News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 6K     0 

Therapy thought -- take on a project or projects that make downtown better -- it really helps.
I know, I do. At this point my projects include calling 311 on the garbage and disorder, 911 for the frequent fires, and the development office for the illegal parking lots. I jest, I realise that's not what you're talking about, but my bandwidth at the moment is completely full. I can say, however, that through my job I am tangentially involved in some big city projects that are doing exactly that.
 
Amazing what teacher strike can do for downtown vibrancy.

20251016_114305.jpg


Those who are WFH, no need to feel guilty today. Lots of teachers downtown to eat at our restaurants and make the streets feel full.

But you better be in office tomorrow to pick up the slack! And don't you dare bring a lunch.
 
Very fiscally responsible policy there! Spend millions extra taxpayer dollars on leases or ownership costs just so that workers might spend their own money downtown. That's a very roundabout subsidy, and would be much better spent on incentives for residential development or incentives to encourage private sector growth.
There are some office buildings sitting empty or partly empty where companies or organizations are still paying the costs for, so having at least some people returning to the office will probably not result in increased costs for them.
 
Amazing what teacher strike can do for downtown vibrancy.

View attachment 688821

Those who are WFH, no need to feel guilty today. Lots of teachers downtown to eat at our restaurants and make the streets feel full.

But you better be in office tomorrow to pick up the slack! And don't you dare bring a lunch.
Red Alert gang sure has increased their recruitment efforts I see
 
so having at least some people returning to the office will probably not result in increased costs for them.
Yes and no. In the short-term, it wouldn't increase costs but it would mean that they need to pay for leases, utilities, etc. that they otherwise could have saved. That's a large reason why the GoA is consolidating space, for example. In the longer term however, there's a lot of capital costs involved in maintaining and renovating spaces down the line. For example, administration is hoping to sell Century Place and Chancery Hall and consolidate staff in other buildings. In a report to council, they explain why:

"The City’s total renewal investment requirement over 2023 to 2032 is $8.37 billion, with annual requirements in the range of $721 million in 2023 to $1.02 billion in 2032. Over the 2023 to 2026capital budget cycle, the required renewal investment is $3.58 billion. As of the spring 2024 supplementary capital budget adjustment (SCBA), only 57.5 per cent of the City’s ideal renewal need was funded in the current budget cycle. Currently, 60.1 per cent of the City’s facility assets are considered to be in Fair condition and approaching the end of their lifecycle. Of those assets in Fair condition, approximately one third will fall into Poor condition over the next 10 years. Based on analysis supporting the 2023-2032 Capital Investment Outlook, the ideal investment to keep the entire portfolio of facilities assets in an optimum physical and functional condition is estimated at approximately $2.2 billion over the next 10 years. In this circumstance, it is prudent that options for rationalizing and rightsizing municipal assets are explored. The need to evaluate and right size municipal assets is essential to ensure Edmonton can support its current assets and have the right framework in place to support the growth of the population.

Century Place is 51 years old and Chancery Hall is 59 years old. Both buildings require significant investment to maintain and modernize, keep in good working order and achieve the City’s climate resilience goals. Repairs are becoming increasingly complex and costly system replacements will soon be required. Facility systems should be renewed at certain intervals as part of asset management best practices. Building renewal includes work to extend the service life of certain systems (e.g., elevators, building envelope, etc.) and replace certain components that have reached the end of their service life (e.g., electrical systems). The estimated capital investments required in the short-term and over the next 10 to 20 years for Century Place and Chancery Hall include amounts for both lifecycle renewal of facility systems and required floor renovations."

The specific requirements for these buildings, and their financial implications, was kept confidential, but I think the two paragraphs together paint a pretty telling picture. If taxpayers want taxes to stay low, then their tax dollars must be used for more urgent things than maintaining and renewing office space for the sake of keeping bodies downtown for an extra day or two per week. Encouraging more companies and residents to move downtown would have a much better return on investment; both by generating tax revenue instead of costing tax dollars, and creating a more vibrant atmosphere outside of business hours.
 
How times have changed. It is a sacrifice to ask people to show up for work. Wow.
It's one thing to make them spend more money on commuting (ie needing to puy gas more often, or paying for transit more often) because working at the office leads to better collaboration or productivity (which many large companies and banks have stated as their reason). It's another thing altogether to make employees (many of whom were hired after hybrid work was implemented) spend more of their own money on going to an office simply out of hopes that they'll spend more of their own money on top of that at the stores and restaurants downtown (which Doug Ford has stated as his reason, and many downtown advocates like @IanO are calling for). The former is an evidence-based decision; the latter is a tax-payer subsidy to landlords in an attempt to subsidize downtown businesses using your employee's money.
 
It's one thing to make them spend more money on commuting (ie needing to puy gas more often, or paying for transit more often) because working at the office leads to better collaboration or productivity (which many large companies and banks have stated as their reason).

Did they not have to pay for their own gas before Covid? Unless WFH was explicitly added into their contract after the pandemic, people shouldn’t be pushing back on things that they were already doing when they got hired pre-covid.
 
Did they not have to pay for their own gas before Covid? Unless WFH was explicitly added into their contract after the pandemic, people shouldn’t be pushing back on things that they were already doing when they got hired pre-covid.
It's not really a moral question of whether employees should or shouldn't push back. Many workers derive clear benefits from flexible working arrangements, and if an employer makes people do things they don't want to do, the ones who have other opportunities will start to think about leaving.
 
Yes and no. In the short-term, it wouldn't increase costs but it would mean that they need to pay for leases, utilities, etc. that they otherwise could have saved. That's a large reason why the GoA is consolidating space, for example. In the longer term however, there's a lot of capital costs involved in maintaining and renovating spaces down the line. For example, administration is hoping to sell Century Place and Chancery Hall and consolidate staff in other buildings. In a report to council, they explain why:

"The City’s total renewal investment requirement over 2023 to 2032 is $8.37 billion, with annual requirements in the range of $721 million in 2023 to $1.02 billion in 2032. Over the 2023 to 2026capital budget cycle, the required renewal investment is $3.58 billion. As of the spring 2024 supplementary capital budget adjustment (SCBA), only 57.5 per cent of the City’s ideal renewal need was funded in the current budget cycle. Currently, 60.1 per cent of the City’s facility assets are considered to be in Fair condition and approaching the end of their lifecycle. Of those assets in Fair condition, approximately one third will fall into Poor condition over the next 10 years. Based on analysis supporting the 2023-2032 Capital Investment Outlook, the ideal investment to keep the entire portfolio of facilities assets in an optimum physical and functional condition is estimated at approximately $2.2 billion over the next 10 years. In this circumstance, it is prudent that options for rationalizing and rightsizing municipal assets are explored. The need to evaluate and right size municipal assets is essential to ensure Edmonton can support its current assets and have the right framework in place to support the growth of the population.

Century Place is 51 years old and Chancery Hall is 59 years old. Both buildings require significant investment to maintain and modernize, keep in good working order and achieve the City’s climate resilience goals. Repairs are becoming increasingly complex and costly system replacements will soon be required. Facility systems should be renewed at certain intervals as part of asset management best practices. Building renewal includes work to extend the service life of certain systems (e.g., elevators, building envelope, etc.) and replace certain components that have reached the end of their service life (e.g., electrical systems). The estimated capital investments required in the short-term and over the next 10 to 20 years for Century Place and Chancery Hall include amounts for both lifecycle renewal of facility systems and required floor renovations."

The specific requirements for these buildings, and their financial implications, was kept confidential, but I think the two paragraphs together paint a pretty telling picture. If taxpayers want taxes to stay low, then their tax dollars must be used for more urgent things than maintaining and renewing office space for the sake of keeping bodies downtown for an extra day or two per week. Encouraging more companies and residents to move downtown would have a much better return on investment; both by generating tax revenue instead of costing tax dollars, and creating a more vibrant atmosphere outside of business hours.
Going to work is not a sacrifice the hyperbole is just off the charts
 
Going to work is not a sacrifice the hyperbole is just off the charts
I'm not the one who used that word, I'm just explaining that it's not as simple as "not wanting to go to work" either. Because let's be real, this specific debate isn't about making employees go to work; it's about hoping they'll also "go to cafe."
 
I live downtown and work from home. I eat lunch with my workmates fairly regularly (at least once a month, usually more), and I am saving 5h a week by not having to drive (not a mad commute, but still an hour per day door to door). I am neither lazy nor entitled, but this works really, really well for me and I would fight tooth and nail to continue to WFH should my higher-ups decide that my physical presence was somehow magically necessary (it's not). I don't understand why having this level of flexibility is somehow seen as some insane privilege?
 
Did they not have to pay for their own gas before Covid? Unless WFH was explicitly added into their contract after the pandemic, people shouldn’t be pushing back on things that they were already doing when they got hired pre-covid.
As I said, a lot of them were hired *after* Covid, and the job listings promised hybrid working arrangements of 2 (CoE) or 3 (GoA) in-office days per week. So as a matter of principle, they should have a better reason for breaking that promise beyond "business owners need money." If it improves productivity or teamwork or whatever, I'm all for it.

I live downtown and work from home. I eat lunch with my workmates fairly regularly (at least once a month, usually more), and I am saving 5h a week by not having to drive (not a mad commute, but still an hour per day door to door). I am neither lazy nor entitled, but this works really, really well for me and I would fight tooth and nail to continue to WFH should my higher-ups decide that my physical presence was somehow magically necessary (it's not). I don't understand why having this level of flexibility is somehow seen as some insane privilege?
You will have your zoom calls in an office cubical and you will be happy about it.
 
Yes and no. In the short-term, it wouldn't increase costs but it would mean that they need to pay for leases, utilities, etc. that they otherwise could have saved. That's a large reason why the GoA is consolidating space, for example. In the longer term however, there's a lot of capital costs involved in maintaining and renovating spaces down the line. For example, administration is hoping to sell Century Place and Chancery Hall and consolidate staff in other buildings. In a report to council, they explain why:

"The City’s total renewal investment requirement over 2023 to 2032 is $8.37 billion, with annual requirements in the range of $721 million in 2023 to $1.02 billion in 2032. Over the 2023 to 2026capital budget cycle, the required renewal investment is $3.58 billion. As of the spring 2024 supplementary capital budget adjustment (SCBA), only 57.5 per cent of the City’s ideal renewal need was funded in the current budget cycle. Currently, 60.1 per cent of the City’s facility assets are considered to be in Fair condition and approaching the end of their lifecycle. Of those assets in Fair condition, approximately one third will fall into Poor condition over the next 10 years. Based on analysis supporting the 2023-2032 Capital Investment Outlook, the ideal investment to keep the entire portfolio of facilities assets in an optimum physical and functional condition is estimated at approximately $2.2 billion over the next 10 years. In this circumstance, it is prudent that options for rationalizing and rightsizing municipal assets are explored. The need to evaluate and right size municipal assets is essential to ensure Edmonton can support its current assets and have the right framework in place to support the growth of the population.

Century Place is 51 years old and Chancery Hall is 59 years old. Both buildings require significant investment to maintain and modernize, keep in good working order and achieve the City’s climate resilience goals. Repairs are becoming increasingly complex and costly system replacements will soon be required. Facility systems should be renewed at certain intervals as part of asset management best practices. Building renewal includes work to extend the service life of certain systems (e.g., elevators, building envelope, etc.) and replace certain components that have reached the end of their service life (e.g., electrical systems). The estimated capital investments required in the short-term and over the next 10 to 20 years for Century Place and Chancery Hall include amounts for both lifecycle renewal of facility systems and required floor renovations."

The specific requirements for these buildings, and their financial implications, was kept confidential, but I think the two paragraphs together paint a pretty telling picture. If taxpayers want taxes to stay low, then their tax dollars must be used for more urgent things than maintaining and renewing office space for the sake of keeping bodies downtown for an extra day or two per week. Encouraging more companies and residents to move downtown would have a much better return on investment; both by generating tax revenue instead of costing tax dollars, and creating a more vibrant atmosphere outside of business hours.
I know of another organization that was "hoping" to rent out some of the extra space in the building they own for the last several years while almost all of their employees continued to work from home. Perhaps they are still hoping or they can try sell it, but if more people are hoping to sell than buy, that will probably not work well either. In any event, they still have to continue to pay all the costs of maintaining this building so no savings for them.

I thought the newer Edmonton Tower was to replace older buildings like Century Place and Chancery Hall, which frankly the city will probably not get much for if they sell, although that is probably the better option if they actually can find anyone willing to buy it. This may not happen because what someone is willing to pay may be too politically embarrassing.
 
I live downtown and work from home. I eat lunch with my workmates fairly regularly (at least once a month, usually more), and I am saving 5h a week by not having to drive (not a mad commute, but still an hour per day door to door). I am neither lazy nor entitled, but this works really, really well for me and I would fight tooth and nail to continue to WFH should my higher-ups decide that my physical presence was somehow magically necessary (it's not). I don't understand why having this level of flexibility is somehow seen as some insane privilege?
It is neither a privilege or a sacrifice it is a choice. If you don’t like the arrangement make another choice.
 

Back
Top