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

It is neither a privilege or a sacrifice it is a choice. If you don’t like the arrangement make another choice.
Point is, @ADob is describing a situation with which both they and their employers seem to be comfortable and that appears to be good (or at least not bad) for productivity. So why are a bunch of other people butting in to say that we need to end WFH?

The fact that this discourse keeps popping up is I think symptomatic of the fact that most people are just not that invested in downtown (not talking about ADob, who lives there and is the exception), and downtown-boosters haven't made a great case for why they should be. If firms don't expect productivity benefits from in-person work, and employees would prefer to avoid the traffic / gas costs / child care costs, why should they change their behavior?

Honestly—I like Downtown Edmonton and I would like it to succeed. But it's hard for me to come up with a great argument for why revitalizing downtown is the challenge we need to be focusing on. The best I can come up with is that we've already sunk a lot of money into building three LRT lines through it, so we'd better maintain it as a job center to take advantage of that transport capacity. But that's pretty weak!
 
I mean the main argument, for me at least so this is just my opinion, is that downtown investment is needed not just for the tax uplift it causes, but for the economic agglomeration benefits. Denser, higher vibrancy areas really just become more attractive for business, culture and other activities.

Plus like constance_chlore said, we’ve sunk billions into transit in the area, so we might as well take advantage of that.

I personally still think forcing full time RTO isn’t the way forward for downtown long term anyway. There’s only so much political capital you can spend that I’d rather see put into residential, student and other non-employment activities, but then again I’m biased.
 
So in the future when all these post secondary students graduate they will be more comfortable about riding our transit system having used it for years. They could very well make the choice to work downtown rather than some remote business park isolated by main arterial roads from the rest of society. They will choose to work downtown because of the cost savings and convenience of riding the LRT over driving. It will be a choice not a privilege and certainly not a sacrifice.
 
Let's have the City start with bringing workers back to their Downtown offices as that will do a world of good for this 'upswing' of a Downtown.

Let's have the City start with luring more workers into the new or u/c developments in the downtown core as that will do a world of good for this 'upswing' of a Downtown. How about incentives such as freezes on rent, condo fees or EPCOR utilities?
 
So in the future when all these post secondary students graduate they will be more comfortable about riding our transit system having used it for years. They could very well make the choice to work downtown rather than some remote business park isolated by main arterial roads from the rest of society. They will choose to work downtown because of the cost savings and convenience of riding the LRT over driving. It will be a choice not a privilege and certainly not a sacrifice.
We are about to enter the fastest transition in the job market ever, and primarily white collar, lower level jobs will be hurt most. Many are saying the rust belt/globalization impact to areas like the Midwest is about to happen to cities full of white collar workers, except it’ll do in 5 years when took 30 for the rust belt areas.

Certainly an interesting future ahead. Education, Care, Arts, Entertainment, Trades, Manufacturing is where jobs will need to come from. Law, accounting, finance, consulting, government, tech, etc will be hit very hard with AI job losses.
 
All of this Sturm und Drang -- downtown Edmonton is evolving quite nicely, it just takes time. What's the saying... Rome wasn't built on a dais (no that's not it).
 
No. We don't need to force workers to sacrifice for the greater good to "save Downtown".
No we don’t.

But we do need to bring them back for the greater good of doing a better job at what they do and enabling those they work with - inside and outside - to do better jobs as a result.

The fact it would also be good for downtown would simply be a welcome side effect.
 
People need to accept reality. City workers have WFH in their union agreement for at least a few more years.

With Amazon, West Ed and Kingsway, downtown retail will never look like other cities maybe permanently. Add in AI and mass unemployment in the 15-20 percent range that will decimate the rest.

Council can’t fix provincial issues like addictions, mental health and homelessness, let alone federal bail laws. The fact everyone (looking at you DBA) uses council and admin as the easy punching bag speaks volumes to their ignorance and partisanship.

Construction will last a few more years until the pedway, bridge, and LRT construction will finish. Nothing else to do but grin and bear it, as damaging and poorly planned as it is.

The fundamentals of our strange geography (Strathcona and UoA on the other side of a giant river), affordable suburban housing, generations of economic mishandling and anti-business mayors, combined with outright urban arson (demolishing beautiful historical buildings, a toothless design committee accepting insulting projects like the Milner library), all make the case that Edmonton may be a post-downtown city, much like Asian countries are at the forefront of the depopulation crisis. One election won’t change all this.

Yet there are positives: huge investments in transit that will pay off soon, new urban parks and infrastructure (although the Quarters has been practically dead), and strong investments in post secondary.

If I was in charge, the best play now is going all in on post secondary and student housing. That has the best chance for success and vibrancy downtown.
 
There is another Alberta municipality that was planning on spending tens of millions of dollars on a new office building for its growing staff right when COVID hit. Then, everyone was working from home, and suddenly, they did not need a new building. They've since shelved the plan as WFH has worked so well and has not only saved millions in tax dollars from being spent on a building, but allowed that municipality to hire from a much broader list of candidates who would otherwise never have even considered applying there due to the commute.

I know for a fact that the COE has some incredible employees who would not be working there if the job offers had not been hybrid. Take that away, and there will be plenty of other municipalities and private industry ready to snag those people.
 
There is another Alberta municipality that was planning on spending tens of millions of dollars on a new office building for its growing staff right when COVID hit. Then, everyone was working from home, and suddenly, they did not need a new building. They've since shelved the plan as WFH has worked so well and has not only saved millions in tax dollars from being spent on a building, but allowed that municipality to hire from a much broader list of candidates who would otherwise never have even considered applying there due to the commute.

I know for a fact that the COE has some incredible employees who would not be working there if the job offers had not been hybrid. Take that away, and there will be plenty of other municipalities and private industry ready to snag those people.
I worked in a public sector WFH office and know for a fact that people did jack shit for months at a time. The do-nothing group would also quit if accountability was brought back into the office.

Could balance out.
 
Point is, @ADob is describing a situation with which both they and their employers seem to be comfortable and that appears to be good (or at least not bad) for productivity. So why are a bunch of other people butting in to say that we need to end WFH?

The fact that this discourse keeps popping up is I think symptomatic of the fact that most people are just not that invested in downtown (not talking about ADob, who lives there and is the exception), and downtown-boosters haven't made a great case for why they should be. If firms don't expect productivity benefits from in-person work, and employees would prefer to avoid the traffic / gas costs / child care costs, why should they change their behavior?

Honestly—I like Downtown Edmonton and I would like it to succeed. But it's hard for me to come up with a great argument for why revitalizing downtown is the challenge we need to be focusing on. The best I can come up with is that we've already sunk a lot of money into building three LRT lines through it, so we'd better maintain it as a job center to take advantage of that transport capacity. But that's pretty weak!
Well people are generally invested in their self interest and if that means saving a half hour to 45 minute commute then that will be what they want. It is also up to employers to decide what they feel works best for their business or organization. Of course, having more people return to work in the office, which is happening already anyways particularly in the private sector, would be good for downtown, but I don't think it should be the only or main argument for it.

Although return to office it is not just a downtown issue, a lot of business and other offices in Edmonton are located throughout the city. We are not one of those corporate head office cities where there is very a huge concentrated downtown workforce.

Maybe some people that don't go downtown much or were not here a decade or so ago when it was much more vibrant don't grasp or care about how the problems with downtown are bringing our whole city down, but they really are. For instance the municipal tax value decline over the last few years has been huge and that shortfall is being picked up by residential home owners and cuts to city services.
 
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.

People have certainly left the company I work with for personal/professional reasons - in saying that, because we are now a predominantly WFH company, we have acquired some outstanding talent because they were required to go back to in-office work 100% of the time at their previous employer. In exit interviews, it is uncommon to hear people leaving our company because we are mostly WFH - the opposite is true more often, people coming here with WFH opportunity as a factor.

My workplace is provided yearly performance benefits and we have surpassed annual targets for the past 3 years - so WFH hasn't been a productivity issue. There's a strong culture of well-being and trust and life-work balance that WFH can greatly support. That said, teams are still encouraged to go into the office once a week or bi-weekly as a group for in person collaboration/connection and are also required to go into the office sometimes. Before COVID, we were starting to move in a WFH direction for more of our people and that plan was obviously accelerated.
 
I worked in a public sector WFH office and know for a fact that people did jack shit for months at a time. The do-nothing group would also quit if accountability was brought back into the office.
If they slack off at home, odds are they slack off in the office too. People like that don't tend to feel shame.
 
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.
What an interesting analysis/conclusion.

Manage your wholly owned assets until such time as they require significant investment to maintain and modernize, keep in good working order etc., all because you haven't been doing the appropriate maintenance and upgrades that should have been invested in them for decades. Then, to avoid those costs, sell the asset at the bottom of the market while accepting a further substantial discount so the purchaser can complete that work.

Maybe someone could use it as a case study to write a book about how not to manage either your real estate or your staff...
 

Back
Top