Architecture Canada n°1 2nd semestre 2006
Architecture Canada n°1 2nd semestre 2006
  • Prix facial : gratuit

  • Parution : n°1 de 2nd semestre 2006

  • Périodicité : semestriel

  • Editeur : Naylor Canada

  • Format : (213 x 276) mm

  • Nombre de pages : 88

  • Taille du fichier PDF : 8,1 Mo

  • Dans ce numéro : design urbain, les villes de l'avenir.

  • Prix de vente (PDF) : gratuit

Dans ce numéro...
< Pages précédentes
Pages : 26 - 27  |  Aller à la page   OK
Pages suivantes >
26 27
www.raic.org/2006 DAYLIGHTING World Class Leader in Translucent Canopies and Walkway Covers Phone (800) 759-6985 www.cpidaylighting.com Made with Tight-Cell TECHNOLOGY ■ ■ ■ Urban Design 26 THE ROYAL ARCHITECTURAL INSTITUTE OF CANADA/L’INSTITUT ROYAL D’ARCHITECTURE DU CANADA PHOTO COURTESY OF CITY OF VANCOUVER PLANNING DEPARTMENT. Emery Barnes Park. Serving the residents of the surrounding high-density neighbourhood, the park incorporates an entire city block. The surge is a result of a central area plan, established by Vancouver’s city council in 1991, which involved converting some 750,000 square metres of office space into residential capacity. « Under the policy in new emerging downtown neighbourhoods, at least 25 per cent of all the multiple family housing had to be suitable for families with small children, » explains Larry Beasley, FCIP, Vancouver’s director of current planning hailed as a « hero » recently by Harvard Business Review for his role in guiding the city’s massive downtown redevelopment. « If you visit downtown Vancouver today, you will see new schools, parks and all kinds of accommodations for the 3,500 children we having living downtown in multiple family dwellings. » To date, about 11,000 new residents have been added to Vancouver’s downtown south area. Beasley explains that the « vision » behind Vancouver’s downtown « living first » strategy is the result of regular public consultations as wellas a « co-operative planning approach » involving members of the planning department, for which Beasley serves as co-director, the development permit board and an urban design advisory panel composed of members of the development community, the design professions (including architecture) and the public at large. He adds that current demographics are helping Vancouver achieveits inner-city redevelopment plan. « There are more empty nesters, more people partnering later in their lives and having children later, more people in alternative kinds of relationships – all of whom want to stay in the city rather than flee to the suburbs. » For his role in transforming Vancouver’s core into a « vibrant, liveable urban community, » Beasley was inducted as a member of the Order of Canada in 2004. As for his beloved city, it ranked first out of 127 cities in the Economist Intelligence Unit’s 2005 international « liveability » survey. ■
As an architect, you’re well versed in specifying building materials. But did you know that specifying the right housewrap can have a profound effect on the long-termvalue and integrity of your designs ? The most effective solution is to specify a housewrap that’s proven to be the best at keeping water out and allowing moisture vapor to escape. Otherwise, moisture inside the wall cavity can lead to major problems, including that four-letter word that’s been getting a lot of attention these days—mold. In competitive testing, Typar delivers industry leading performance for water holdout and moisture vapor transmission, both during and after construction. Plus, Typar does not support the growth of mold on its surface (per ASTM D 3273). Based on published results according to AATCC-127 testing. 2006 BBA Fiberweb Tyvek is a registered trademark of DuPont. Typar is proven to offer the best combination of keeping water out and allowing moisture vapor to escape from the wall cavity. When it comes to water holdout, don’t settle for less than the best. Granted, using a housewrap is better than not using any housewrap at all. But what if there’s a construction delay and the home is exposed to the elements ? Typar sets the standard as a primary line of defense against the elements during construction, and a secondary water barrier after the cladding isup. Even in coastal or other high wind and water areas. Only one housewrap delivers the #1 tear strength in the industry. If housewrap gets torn before the cladding is installed, building materials can be exposed. And if water gets into the wall cavity, there is a potential for rot, mildew and mold. That’s why you should specify Typar. When properly installed, Typar withstands heavy winds five times better than Tyvek. And keeps the building envelope intact. Surfactant resistance comes in handy in the long run. TYPAR Does it really matter how a housewrap performs after your clients have moved in ? Absolutely. Surfactants—including oils and tannins from siding and OSB, and soaps from powerwashing—can decrease the ability of other housewraps to block moisture, allowing water to penetrate the surface. Typar’s superior surfactant resistance keeps water from seeping into the wall cavity and protects against the damaging effects of moisture—after the final inspection and for many years to come. Choose the housewrap that’s proven to perform. If you’re looking for the absolute best performance, and the peace of mind knowing your homes are better protected, there’s only one name you need to know. Typar. 40 30 20 10 To learnmore, call 1.800.284.2780 or visit typarhousewrap.com. 0 Based on published results according to ASTM D-4533 testing. TEAR STRENGTH measured in lbs.



Autres parutions de ce magazine  voir tous les numéros


Liens vers cette page
Couverture seule :


Couverture avec texte parution au-dessus :


Couverture avec texte parution en dessous :


Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 1Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 2-3Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 4-5Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 6-7Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 8-9Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 10-11Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 12-13Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 14-15Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 16-17Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 18-19Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 20-21Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 22-23Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 24-25Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 26-27Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 28-29Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 30-31Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 32-33Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 34-35Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 36-37Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 38-39Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 40-41Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 42-43Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 44-45Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 46-47Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 48-49Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 50-51Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 52-53Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 54-55Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 56-57Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 58-59Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 60-61Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 62-63Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 64-65Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 66-67Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 68-69Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 70-71Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 72-73Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 74-75Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 76-77Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 78-79Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 80-81Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 82-83Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 84-85Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 86-87Architecture Canada numéro 1 2nd semestre 2006 Page 88