Vlog Overview
My return to the academy to earn a PhD after 32 years of parks practice (in 2014) uncovered many practice realities extensively studied by researchers. This dual lens gives me a unique inside (practice)/outside (research) perspective (and visa versa) to bridge the two worlds. Each vlog will have a short video presentation followed by some key takeaway notes. I will use lots of “I” and “me” to personalize my experiences, with lots of examples. I will share park development policy and practice decision-making using an academic lens (i.e., institutional theory). My practice experiences were in the Edmonton region in the 1982 to 2014 period. I have opinions that may or may not be popular with my planning brothers and sisters, or elected officials. The vlog provides a perspective, but informed one, but mine and mine alone based on my experiences and research. So let’s get started!
Todays Ice Sculpture: Lewis Farms Recreation Centre Program - It Makes Sense (November 30, 2022)
Resolution of this funding issue is complex and challenging. The need for this additional funding is underscored below. There are a number of actions that could be explored to make it happen. Review the video and the notes below.
Major competitions, events and facilities like the Commonwealth Games, World Athletic Championships, World Cup Soccer qualifiers and the resulting facility legacy like the Kinsmen Aquatic Centre, Argyll Velodrome, the Peter Hemingway Recreation Centre. The events and facilities Edmonton on the map internationally and economically. The facilities are often called legacy facilities. LEGACY USERS are a PLANNED outcome of facilitating games and building facilities. Diving and other aquatic clubs were and are a legacy of those capital expenditures.
Edmonton is immensely proud of local products such as soccer star Alphonso Davies, and olympian race walker Tim Berrett. We also claim Connor McDavid as one of own own. We have a sports hall of fame to honour these people. Every day these athletes make us proud to be Edmontonians, and keep our name in the international media. What if our next olympic diver or butterfly stoke swimmer comes from Edmonton? What promotional benefit does that provide? Imagine what competitions we can attract with such a facility, using the same economic rationale (i.e., accommodations, food, etc) used to support Rogers Place, albeit on a smaller scale.
Participating in sporting activities like diving and swimming more generally provide a myriad of physical and mental health and wellness benefits to youth and adolescents. There are even more non-elite divers and swimmers who never reach that status, but nevertheless joined clubs and derived similar if not the same benefits using those same facilities. Focus on all the users who will benefit, not just the elite athletes they may produce. (See Why parks? A summary of benefits research, and Investing in Parks, Investing in People, Investing in Well-Being Vlogs on this site).
The Administrative strategy mis-interprets the nature of park system planning and implementation. Parks are systems of program systems - one of those swimming and diving. (See my previous vlog). Not everything occurs the same on each district site. Not every district park has a library today. Not every district has an Olympic sized hockey rink like Clareview. Not every district facility accommodates disabled populations as well as Rundle Park Recreation Centre. Not every district park has an synthetic turf turf field. Major skate parks and major water play parks do not appear on every district park. The particular scale and amenities are site specific but are also available to users from other parts of the city in the case of facilities like diving tanks. A district park like this one is in fact the only type of park suitable for this scale of use - a river valley location like Kinsmen would likely no longer be an option today. (See “Parks as Systems of Program Systems” Vlog on this site.)
The diving tank was part of the original program. How did we get to costing out a dive tank if it was never part of the services we intended to provide in the original proposal and cost? Did we agree with it before? As such suggesting we are right sizing the facility to match other recreation centres is a major public process flaw. At best, expectations were unnecessarily raised.
Aquatics have been “right-sized” (bad term - not my term) in other recreation facilities, and the challenge in basic swim instruction is likely an outcome. But lets explore how that term “right sizing” could be more broadly applied in the proposed capital budget.
Can we reduce or delay the LRT costs? Transit systems in Europe and elsewhere do not use such massive rights of ways with associated massive costs (i.e., in the billions of dollars). Could the LRT be reduced by the Lewis Farms shortfall by building a more modest system, or could we extend the LRT expansion time frame by one year?
Could we reduce or delay some of the Blatchford expenditures, which doesn’t appear to be a market priority these days, and appears to do little to address low income housing. Could we turn more of that site into a destination north side park and reduce associated utility and roadway costs? A major park in this area will increase property tax revenues in adjacent neighbourhoods (i.e., like Central Park), and accomnodate community needs generated by increased densities planned to meet City Plan 2M population estimates.
Could we reduce or delay the Yellowhead Highway or other roadway expenditures? Edmonton plans to spend $5B out of a $6.9B on roadways and transit expenditures.
Has the City Auditor provided a best practices review of the city project management fees charged to city projects by city staff? Could some of those fees be right sized, not only on Lewis Farms but also other city capital projects?
Within the Lewis Farms facility itself, while protecting the core program including the diving and pool tank, did you explore delaying some of the public art expenditures, the parking requirements, the landscaping requirements, the eco-design facility requirements (i.e., solar panels) and/or some of the aesthetic enhancements planned to the next renewal program? Some of this could be reduced entirely, particularly the latter four. Ice sports are an expensive activity for users. In the long term, is the city better served here to provide more aquatic and less ice because it is simply more financially accessible for users?
The $50M expenditure represents about 1-2% cost delay or reduction in other projects in the rest of roadway and transit city capital budget over the next four year period.
A relatively small reduction in project contingencies gained through more rigorous costing of all expenditures might reduce the additional funding requirements.
Accommodating multiple activities will make the facility operation more cost effective and reduce vehicle trips for separate drive to activities located elsewhere.
The cost of Lewis Farms begins to approximate the city share of Rogers Place: a beautiful palace but simply not financially accessible to many Edmontonians.
Have all financing options been explored, including additional debt financing and/or can annual budget surpluses be planned be direct funds to the Lewis Farms project? Can we find a partner? Are there any reserves accounts be tapped or borrowed from?
Lewis Farms will serve a population of 45,000 people, just in the Area Structure Plan, that is currently not served by a recreation centre - about the size of Spruce Grove, Alberta. City Plan suggests our city population will double, which could mean roughly the size of Airdre, Fort MacMurray or Medicine Hat (60000’s), or more.
The populations using this facility are the same populations from which you draw volunteers for a wide range of park services (e.g., minor sports, community halls, festivals, special events, master naturalists programs, fund raising for playgrounds, dog park ambassadors, snow bank rink ice flooders, etc). Recreation and leisure services are the only municipal service that relies soooo heavily on the community. There are no adopt a transit centre clean up program, adopt a catch-basin program, etc. As such, consideration could be given to recognizing the unique contributions of the community to city services within the context of this facility increased costs. (See Social Actors in Parks - Linking Land Use Planning and Parks Service Operationalization Vlog on this site).
Council has a really really tough job, as do administrators who have provided good faith recommendations. Establishing a public funding program is an entirely legitimate public discussion to have. Budgets are simply messy processes, and to be fair they are estimates of expenditures. Councillor Janz prioritizes Lewis Farms expenditures below the need for more social housing. I agree with his priority for social housing, but this is an unfair comparison. In this way, it compares and prioritizes one integral social need (i.e., social housing) to another health and well-being community need (i.e., recreation). Notwithstanding the need for the Yellowhead Highway and Blatchford expenditures, of which I am sure can be enumerated and appreciated, I would argue that the transformational benefits by recreation centres AND social housing are more or as transformational with the possible exception of the LRT. Our needs have evolved and the need for more socially focussed expenditures has never been greater than today. These are Rx or preventative health and wellness expenditures. My sense is that a multi-pronged approach to find the funds in hard infrastructure funding pockets (2/3 of the entire capital budget) and/or partner funding could be successful to both housing and recreation centre needs.
Previous Related Vlogs
Why Parks? A Summary of Benefits Research
Parks as Systems of Program Systems
Investing in Parks, Investing in People, Investing in Well-Being
Social Actors in Parks - Linking Land Use Planning and Parks Service Operationalization