"Leading by example is the best way we can demonstrate to architects and builders the benefits of innovative wood
building systems."

It seems to me that buildings such as the old Northwood Head Office in PG, which probably still used more wood as a percentage of all the materials in an office building, or any building for that matter, in PG, as well as those at UNBC which use it mainly as a show piece material, as well as our airport, were all designed by architects for clients who either wanted that material or were persuaded by the architects to use that material.

Who are the ones who are leading by example? Looks more like the government has realized that wood can be used and is not enforcing it through legislation.

I never considered legislation as the tool to "leading by example".

The statement "is not enforcing it through legislation." should read: is NOW enforcing it through legislation."

It does not matter what legislation says it is the BUILDING CODE that rules. Steel construction is required for any buildings such as schools and hospitals. End of story. :}

Where were they before now?
What percentage of the buildings contructed for the Olympics were wood frame?
Shellshadow and gus both have vaild points.
This move by the government is not quite what it seems.
And there is also something about a 3 or 4 story building contstructed out of wood that makes me a bit nervous?

Actually it is not that simple.

Have you ever been inside the University? How about the Hospital atrium?

The location will dictate, as will the type of wood, as will whether the building is sprinklered or not, as will the building size, height, and compartmentalization.

Thus locations which have high ceilings, such as the various lobbies of the buildings I mentioned, if built properly to the building code, can have "heavy timber" which has its own definition and citeria in the code.

In addition, there is an interesting little thing few people know. Buildings owned by the government actually do not have to comply with their own building code. However, generally they do.

Finally, and above all, the BC Government legislates the BC Building Code, which is generally taken from the NRC National Building Code. However, while it was originally adopted without changes, there now are some differences between the NBC and the BCBC.

They are able to legislate changes through a review process. In addition, there are sections which allow "equivalencies" if accepted by an engineer. It is that kind of process which leads to changes in the code, including the current change to allow higher wood platform construction for residential buildings.

The Scarborugh City Hall, some 3 to 4 decades ago was the first building that allowed open storeys, whether they were mezzanines or not provided there were some specific design elements added such as smoke barriers at ceilings and most importantly protected stairway accesses to exits which had to account for cummulative exit widths from floors above.

Few people, of course, are prepared to go to that extent to "push" what is generally viewed by most as a static code.

We'd be far further ahead in promoting the increased sale of BC lumber if the Provincial government moved to make housing more affordable by reducing or eliminating many of the various taxes currently acting as a disincentive to many who would otherwise be able to build. Whatever happened to, "Tax cuts work"? Or was that just one-shot hollow rhetoric for public consumption to allow those that didn't need one to get a big one, while ours was hardly even noticeable to most of us?

The Federal Home Renovation Tax Credit is an excellent example of a small move by government that assists homeowners, builders, their suppliers, and manufacturers. It is really miniscule financially in regards to even the maximum credit against taxes obtainable, yet the effect has been quite stimulative to the whole renovation industry.

This Wood First Act is more in the nature of a "see, we are doing something" exercise than anything substantive or beneficial to the general public at large.

Like the governement is going to sue itself for not using wood...
Fat chance!!!!!

Tee hee hee hee, I know Elaine is gonna slam me on this,


But if wood is so important, why didn't Pat Bell step in when the Regional District of Fraser Fort George decided to build the new Firehall in Beaverly with a metal structure, when the wood structure was with in budget.

Wood First; bloviation by Bell.
To bloviate is to declaim or orate longwindedly and bombastically, also described as "talking boastfully, and at great length" Sorry, Pat, but you fit that description, and are in the hot seat so we all get to take potshots at you and all the silly things that Gordo makes you say and do. The pay off for you though is that gold plated pension.
metalman.

Yeah wood first most of the wood will come back from the USA or China after we ship them our logs. Like the wood they used to make Govt signs along our hyways Metalman is right Pat Bell is a puppet and only cares about himself and how he can help big business and his gold pension.

"The pay off for you though is that gold plated pension.'

He is not alone. After this last election they'll all collect the same increases in salaries and the same *gold plated* pensions.

No matter which party. Money has no conscience.

I think it would be a better idea for the government to provide additional incentives for businesses (tax credits, grants, etc.) to develop NEW wood based products that the market would simply CHOOSE to support on a larger scale, as opposed to creating artificial demand for a relatively run of the mill product that anyone in the world could produce.

Initiatives like these do not to spur or drive innovation, which incidentally, is what the forestry industry really needs for long-term survival. Truth be told, stuff like this actually stifles that innovation.

The consumer demand for the "relatively run of the mill" product is there, NMG. It's the "effective demand" ~ the ability of the consumer to pay a price that covers the costs of production PLUS the taxes imposed at the point of retail ~ that's missing. The HRTC increases that "effective demand" by rebating you on your Income Tax a portion of whatever you've spent on a renovation job. It makes that reno job more "affordable". It is miniscule, but it does work. And it works because we are "subsidising" the CONSUMER directly, and NOT the PRODUCER or the distributor. Those latter have
to 'compete' for the Consumer's business, as they should.

If there really was any money to be made in producing more "value-added" type wood products someone would already be doing that. And, in most instances, to the extent that there is, they already are.

These "specialty products" often are only profitable to produce so long as they remain "specialties". When we try to "commoditize" them, (generally to create 'employment'), we're just as likely to lose both the presently successful specialty producer, and the employment.

When our politicians throw taxpayer money into special funding for new products directly, past experience indicates all they're doing is creating a "hot-house industry".

The people receiving this funding soon learn it's far easier to put more emphasis on the necessary "hype" to get more of it, than in actually getting their plant on a genuinely sound businesslike basis.

I'm thinking more about what the forestry industry in BC will need to produce 10, 15, 20 and 30 years from now in order to be healthy and viable, as opposed to what they can do right now.

IMHO, the landscape of forestry in this Province is going to change so dramatically in the next few decades, that it would be foolish for us to only focus on what the customer wants right now. We need industry and governments to start thinking more strategically and to start thinking about what the customer will want long term. Maybe that means new technology, products produced in a more environmentally friendly manner, etc.

We can't just rest on our laurels and assume that the rest of the world won't be looking to take our place in supplying timber and/or developing timber substitutes.

There is already a large amount of support for the development of new forest products, technologies, etc., through agencies like Forintek, various Universities, industry organizations like BC Wood Specialties Group, etc., etc.

And there is access to financing, for the viable, through the private banks, venture capital firms, and BDBC. And what often turns out to be not-so-viable through various quasi-government development agencies. Community Futures, and the like.

My observation of what has gone on in the industry, dating back to the time Bill Bennett was in office (and I've been involved in the forest industry personally since WAC Bennett was in office), leads me to believe a lot of funds have been spent "chasing rainbows".

Indeed, I've known a number of entrepreneurs who've come up with "innovative" ideas for the new use of wood. But in the vast majority of instances seem to have then made more of an industry out of sucking funds from politicians anxious to be seen to be doing 'anything' that might create a "job" for someone, than they ever have in developing an actual product that's needed or wanted sufficiently enough to ever be viable.

In my own opinion, we put too much emphasis on trying to do things which are supposedly going to result in our "capturing" some foreign market somewhere, and equally supposedly, thinking that through this will come "jobs". And through them, "incomes". Ones people might actually be able to live on.

If we were going to "research" anything that might truly be of benefit to us in the future, I believe we should take a long, hard look at the whole viability of this very concept.

It seems to me we've been pursuing this still elusive goal for a very long time now, and the results intended could hardly be described as favourable in their incarnation so far. With little evidence apparent that that's ever going to change.

My own belief is that we'll continue to alternate between far too short periods of "boom", and far too long periods of "bust", and our whole industry, instead of being geared more towards innovative products that "could" be made, and made viably, will go the other way. Until we make nothing that's viable. Not even for the still fewer producers left than we have today.

To cure this, reverse the trend to ever greater corporate concentration, and restore the viability of the "independent producer", who is often the genuine innovator because of perceived necessity, we really need to ensure that the "Consumer demand" that's the ultimate origin of all economic activity is always an "effective demand". That should begin in our OWN domestic market first.

Good post socredible and I agree with most of your points.
The issue of whether government building with BC wood is going to do much short term is that it probably won't. But over time and as a step towards what needs to happen I believe it is a good first step.
It is the message that counts and a new era reality is driving the need for this message all over the world. The message is that the consumer is responsible to more than simply buying for the sake of price or convenience and that all people must be responsible to what they are contributing to, locally and globally.

The environmental arguments are now gaining strength for benefits in buying local, but far to few people realise the longterm economic benefits of this, not to mention the security of availability of the products we will actually need for a long time to come. Oil prices and the concept of "peak oil" have provolked the notions of national security, but the reality is much larger than oil by itself and includes many other natural resources/products and the global transportation of all these resources that is truly unsustainable environmentally and economically.
I think we have reached the point of "peak wood" as we knew it and the export markets we had will continue to erode from various forces. Whether it is trade protectionism/trade laws, exchange rates or the costs of transportation to far away places, the reality is: products which are required and can be made locally will eventually prevail, everywhere on the planet. Our world class scale production of things like lumber are useless to us if they cannot be sustained or adapt to the changing export markets that they depend upon.
Sure enough that the current demand for forest products will improve to some degree, but will it improve enough to cause the price to improve enough to cause most of our facilities to restart? The answer is; probably not and the North American corporate concentration which can now effectively throttle the supply of forest products can also manipulate governments into continueing to prevent the redistribution of the timber supply to other independent companies. In 2003 our BC government did exactly that and hence the end of appurtenacy and the wide open movement of major licencee's timber to anywhere they want. IMO;The worst of this policy is yet to come to a milltown near you.
The reversing of the corporate concentration is a very important point which would lead to a much different industry with a much different loyalty to its actual roots;such as its workers,the community,the natural resources the province and the country. These locally focussed operations have a much different approach to innovation and diversity than that of one money sucking tentacle of a conglomerate corporation.

"I think we have reached the point of "peak wood" as we knew it and the export markets we had will continue to erode from various forces. Whether it is trade protectionism/trade laws, exchange rates or the costs of transportation to far away places, the reality is: products which are required and can be made locally will eventually prevail, everywhere on the planet"

Then we are REALLY screwed given that probably 95% of our forestry industry is reliant on exports. If your point holds true, I'd suggest it's even GREATER incentive for us to develop products that we can market and sell to others in large quantities. There simpy aren't enough people in BC (nor will there ever be) to sustain the current size of the BC forestry industry and thus the number of BC forestry and spinoff jobs.

A couple of points to consider before losing hope in our future in forestry. First is that the point that socredible touched on was the need to rethink how we measure success and try to correct what limits our opportunities to adapt to the world that is constantly changing.
We as individuals, workers or other small businesses are not "screwed" as NMG puts it if we change the way we do things and indeed our governments policies and the forest industry must change if it is to survive. However, the big corporate supermill stratedgy which is dependent upon the US housing market is likely going to screw all but a very few of us if it continues to be the primary means of ownership and control of our resources.
IMO one of the biggest limitations to this necesary set of changes is our current ownership of our industry and the ways which our government is aligned with the interests of this small but powerfull group.
Yes we will also need to market our wood products to other places, but unless these new markets use the same products which our current specialised industry produces for stick framed buildings..the reality is that we will be limited to slow incremental gains in these new markets.

Will the existing industry retool to provide for these new and usually smaller markets? The better question is whether they can adapt? IMO they cannot and will not be able to adapt quick enough or to the degree necesary. We need diversity in ownership which can provide the product diversity of the new markets which we require...to maintain OUR needs.