Why do we do that?
Are the people we rely on in our communities to keep us safe, really putting us at risk? There are several situations that cause me to believe that in some way, rigid design standards or regulations can actually be harmful.
Most would agree that impaired drivers are a threat to everyone else on the road. Most would agree that we should get them off the roads. There are even organizations such as MADD which are devoted and campaign heavily to get the drunks off the road. So, why does the City of Calgary Land Use Bylaw require bars and other drinking emporiums to provide parking? Aren’t we in some way sending out conflicting messages? You shouldn’t drink and drive, but if you open a bar you need a bunch of parking stalls.
The latest popular kick is water conservation, and quite rightly so. We live in a semi-arid climatic zone – that means we live in almost-a-desert. Why does the Land Use Bylaw provide that in association with development, we place non-native plant species that requires a good deal of irrigation? Again we send mixed messages. Phoenix, Calgary’s sister city, where summer temperatures now would nearly melt metal, provided incentives to its citizens to take out their lawns in favour of natural landscaping or xerascapes. The objective was to conserve the scare water resource. I won’t touch watering lawns or City parks in the rain. There will be a predictable sermon from the urban forester – why do we need one of those?- articulating the positive benefits of the “urban forest”, But for goodness sake, we live on the prairie where the natural vegetation is grass! Trees, no matter how much we may like them, are alien to this ecosystem. We have used the bylaw to mess with Mother Nature.
The other thing that irks me a little is the location of certain bus stops. A simple observation suggests that someone is just not thinking it through. For example, on 90 Avenue SW there is a bus stop just west of 24th Street where buses discharge their riders who immediately proceed to jaywalk across a 4-lane divided road way. Well, we have bylaws against jaywalking, but then why do we locate those bus stops in such away that leaves person with the less safe choice of avoiding the controlled intersection 100 meters to the east in favour of the more risky jaywalking.
While we are on the subject of questionable bus stops, another one that left me scratching my head is one located on south bound Crowchild Trail underneath the 17 Avenue overpass. Buses typically leave the downtown core via Bow Trail and exit on to the left lane of Crowchild. When fully loaded with passengers, the buses which appear to be seriously underpowered, struggle to get to a safe merge speed in order to cross three lanes of high-speed traffic to get to the designated bus stop a couple of hundred meters away on the right-hand curb. How the bus drivers do it is beyond me but that they do is a testament to their skill and their patience. It appears to be a location for accidents waiting to happen.
Next: I remember the day when I was in the residential development business and I recall another head-scratcher of a regulation. As I recall – it was several years ago – there was a standard that specified a street light be located every 110 or 120 feet or thereabouts. So they were spaced at that interval regardless. And that is why a lamp standard ended up in the middle of someone’s drive way. Apparently no one on the city side or the builder’s side was paying attention to the details.
And details it is. In the urban realm it is the details that do count. The concept of comprehensive urban design has apparently been lost amongst the text books and not found its way into how we build our cities. There are just too many things that have been left undone, just as there are too many things that have been over done.
Next: Perhaps readers have noticed the plethora of litter lying about and silently rebuked those who threw it to the ground. But then, where are the littler bins? Never one around when you need one, so just toss it. That’s not good enough. Now we have to pay someone to pick it up for want of a $200 litter bin. Here’s a thought: rather than handing out fines to litterbugs, why not sentence them to 20 hours of community service to pick up other people’s litter? Punishment fitting the crime? And while I am on this rant, have you seen the adhesive signs at transit shelters? They have litter bins declaring “For the Transit User use Only”. Who owns transit? It is kind of discriminatory. How do they know it is garbage deposited by a non-transit citizen? Watch out for the transit litter cops!
I think, and perhaps it is a function of our times, in the context of urban planning and urban development we have become lazy, paying less attention to detail, displacing creativity and innovation with rigid regulation, and managing by “formulas”. We have very complicated and lengthy approval processes in someway forcing the proponents of development to look to the expedient just to get it done. This strikes me as less than sufficient to achieve the greater community good.
Do you have any similar pet peeves, or things that you question saying, “Why do we do that?” If so, pass them along. I will look into them.
BOMA Calgary to Assist Workplace Safety
BOMA Calgary to Assist Workplace Safety through Distribution of Gemini’s Online Training Programs:
Occupational Health and Safety major focus
Calgary, Alberta – March 29, 2011 – Gemini Performance Solutions Inc. (Gemini) and the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) Calgary announced today that they have entered into an agreement to deliver Gemini’s competency-based online industry training to BOMA members….
BOMA Calgary Makes Donation to Portage College
Today, the Building Owners & Managers Association of Canada (BOMA) Calgary announced its donation to Portage College to assist in the training of building operators. In making its $35,000 donation, which will be matched under a provincial granting program, BOMA is helping to address the shortage of qualified building operators in the province…read full release.
Public Safety + Police
The March edition of the Calgary Police Service Business News is out, brought to you by the BOMA Public Safety Committee.
Trend of the month? Smashed glass.
Read on about this, commercial break and enter prevention and much more.
Past edition: February
How Prepared Are You?
After any major disaster, it is natural to question your own preparedness. What if it happened to me?
Some families are prepared; their kids learn about emergencies in school. But what if it happend while you were at work, or in your car, or somewhere other than work or home? You just never know.
I keep a “go-pak” in my office. Just in case. It’s a carry-over from my Boy Scout days, you know, “Be Prepared”. It is a simple fanny pack with a couple of bottles of water, some energy bars, a first aid kit, space blanket and some light sticks. I should keep me for the first 24 hours in most instances. I have one in the car and one at home. There are many good sources of information. Here are a few websites:
http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca
http://www.cdc.gov
http://www.who.int
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cepr-cmiu/
http://www.mpss.jus.gov.on.ca/english/pub_EMO/about_emo.html
So, how are prepared are you? You decide. Because you just never know.
How do you Measure Up?
Not many people read their lease contract, or at least that is the impression I am left with. The BOMA Calgary office receives many calls asking for clarification on what amounts to building measurement.
The calls I get fall into two general categories which I call “How come?” and “What does it mean?” The first lot generally arises from a failure of a tenant to understand that not only are they responsible for the space they physically occupy, but also their proportionate share of the common areas. By responsible for in this instance, I mean “pay rent”. This question generally comes in the form of, “Our office is a 1,000 square feet. The landlord is charging us for 1,200 square feet. How come?
While I am not a lawyer, nor should anything in this column be construed as legal advice in any manner whatsoever, I can read and understand a contract. That is what a lease is, a contract.
I offer you this space if you pay theses amounts. Ok, I accept. Offer, acceptance, consideration: three necessary requirements for a contract.
Two things a tenant should look for: First, what is the area they will physically occupy? And, how is the area quantified? Second: A good lease contract will generally specify “Additional Rent” as a separate clause. This will outline all the other things that a tenant is obliged to pay. These are typically operating costs and taxes, and capital improvements to the building. The tenant should understand these things. As with any contract it is always good business to have your solicitor review your company’s contracts.
What methodology is use to quantify the space you are in? Answer is, that methodology should be disclosed, and preferably in the lease contract. There are several standards which may apply. It is the landlord’s purview to specify the methodology. He may use any standard he chooses. Just make sure you know what it is. But more typically, industry members deploy the BOMA Standard of Measurement. There are several version of a BOMA Standard currently in use in the Calgary commercial market. These are the 1980 version, the 1989 and 1989-Revised versions, the 1996 version and some new buildings will be soon using the new 2010 edition.
Here’s an important tip, and one with equal importance to tenants as to landlords: If a new lease contract specifies simply that the premises will be measured according to “the BOMA Standard”, this means ANSI/BOMA Z65.1-2010, the BOMA Standard Method of Measurement and Calculating Rentable Areas (Office Buildings). I emphasis the whole phrase because there are now many standards, but officially there is only one standard at play at any time. The 2010 version superseded the 1996 version so the latter technically no longer exists. The learning point is if the building you are leasing is measured according to one of the earlier versions of the BOMA Standard, it should state so and very explicitly.
There is now a broad family of standard measurement methodologies and these include:
• Office Buildings – ANSI/BOMA Z65.1 – 2010
• Industrial Buildings – ANSI/BOMA Z65.2 – 2009
• Gross Areas of a Building – ANSI/BOMA Z65.3 – 2009
• Multi-unit Residential Buildings – ANSI/BOMA Z65.4 – 2010
• Retail Buildings – ANSI/BOMA Z65.5 – 2010
• And one pending for mixed-use buildings and campus settings
The landlord is obliged to disclose which version of a BOMA standard or otherwise is used in a building.
What is different in the new BOMA Standard? In reality, and very simplistically,2010 is not very much different than the 1996 version. But there are a lot more issues clarified and questions of long-standing answered. Most notably, common areas are now labeled “service” areas or “amenity” areas. Service areas are those things that will make the building usable for tenants such as things usually required by code like corridors, electrical and telephone rooms, washrooms, etc. Amenity areas are those features of a building that add convenience to the building such as, health club, daycare, and other such elements not typically required by code.
Among the ten new major concepts in the 2010 standard is external circulation. This is not typical of the Calgary market, but I can think of a couple of examples, where the corridor is exterior to the building and not enclosed. Rather like and extended balcony. Exterior corridors are more typically found in warm climates. They are now included in the measurement.
Vault space is new in 2010, and this is not like a bank vault. (That would be regarded more as a tenant improvement to the space.) For this 2010 standard a vault is an area sub-grade that is enclosed and contiguous to a basement and extends past the property line. If you have ever been in the Irish Rovers pub in Calgary’s Lancaster Building, you probably never realized that a portion of that space is actually under the 8th Avenue sidewalk and beyond the property line. As well, in the new Bow Building, part of the complex is underneath 6th Avenue. These are vault spaces.
A further new concept is that of restricted headroom. This is an area that does not meet the current International Building Code requirement for minimum ceiling height. The limit is 5’0”. Anything below this height is deemed restricted headroom. While it is NOT deducted from the measured and occupiable space, it must be disclosed.
One more new concept is the measurement of subterranean space not suitable for occupancy and used as storage. Previously these areas were not included in the measured area.
Lastly, is the concept of “capped rentable area”. While not a measurement decision as such, CRA is more of a business decision. Using CRA is solely the purview of the landlord and is use to adjust the load factor, or common area factor, to local market conditions. This may be used for example in a situation where a building has major design features which provide that building with common or amenity areas that are enormous and therefore disproportionate to the prevailing market such that the building is at a competitive disadvantage. The owner can therefore make a decision to cap the common area or load factor at a level that enables the building better able to compete.
This brief description of the new BOMA Standards is by no means intended to provide complete instruction or advice. Those who intend to use this Standard should make themselves familiar with the standard in its entirety and in its context. Because of its complexity it may be advisable in your circumstances to utilize the services of a competent measurement professional.
In any event, the parties to a lease contract using a BOMA Standard of Measurement should fully understand that to which they both agree. Disputes are frequent, but never fun.
Biting the Bullet…train, that is.
There is no doubt in my mind that Highway 2 between Calgary and Edmonton is one of the more boring drives in the nation. And with the unpredictability of spring time on the prairies, it can be, perhaps, one of the most dangerous highways to drive. The highway has a posted speed limit of 110 Kph, which of course every one ignores. During the winter time, accidents are common as the weather changes rapidly, and drivers underestimate the conditions. The worst area for accidents is the corridor north of Airdrie and south of Red Deer. Further complicating the safety aspect is the reality of a great number of at-grade intersections and frequent use by slow-moving vehicles.
As trucking takes on greater importance as our economy expands, there will be an increase in the number of 18-wheelers using the highway. It wasn’t that long ago when the CANAMEX highway – linking Canada, the United States and Mexico – was touted as critical to further economic development. It is reasonable therefore to expect there to be steady growth in the number of big rigs using the highway.
Driving between Calgary and Edmonton generally takes about 2 hours 45 minutes. Oddly enough, the same trip by air takes about the same time taking into consideration early arrival, security screening and the taxi ride from “Leduc International” to downtown Edmonton. Each of these modes of travel is associated with its own set of stresses. For me, driving takes the prize for causing the most stress. In short, I hate the drive. But not so much the driving itself, but rather it is the other drivers who are significantly exceeding the speed limit. (The norm it seems lies somewhere between 120 and 130 Kph.) But it is the unpredictable winter conditions that stress me the most. As point in fact, I was once stranded for 3 days in Innisfail due to a freak snow storm in the middle of May! Throw in distracted driving by way of cell phones and texting and it gets increasingly scary.
So now I typically fly between our two principal cities except where it is just not possible. And the cost of flying is not getting any cheaper. With all the present troubles in the Middle East and its impact on global energy, the cost of the flying option may soon become prohibitive.
This is why I am a strong proponent of high-speed rail for Alberta. It has been talked about for years. Some action has been taken, that being the acquisition of land for terminals in Edmonton and Calgary, and I understand that the Province has or is near to securing land for a right of way. Big question is how close are we?
Let me share my Alberta rail experience with you. This might allow the reader to better understand why I like rail. Aside from being absolutely fascinated by monster steam locomotives as a kid, trains are just cool. I was born in Ontario and rail travel on the Toronto – Montreal line was the norm. This line was the subject of Canada’s early entry into high-speed rail when CN introduced the TurboTrain in the 1960’s. So when I moved to Alberta, it was natural for me to look to the train when I had to take my first business trip to Edmonton. What a shock! While the train took me from the old station in Palliser Square to Downtown Edmonton, the Dayliner was pretty much a bus on rails. There was no food or beverage service available except at vending machines in the Red Deer station. So no meal was to be enjoyed, no glass of wine to be imbibed. Just a bus on rail; dull, boring and completely uncivilized. It is no wonder the service died. Anybody can sell transportation. It takes a visionary entrepreneur to sell you an experience.
Again, the question, how close are we? The answer is most likely, “Not very close.” Reason being, the Province is broke. Natural gas prices are in the tank, and this has taken a humungous bite out of the Province’s royalty revenues. They just don’t have the billions of dollars to allocate to make high-speed rail a reality in Alberta.
I submit that rail travel is a convenient, sophisticated and civilized mode of travel. This has been my experience elsewhere in the world. So why not here, in Canada and in Alberta specifically? Short answer is cost and low population density.
I further submit that with each terminus – Edmonton and Calgary – having a regional population in excess of 1 million people, a sound economic case can be made in support of rail. A group formed in the 1990s (Alberta High-Speed Rail 2005, Inc.) to research the installation of HSR in the Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton corridor. They speculate travel time downtown to downtown would be about 84 minutes, with hourly departures. Just imagine how much time would be saved. Given that Canada has been criticized for its relatively low productivity, saving time from travel would most certainly be a plus. Likewise, the environment would benefit. According to the research compiled by AHSR, the CO2 generated per passenger mile by HSR is less that Calgary’s LRT. Given the “green” positions taken by politicians, one would think that they would be all over this concept.
How to overcome the Province’s current inability to fund such a scheme: publish RFP (request for proposals) from the private sector. There are a number of folks who don’t like to encourage private enterprise in anything, and want government to do everything, but then why should public money be put at risk? If indeed we already have expended moneys to acquire the right of way, should we not maximize the public benefit of those expenditures by getting this piece of infrastructure working for taxpayers?
In Europe, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that there are many private operators operating their trains on public rails. When you purchase a ticket for a 10:26 departure from Edinburgh’s Waverly Station, you have no idea whose train will pull into the station. But indeed a train arrives – it could be ScotRail or Virgin or another – and you are on you way. The province can stipulate the standard of service that is offered and shut down an operator that fails to perform at that high standard. The added benefit is that private operators pay taxes. Public operators don’t, and they don’t have the same incentives to provide good service.
High-speed rail has been a topic of discussion for decades, not unlike the south west ring road, and it will go on for ever unless there is a political will in association with a strong vision for our province. We measure success not by talk alone, but by action. If a decision were made to start HSR in Alberta today, it would be many years before you would be able to ride a train between our two principal cities.
It is time to dust of the whole concept of HSR and chose a course to make it happen. Then I have another choice and I don’t have to drive to Edmonton.
Changes in the Wind?
There is it seems change happening all over the place and change that could impact the lives of all of us. The middle east and African states are going through enormous change, both violent and non-violent. Starting with Tunisia, then Bahrain, now Libya is embroiled in some extreme violence. South Sudan separated from Sudan by non-violent elections making it one of the newest nations on the planet. The common driver was the desire to self-determination, better known as democracy.
But wait: there is more change happening. Two of Canada’s major cities elected mayors each of which is bringing about change in different ways. Calgary and Toronto are those cities and change is starting to happen. Let’s look first at Toronto. Rob Ford, that city’s new major was elected on a platform of fiscal responsibility. He is now embroiled in a very public fight with Toronto’s Community Housing Board.
The citizen members of the Toronto Community Housing board of directors are openly defying Ford’s call for their immediate resignation in the wake of two scathing audits, issuing a challenge to some of the auditor general’s findings and saying they will not step down unless city council replaces them.
Ford promised to peel back the layers of government and expose its underbelly. So far, Mayor Ford has a favourable support rating of 60%. Torontonians are apparently and clearly saying, “This is the kind of stuff we voted FOR.” Calgary’s electorate vote Naheed Nenshi into office and in doing so rejected the status quo, rejected the manner of doing business, and said we want and need something different. Nenshi preaches fiscal responsibility, transparency of process, and a different way of doing business at City Hall. So far it seems to be working.
At a recent meeting of BOMA Calgary members where Mayor Nenshi, he and his messages were received very well and he was rewarded with a standing ovation. This is something that I have not experienced at a BOMA meeting for a politician. I was impressed.
Now let’s look south to the state of Wisconsin. Governor Scott Walker is trying to get that State’s finances under control. As such the State Legislature enacted a statue that would put an end to the right of public unions for collective bargaining. It’s been called by the critics as “union busting”. But, in defense of his initiative, Gov. Walker stated recently on Good Morning America and in an interview by George Stephanopoulos, Walker declared his state “broke”, we have a massive deficit.” He claims that every time he tries to introduce measures to tame the deficit, without laying off workers, the unions say “no”. With that kind of barrier building, what is a politician to do. The unions have been protesting vigorously. Opposition state legislators (Democrats) have left the state in an effort to block the legislature from doing business.
Imagine if taxpayers took on assertiveness like the unions. But taxpayers are not protesting which is in one way is fueling part of Americas debt crisis. Back to Canada now.
A recent studies conducted by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) since 2008 have consistently raised the alarm bells of the rate of increase in provincial spending. That spending has increased at a rate greater than the growth of the province. And what has that done except lead to enormous increases in the provinces deficit which registers in the billions of dollars. To carry on, CFIB reported that the compensation packages for public servants in the City of Calgary were approximately 125% of comparable compensation in the private sector. This too is alarming given that the public sector provides pension benefits that generally are not available to the average taxpayer. And to make matters worse, it is exceedingly difficult to terminate a public employee whose performance is not up to standard.
What all of this means in other words, governments are spending money that taxpayers have not yet earned. Our future has been mortgaged to the hilt. Yet politicians like Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty publicly worries that Canadians are not saving enough.
I heard a news report today that suggests that, in Calgary, a family of four earning less than $41,500 per year was living at or below the poverty line. Amazing, given that for the first nearly six months of the year every nickel, dime and quarter Canadians earn goes to government.
Given the old adage that you get what you are prepared to put up with, what is the breaking point of Canadians? Young people must be highly frustrated by having to service the high levels of public debt. And when that massive demographic cohort we refer to as “Boomers” retires – and that is already happening – and those boomers become less significant tax contributors, it is the young folk who will be left holding the bill.
It is kind of like that for commercial properties as well. Unlike residential ratepayers, commercial properties don’t vote. Buildings don’t get to participate in the democratic process, but they do get to pay disproportionate taxes. In Calgary for example, non-residential property accounts for 40% of the assessed value, in round figures, but contributes 60% of the property-based taxes. History tells us that revolutions took place on “No taxation without representation!” No one on City Council has been specifically mandated to represent the interests of these non-voting taxpayers. Some how, that just doesn’t seem to be right. Yet, given the sense of entitlement that has been bred into many in our society, they are quite content to reap the benefits of the labour of others. That too is some how, just not right.
The point is this: to what extent does patience and tolerance reign in our immediate society that prevents accumulated frustration from bursting its seams like it has in other oppressed corners of our trouble world? Just because we hold ourselves as a civilized culture, does not mean we are obliged to shy away from asserting our political will towards those who, if left unchecked, would otherwise loot the treasury.
Some days I just feel like William Wallace. You know him as Braveheart. Or is it like the late Peter Finch in the film Network?
BOMA Calgary Announces Corporate Partner!
In the fall of 2010, the BOMA Calgary Supporting Member Council introduced a comprehensive Sponsorship Opportunities: Corporate Partner and Event Sponsor Program.
We are pleased to announce that ARTE Roofing has signed on as the 2011 Corporate Partner!
BOMA’s sponsorship program was built with the sole intent of providing additional opportunities for member companies to grow their business
through mutual support of key industry objectives. (Full media release)
Cutting the Red Tape
A lot of folks have called for the City to cut red tape. I hear it constantly from BOMA members. It seems the latest champion of cutting the red tape is none less than Mayor Naheed Nenshi. That is an encouraging sign. In fact, it was then Candidate Nenshi, who declared that it shouldn’t take a restaurant owner six months to get a permit to change light fixtures.
A number of years ago, when the Internet was coming into it’s own, I advocated allowing electronic submission (and tracking) of development applications. The City was, in their words, several years away from such capability. Since then, some applications for fairly mundane things like garages can be applied for online. But the more complex things cannot. To be fair, some development applications are very complex and may not fit the electronic format. But then what is it that the City examines once an application is submitted?
From an historical perspective, and this is going back a few years now, when I worked in the planning department there were two key things that the City considered: public safety and the implications of that development on City infrastructure. It is certainly a municipal interest to understand the incremental demand for sewer, water, streets, police, fire, schools, transit, and the like. That information will greatly in the legitimate planning the City must undertake to provide its citizens with critical infrastructure, and to create the financial plans to fund and pay for that infrastructure.
From what I am told, the City is now getting involved in the minutia of the design and internal uses of a building and taking the perspective that it owns the property. Is this the administrative equivalent of confiscation of property? Whether a retail unit within a building is for a flower shop or a barbershop is of no interest to the City and certainly shouldn’t be. Land use has its own bylaw, and the bylaw is pretty clear on what is a permitted use and what is not. So the key, and only, issue is: does the application conform to the land use zone. That declaration should take 15 seconds not 15 months.
The other thing that slows the process down occurs when aldermen – or, forgive me – Councillors, get involved in a particular application. They shouldn’t. That usurps the role of the administration and when Council gets involved at that level it is a de-motivator to the administration. Why after all should they do their jobs if councillors are going to step in anyhow. Councillors should simply back off.
Further, when councillors get involved in that application they lose objectivity. They are no longer in a position to act as a member of council for that application where that application must be considered by a Standing Committee, Calgary Planning Commission when the Councillor sits on CPC, and most certainly not when that same matter is before Council. It is clearly a conflict and they should so declare it and not participate in that decision.
Council should confine its activities to the high level, strategic stuff attention to which has in the past been so critically lacking. They will just have to learn to trust the administration to process applications against the approved policies and bylaws and let them do their jobs.
The other thing council can do is just let things alone. They have in the past been so prone to tweaking the rules to deal with this or that “brush fire” matter that it is difficult for anyone to really understand the rules. And that tweaking sets new precedents which the administration can beat up an applicant. Council is suppose to make decisions. If they are good decisions in the first instance, then Council needs to demonstrate discipline around that decision. My observation is that council is undisciplined and lacking in confidence of its own decisions. This compels them to seek consultants’ reports ad nauseum. Analysis paralysis does no one any good. Make sure you have the best information in the first instance and make a decision that is in the best interests of the community.
Regulations around development are needed. No one could argue successfully against that. But there also must be some accountability for unreasonable delays in the approvals process. There needs to be a reasonable expectation of timely consideration and resolution of a development application. If indeed there are assurances for a speedy criminal trial – and in fact some crooks are off the hook if they don’t get to court soon enough! Then why are there not similar limitations put onto planning applications. That is not unreasonable.
Time to fix things.