10K in Rebates? Not exactly.

I’d have a lawyer look into it!
Although I haven’t read ALL the details and/or fineprint on the rebate.
Good Luck to you.

Dave,
I know you don’t want to hear this but I am glad you are
sharing your experiences so others can learn from you. We
are doing the same thing on our home renovation and
ecoENERGY Residential Retrofit experiences on our own home web site.

First, did you contact Natural Resources Canada directly
prior to any construction / demolition? I have found them
extremely approachable. They have provided information about
the ecoENERGY Residential Retrofit program and explanations
on any issue that I have had. We have even used some of their
freely given information in articles on our own home web
site. I won’t say I agree with all of the ecoENERGY Retrofit
program’s components, but I have always found going to the
direct source is best.

We lost out on around $1,500 because certain vendors last year
did not tell us about the program and any otherwise eligible
energy conservation related renovation / equipment which is
installed prior to the first or D audit is ineligible for any
program grants. We learned the hard way, like you, to always
go to the source.

Dan
DailyHomeRenoTips.com

Is there anything worse than being denied a $10,000 rebate?
Yes. Smooth Moves for Nintendo Wii.

Hey Dan – I’m going to assume you’re speaking to me (and not, umm, Dave?).

I must admit, I didn’t actually contact the government directly… when the second company verified it, I didn’t think it was necessary. Not that I want to discount the magnitude of the potential rebate, but it really doesn’t matter if we got it or not as the rebates never affected our plan… Heck, I didn’t even know the rebates existed until we were well into the design phase. I suppose the only thing it affect was my face value, but that’s it.

Regardless, the documentation that was provided still doesn’t clearly define what “new home construction” is. In fact, I’d say there’s a solid arugment that we do indeed qualify (not that anyone will actually listen).

It definitely makes it seems that you’d qualify ONLY if you can you do the initial audit. This would disqualify actual “new home” construction, where those being homes that are build on virgin land. Makes perfect sense, but I think you should still qualify if you were renovating an existing home, regardless of you define ‘renovate’. The house was there, we’re making it more energy efficient, therefore we should qualify, no?

I completely understand that the program would be limited to the existing footprint, again, makes perfect sense, but I don’t think we should be completely disqualified because we’re building an entirely new home in place of the old one.

Hi Jeremy,

I’d fight it. It’s $10k that you clearly ought to get – it’s clear you’re meeting the spirit of the rebates, and as you say, going above and beyond. I imagine this is one of those cases where someone in the civil service just needs to be “enabled” to give you the rebates, ‘cause I’m sure they want to; tell them the dirt below the house is shared between both the old version and the renovated version, and that it is structurally important, and my guess is you’ll be on your way.

Hi Jeremy,

Yea, was meant for you. Sorry :-(

It does bit, however.

Dan

OH, forgot … sorry.

Are you, Jeremy, including on the south wall a planned area
for solar space heating? I am looking at this from Your Solar
Home out of Vaughan. It looks very intersting. For us, we
would need to install on the outside of our existing south
facing brick wall but if your walls are not yet built you
could I would think arrange the brickwork such that these could
be installed so the outside is flush with the outside of the
brick.

Dan

Hey Dan – we hadn’t included an area for solar space heating… at least not with something like the Solarheat unit that Your Solar Home sells. However, there’s absolutely no way we could fit those on the South side of the house! We’re at the absolute minimum distance we can be from our neighbour, and adding even an inch would require a pretty significant change to our plans. It seems somewhat trivial, but we’ve already run into a few small problems with the building inspector because of proximity to our neighbor!

I definitely love the idea of these… but unfortunately we won’t be able to use them

I would talk to someone in the gov’t, your MPP or something, even if you’re not “eligible”. Maybe the criteria need to be changed? If the gov’t is pushing people to make these changes they should be as inclusive as possible, and your going the extra mile should be rewarded, not penalized.

Dan: One reason why there is a blurry line between renovation and new home is related to dealing with fire and weather damage and how the Building Code is applied. If enough of the house remains, it qualifies as a renovation and you don’t necessarily have to satisfy the current building code regulation. There are retro provisions that kick in.

I have to disagree with your belief that what you are doing is a renovation and qualifies for some rebate. The moment you completely demolish your home, you no longer owned a home. You own a lot with a big hole. You can’t ‘retrofit’ a new home.

I don’t disagree that there should be a program for people like you who go beyond current regulations/standards, but the current rebate program was never meant for new construction. You knew that when you were originally sceptical about being eligible.

Good luck with the project – and never ever trust a third-party about anything related to the government. Call the government directly and try to get something in writing be it paper or email.

Of course you don’t get the money if you tear the whole house down. Its called a home energy “retrofit” program, not a “new green home incentive”.

Have you encountered the term “embodied energy” before? I’ll assume you havent based on decisions you’ve made; It is obscenely wasteful to knock down an existing home unless its beyond repair – even if you really like the lot and neighbourhood – because of the energy that was required to make the materials used in the construction of the home. Even an old energy leaking building is better off for the environment than throwing all of those resources away. You should not be rewarded for this wasteful act with retrofit incentive money.

There are plenty of empty lots in the city if you want to build a new home, no need to go and tear down a perfectly good one just to suit your desires. How very selfish.

This is “greenwashing” at its worst – no wonder people are so pissed off about people touting LEED and the rest of it just for show – its people like you who give it a bad name.

Shame on you.

Tyler – yes, we considered keeping the existing foundation and a few walls before we decided to tear everything down and start over. There were a number of reasons why we decided to start anew, some were aesthetic, some were structural, some were practical.

At no point have I ever said that our primary goal was to build the greenest house possible. On the contrary, the goal was to build a LARGER home. But instead, we decided to build something smaller than anticipated and we wanted to build it as green as possible.

And I’m not sure what city you’re referring to, but Toronto doesn’t have “plenty of empty lots” to build on. You’re delusional. They DO NOT exist.

Here’s a little something I wrote in the Globe and Mail a few months back:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com.....1/TPStory/

The real problem is that you’re not an architect, nor do you have a background in sustainability. There is a reason why people spend 4-6 years completing master and doctorate level education programs on these subjects, its not just for fun.

Everyone wants their shot at fame these days (ie. your plan to write a book before you even know anything), and the appeal of the starchitect has many people fooled.

I find this frustrating because you risk mis-informing people, and as a media representative you have a highly influential position, but due to your inexperience you are not presenting all of the facts. This is not entirely your fault, but because you have taken on the high profile project, it becomes your responsibility. Building a new “green house” is not just a fun game, and you risk trivializing this.

Sustainability is a complex topic, its not some solar panel that you strap onto the roof at the end of a project – the word itself refers to a closed loop system that can sustain life without having to tax the land and the earth.

I appreciate what you’re doing – trying to enter into the dialogue on “green building”, but the way you’ve approached it is very risky. As soon as one begins advocating for the demolition of buildings its a slippery slope. I’m sure you’ve learned a lot while completing your house project and I hope that you work to better represent the holistic and fundamental aspects of sustainability (use less), rather than just the cosmetic – which is what is problematic with “green washing” happening today.

Furthermore, incredible things can be done with existing homes and buildings these days – there are entire architecture firms dedicated to the art of “adaptive re-use” where buildings/structures are retained and upgraded/added to/modified for a new use. This can also be done with homes, but you must find the right people who can think of creative solutions to your problem. Too many architects today (especially in Toronto) have become lazy and they find it easier to start with a clean slate and empty lot than to solve the existing problems of an older home. In the greater scheme this is reflective of the North American throw-away culture, where we throw something out when it no longer serves its purpose. The reality is that we need to think for the long term and build in a way that can be modified later which ultimately uses less overall – this is what sustainability is really about.

Cheers,
Tyler Rozicki

Post Script: If one wants to build new, there are options in Toronto to use existing lots, I don’t buy your argument that you had to demolish your house because of lack of space/no lots. Below are a few links exploring different approaches in Toronto.

Using small left over spaces on adjacent property (ie, driveways next to houses):
http://www.spacesbyrohan.com/Coxwell.html
http://www.spacesbyrohan.com/1294-College.html
http://www.spacesbyrohan.com/1292-College.html

Building in laneways (there is a whole book written on this subject by Bridgitte Shim and Donald Chung called “Laneway Architecture and Urbanism in Toronto”).
:
http://www.canadianarchitect.c.....e=06012005
If you want to make a real change (and I believe that you do) you can start using your media position to gather troops and lobby the city to make building in lane ways easier. This would be an incredible contribution to sustainability in the city. Then you can build another home in a laneway correcting all of the things that you learned while completing the first one!