From Code to High Performance: Lessons from Jeff Langford’s Burnaby Home Project

The journey from building code minimums to genuinely high-performance construction has long seemed daunting to many builders and developers. However, Jeff Langford of JDL Homes Vancouver demonstrated in a recent presentation that the gap is narrower than most assume. His Burnaby, British Columbia project proved that a well-designed home using quality materials can leap from Step 3 to Step 5 on the BC Step Code with relatively modest additional investment. The key lies in making smart foundational choices early, such as understanding what are the differences between high strength and high performance concrete, and committing to a performance-oriented approach from the outset rather than treating it as an afterthought.

The ICF Foundation: Thermally Broken and Built to Last

The foundation of any high-performance home is literally the foundation. For the Burnaby project, Langford chose an insulated concrete form (ICF) system manufactured by Nudura, paired with a bag footing design. ICF construction differs fundamentally from traditional poured concrete walls because the foam forms remain in place permanently, creating a continuous layer of insulation on both the interior and exterior faces of the concrete core.

Langford highlighted several specific advantages of using an ICF foundation. First, it provides a thermally broken foundation, meaning heat cannot easily bridge from the warm interior through the concrete to the cold ground outside. Second, ICF eliminates the need for stripping and disposing of wooden forms after the pour, which saves both labor and material waste. Third, the system requires minimal lumber on site, reducing both cost and the potential for moisture damage to stored materials. Fourth, rebar placement is straightforward because the foam panels have pre-formed channels and tie slots built into the system. Fifth, the use of 1×4 pour strips helps maintain wall alignment during the concrete pour. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the concrete core itself acts as a secondary air barrier, adding redundancy to the home’s overall airtightness strategy. This combination of thermal performance and structural integrity aligns well with the approach discussed in beyond Ontarios green code what the Ottawa demonstration home teaches builders about high performance construction.

For builders accustomed to conventional foundations, the ICF method does require some upfront learning, particularly around bracing and pour techniques. However, the long-term performance benefits far outweigh this initial adjustment period, especially when the goal is to meet rigorous energy standards.

SIPs Construction: Speed Meets Airtightness

Above the foundation, Langford turned to structurally insulated panels (SIPs) supplied by West Eco for the walls and roof. SIPs are composite building panels consisting of an insulating foam core sandwiched between two structural facings, typically oriented strand board (OSB). This system offers a compelling combination of structural strength, thermal performance, and construction speed that traditional stick framing cannot easily match.

The most striking example of SIPs efficiency in this project was the roof assembly. The entire roof was delivered to the site as prefabricated SIP panels, lifted into place by a crane, and screwed down within a single day. This kind of schedule compression is invaluable on residential projects where weather windows are tight and labor costs are high. Beyond speed, SIPs deliver exceptional airtightness because the panels create large, uninterrupted surfaces with far fewer joints than conventional framing. Every joint that would exist in a stick-framed roof—each rafter bay, each intersection—represents a potential air leakage point. SIPs reduce these joints to the panel seams alone, which are taped and sealed during installation. The prefabricated nature of these systems is echoed in the construction industry’s broader shift toward off-site fabrication, as covered in precast high performance high expectations.

Another less obvious benefit of SIPs is their lightweight nature relative to their structural capacity. This reduces the load on the foundation and makes handling on site safer and easier. For a project already using an ICF foundation, the combination of heavy, thermally massive walls below and lightweight, highly insulated panels above creates a balanced thermal envelope.

The Surprising Step Code Journey from Level 3 to Level 5

Perhaps the most instructive aspect of the Burnaby project is how the team arrived at a BC Step Code Level 5 rating almost by accident. The original design intent was to achieve Step 3, which represents a meaningful but modest improvement over the base building code. However, as the design progressed and the performance modelling results came back, it became clear that the combination of ICF, SIPs, and careful detailing was already performing well above the Step 3 threshold.

Langford and his team then approached the homeowners with a proposition: for a relatively small budget increase, they could upgrade several key components and push the project all the way to Step 5, the highest performance tier in the BC Step Code system and the level that sits just below the full Passive House standard. The homeowners agreed, and the project proceeded with targeted upgrades rather than a wholesale redesign.

This is a critical lesson for the building industry. The assumption that high-performance construction requires a completely different building system or massive cost premiums is simply not accurate when the underlying design is already sound. Good geometry, continuous insulation, and attention to detailing create a strong foundation—literally and figuratively—upon which incremental performance gains are surprisingly affordable. This principle extends to other building components too, as shown in how windows determine wall thermal performance in high performance buildings.

The Triple Pane Threshold: Small Cost, Big Impact

Among the specific upgrades that made the Step 5 target achievable, the switch from double-pane to triple-pane windows stands out as a particularly compelling example. According to Langford, the incremental cost of upgrading all windows in the Burnaby home from double glazing to triple glazing was less than $2,000. In the context of a project with a total budget exceeding $800,000 and a unit cost target of roughly $300 per square foot, this represents an almost negligible fraction of the overall expenditure.

Yet the performance impact of that upgrade is anything but negligible. Triple-pane windows cut heat loss through the glazing by roughly half compared to standard double-pane units. They also improve interior surface temperatures, reducing the risk of condensation and improving occupant comfort near the glass. In a home with an ICF foundation and SIP walls—both of which deliver very high insulation values—windows become the thermal weak link. Upgrading them closes that gap and brings the overall envelope performance much closer to uniformity.

The lesson here extends well beyond windows. Throughout the Burnaby project, the team found that the cost-to-performance ratio of most upgrades was strongly favorable when the base design was already efficient. This reinforces the argument that investing early in good building science fundamentals is the most cost-effective path to high performance, as explored in the broader context of high performance buildings.

What Builders Can Learn from the Burnaby Approach

The Burnaby project offers several actionable takeaways for builders, designers, and developers who are considering moving beyond code-minimum construction. First, the choice of primary building systems—foundation, wall assembly, roof—has an outsized impact on the eventual performance ceiling. Projects that begin with ICF foundations and SIP walls are already most of the way toward Step 5 performance before any optimization work begins.

Second, airtightness is not an afterthought but a design parameter that must be considered from the earliest stages. The SIP system inherently delivers high airtightness because it minimizes joints, but achieving excellent results with any system requires careful planning around penetrations, service cavities, and transitions between different assembly types. The ICF-to-SIP connection, the window rough openings, and the roof ridge are all details that reward attention.

Third, the financial case for high-performance construction becomes much stronger when framed as incremental upgrades to an already efficient design rather than as a binary choice between code-minimum and Passive House. Langford’s team did not need to double the budget or reinvent their construction process. They simply needed to recognize that their solid baseline design had untapped potential and then make a few strategic investments to unlock it. Understanding the principles behind high performance building envelopes is central to making this approach work.

Fourth, engaging the homeowner early in the performance conversation is essential. The homeowners in this case were receptive to upgrades because the team presented the opportunity clearly, with specific costs and benefits attached to each option. When clients understand that an extra $2,000 on windows will reduce their heating bills for decades, the decision becomes straightforward.

Finally, it is worth noting that the BC Step Code itself played an enabling role by providing clear performance targets and a graduated pathway from code minimum to near-Passive House performance. Regulatory frameworks that define measurable outcomes rather than prescriptive methods give innovative builders room to optimize their designs while remaining accountable to energy goals.

Conclusion: The Path from Code to High Performance Is Shorter Than You Think

Jeff Langford’s Burnaby project serves as a powerful proof point for an idea that many in the building industry are still reluctant to accept: high-performance construction does not require exotic materials, stratospheric budgets, or a completely unfamiliar building process. What it requires is a commitment to good fundamentals—continuous insulation, thermal break detailing, airtight construction, and high-performance glazing—applied through thoughtful system selection.

The project started with a modest Step 3 target and ended at Step 5, the highest tier in British Columbia’s energy code framework, through a series of relatively small decisions that compounded into exceptional performance. The ICF foundation provided thermal mass, air barrier redundancy, and a thermally broken connection to the ground. The SIP walls and roof delivered speed, strength, and exceptional airtightness. The triple-pane windows closed the last significant thermal gap in the envelope. Together, these choices created a home that will consume far less energy and provide far greater comfort than a code-minimum equivalent, at a construction cost that remained well within market norms for the region. For builders looking to push their own practice forward, the technical solutions explored in high performance concrete materials mix design properties and applications for superior construction offer additional pathways to explore. The message from Vancouver is clear: the road from code to high performance is paved not with radical changes, but with better fundamentals executed well.