implement them on a regular basis. Interestingly, only nearly 25% of participants felt
regulations are not enforced. Section 3.8.3.2.1 of the B.C. Building Code states “walks to at
least one main entrance and all ancillary areas that are required to be accessible shall....(b)
have a permanent, firm and slip-resistant surface (Province of B.C. 1998, 160)”. One pre­
approval participant felt this included an area clear of ice and snow as well (personal
communication 2000). This regulation was felt to be rarely enforced in sidewalk designs.
Furthermore, another pre-approval participant noted many parking lots are not designed to
allow safe access for wheel chairs to front entrances under poor weather or icy conditions
(personal communication 2000).
Landscaping requirements are also not enforced on a consistent basis. For example,
building occupancy is not supposed to be obtained until after the landscaping is completed.
Yet there is a perception that some contractors complete the building at the beginning of
winter when it is too late to complete the landscaping. At times, the landscaping plan is
never finished (personal communication 2000).

92

On the other hand, a pre-approval participant felt there are no regulations governing
landscape bonds, and therefore, the City does not have the right to impose them. However,
Section 21.5 (1) of the Zoning Bylaw requires the developer to provide the City with a
security cheque or irrevocable letter of credit for the completed cost of the landscaping prior
to issuing the building permit. This lack of awareness of zoning bylaws reinforces that
requirements are not sufficiently communicated to key players.
Variances provide a loop hole for developers and designers to avoid meeting
guidelines. Variances may be given during economic downturns when the City is looking for
business development. Yet, if regulations can be so easily overturned, the regulations lose
their credibility and enforceability. Regardless, some participants noted a variance would be
easily approved if a developer wanted to install climate responsive design principles.
Less than 10% of respondents felt there was a lack of appropriate regulatory
incentives to encourage climate responsive design. One pre-approval participant felt there
are no developers building up to the density limits to offer the density bonusing incentives
provided for under Section 963 of the Municipal Act (personal communication 1999).
However, McPherson (1984b) noted that there are other regulatory incentives such as priority
processing of proposals or decreased development fees. Similar ideas may be pursued to
encourage climate responsive design.
Finally, under 10% of participants feared that stricter regulations would add costs.
For example, walkways with steps require hand railings. However, handrails are not required
“for exterior stairs having not more than three risers and serving not more than one dwelling
unit (Province of B.C. 1998, 283)”. A better understanding of the costs of climate responsive
design features is clearly needed.

93

Political Barriers
For implementation to be effective, there must be consistent compliance with the
goals and processes. Compliance may be challenged, however, by political agendas or by a
lack of power to influence compliance. This section describes four political barriers that
impede the incorporation of climate responsive design (Table 7.9).
Table 7.9: Political Barriers to Implement Climate Responsive Design Identified by
Participants
Political Barriers

Powerlessness
Conflict o f Interest
Political Pressure
Professional Territorial Politics

Pre-Approval
Participants /
10
5
1
2.
6

Councilors
/3
1
1
3
0

Total of
Respondents
/1 3
6
2
5
6

% of
Total
4&2
15.4
38.5
46.2

Source; Interview Participants, 1999-2000.

Almost half of the participants felt the design panel is powerless since their role is
only advisory and, therefore, they cannot enforce their recommendations. At times, when
projects were not recommended by the design panel, developers received approval from City
Council. Economic concerns are a priority and there is a perception that Council does not
pay much attention to the design panel comments, so why bother asking questions about
climate responsive design (personal communications 1999-2000).
However, the Sight and Sound case study provides an example where the design had
to be resubmitted for a second review to the design panel. In fact, landscaping was easier to
encourage with the developer because the original design was refused by the design panel.
The design panel was also able to persuade the owners to add an additional entrance on
Victoria Street. The Sight and Sound project could be a rare case where the design panel was
able to exert some influence. More case studies would be needed to determine the degree of
powerlessness that may exist.

94

There is reluctance to give the Advisory Design Panel more power. Since design
panel members are associated with the development community, questions arise as to
whether “they are all on the same side (personal communication 1999)”. There is also a
perception that more power for the design panel would add costs and hamper the creativity of
projects. Therefore, while some participants may feel powerless, others are not willing to
pursue power.
Nearly 50% of the participants cited a reluctance to share information across
professions. One participant felt the Architect’s Association in British Columbia does not
allow an architect to provide constructive criticism on a project unless it is being designed by
an architect (personal communication 2000). There was considerable debate about whether
commercial buildings should be designed by engineers. Participants questioned the ability of
their training to provide them with the knowledge to incorporate climate responsive design.
Subsequently, exchanging ideas about enhancing climate responsive design, and enhancing
on-the-job learning opportunities, may be affected by professional territorial politics.
Almost 40% of key informants felt political pressure inhibits the pursuit of climate
responsive design. This includes fear of neighbourhood reaction and being accused of
stifling development during economic downturns. Council also faces considerable pressure to
prevent delays that may cost the developer money. More complete economic information,
such as capital and operating costs, was felt to allow decision makers to offer a more
vigourous commentary on what might or might not be done (personal communication 2000).
[See Appendix E]. However, it was noted this information is unlikely to be obtained since
any information communicated to the City is in the public domain. Therefore, the disclosure
would erode a business’s competitive edge. In addition, questions would arise as to who

95

controls the numbers, and would estimates submitted to Council be accurate. One would
have to be sensitive that people may be manipulating the situation to suit their needs
(personal communication 2000). Another councilor felt it would be useful to have
information about the impact climate responsive design has on the human psyche, which
could be shared with special interest groups (personal communication 1999).
Two of the participants (15%) felt design panel members are reluctant to critique a
presenter’s proposal since often they were in competition for the same project. Panel
members also fear being critiqued the next time there is a change on the design panel.
Sometimes, design professionals have even worked on the project that is presented to the
design panel (personal communication 2000).
Information Barriers
This section examines three barriers that reduce the implementation of climate
responsive design principles (Table 7.10). The most significant barrier is simply a lack of
exchange of information. As one pre-approval participant noted, “you’re the first person that
I’ve ever talked to about that (personal communication 2000)”. Design professionals and
construction associations, who may possess knowledge about climate responsive design, do
not offer advice of this topic during the review process. Further, one pre-approval participant
felt that architects do not share information in order to ensure you pay for their consulting
services (personal communication 2000).

96

Table 7.10: Information Barriers to Implement Climate Responsive Design Identified by
Participants
Information Barriers

Climate Data is not Used for Urban Design
Climate Data is not Useable for Urban Design
Lack of Exchange of Information

Pre-Approval
Participants /
10
2
2
8

Councilors

B
0
0
2

Total o f
Respondents
/1 3
2
2
10

% of
Total
15.4
15.4
76.9

Source: Interview Participants, 1999-2000.

Regardless, such exchange has already proved successful for other types of
information. For example, participants noted that after knowledge about crime prevention
through environmental design was shared, more members would question the developer and
the designer about it, even though the RCMP representative was present (personal
communications 1999-2000). Thus, it provides a good learning situation for members who
sit on the panel.
It also appears that information about climate responsive design is not shared between
design professionals and the developer. For example, one developer did not receive a choice
of landscaping options (personal communication 2000). Unfortunately, the developer did not
have background information about the benefits and principles of climatic design when they
are formulating the project.
Participants reported that at times there were very few Advisory Design Panel
comments. Comments were expected to reflect the expertise of the design panel at a given
time, their familiarity with the project, as well as their interest in the project. For example, if
there are more engineers on the design panel, there tends to be a focus on engineering issues.
Another example raised was how the security issues raised changed depending on the gender
of the RCMP representative on the design panel at the time (personal communication 1999).
However, if the process depends on the attendance or expertise of design panel members at a

97

given time, problems of consistency and compliance with implementing climate responsive
design will arise. As Yeung etal. (1999) notes, ideas should outlive individuals, becoming
part of an organization’s culture.
It is also difficult to convey ideas to the developer and members of the Advisory
Design Panel because everyone uses a different vocabulary. Professional vocabulary has also
changed over time, making it difficult to even communicate to professionals within the same
field. To maintain a current vocabulary, one pre-approval participant felt professionals must
be exposed to university level material, which was felt to have been difficult for
professionals in Prince George.
Finally, information was not shared with special interest groups resulting in a lack of
understanding about the costs and work involved with landscaping. For example, sometimes
there is criticism of the cost of installing trees in a commercial landscape. The public,
however, are trying to relate the cost of planting a tree in their backyard to the cost of
planting a tree in a commercial setting. Without an exchange of information, public support
for the legitimacy of such initiatives will be slow to evolve.
Two of the key informants (15%) identified that climate data is both not used, nor
useable, for urban design. Key informants noted most of the data used comes from the
supplement in the building code. Other participants could not recall any data used to design
urban spaces. Another key informant acknowledged they do not look at data to maximize
solar gains. Designers are more concerned with keeping the sunshine out of buildings.
Consequently, designers only consider how climate may affect specific buildings and not
urban spaces between buildings.

98

One participant noted designers do not use detailed wind data for specific sites
because applying wind data to particular locations is really difficult (personal communication
2000). Climate data is also viewed to be too technical and not easily understandable. It is
interesting, however, that participants did not discuss the availability or costs of data, which
have been barriers identified in the past (Pressman 1989; Phillips 1988; Herrington 1984a;
McPherson 1984a). The lack of familiarity and use of data necessary to design climate
responsive urban spaces may stem from a lack of interest about climate responsive design. It
may also stem from the perception that developers and design professionals do not perceive
they are responsible for these spaces. Thus, they lack experience in dealing with climate
responsive design related to these spaces. On the other hand, since most development is low
density, there may be a reduced need to pursue the collection of certain detailed climate data,
such as data for solar and wind impact statements, depending on local climate conditions.
While key players may not be familiar with climate data, winter renditions of
architectural drawings, as well as graphic display tools, were recommended as ways to help
educate the development community, as well as encouraging the designer to think about
climate responsive design (See Appendix E). However, support for this suggestion may face
challenges from developer fears over spending extra money on the design.
Maintenance Barriers
Almost 50% of the informants cited poor survivability of landscaping as a barrier to
some climate responsive design principles (Table 7.11). One pre-approval participant felt
few plants can survive road salt, pollution, and abuse, thereby reducing the type of plants
used. Other participants noted that landscaping is damaged by heavy snow cover, vehicles,
pedestrians, and snow removal equipment. Once the plants die, however, the owner is less

99

likely to replace them. However, little is known about the range of plants that will survive in
Prince George (Rayment 2000). Canopy posts are also sometimes damaged from vehicles
and snow removal equipment because the posts are not set back enough from the curbs.
Problems can also be caused by freeze-thaw processes that move ornamental bricks around.
Table 7.11: Maintenance Barriers to Implement Climate Responsive Design Identified by
Participants
Maintenance Barriers

Additional Maintenance
Survivability
Deferred Benefits

Pre-Approval
Participants /
10
3
5
3

Councilors

13
0
1
0

Total of
Respondents
/1 3
3
6
3

% of
Total
23T
4&2
23.1

Source: Interview Participants, 1999-2000.

Nearly 25% of participants cited climate responsive design as difficult to implement
because of the maintenance required for landscaping as well as the clean up required for
garbage and waste. Almost 25% of key players felt there is a perceived lack of benefits from
landscaping, something which reduces the desire to have them. For example, a developer is
not willing to wait for a tree to grow tall enough to provide shading benefits for urban spaces
because the developer may not own the building in “ten or fifteen years (personal
communication 2000)”. In addition, signage cannot be seen in the summer time because the
leaves cover them. Another participant noted that ground level planters cannot be seen when
it snows. Therefore, developers are less likely to purchase them.
Security / Safety Barriers
Almost 40% of participants felt some climate responsive design principles may lead
to more opportunity for crime (Table 7.12). Evergreen trees may create security problems by
providing places for people to hide, as well as reducing the visibility of drivers (personal
communication 2000). Multiple entrances and windows can be a security concern for store

100

owners who fear theft. Finally, there is a concern with stolen plants (personal
communication 2000).
Table 7.12: Security / Social Barriers to Implement Climate Responsive Design Identified by
Participants
Security / Social Barriers

Increased Crime Activity
Limiting Street-Level Activity
Attract “The Wrong Kind o f People”

Pre-Approval
Participants /
10
4
2
3

Councilors
/3
1
1
0

Total of
Respondents
/ 13
5
3
3

% of
Total
3K5
23d
23.1

Source: Interview Participants, 1999-2000.

Skywalks and pedestrian streets were perceived to limit street-level activity by just
under 25% of participants. Skywalks were noted to be accessed through private property and
are not accessible after business hours. Another perception exists that pedestrian streets end
up being empty because shoppers prefer automobile accessible areas close to stores (personal
communication 2000). An additional quarter of informants felt climate responsive spaces
attract the “wrong kind of people” who stay for long periods of time in front of stores or
leave garbage and human waste. This requires more time and money to maintain these
spaces.
Conclusion
Participant responses indicate there is a weak regulatory and structural framework to
pursue the implementation of climate responsive design principles in commercial
redevelopment. Indications of an insufficient design panel mandate, along with different
perceptions of who is responsible to promoting, creating, and maintaining climate responsive
spaces, demonstrate an unclear understanding of who is responsible for the urban spaces
between buildings. But perhaps even more critical is the lack of awareness and
understanding about the potential of using regulatory tools to encourage the implementation

101

of climate responsive design. Given that the majority of key informants did not identify there
were insufficient regulations, lack of flexibility, or lack of awareness of regulations perhaps
provides an additional indication of a lack of interest to pursue climate responsive design.
Concern over financial barriers such as cost, fear of taxes, and economic loss, were a further
signal of a lack of will on the part of those who design or pay for climate responsive urban
spaces. This will reduce efforts to pursue or comply with climate responsive design
guidelines and regulations as local council and design panel feel pressured to negotiate for
whatever they can in order to maintain economic growth and jobs. Therefore, political and
financial barriers have an impact on the compliance with goals and processes to pursue the
change effort.

7,4 Institutional Barriers to Evaluating Change
Data for evaluating on-going efforts in the commercial redevelopment process may
be collected as each project is reviewed by the design panel or approved by Council. The
process also re-examines its goals, objectives, and achievements, with community
involvement during the development of a new community plan. The 1993 Prince George
Official Community Plan specified a ten to fifteen year timeframe as a basis for the
community plan (City of Prince George 1993). This suggests a timeline for assessing goals
and objectives, as well as assessing the success of implementing criteria through guidelines.
This section explores regulatory, psychological, and structural barriers to evaluating progress
in incorporating climate responsive design in commercial redevelopment (Table 7.13).

102

Table 7.13: Barriers to Evaluating Change for Climate Responsive Design Identified by
Participants
Barriers

Pre-Approval
Participants /
10

Councilors
/3

Total of
Respondents
/ 13

5
5

1
2

6
7

46.2

3
6
7

3
1
1

6
7
8

4&2
518

0

1

1

7.7

% of
Total

Regulation Barriers
Insufficient regulations
Lack of design panel guidelines

Structural Barriers
Lack o f time to engage in the process
Few design professionals
Unclear roles and responsibilities

61.5

Psychological Barriers
Status Quo - no need for evaluation
Source; Interview Participants, 1999-2000.

Regulatory Barriers
Participant responses indicate there is an insufficient regulatory framework in place
from which to base an evaluation of the change effort. Evaluation must be based on clearly
outlined goals, objectives, and guidelines that provide clear markers to evaluate change.
Some barriers to implementing change have already been identified. However, these are also
barriers to evaluating change. For example, it was unclear what the winter city tenet in the
community plan meant, as well as how they would be achieved. In addition, there were no
guidelines for design panel members to follow to implement climate responsive design. This
would also have provided criteria upon which to base an evaluation. Furthermore,
regulations and guidelines were viewed as too general (personal communication 2000).
Consequently, the required action for implementation, and consequently evaluation, was also
unclear.
As noted earlier, some participants identified a checklist as a useful tool for ensuring
climate responsive design is covered in the review of commercial projects (Appendix E). A
checklist would also allow for a consistent review of projects that could provide clearly
defined parameters for an evaluation. One councilor felt the design panel could meet once a

103

year to review the guidelines or checklist (personal communication 1999). However, as one
pre-approval participant stated earlier, a checklist was tried in the past but the rating system
became complicated and some panel members did not take the time to fill them out (personal
communication 1999). A report card was recommended by a councilor to reinforce that the
objectives laid out in the guidelines are being developed and followed by members of the
design panel (personal communication 1999). This would help to evaluate the effectiveness
of new initiatives to incorporate climate responsive design principles. However, if there are
concerns about developing and filling out a checklist, there would also be difficulties using a
report card as an evaluation method.
Structural Barriers
One councilor noted that greater discussion and communication on a more regular
basis is needed to ensure that expectations reflected in the Official Community Plan are being
met (personal communication 1999). However, if there is a lack of human resources and
time available to pursue the implementation of climate responsive design, there may also be a
lack of human resources to conduct an evaluation of the process. Volunteering for the
Advisory Design Panel presents a time constraint for design professionals (personal
communication 1999-2000). With so many key players being concerned about the lack of
time they have to engage in implementing climate responsive design, there is a lack of human
resources to distribute responsibilities throughout the process.
Psychological Barriers
One councilor feels there needs to be a focus on the goal rather than on the process.
Individuals get caught up in the process, but then times change and issues change. There
becomes a tendancy to do “things because we've done them instead of saying why we're

104

doing them, and realizing that in fact it's not an issue anymore (personal communication
1999)”. Therefore, there may be a reluctance to embark on an evaluation process.
Conclusion
An incomplete evaluation process results in a loss of connection between the cause
and effect of policies and actions (Moore 1997). Without clear goals, objectives, regulations
and guidelines, there are no markers for key players to evaluate their efforts and ensure
climate responsive design principles are incorporated on a regular basis. In essence, without
an evaluation process there is no way of discovering the root cause of barriers so that
adjustments can be made.

7.5 Discussion
Findings indicate a range of barriers to initiating change towards climate responsive
design. While barriers to initiating change must not be underestimated, since they have a
profound impact on the ability of key players to proceed with the change effort, my research
demonstrates that most of the institutional barriers identified by key informants emerge
during the implementation phase. Most of the barriers for evaluating change stem from
problems encountered during implementation because without clear goals, objectives,
regulations and guidelines, there are no clear markers about what can be assessed. The
purpose of this discussion is to integrate the institutional barriers identified by participants
with the framework developed in Table 2.2. This section will also discuss limitations that
affect the validity and generalizability of the results.

105

Initiating Change
The first step to initiating change is to identify the problem. Results indicate,
however, that the problem of poorly designed climate responsive urban spaces may not be
taken seriously (Table 7.14). With little competition, there is a feeling that if you build it,
people will come anyways. Thus, there is no need to spend extra money on frills. When this
is combined with the fact that councilors have not requested any information regarding
climate responsive design, there is a lack of the legitimacy to pursue change (Agocs 1997).
Second, key players must identify the change needed to deal with the problem. A
lack of interest prevents key players from moving forward. If a problem is not perceived to
be significant, or if the change is perceived to be too drastic or unnecessary, there is little
impetus to pursue steps for initiating change.
Once the target of change has been identified, people must be assigned to plan and
implement change. Findings indicate that confusion over roles and responsibilities may
inhibit the implementation of climate responsive design. Finally, key players must have the
knowledge and skills about climate responsive design and the commercial redevelopment
process in order to develop the regulatory and structural framework to implement and
evaluate efforts to incorporate these principles. Otherwise, as Dunn (1997) indicated, change
may be stalled through ignorance. Unfortunately, results indicate that an education program
still needs to be undertaken in Prince George to enable key informants to acquire this
knowledge.
Educational opportunities, such as seminars and courses, need to be organized to
enable key change agents to attend under the time constraints that accompany their working
environment. Further changes, such as lower registration fees and more educational

106

opportunities, will also be needed. Limited resources and time constraints create a nonconducive learning environment for key change agents that limits their ability to question
their surroundings (Argyris 1997). This may prevent them from identifying problems, as
well as the change needed to solve the problem - two important steps to initiating change
(Kettner et al. 1985). This in turn affects their ability to take on responsibilities to implement
climate responsive design through the commercial redevelopment.
Table 7.14: A Framework for Institutional Barriers to Initiating Change for Climate
Responsive Design
Identify the
Problem

Identify the Change
Needed

• Lack o f interest /
no need for change
• Fear of being
singled out
• Convenience
matters
• Community
maturity

• Lack o f interest /
no need for change

Identify the Target
of Change
No barriers

Identify People to
Plan / Implement
Change
Roles and
responsibilities are
unclear

Acquire Knowledge
and Skills
• Lack of
awareness
• Lack of
educational
opportunities
• Opportunities not
promoted
• Opportunities do
not recognize local
needs
• Organizational
barriers to
opportunities
• Lack o f exchange
of information
• Lack o f funds for
education
opportunities
• NGOs lack funds
• Publication costs

Implementing Change
The first step to implementing change is to develop goals and objectives that
ultimately lead to the development of regulations and guidelines. Since participants
indicated the goal of encouraging winter city development is unclear, it will be difficult to
develop regulations, design panel guidelines, and programs to address climate responsive
design issues. It will also be difficult to allocate responsibilities to implement and monitor

107

changes (Table 7.15). Regardless, clear regulations and guidelines are important because
they communicate community expectations that act as a barometer of their willingness to
enforce and pursue changes.
Findings also indicated a lack of awareness of the regulatory tools available through
the Municipal Act, the Official Community Plan, and the Climate Sensitive Design
Guidelines to encourage the implementation of climate responsive design in commercial
projects. Results indicate that a lack of awareness about the Municipal Act, for example,
inhibits the inclusion of climate responsive design principles in the development of
appropriate local regulations and guidelines. There was also confusion about required
elements of the design panel review, as well as where design panel comments fit into the
process. Consequently, it is apparent that greater efforts are needed to communicate
regulations and process requirements to all key players.
Furthermore, if new concepts including climate responsive design are not included in
the mandate of the design panel, it will remain unclear who has the responsibility and
credibility to ensure implementation or evaluation. Structural barriers will have to be
examined to produce a more suitable framework for implementing and evaluating the
incorporation of climatic design. The lack of design professionals in the community, and
insufficient membership on the design panel with experience in this area, may not have
surfaced before since most research surrounding climate responsive design issues has been
conducted in larger urban centres.
Regulations and guidelines must be implemented within the constraints of available
resources. Financial barriers can also create opposition to creating climate responsive spaces,
particularly if developers fear these improvements will increase their taxes or reduce

108

Table 7.15; Summary of Institutional Barriers to Implementing Change in Climate
Responsive Design Identified by Participants
Develop Goals /
Objectives
• Lack of
sufficient
regulations

Develop
Regulations /
Guidelines
• Lack of
sufficient
regulations
• Regulations do
not have flexibility
• Lack of ADP
guidelines
• Lack of
awareness o f the
process
• Lack of
awareness of
regulations /
guidelines
• Lack of
regulatory
incentives

Formalize
Responsibilities

Allocate Human /
Financial Resources

Implement / Monitor the
Change

• Roles /
responsibilities
unclear

• Lack o f human
resources
• Lack of design
professionals
• Insufficient
membership on
design panel
• Lack o f time to
engage in the process

• Regulations are not
enforced
• Regulations add costs
• Climate data not used /
useable
• Lack o f exchange o f
information
• Climate responsive
design too expensive
• Climate responsive
design can be done in the
future
• Additional costs for
labour / studies
• Lack o f capital
• Fear o f more taxes
• Fear o f economic loss
• Jobs are a higher
priority
• Perception special
interest groups add costs
• Membership does not
change
• Political pressure
• Powerlessness
• Conflict o f interest
• Professional territorial
politics
• Additional maintenance
• Survivability of
landscaping
• Deferred benefits
• Increased crime activity
• Limiting street-level
activity
• Attract “wrong kind of
people”_________________

the amount of customer parking spaces. Consequently, compliance with goals and
processes will be difficult to maintain over long periods of time if costs are perceived to
be too high (Bregha 1992; Pountney and Kingsbury 1983).
Further, helping to secure jobs and maximize economic returns is a priority for all
key players working in a vulnerable resource economy, including local decision makers

109

who feel political pressure to avoid being accused to stifling development (Agocs 1997;
Filion 1997; Moore 1997; Beer 1983). Information about how climate responsive design
contributes to the financial success of commercial businesses in large and small urban
environments is needed.
Evaluating Change
Many of the barriers already noted continue to play a role in limiting the ability to
evaluate change (Table 7.16). If there are insufficient regulations and guidelines, or
unclear goals and objectives, there are no criteria on which to base an evaluation of the
change effort. Further, it is critical to have sufficient human resources with the time and
the skill to conduct a rigorous evaluation. Unfortunately, findings indicate there is a lack
of expertise and time to embark on an evaluation process.
Table 7.16: Summary of Institutional Barriers to Evaluating Change in Climate
Responsive Design
Identify Goals /
Objectives to be
Assessed
• Insufficient
regulations

Select Criteria for
Evaluation

Select Evaluation
Design

• Insufficient
regulations
• Lack o f ADP
guidelines

• Status Quo - no
need for evaluation

Conduct Evaluation
- Use Standard
Process
• Lack o f time to
engage in the
process.
• Few design
professionals.
• Lack o f human
resources.
• Unclear roles /
responsibilities

Distribute Results /
Make Adjustments
No barriers

110

Generalizing the Results
While participants received the design panel comments and report to Council
prior to the interview, some interviewees appeared to not have reviewed the material.
Therefore, some participants were not as prepared for the interview and this may have
affected the collection of information. The reliability of the research may also have been
affected by participants’ ability to recollect events from the case studies. Consequently,
some references to barriers were generalities not directly stemming from the case study
experience. Some examples include feelings of powerlessness, conflict of interest,
political pressure, and costs of climate responsive design features. Further research will
be needed to gauge the extent of these individual problems as they pose challenges for
pursuing climate responsive design in commercial redevelopment.
Participants also had different interpretations of the problems, concepts, and
boundaries of the interview questions and this had an influence on responses. For
example, individuals had different responses to whether or not they were exposed to
climate responsive design based on their perception of what climate responsive design
was. Therefore, the accuracy, validity, and replicability of the study will be affected by
different interviewee interpretations of the subject under discussion, including the
boundaries of the subject, namely urban design. Sometimes, responses were not based on
factual understanding, but on the probability that a situation existed. As one participant
noted, there probably were educational opportunities, however, he / she could not identify
any. Often in interview situations, individuals may be eager to make a good impression,
and as a result, exaggerate their experiences or accomplishments (Rubin and Rubin
1995). This will also impact the accuracy and validity of the results.

111

Most importantly, while the case study design identifies sets of barriers there is
the question of whether they are unique to the case study (Eisenhardt 1995). Further
quantitative research is needed to gauge the extent or significance of barriers identified in
this thesis. The results do provide a foundation for comparative studies in other small
and medium size urban centres, something which will help build and test theories about
institutional barriers to climate responsive design.

112

Chapter Eight: Conclusion
8.1 Introduction
Previous literature identified the need for research on the steps required to change
public policy to reflect designs for winter living (Pressman 1999b, 1989). Since much of
the research on climate responsive design has been conducted in large urban centres,
there was also a need to explore this design issue in smaller cities (Broadway n.d.).
Through on-going commercial redevelopment, Prince George, B.C., has had an
opportunity to implement climate responsive designs. It can do this because development
proposals require review by the Advisory Design Panel and approval by City Council.
Despite a number of redevelopment proposals, few climate responsive design principles
have yet been incorporated.
A comparative case study methodology was used to examine institutional barriers
impeding the incorporation of climate responsive design in commercial redevelopment in
Prince George. The use of multiple sources of evidence, including open-ended
interviews of two case studies, regulations, policies, site designs, climate data, and
previous literature were used to enhance the validity of the research by triangulation. The
open-ended interviews were conducted with key informants who were especially able to
provide insightful information surrounding the research questions.
8.2 Summary of Findings
First, key informants were asked what they knew about climate responsive design.
Beyond canopies and southern orientation of buildings and spaces, participants had a
limited awareness of climate responsive design principles. Most other climate responsive
design principles were identified by one or two individuals. Clearly, an organizational

113

learning process has not taken place. Change efforts to encourage climate responsive
design will be dependent on a few individuals who may face a number of competing
priorities and time constraints.
Second, key informants were asked how climate responsive design principles
were incorporated or not incorporated into two commercial redevelopment projects.
Findings indicate they did not apply the limited knowledge they possessed about climate
responsive design to the Computime and Sight and Sound case studies. There were also
discrepancies between concerns informants felt were raised during the design panel
review with those actually noted in the design panel minutes. If knowledge is not
exchanged about climate responsive design, then organizational learning cannot take.
Moreover, if organizational learning does not occur, then ideas cannot become part of the
institution. Rather ideas will emerge and dissipate, as there is turnover among local key
players in the process.
Finally, key informants were asked to identify institutional barriers to climate
responsive design in commercial redevelopment. Their responses indicate there is a
complex set of problems and barriers. There is a lack of awareness about climate
responsive design that is difficult for key players to overcome with limited educational
opportunities. An orientation program for key players would be useful to both spread
awareness about these principles and help internalize the goals and objectives laid out in
the Official Community Plan. Yet, the impetus for change may be stalled through a lack
of interest from developers, design professionals, and councilors. This is largely a result
of fear of political pressure, financial concerns over climate responsive design features, or
fear by developers that they will be penalized through the mill rate tax system.

114

Consequently, there is little motivation to learn more about climate responsive design or
to initiate change.
Findings suggest there is a lack of sufficient regulations and guidelines to
implement change. More clearly detailed zoning bylaws and guidelines must be
integrated into the implementation process because they act as a barometer as to how
serious the community is about pursuing change towards a sustainable, comfortable, and
livable environment. There are relatively few design professionals working in Prince
George, with the result that many of these individuals serve for long periods on the
Advisory Design Panel. For some, it may result in volunteer bum out, loss of morale, or
discouragement. However, with so few professionals willing to serve, there is also a
reluctance to offer too much criticism. This inhibits the exchange of information and
organizational learning about climate responsive design. Greater attention must be paid
to what is required to implement climate responsive design through improved human and
financial resources during the review and approval process. Dealing with structural
barriers, such as creating more clear guidelines, and roles and responsibilities for key
players, will be critical if change is to be sustained.
Perhaps more importantly, findings suggest insufficient regulations and guidelines
do not provide clear markers on which to base an evaluation. Responses also indicate
that a lack of time, a lack of interest, and confusion over roles and responsibilities will
inhibit the evaluation process that could lead to on-going learning. Nevertheless, an
evaluation process must emerge to gauge whether the goals to make Prince George a
viable, sustainable, winter community are being met.

115

8.3 Future Research
Future research is needed on how to facilitate change towards a greater
incorporation of climate responsive design in commercial redevelopment. First, key
informants indicated climate responsive landscaping principles are just becoming part of
the professional vocabulary even though there is significant literature on this subject.
Since there is a perceived lack of educational opportunities, research is needed to
evaluate the range, quality, cost, and frequency of educational opportunities available to
key change agents. For example, there could be a study into how professional
organizations, such as architectural or engineering professional organizations, provide
educational opportunities at annual conferences or seminars to professionals about
climate responsive design issues. It is especially important to evaluate opportunities for
life-long learning that can incorporate climate responsive design principles.
However, participants noted it is important to present material in a concise
manner as a result of time constraints. Further research could be done to examine how
key change agents best respond to different educational mediums that present information
about climate responsive design. This information would help researchers and
organizations understand where to best communicate research results to promote climate
responsive design principles, applications, and methodologies.
Further research may also be done to understand the degree to which climate
responsive design is included in the training and educational standards set out by
professional organizations. Such information would be useful to improve the allocation
and target of educational initiatives, as well as determine the legitimacy of concerns that
some design professionals are not yet trained to incorporate climate responsive design.

116

Change efforts may also fail if the problem is poorly understood or not properly
defined. More research is needed on how spaces are used throughout the year.
Otherwise, as my findings suggest, a perception will persist that there is no need for
change. Thus far, few have examined the use of space under various weather and climate
conditions (Li 1994; Culjat and Erskine 1988). It is important to understand what people
think about climate responsive design features, as well as whether such features change
their use of space. There needs to be research to gauge public support for allocating
resources, time, and energy to pursue climate responsive design.
Furthermore, research needs to investigate the relationship between injuries and
health conditions, and climate responsive urban spaces. Unfortunately, health statistics
are not collected in Prince George for data concerning seasonal affective disorders or
injuries resulting from slipping on icy sidewalks. This limits the ability of key players to
define the need for climate responsive design in commercial redevelopment. Studies
could also examine the extent to which climate responsive design principles provide
opportunities for crime.
Since informants identified there is a lack of incentives to incorporate climate
responsive design, research could also be conducted with communities of similar size to
learn whether / how they have used density bonusing or other amenity zoning incentives
to encourage climate responsive design features in commercial redevelopment. For
example, what is the extent, use, and success of priority processing proposals or
decreased development fees? Further, do developers and designers have suggestions for
workable incentives?

117

More cost-benefit analysis studies are needed to understand how climate
responsive design features impact the capital costs, operational costs, and
competitiveness of a business. While, it would be difficult to control for the effects
multiple variables such as location, competition, or economic recessions may have on
consumer shopping patterns, it is none-the-less crucial to develop effective economic
arguments for the long run value of climate responsive design. Moreover, winter damage
and theft to landscaped areas in commercial development areas could be examined to
assess the financial costs that may influence the developer’s decision to replace
landscaping. Since there is a fear that climate responsive landscaping would mean fewer
parking spaces, and that fewer parking spaces would mean fewer customers, research
could examine the impact parking spaces may have on consumer shopping patterns.
Since respondents felt regulations would add costs to any project, studies could be
done to examine which principles are acceptable or unacceptable to be regulated through
the experience of other large and small urban centres. Moreover, research could examine
the extent to which landscaping requirements are not enforced. If they are not enforced,
studies could determine if this was due to a lack of human resources, insufficient
regulations, or financial costs. Studies could also evaluate the use and success of a
checklist rating system for incorporating climate responsive design principles in other
urban centres. Further, since some respondents felt variances provide a loop hole to
avoid meeting landscaping guidelines, research could determine the extent to which
variances are given to improve or avoid landscaping.
Finally, feelings of powerlessness need to be explored to assess the degree to
which panel recommendations are supported or not supported by Council. This

118

information would be particularly useful since feelings of powerlessness appear to
prevent panel members from asking questions about climate responsive design. Further
case studies in other communities will also help to explore the generalizability of barriers
identified in this research. Together, these research opportunities will help to spur
continued progress towards a greater incorporation of climate responsive design
principles into commercial redevelopment.
8.4 Closing Comment
The greatest benefit of this research is that it provides a new direction for local
decision makers to explore ways to improve the incorporation of climate responsive
design in commercial redevelopment in Prince George. The study was able to provide
insight into educational opportunities regarding climate responsive design that have been
under utilized by key local players. It has been able to explore perceptions and attitudes
surrounding climate responsive features, as well as specific problems related to
exchanging information about climate responsive design to facilitate an informed review
of commercial projects. Many of these barriers may not have been as apparent in
previous research since larger centres benefit from having more financial and human
resources, which play a huge role in allocating responsibilities in the change process. For
those interested in pursuing climate responsive design, this thesis provides a basic
understanding of the current structural and political environment for which further
research and information can be gathered to overcome some of these institutional
barriers.

119

BIBLIOGRAPHY
A.E. LePage, G.D. Hamilton & Associates Ltd., D. Parker, and the City of Prince George
Planning Department. 1980. Central Business District Study: Volume One Goals and
Issues. City of Prince George.
Agocs, C. 1997. Institutional Resistance to Organizational Change; Denial, Inaction,
and Repression. Journal o f Business Ethics 16 (9): 1-15.
Argyris, C. 1997. Initiating Change That Perseveres. American Behavioural Scientist
40(3): 299-309.
Atmospheric Environment Service. 1973. Prince George, B.C.: 1972 Annual
Meteorgological Summary. Atmospheric Environment Service, Environment Canada.
Baird, M. 2000. Fall threatens life of man in wheelchair: Blames snow-covered
sidewalks for his brush with death. The Telegram (St.John’s), 16 December 16, Final
Edition, p.4.
B.C. Assessment. 1997. Real Property Assessment and Taxation in B.C. Factsheet.
Province of British Columbia.
Beer, A. 1983. Development Control and Design Quality: Part 2: Attitudes to Design.
Town Planning Review 54 (4): 383-404.
Bematzky, A. 1982. The Contribution of Trees and Open Space to a Town Climate.
Energy and Buildings 5 (1): l-IO.
Bregha, F. 1992. Institutional Barriers to Environmental Information. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 20: 191-200.
Broadway, M. n.d. Downtown Winter City Urban Design: An Assessment o f Duluth and
Thunder Bay. Marquette: Northern Michigan University. Unpublished.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. 2002. http://www.cmhcschl.gc.ca/boutique/en/.
Carley, K. and J. Harr aid. 1997. Organizational Learning Under Fire: Theory and
Practice. American Behavioral Scientist 40 (3): 310-332.
Chandler, T. 1976. Urban Climatology and its Relevance to Urban Design. Geneva:
World Meteorological Organization. Technical Note No. 149. WMO No. 438.
Citizen Staff. 1994. The Downtown Question. The Prince George Citizen, 11 October,
p. 8.

120

Coleman, P. 2001. Pedestrian Mobility in Winter. Winter Cities 20 (1): 10-13.
Comfort, L. 1997. Models of Change; A Dialogue Between Theory and Practice.
American Behavioral Scientist 40 (3): 259-263.
Culjat, B. and R. Erskine. 1988. Climate responsive Social Space; A Scandanavian
Perspective. In Cities Designed fo r Winter, edited by J. Manty and N. Pressman, 347364. Helsinki: Building Book Ltd.
De Schiller, S. and J. Evans. 1990/1991. Bridging the Gap between Climate and Design
at the Urban and Building Scale: Research and Application. Energy and Buildings 15-16
(1-2): 51-55.
Dunin-Woyseth, H. 1990. Genius-loci: planning and the winter dimension. Town
Planning Review 61 (3): 341-365.
Dunn, W. 1997. Probing the Boundaries of Ignorance in Policy Analysis. American
Behavioral Scientist 40 (3): 277-298.
Eisenhardt, K. 1995. Building Theories from Case Study Research. In Longitudinal
Field Research Methods: Studying Processes o f Organizational Change, edited by G.
Huber and A. Van de Yen, 65-90. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Environment Canada. 1998. Canadian Climate Normals for Prince George 1961-1990.
http://www.cmc.ec.gc.ca/climate/normals/BCP016.HTM.
Evans, M. and S. De Schiller. 1994. Climate, Outdoor Space and Design. Architecture
and Behaviour 10(1): 123-128.
Filion, P. 1997. The Weight of the System: The Effects of Institutional Structures on
Planners' Creativity and Flexibility. Plan Canada January: 11-15.
Frey, J. and S. Oishi. 1995. How to Conduct Interviews By Telephone and in Person.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Gilchrist, V. 1999. Key Informant Interviews. In Qualitative Research: Volume One,
edited by A. Bryman and R. Burgess, 354-371. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Givoni, B. 1998. Climate Considerations in Building and Urban Design. New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Givoni, B. 1987. The Effect of Heat Capacity in Direct-Gain Buildings. Passive Solar
Journal 4 (1): 25-40.
Guterbock, T. 1990. The Effects of Snow on Urban Density Patterns in the United
States. Environment and Behaviour 22 (3): 358-386.

121

Halseth, G. 1998. Cottage Country in Transition: A Social Geography o f Change and
Contention in the Rural-Recreational Countryside. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s
University Press.
Hanen, H. and Associates. 1999. Seasonal Adaptability Study. City of Prince George.
Heffron, F. 1989. Organization Theory and Public Organizations: The Political
Connection. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Herrington, L. 1984a. Climatic Analysis. Energy-Conserving Site Design, edited by E.
G. McPherson, 79-86. Washington, D C.: American Society of Landscape Architects.
Herrington, L. 1984b. Climatic Variables. Energy-Conserving Site Design, edited by E.
G. McPherson, 59-78. Washington, D C.: American Society of Landscape Architects.
Hootman, R. and P. Kelsey. 1992. Woody Plants and Roadway Salt: An Urban
Dilemma. The Morton Arboretum Quarterly 28 (3): 45-48.
Hough Stansbury Woodland, Ltd. 1990. Winter Cities. City of Sault Ste. Marie,
Ontario.
Hutcheon, N. 1971. Buildings fo r the Canadian Climate. Technical Paper No. 336.
Ottawa: National Research Council of Canada, Division of Building Research.
Hycner, R. 1999. Some Guidelines for the Phenomenological Analysis of Interview
Data. In Qualitative Research: Volume One, edited by A. Bryman and R. Burgess, 143164. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Jones, B. and T. Oreszczyn. 1987. The Effects of Shelterbelts on Microclimate and on
Passive Solar Gains. Building and Environment 22 (2): 101-110.
Keeble, E., M. Collins, and J. Ryser. 1990/1991. The Potential of Land-Use Planning
and Development Control to Help Achieve Favourable Microclimates around Buildings:
A European Review. Energy and Buildings 15-16: 823-836.
Kettner, P., J. Daley, and A. Weaver. 1985. Initiating Change in Organizations and
Communities: A Macro Practice Model. Monterey, California: Brooks / Cole Publishing
Company.
Knox, B. 1992. Designing for winter: a four-season garden takes a bite out of January.
Architecture Minnesota 18 (1): 12-13.
Labs, K. 1985. On the Inadequacy of Solar Design Problems. In Passive and Low
Energy Ecotechniques: Proceedings o f the Third International PLEA Conference, Mexico
City, 606-608. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

122

Landsberg, H E. 1950. Comfortable living depends on microclimate. Weatherwise 3:
7-10.
Landsberg, H.E. 1981. The Urban Climate. New York: Academic Press.
Landsberg, H.E. 1959. Weather in the streets. Landscape 9: 26-28.
Leung, Hok-Lin. 1989. Land Use Planning Made Plain. Ottawa: Ronald P. Frye &
Company.
Li, S. 1994. Users' Behaviour of Small Urban Spaces in Winter and Marginal Seasons.
Architecture and Behaviour 10 (1): 95-109.
Llewellyn, J. 1999. Understanding a City’s Form and Function. Masters Thesis,
University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, B.C.
Lowry, W. 1967. The Climate of Cities. Scientific American 217 (2): 15-23.
Maitland, B. 1992. The irresistible rise of the North American interior city. Cities 9:
162-169.
Marsh, W. 1991. Landscape Planning: Environmental Applications. 2nd ed. New York:
John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Matus, V. 1988. Design fo r Cold Climates. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold
Company.
Matus, V. 1985a. Climate Sensitive Urban Planning and Design. In Passive and Low
Energy Ecotechniques: Proceedings o f the Third International PLEA Conference, Mexico
City, 771-776. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Matus, V. 1985b. Construction of Solar Envelopes. In Passive and Low Energy
Ecotechniques: Proceedings o f the Third International PLEA Conference, Mexico City,
994-999. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
McPherson, E. G. 1984a. Benefits and Costs of Energy-Conserving Site Design. In
Energy-Conserving Site Design, edited by E. G. McPherson, 17-32. Washington, D C.:
American Society of Landscape Architects.
McPherson, E. G. 1984b. Planning the Energy-Conserving Development. In EnergyConserving Site Design, edited by E. G. McPherson, 33-58. Washington, D C.:
American Society of Landscape Architects.
Moffat, A.S. and M. Schiler. 1981. Landscape Design that Saves Energy. New York:
William Morrow and Company, Inc.

123

Moore, J. 1997. Inertia and Resistance on the Path to Healthy Communities. In EcoCity Dimensions: Healthy Communities, Healthy Planet, edited by M. Rose!and, 167179. New Haven, CT: New Society Publishers.
Morse, J. 1998. The Contracted Relationship; Ensuring Protection of Anonymity and
Confidentiality. Editorial. Qualitative Health Research 8 (3); 301-303.
Oke, T. 1987. Boundary Layer Climates. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
Oke, T. 1984. Towards a Prescription for Greater Use of Climatic Principles in
Settlement Planning. Energy and Buildings 1 (1): 1-10.
Owen, M. 1994a. Cities, Climate, and Environmental Context. In The Built
Environment: A Creative Inquiry into Design and Planning, edited by T. Bartuska and G.
Young, 265-272. Menlo Park, California: Crisp Publications, Inc.
Owen, M. 1994b. Urban Planning and Design. In The Built Environment: A Creative
Inquiry into Design and Planning, edited by T. Bartuska and G. Young, 289-298. Menlo
Park, California: Crisp Publications, Inc.
Page, K. 1970. The Fundamental Problems of Building Climatology Considered from
the Point of View of Decision Making by the Architect and Urban Designer. In
Proceedings: Symposium on Urban Climates and Building Climatology, Brussels, 1968,
Volume 2, 9-21. Geneva: Secretariat of the World Meteorological Organization.
Parker, D. 1993. Third Avenue Rehabilitation Proposals. Desmond Parker, MAIBC,
MCIP Architect & Registered Planner. Prince George, B.C.
Patton, M. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. London: SAGE
Publications.
Peritz, I. 1994. Bubble city, hot sidewalks could make winter easier. The Gazette
(Montreal), 21 December, Final Edition, p. A15.
Pettigrew, A. Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory and Practice. In
Longitudinal Field Research Methods: Studying Processes o f Organizational Change,
edited by G. P. Huber and A. H. Van de Ven, 91-125. Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Publications.
Phillips, D. 1990. The Climates o f Canada. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services
Canada.
Phillips, D. 1988. Planning with Winter in Mind. In Cities Designed fo r Winter, edited
by J. Manty and N. Pressman, 65-84. Helsinki: Building Book Ltd.

124

Phillips, D. and R. Crowe. 1984. Climate Severity Index fo r Canadians. Downsview,
Ontario: Environment Canada and Atmospheric Environment Service.
Pihlak, M. 1994. Outdoor Comfort: Hot Desert and Cold Winter Cities. Architecture
and Behaviour 10 (1): 73-94.
Pountney, M. and P. Kingsbury. 1983. Aspects of Development Control: Part 2: The
Applicant's View. Town Planning Review 54 (3): 285-303.
Pressman, N. 1999a. Cities in Winter: Solutions to Cold-Climate Living. Winter Cities
18 (1): 14-17.
Pressman, N. 1999b. Living in Harmony with Winter. Winter Cities Forum 1999, Prince
George, B.C.
Pressman, N. 1996. Sustainable Winter Cities: Future Directions for Planning, Policy
and Design. Atmospheric Environment 30 (3): 521-529.
Pressman, N. 1995. Northern Cityscape. Yellowknife: Winter Cities Association.
Pressman, N. 1989. Harsh Living Conditions: A Research Agenda. Habitat
International 13 (2): 13-22.
Pressman, N. and P. Cizek. 1988. Reduction o f Winter-induced Discomfort in Canadian
Urban Residential Areas: An Annotated Bibliography and Evaluation. Canada and
Mortgage Housing Corporation.
Pressman, N. and X. Zepic. 1986. Planning in Cold Climates: A Critical Overview o f
Canadian Settlement Patterns and Policies. Winter Communities Series No. 1. Institute
of Urban Studies, University of Winnipeg.
Pressman, N. 1985. Appendix: National Student Competition for Reshaping Winter
Cities. In Reshaping Winter Cities: Concepts, Strategies and Trends, 117-154. Livable
Winter City Association. Waterloo: University of Waterloo Press.
Prince George Region Development Corporation. 1989. Report o f the City Centre
Concept Committee on a Proposed Prince George City Centre Strategy. City of Prince
George.
Prior, M. and E. Keeble. 1990/1991. Directional Wind-chill Data for Planning Sheltered
Microclimates around Buildings. Energy and Buildings (15-16): 887-893.
Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Municipal Affairs. 1998. British Columbia
Building Code, 1998. Victoria: Crown Publications Inc.

125

Province of British Columbia. 1995. The Municipal Act. Victoria: Queen’s Printing
Office.
Radway, G., K. Eby, and R. Amos. 1989. Paths to Livable Winter Cities: Colour and
Tourism. Working Paper No. 27. Working Paper Series. School of Urban and Regional
Planning, University of Waterloo.
Payment, B. 2000. From the Ground Up: A Horticultural Guide fo r North-Central B.C.
Prince George, B.C.: David Douglas Botanical Garden Society.
Robinson, J. 1989. Concepts and Themes in the Regional Geography o f Canada.
Revised edition. Vancouver: Talonbooks.
Royle, J. and A. Martin. 2002. A History of the Winter Cities Movement and the
Liveable Winter Cities Association. Winter Cities 21 (1): 3-5.
Rubenstein, H. 1992. Pedestrian Malls, Streetscapes, and Urban Spaces. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Rubin, H. and I. Rubin. 1995. Qualitative Interviewing: The Art o f Hearing Data.
Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Schoenberger, E. 1991. The Corporate Interview as a Research Method in Economic
Geography. Professional Geographer 43 (2): 180-189.
Sedgwick, K. 2000. City of Prince George. Personal communication, 4 October.
Sedgwick, K. 1991. The Downtown Streets o f Prince George: A “City Beautiful” Plan.
Handout.
Sedgwick, K. 1989. Introduction. In Street Names o f Prince George: Our History. The
University Women’s Club of Prince George.
Semenak, S. 1997. Slip Sliding away: Today’s snow adds to icy woes. The Gazette
(Montreal), 28 January, Final Edition, p.Al.
State of the City. 1997. A Report on the Quality o f Life in Prince George. Prince
George.
Stinchcombe, A. 1968. Constructing Social Theories. New York: Harcourt, Brace &
World, Inc.
Sutherland, S. 1998. Cold comfort: Making the very best of Calgary’s wintry reality.
Calgary Herald, 1 December, Final Edition, p. 2.

126

Thayer, R. 1984. Planning for Solar Access. In Energy-Conserving Site Design, eàxicà
by E. G. McPherson, 115-140. Washington, D.C.: American Society of Landscape
Architects.
Thurow, C. 1983. Improving Street Climate Through Urban Design. Planning Advisory
Service Report NO. 376. Chicago: American Planning Association.
Tibbalds, F. 1988. Intentions in Urban Design. Urban Design Quarterly July: 11-12.
Tindal, C. and S. Tindal. 1990. Local Government in Canada. 3'^'* edition. Toronto:
McGraw-Hill Ryserson Ltd.
Urban Forum Associates, DM Group Landscape Architects, and McElhanney
Engineering. 1992. Downtown Revitalization: Preliminary Design and Costing. City of
Prince George.
Waechter, B. 1993. Wind Effects: An Important Design Consideration. Guelph,
Ontario: Rowan Williams Davies and Irwin Inc.
Waechter, B. 1985. More and more Northern Cities Requiring Pedestrian Level Wind
Studies for Large Buildings. Livable Winter City Association Newsletter 3 (4): 15-17.
Walton, J. 1992. Making the theoretical case. In What is a Case? Exploring the
Foundations o f Social Inquiry, edited by C. Ragin and H. Becker, 121-137. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Westerberg, U. 1994. Climatic Planning: Physics or Symbolism. Architecture and
Behaviour 10 (1): 49-71.
Westerberg, G. 1990/91. Design Criteria for Solar Access and Wind Shelter in the
Outdoor Environment. Energy Buildings 15 (3-4): 425-431.
Whyte, W. 1988. City: Rediscovering the Center. New York: Doubleday.
Whyte, W. 1980. The Social Life o f Small Urban Spaces. Washington, D C .: The
Conservation Foundation.
Williams, C. 2000. Rowan Williams Davies & Irwin. Personal communication, 9 May.
World Meteorological Organization. 1982. Report o f the Meeting o f Experts on Urban
and Building Climatology. WCP 37. Geneva: World Climate Applications Program.
Yeates, M. 1998. The North American City. New York: Longman.
Yegedis, B., R. Weinbach, and B. Morrison-Rodriguez. 1999. Research Methods fo r
Social Workers. Toronto: Allyn and Bacon.

127

Yeung, A., D. Ulrich, S. Nason, and M. Von Glinow. 1999. Organizational Learning
Capability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yin, R. 1989. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Applied Social Research
Methods Series. Vol. 5. London: SAGE Publications.
York, R. 1982. Human Service Planning: Concepts, Tools, and Methods. Chapel Hill,
NC: The University of North Carolina.
Yuen, R. 1995. Cities in Winter: A Bibliography on Planning, Design and Climate.
Chicago: Council of Planning Librarians distributed by the American Planning
Association.
Local Government Manuscripts
Burden, F. October 22, 1913. Legal Survey Plan. Plan No. 1268. Subdivision of Part of
Indian Reserve Number One. Lot 343. Cariboo District, B.C.
City of Prince George. 2002. Prince George Mayors & Councils. Handouts.
City of Prince George. 1999. Zoning Bylaw No. 3482, 1980.
City of Prince George. 1998. Committee Membership Applicants by Committee.
Handout.
City of Prince George. 1997. Operating Expenditure Department Detail Report for
Accounting Period 13 Ending 31 December 1996 Final.
City of Prince George. 1996a. City Council Minutes. Section 6 H(c). April 29, 1996.
City of Prince George. 1996b. Operating Expenditure Department Detail Report for
Accounting Period 13 Ending 31 December 1995 Final.
City of Prince George. 1996c. Report to Council. Development Permit No. DP 96/11.
April 16, 1996.
City of Prince George. 1996d. Regular Council Minutes, 8 January.
City of Prince George. 1995. Operating Expenditure Department Detail Report for
Accounting Period 13 Ending 31 December 1994 Final.
City of Prince George. 1994a. City Council Minutes. Section 6 H(c). May 30, 1994.
City of Prince George. 1994b. Report to Council. Development Permit No. 94/17. May
18, 1994.

128

City of Prince George. 1993. City of Prince George Official Community Plan Bylaw
No. 5909,1993.
City of Prince George. 1992. Council Committee Reappointments. Memo.
City of Prince George. 1976. Bylaw No. 2822.
Development Services Department, City of Prince George. 1995a. Advisory Design
Panel Comments Sheet. Sight and Sound. August 30, 1995.
Development Services Department, City of Prince George. 1995b. Advisory Design
Panel Comments Sheet. Sight and Sound. June 21, 1995.
Development Services Department, City of Prince George. 1994. Advisory Design
Panel Comments Sheet. Computime - Computer & Softward Ltd. April 20, 1994.
Development Services Department, City of Prince George. 1994. A Guide to Our
Development Review Process for Building Projects. Pamphlet.
Development Services Department, City of Prince George. 1994. Development Services
Department Record Sheet for Design Panel Projects. May 19, 1994.
Development Services Department and the Winter City Committee. 1999. Climate
Sensitive Design for the City of Prince George. City of Prince George.

129

Appendix A: Consent Form
Participant Name
Address

Date

Subject: Institutional Barriers to Climate Responsive Design in Prince George
Dear Interview Participant:
I am currently involved in a research project addressing institutional barriers to climate
responsive design in the commercial redevelopment process in Prince George. The
objective of the project is to examine the relationship between guidelines, regulations,
and processes and the implementation of climate responsive design in the commercial
redevelopment process. The study is performed as a partial fulfilment of the
requirements for my MNRES degree in urban planning at the University of Northern
British Columbia.
Your participation in this project will provide useful information on this topic. Your
participation in this research has been requested because of your role as a (developer,
planner, member of the Advisory Design Panel, project designer, local councilor) in the
pre-approval (approval) process of the (case study name). You will be asked to
participate in an interview that will be expected to last 1.5-2 hours. The interview will be
audiotaped and interview notes will be taken.
Anonymity will be provided by ensuring names of participants will not be mentioned in
any publication or in any part of the final copy of the thesis. Participants will be grouped
together as key participants in the pre-approval process and participants in the approval
process. This will further ensure anonymity by not allowing the individual role players
(developers, architects, planners etc.) to be identified.
The interview audiotapes will be transcribed only by myself. Access to the transcripts
will be restricted to my supervisor, Dr. John Curry, and myself. The results of your
interview will be used for research purposes only. All of the audiotaped interviews will
be kept in a secure location and destroyed after the completion of the research.
Participation in this study is strictly voluntary. You may refuse to answer questions or
withdraw from the interview at any point. If any concerns arise, you may contact myself
at 250-960-5677 or my supervisor. Dr. John Curry at 250-960-5837. If you have any
complaints concerning this project, they may be directed to Dr. Max Blouw, Dean of
Graduate Studies at 250-960-5668.
At this time, I would like to request your participation in this research project. If you
agree to participate, please sign below and return this letter to me by mail or fax. Forms
returned by mail may be sent to: Laura Ryser, MNRES Candidate, c/o Environmental
Studies Program, University of Northern British Columbia, 3333 University Way, Prince
George, B.C. Y2N 4Z9. Forms returned by fax may be faxed to: (250) 960-5538. An

130

interview date and time would be arranged after a completed consent form has been
received. Upon completion of this study, you will receive a research summary report. If
you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 960-5677.
Thank-you for your consideration on this matter. I look forward to hearing from you at
your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Laura Ryser, MNRES Candidate

I agree to participate in the interview under the conditions described above.
Signature:

131

Appendix B: UNBC Ethics Approval

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA

3333 University Way, Prince George, BC, Canada V2N 4Z9
Dr. Alex Michalos
Chair, UNBC Ethics Review Committee
Tel: (250) 960-6697 or 960-5820
Fax: (250) 960-5746
E-mail: m ichalos@ unbc.ca
UNBC Ethics Committee

N ovem ber 8, 1999
Ms. Laura Ryser
163 McKinley St.
Prince G eorge, BC
V2M 4 8 3
P rop osal: 1999 1 0 2 9 .1 1 3

D ear Ms. Ryser:
The UNBC Ethics Com m ittee m et on Novem ber 5, 1999 to review your
proposal entitled, “Institutional Barriers Impeding the Incorporation of ClimateR esponsive Design in th e Commercial Re-D evelopm ent P ro c e ss ”.
The Committee h a s approved your proposal pending the following revision:
•

Fourth paragraph of th e consent form: include... interviews will b e k ep t in a
s e c u r e loca tio n and destroyed...
P le a se relay clarification to Diane King a s soon a s possible.
If you have any questions, p lease feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Alex Michalos
Chair, UNBC Ethics Review Committee

133

Appendix C: Interview Questions

The following is a list of questions that were asked to all participants. However, due to
the amount of information that was gathered, responses from some of these questions
were not included in the analysis. In such cases, responses from the questions did not
provide much additional data to answer the research question or the responses were found
from probing other questions. Data is available for these questions. Bold type indicates
questions where responses from interview participants were omitted from the thesis
results.
Background Information
1. What is your name, job title, and place of work?
2. During the redevelopment of commercial projects, what are your primary
considerations in developing (or reviewing) the design?
General Knowledge Related to Climate Responsive Design Principles
Part A:
3. Have you previously been exposed to the concepts of climate responsive design? If
yes, when were you first exposed to the principles of climate responsive design?
4. Do you feel adequate opportunities exist to encourage continued on the job education
/ awareness of urban design issues related to climate responsive design through
providing professional magazines and academic journals, along with opportunities to
attend seminars and conferences?
5. Does your office encourage continued education / awareness of urban design issues
related to climate responsive design through providing professional magazines and
academic journals, along with opportunities to attend seminars and conferences? If
no, why is it difficult to provide these opportunities?
Part B: When considering commercial redevelopment projects:
6. What do you feel can be done to maximize access to incoming solar radiation through
effective urban design in commercial redevelopment?
7. What do you feel can be done to minimize the negative effects caused by rain, snow,
or ice through effective urban design?
8. What do you feel can be done to minimize the negative effects of wind through
effective urban design?

134

9. What are some other principles that you feel are appropriate to enhance the livability
and comfortability of urban spaces in commercial redevelopment?
10. What opportunities do you believe are provided to incorporate climate
responsive design as a result of commercial redevelopment?
11. Of these principles, which do you feel are the most important and appropriate
climate responsive design principles for commercial redevelopment as it exists in
Prince George?

12. In your previous experience, which principles do you feel are the most
frequently applied?
13. In your previous experience, which principles do you feel are the most
infrequently applied?
14. When evaluating urban design, what types of climatic data do you feel is needed to
work towards creating an appropriate design for urban spaces in local climates?
15. Where do you obtain this climatic data from?
16. What steps are involved when you check to ensure the appropriate climate responsive
design principles are used?
17. How is this climate data is transferred into appropriate climate responsive design
principles for commercial redevelopment projects in Prince George?
Case Study Observations
I would like to discuss some of the work you have done in downtown Prince George.
Part A: Project Design Analysis
18. In respect to project X, what were your primary design considerations in developing
(designing) the property?
19. In respect to project X, which of the previously identified climate responsive design
principles were incorporated into the design for project X?
20. Which of the previous identified climatic principles were not incorporated into the
conceptual design for this project? If you identify principles that were not
incorporated, can you explain why these climate responsive design principles were
not included?
21. During the review and consultation process of this project (X), did any members of
the Advisory Design Panel offer any advice, comments, or recommendations about

135

the incorporation of climate responsive design principles? ** Question fo r the
developer, project designer, planner, and members o f the Advisory Design Panel.
22. Can you describe the advice / consultation / comments that were provided to you by
the planning officer in charge of this project and by the Advisory Design Panel
concerning project X? When was this advice / consultation / comments provided? **
Question fo r the developer, project designer, and planner.
Part B: Process Dynamics
I would now like to focus on the regulations that influence the urban design process, and
then design approval process.
During commercial redevelopment projects like project X:
23. Do you feel that the Municipal Act encourages or discourages the incorporation of
climate responsive design?
24. Does the Official Community Plan provide any institutional barriers to climate
responsive design for this project?
25. Do the zoning bylaws provide any institutional barriers to incorporating climate
responsive design for this project?
26. Do you feel the composition of the Advisory Design Panel members is adequate for
providing consultation and recommendations about climate responsive design
principles for projects?
27. How is the composition of the Advisory Design Panel influenced by a medium-sized
Canadian city structure that exists in Prince George?
28. Do you feel that there were adequate guidelines, regulations, as well as appropriate
job descriptions for ADP members to move from thought to action on implementing
climate responsive design guidelines? **Additional Question fo r the planner,
members o f the Advisory Design Panel, and Councilors.
29. Did the Advisory Design Panel ever consult a special consultant / organization to
look into these matters? **Additional Question fo r the planner and members o f the
Advisory Design Panel.
30. Did any local councilors participate in the Advisory Design Panel meetings of
this project? Do you feel Council participation on the Advisory Design Panel
would assist in creating awareness and improving the implementation of climate
responsive design principles in commercial redevelopment?

136

31. As a local councilor, what types of resources do you rely on for evaluating a
commercial redevelopment project for approval? **Additional Question fo r the
Councilors.
32. In respect to project x, during the discussion surrounding project X, were any of
the previously identified climatic principles discussed at the local council
meeting? If so, could you expand on which ones were discussed, if not, could you
describe why you feel they were not addressed. **Additional Question fo r the
CoxmcüoM.
33. As a decision maker in the approval process of commercial redevelopment, what
types of information would you find effective to have to further enhance the
incorporation of climate responsive design principles? **Additional Question fo r
the Councilors.
34. From your experience, and within your practice, when and how did the initiative
to enhance the awareness and incorporation of climate responsive design
principles in Prince George hegin?
35. Did other departments / agencies / organizations have a role to play in influencing the
implementation of climate responsive design in this project? What is the legal status
or by what authority or power can these departments or organizations assist in
enhancing awareness and incorporation of these principles in the commercial
redevelopment process? If no, or (yes): What (other) organizations / inter-agency co­
operation do you feel would be necessary to improve the implementation of climate
responsive design?
36. What safety, environmental, economical, social, political, aesthetic, or ethical
incentives are there to incorporate climate responsive design principles into
commercial redevelopment in Prince George?
37. Can you identify any other types of institutional problems that have inhibited your
ability to move from climate responsive design theory to incorporate climate
responsive design principles into commercial redevelopment?
38. What institutional changes need to be done to improve the ability to incorporate
climate responsive design principles into conceptual designs and have them carried
out on a more consistent basis?

137
Appendix D: Coding Manual
QSR Nudist was used to code responses from the interviewees. Under each question is a
list of responses to the corresponding questions that may be found in Appendix B.
Beside each response is a numerical code used to group responses from the interview
manuscript.
General Knowledge - Climate Responsive Design Principles
Question 3
Question 7 Cont ’d
Exposure - Yes (211)
Vestabulas (2227)
Q uestion 4
Covered bus stops (2228)
Opportunities (212)
Multiple entrances (2229)
Professional magazines (2121)
Sidewalk slopes (22210)
Academic journals (2122)
Drainage design (22211)
Seminars (2123)
Snow storage (22212)
Conferences (2124)
Heated Slabs / Sidewalks (22213)
Courses (2125)
Dark Sidewalks (22214)
Question 8
Institutional materials (2126)
On-the-job learning (2127)
Wind Principles (223)
Internet (2128)
Canopies (2231)
Federal programs (2129)
Malls (2232)
Underground passageways (2233)
Q uestions
Lack of Participants (241)
Coniferous landscaping (2234)
Lack o f Interest (242)
Fencing (2235)
Lack o f Opportunities (243)
Walls (2236)
Opportunities not Promoted (244)
Screens (2237)
Opportunities not Appropriate (245)
Covered garbage (2238)
Entrance location (2239)
Organizational Barriers (246)
Lack of Exchange o f Information (248)
Question 9
Availability o f Travel Funds (249)
Other Principles (224)
Winter gardens (2241)
Transportation / Registration Fees (2410)
NGO funds (2411)
Christmas lighting (2242)
More lighting (2243)
Publication costs (2412)
Q uestion 6
Ice rinks (2244)
Solar principles (221)
Ice / Snow Sculptures (2245)
Southern orientation (2211)
Wooden Sculptures (2246)
Outdoor furniture (2247)
Overshadowing (2212)
Sled hills (2248)
Building mass (2213)
X-country trails (2249)
Skylights (2214)
Colour palettes (22410)
Solar panels (2215)
Controlled lighing (22411)
Deciduous trees (2216)
Fountains (22412)
. Overshading (2217)
Q uestion 7
Murals (22413)
Q uestion 14
Precipitation Principles (222)
Climate Data (231)
Canopies (2221)
Data not used (2311)
Malls (2222)
Data not useable (2312)
Underground passageways (2223)
Question 15
Covered streets (2224)
Environment Canada (2313)
Skywalks (2225)
Covered parking (2226)
Building Code (2314)
Question 17
Tools (232)

138

Appendix C: Coding Manual Cont’d

Case Study Observations
Question 18
Computime (31)
Design considerations (311)
Tudor style (3111)
Clock tower (3112)
Barred windows (3113)
Parking (3114)
Sight and Sound (32)
Design considerations (321)
Building orientation (3211)
Front entrance (3212)
Parking (3213)
Question 19
Computime (31)
Principles incorporated (312)
Canopies (3121)
Hallway (3122)
Pitched roof (3123)
Landscaping (3124)
Sidewalk slopes (3125)
Exterior glazing (3126)
Orientation (3127)
Colour (3128)
Lighting (3129)
Sight and Sound (32)
Principles incorporated (322)
Glazed canopy (3221)
Styrofoam - slab (3222)
Vestabula (3223)
Easy access (3224)
Flat roof (3225)
Building mass (3226)
Parking lot slopes and curbs (3227)
Street trees (3228)
Colour (3229)

Question 20
Computime (31)
Principles not incorporated (313)
Additional canopies (3131)
Snow storage (3132)
Sliding snow - pitched roof (3133)
Snow accumulation - clock tower (3134)
Set backs (3135)
Sight and Sound (32)
Principles not incorporated (323)
Orientation - parking (3231)
Snow storage (3232)
Sidewalk slopes (3233)
Canopy coverage (3234)
Window glazing (3235)
Landscaping (3236)
Set backs (3237)
Icy sidewalks (3238)
Colour - landscaping (3239)
Lighting (32310)
Density (32311)
Q uestion 21
Computime (31)
Advice / comments (314)
Canopies (3141)
Steep roofline - sliding snow (3142)
Landscaping - trees (3143)
Sight and Sound (32)
Advice / comments (324)
Building orientation (3241)
Colour scheme (3242)
Glazed canopy (3243)
Canopy-overlap-tree (3244)
Canopy coverage (3245)
Vestabulas (3246)
Landscaping (3247)
Question 22
Computime (31)
Climate responsive advice (315)
Developer / designer discussions (316)
Sight and Sound (32)
Climate responsive advice (325)
Developer / designer discussions (326)

139

Appendix C: Coding Manual Cont’d

Process Dynamics
Q uestion 23
Municipal Act (41)
Encourages (411)
Discourages (412)
Neutral (413)
Q uestion 24
Official Community Plan (42)
Encourages (421)
Discourages (422)
Neutral (423)
Q uestion 25
Zoning Bylaws (43)
Encourages (431)
Discourages (432)
Neutral (433)
Development Permit guidelines (44)
Q uestion 26
Membership (51)
Insufficient Membership (511)
Q uestion 27
Insufficient Membership (511)
Membership does not Change (512)
Lack o f Design Professionals (513)
Conflict o f Interest (514)
Question 28
Job descriptions / TOR (52)
Insufficient guidelines (521)
Question 29
Special Consultant (54)
Question 35
Departments (71)
Organizations (72)
Businesses (73)
Question 37
Economic Barriers (101)
Costs o f Features (1011)
Costs Considered in Future (1012)
Labour / Study Costs (1013)
Economic Returns (1014)
Lack o f Capital (1015)
Fear o f Taxes (1016)
Lack o f Incentives (1017)
Economic Loss (1018)
Jobs (1019)
Additional Costs to Eval. Process (10110)

Q uestion 37 C ont ’d
Additional regulation barriers (45)
Lack of Awareness o f Regulations (451)
Enforceability (452)
Flexibility (453)
Lack of Regulatory Incentives (454)
Regulations add costs (455)
Structural Barriers (105)
Unclear responsibility (1051)

Lack of Time (1052)
Lack of Awareness o f the Process (1053)
Lack of Design Panel Attendance (1054)
Lack of Human Resources (1055)
Lack of Exchange of Information (1056)
Political Barriers (112)
Powerlessness (1121)
Political Pressure (1122)
Professional Politics (1123)
Psychological Barriers (102)
Fear Being Singled Out (1021)
Convenience Matters (1022)
Community Maturity (1023)
Critical Mass (1024)
Maintenance Barriers (104)
Additional Maintenance (1041)
Lack o f Survivability (1042)
Deferred Benefits (1043)
Social Barriers (109)
Limiting Street Activity (1091)
Attract Wrong People (1092)
Security Barriers (111)
Increased Crime (1111)
Question 38
Changes (9)
Information support changes (91)
Regulations changes (92)
Transportation changes (93)
Social change (94)
Educational / training changes (95)
Consumer support (96)
Economic changes (97)
Institutional changes (98)
Design changes (99)
Media changes (911)
Role models (941)

140

Appendix E: Participant Recommendations to Overcome Institutional Barriers to
Climate Responsive Design

Initiating Change

# of Responses

Educational / Training
Improve communication o f study results
Lecture series (wind screening and solar envelope design)
More educational opportunities - general
More conferences
More conference attendance by developers and councilors
More concise educational materials
Orientation program (Advisory Design Panel and City Council)
Promotional brochure (climate responsive design principles and data)
Youth education programs

1
1
I
1
2
2
3
1
1

Role Models
Awards program
Institutional buildings to act as role models (UNBC)

2
4

Media
Bi-monthly / bi-annual magazine
Handout material (publications for parents, newspaper supplements)
Internet
Newspaper articles / architectural column

1
1
4
3

Implementing Change
Regulation Changes
Change zoning bylaws - general
Change the building code
Change parking bylaws to encourage landscaping
Regulations for incorporating skywalk infrastructure
Regulations to encourage set backs
Include climate responsive design guidelines in the ADP mandate

5
2
3
1
2
4

Structural Changes
Abolish design panel
Develop a checldist implemented by City staff
Add a member to the ADP with a role to evaluate climate responsive design
Change membership of the ADP more frequently

1
1
3
1

Political Changes
Improve Council support for ADP recommendations

2

Information Support Changes
Develop a checklist for ADP to review designs

3

141

U se o f winter renditions o f architectural drawings
Use o f graphic tools to depict influence o f climate on design
Better information of impact climate responsive design has on operating /
capital costs
Better information of impact climate responsive design has on human psyche
Improve exchange of information about climate responsive design with
special interest groups

2
1
3
1
1

Design Changes
Encourage mixed land use development
Encourage continuous canopies
Encourage mid-block pedestrian lanes
Provide clear walking trails that are not in contact with traffic

1
1
1
1

Economic Changes
Competitive environment
Bring prosperity
Cost sharing arrangements for treescapes

1
1
1

142

Appendix F: List of Educational Opportunities for Climate Responsive Design

Climate Sensitive Design Guidelines (City of Prince George):
http://www.city.pg.bc.ca/wintercities
Company brochures
Conferences / meetings
• North-Central Municipal Association: http://ncma.enorthembc.com
• Union of BC Municipalities: http://www.civicnet.gov.bc.ca/ubcm/index.shtml
• Federation of Canadian Municipalities: http://www.fcm.ca
• Winter Cities Forams
Federal exchange program: Prince George and Thunder Bay, Ontario
Guest lectures: Harold Hanen, architect - Calgary
Institutional research material
• Building Code
• Canada and Mortgage Housing Corporation: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca
• National Research Council for the Institute of Constmction and Research:
http ://www .nrc.ca/irc
Internet: information about climate responsive design, organizations, and approaches
undertaken in other communities with similar issues
Journals: General
Journals: Livable Winter Cities Association Journal: http://www.wintercities.nmu.edu
Media: architectural columns to offer design critique for public education
Newsletters / magazines
• Federation of Canadian Municipalities: http://www.fcm.ca
• Union of BC Municipalities: http://www.civicnet.gov.bc.ca/ubcm/index.shtml
On-the-job learning: exchange of information on design panel, trial and error
Organizations
• Prince George Winter City Committee: http://www.city.pg.bc.ca/wintercities
• Livable Winter Cities Association: http://wintercities.nmu.edu
Seminars: subdivision planning and building design
Travel experience: examine street furniture, lighting, and sidewalks of other places

143

Appendix G: Written Permission of Copyright Holders

From : MATUS ASSOCIATES INC.

Phone & Fax # 416/922-6379

04/17/2002 08:32 PAI 1 250 880 5861

Apr. 24. 2002

1 2 :0 5 PM

ANNEXE UNBC

^

P02

W|001/001

uMVEw/ryOFNORTTÆwvammawcoLi/Maw
Laura Rysor, MNRES Candidate
Geography Program
University of Northern British Columbia
3333 University Way
Prince George, B.C. V2N 4Z9
Vladimir Matus
403 Wellesley St, E.
Toronto, Ontario
Fax: l “4l6*922-6379

April 17,2002

Dear Vladimir:
This letter will confirm our recent telephone conversation. I am completing ray Masters degree
at the University of Northern British Columbia entitled “Institutional Barriers Ünpcding the
Incoiporation of Climate Responsive Design in Commercial Redevelopment.” I would like your
permission to reprint in my thesis figure 7-15 (page 147) from your book entitled “Design for
Northern Climates: Cold Climate Planning and Environmental Design.” Figure 7-15 is entitled
“The relationship between shadows and insolation at street level in different street grid layouts.”
This figure demonstrates solar reception for streets under different grid patterns, namely the
Jeffersonian Grid, the Spanish Grid, and the Hamilton Grid, This figure will be inserted into my
literature review as I describe solar design principles.
The requested permission extends to any future revisions and editions of my thesis, including
non-exclusive world rights in all languages, and to the prospective publication of my thesis by
UMI, These rights will in no way restrict republication of the material in any other form by you
or by others authorized by you. v ^ r ctpning nf rhic
»/ni -aicr.
oompnny nrnnr] the copyright to..4lii abovo deBenbei m m rial...
If these arrangements meet with your approval, please sign this letter where indicated below and
return it to me by fax to: 1-250-960-5851. Thank you very much for your time and consideration
of this matter.
Sinpfe/ely,
Ui4./U
lura Ryseif MNRES Candidate
PERMISSION GRANTED FOR THE USE REQUESTED ABOVE:

'

TW O

Vladimir Matus
403 Wellesley Street East
Toronto/ Ontario
M4X 1H5

Laura Ryser, MNRES Candidate
Geography Program
University of Northern British Columbia
3333 University Way
Prince George, B.C.
V2N 4Z9

A p r il/

24/ 2002

Dear Laura:
Sorry for the delay. After some detective work/ I learned that VNR
is now defunct and the copyright to my book has changed hands many
times and ultimately landed at “Thomson Learning" California. I
contacted them and they will transfer the copyright to me if I make
a request in writing.
I will do that.
Meanwhile, they have
authorized me to give you permission to use whatever you need to go
ahead.
I will let you know when the copyright is my hands.
Good luck with your thesis!

Vladimir Matus

UN IVERSITY O F N O RTN ÊR N BRITISH COLUMBIA

Laura Ryser, MNRES Candidate
Geography Program
University of Northern British Columbia
3333 University Way
Prince George, B.C. V2N 4Z9

Bill Waechter, Associate
Rowan Williams Davies & Irwin Inc.
650 Woodlawn Road, West
Guelph, Ontario NIK 1B8
Fax: 1-519-823-1316

April 24,2002

Dear Bill:
This letter will confirm our recent e-maii. I am completing my Masters degree at the University
of Northern British Columbia entitled "Institutional Barriers Impeding the Incorporation o f
Climate Responsive Design in Commercial Redevelopment” I would like your permission to
reprint in ray thesis figure 4 (page 4) from your article aititled “Wind Eff«:ts: An Important
Design Consideration.” Figure 4 j$ entitled “Basic Wind Flow Characteristics.” [See attached]
This figure will be inserted into my literature review as I describe wind design principles.
The requested permission extends to any future revisions and editions o f my thesis, including
non-excluaive world rights in all languages, and to the prospective publication of my thesis by
UMI. These rights will in no way restrict republication o f the material in any other form by you
o r by o th ers authorized by you. Y o u r s ig n in g of this letter will also confirm that you own [or
your company owns] the copyright to the above-described material.
I f these arrangements meet with your approval, please sign this letter where indicaied below and
return it to me by fax to: 1-250-960-5851. Thank you very m uch for your time and consideration
of this matter.

SinCefely,

ura Ryser,^tNRES Candidate

FERMIS&ION GRANTED FOR THE USE REQUESTED ABOVE:

Date;

UNI V ERSITY O F NO RTH ERN BRITISH COLUMBIA

Laura Ryser, M NRES Candidate
Geography Program
University o f Northern British Columbia
3333 University W ay
Prince George, B.C.

U

flR

V2N4Z9
Fergus Foley, A ccess Engmeeriag

207-1527 3"^ Avenue
Prince George, B.C.
V 2L 3 0 3

Fax: (250) 563-4878

July 26. 2002

D e a r F ergus:

This letter w ill confirm our recent telephone coavEfsaüon. I am com pleting m y M asters
degree at the University o f Northern British Columbia entitled *Tnstitucional Barriers
Impeding the Incorporation of Climate Responsive D esign in Commercial
Redevelopment." I would like your permission to reprint in my thesis the site and
landscape plan for the Computime building. This figure will be inserted into Chapter 6 as
Figure 6.1: Site and Landscape Plan —Computime as I describe the clim ate responsive
design principles that were incorporated or not incorporated.
The requested permission extends to any future revisions and editions o f m y thesis,
including non-exclusive world rights in all languages, and to the prospective publication
o f m y thesis by UMI. These rights w ill in no way restrict republication o f the material in
any other form by you or by others authorized by you. Your signing o f this letter w ill
also confinn that you own (or your company ow ns) the copyright to the above described
material.
If these arrangements meet with your appmval, please sign this letter where indicated
below and return it to me by fax to; (250) 960-5851.

1/
Laura Ryser. M NRES Candidate
PERM ISSION GRANTED FOR THE U SE REQUESTED ABOVE:

C

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA

Laura Ryser, MNRES Candidate
Geography Program
University of Northern British Columbia
3333 University Way
Prince George, B.C.
V2N4Z9
Dan Condon, Architect

~ #§^ 50Q8-pDhte Avenue

P /l/R-r/fU B

Terrace, B.C.
Oæ&4S«- V e£r ^ 7
Fax: (250) 635-1598

July 26, 2002

Dear Dan:
This letter will confirm our recent telephone conversation. I am completing my Masters
degree at the University of Northern British Columbia entitled “Institutional Barriers
Impeding the Incorporation of Climate Responsive Design in Commercial
RcdevelopmenL” I would like your permission to reprint in my thesis the site and
landscape plan for the Sight and Sound building. This figure will be inserted into
Chapter 6 as I describe the climate responsive design principles that were incorporated or
not incorporated.
The requested permission extends to any future revisions and editions of my thesis,
including non-exclusive world rights in all languages, and to the prospective publication
of my thesis by UMI. These rights will in no way restrict republication of the material in
any other form by you or by others authorized by you. Your signing of this letter will
also confirm that you own (or your company owns) the copyright to the above described
material.
If these arrangements meet with your approval, please sign this letter where indicated
below and return it to me by fax to: (250) 960-5851.

Sincerely,

4-^ / 7^ ---^Laura Ryser, MNRES Candidate
PERMISSION GRANTED FOR THE USE REQUESTED ABOVE: