Parking, parking, everywhere

Did you know that the average restaurant in Calgary is required to provide 571% more parking than an equivalent restaurant in Toronto?

This post is adapted (stolen?) from a series of blog posts I saw called graphing parking. The purpose is best summed up with this opening line: "My intention is to demonstrate the prevalence, scale, and inconsistency of parking requirements across the United States for various land uses". I decided to do the exact same thing but using data from Canada instead of the United States. I'm also not as good with graphic design so the illustrations are somewhat uglier....my apologies.

My hope was that there would be a little more consistency and thought put into how much parking cities in Canada require for different property types but I strongly suspected that things would be no better. I was sadly proven to be correct. A 100,000 square foot office building might be required to provide as little as 133 parking spaces (Winnipeg) or as many as 325 spaces (Edmonton).

Here is a graph that shows the minimum number of parking spaces required for a 100,000 square foot office building:

As we can see, Edmonton (325) and Halifax (300) are well ahead of the rest of the country with Toronto (139) and Winnipeg (133) requiring barely a third of the parking.

A very good question at this point is "So what?" The answer is that when developers are required to build more parking than is really required, it means that everyone (not just drivers) need to help pay for it. Parking isn't cheap. Looking at Edmonton, if we make some simple assumptions we can assume that those 325 parking spaces are taking up 105,560 square feet...more space than the office building itself!!! Assuming a surface lot, that's a lot of land. If it's underground parking, that's a whole lot of expensive excavation.

If we look at restaurants, we see the greatest variation between cities:

In this case we're assuming a 2500 square foot restaurant and in the case of Calgary and Edmonton I've assumed that the "public space" for a restaurant is 60% of the total (to remain consistent with the numbers used in the post I'm adapting from). In this case Toronto requires 7 spaces and Winnipeg requires 25 even though these cities were almost identical when it came to office buildings. Do people in Winnipeg drive to restaurants but walk to offices? Do Torontonians drive to their office but cycle en masse to restaurants? It seems rather unlikely but based on these by-laws you would think that city planners believe this.

Another surprise I came across is that some cities change the rules as a building grows. In Edmonton, an office building will need to supply more parking spaces per square foot for a large building than for a smaller building. In Toronto, the same thing applies to restaurants. Do large buildings discourage public transit use in some mysterious way? Do small buildings naturally attract more cyclists?

When it comes to residential parking spaces we finally see a little more conformity:

The most surprising part for me is how many cities don't differentiate between different sized apartments. If you have a 3 bedroom apartment, 5 of the 7 cities assume that you will need no more parking than a 1 bedroom apartment. However, Edmonton assumes that you will need 70% more parking.

So that's the current (confusing) state of minimum parking requirements in Canada. It looks like we are stuck with a bunch of rules that have been thrown together somewhat haphazardly and these rules are helping to shape what our cities look like.

Be sure to read the original version of this for more thoughts and insights!

Sources:

• Ottawa
• Toronto
• Vancouver
• Calgary
• Edmonton
• Winnipeg
• Halifax

Montreal and Québec were not included because of difficulty finding the right data (due to a combination of municipal by-laws using complicated language and my poor French).

A call against historical ignorance

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

- Edmund Burke

Luckily I don't really think we're condemned to repeat the past, otherwise we'd be going through a whole lot of awful things that should really be avoided (World War I, Barney the Dinosaur, etc...). I do think that a certain amount of historical knowledge is a good thing though.

On Christmas day I attended mass in Mississauga. Since the church was undergoing renovations the service was moved to a nearby Catholic high school, Our Lady of Mount Carmel. Looking around I found the crosses painted on the walls reminded me vaguely of the Crusades but I assumed that it was just me. Then I saw the mural of armoured knights pictured above. At this point all I could think was "Are they really glorifying the Crusades?!?" It stopped being a question when I looked a little further along the wall and saw "CRUSADERS" painted in enormous letters.

Really?

I'm no historian but I've heard enough about the Crusades to know that they were known somewhat for their extreme cruelty. A quick look at Wikipedia shows that one of the key victories of the Crusades was the taking of Jerusalem. Unfortunately, that quick look also shows that the Crusader victory entailed the wholesale slaughter of the Jewish and Muslim population (women and children included of course). Even by the standards of the Middle Ages it was a horrific amount of violence. According to the Crusaders own chronicle "...[our men] were killing and slaying even to the Temple of Solomon, where the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles...". Yikes.

For a school that almost certainly has students who are Muslim and possibly also Jewish, I can only hope that the historical education they receive is poor enough that they don't know what their school teams are representing. If the parents who send their children to this school were to know that in a few hundred years a Muslim school would name its athletic teams after Al Qaeda I'm sure they would be disgusted. Why should we not also be disgusted by the name Crusaders, glorifying those who slaughtered innocent civilians for being of the wrong religion?

A response from the mayor - casino

I received a very prompt and complete response to my email from Jim Watson. It brought up something I didn't know which was OLG's plans to remove the slot machines from Rideau Carleton Raceway. It also indicates quite clearly that the prime motivation for a casino in Ottawa would be to stem the tide of Ottawa gamblers heading for Gatineau so that the city of Ottawa captures the associated revenue.

Based on this reasoning, I definitely understand why it would make sense for Ottawa to have a casino but I think that all of the reasons I provided in my previous post for not allowing a casino to be built in the city centre still apply.

Here is the mayor's response in full:

Good morning Grant,

Thank you for your email. I appreciate your input on this issue, and would like to take the time to personally and respectfully address some of your concerns and provide you with some key information on the matter, as it appears you do not have all the pertinent information.

First, OLG has provided Rideau Carleton Raceway with the legally required one year notice to terminate its slots agreement with RCR. I have indicated publicly that I would not want to see the RCR slots shut down in the absence of any other potential gaming decisions for the Ottawa area. RCR, in my opinion, should be able to continue to operate under its agreement with OLG until such decisions are made. In addition, last year our Council voted to allow gaming tables at RCR as an indicator of our support for the facility. I have also made it clear in the past that I think something should be done to halt the flow of dollars out of Ontario and across to the Lac Leamy Casino.

Ottawa has been identified by the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG) as a possible host city as it looks to modernize gaming in the province. There has been much interest in this issue, and I believe we need to set a way forward that is clear, fair and transparent. This process begins with City Council signalling its support, in principle, of a possible, new Ottawa gaming facility. This decision would not commit the City to a gaming facility, or a specific site location.

In my view, every Ottawa dollar that is spent at the Gatineau casino is a dollar lost for Ottawa taxpayers. An Ottawa gaming facility would allow us to repatriate the money currently going into Quebec roads, schools and hospitals. If a new gaming facility were to open in Ottawa, I am proposing that any new revenue generated for the City be split equally between infrastructure renewal and economic development initiatives that create jobs in Ottawa. In a time of infrastructure challenges and federal job cuts in Ottawa, we need to thoughtfully consider this opportunity.

Gaming is not new to the City and its residents, and Ottawa's experience with gaming has been generally positive. The City has had a long-standing and successful relationship with the RCR, with the slots welcoming 2 million visitors per year. Since 2000, the slots at RCR have generated over $45 million in general revenue for the City. In 2011 alone, the Slots at Racetrack program contributed $4.4 million in revenue to the City of Ottawa

At the same time, we need to fully understand the economic benefits and potential public health impacts of a gaming facility. We recognise the health impacts. That is why we are asking staff at Ottawa Public Health to provide the background and advice. It is also worth noting that OLG spends millions per year assisting with the challenges of gambling addiction. Revenues from OLG also support health care and other social spending within the province of Ontario. Today we lose the revenue across the river to Quebec, while having to deal with any potential health fallout within our own city and healthcare system.

It is important to ensure that residents have ample opportunity to provide their feedback through public delegations at committee so that when a final decision is made, we will ensure that we have all the necessary information in front of us.

To proceed with this issue, I am proposing a clear two-stage process. The first stage would begin on October 2, 2012 at the next FEDCO meeting. At that time we will consider a staff report, released on September 25, which includes a direction to staff to look at the economic benefits of a gaming facility. This October 2 FEDCO meeting will be held in the evening to make it easier for residents who work during the day to comment on the staff report.

If approved by FEDCO and subsequently by City Council on October 10, 2012, I would write a letter to the OLG to signal that the City would be supportive of a gaming facility in principle. This would not commit the City to a gaming facility, or even a site location, but it allows the OLG to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to accept bids from proponents.

The second stage would occur in 2013. It would involve the OLG coming back to the City after completion of their RFP process with a prospective proponent and location. At this time, we would receive a second set of public delegations so that residents can speak to the specific proposal and location. We would also receive the staff report requested earlier on the economic impacts of a gaming facility, and also have an opportunity to review input from staff at Ottawa Public Health.

You should note that, while this is a process driven by the OLG, Ottawa City Council holds the final approval on rezoning for a new gaming facility. It is also important to note that currently there are no sites proposed or shortlisted by the OLG. The OLG modernization process is about involving the private sector and becoming more customer-focused. A broad and competitive bidding process is likely to lead to a higher level of innovation and competition between proponents.

It is in this spirit that I think we should proceed. While some, myself included, have expressed early personal opinions about possible locations for a new or expanded gaming facility, we should not pre-judge or rule out any locations or areas until we receive a final proposal from the OLG. I will be encouraging Council to allow the OLG to work with proponents who have the expertise and market depth to identify options for Ottawa that are most likely to lead to long-term success. We should see what the best proposal is and make an informed decision when the time comes.

Along these lines, I also want to recognize the long-standing, positive relationship we have had with the Rideau Carleton Raceway (RCR). We all recognize the importance of the Raceway to the local economy. I will be calling on City Council to encourage the OLG to run a fair, competitive process that provides all proponents, including the RCR, an opportunity to compete on a level playing field. Further, I will be proposing that Council ask the OLG to consider providing an opportunity for the RCR to be pre-qualified to take part in the final bidding process, given their strong record of success in the Ottawa region.

Another gaming option is about 6 km from the Ottawa downtown core - the Gatineau casino. Industry experts suggest that a majority of the Gatineau casino’s revenues comes from Ottawa residents – revenues that the City of Ottawa and the Province of Ontario do not benefit from. These economic benefits, driven by Ottawa residents, instead accrue to the Province of Quebec. They use this money to invest in roads, hospitals and schools – while the City of Ottawa wrestles with tough decisions about infrastructure renewal and feels the effects of federal job cuts.

Ottawa residents enjoy easy access to these two facilities, but also have smaller-scale gaming options right in their neighbourhoods. This includes charity and church bingo fundraisers, as well as lottery tickets sold in most convenience stores. Given these existing gaming options, a new Ottawa gaming facility would not be a big change from what our residents are used to.  However, the difference would be that the City of Ottawa would receive new revenues that would be earmarked for investments in infrastructure renewal and economic development initiatives that create jobs in Ottawa.

In March 2011, Council’s solid vote (20-3) in favour of adding gaming tables at the RCR underscored Council’s desire to provide residents with a broader range of quality gaming services. The decision was made with the goal of generating more revenue for the City of Ottawa derived from that which is currently crossing the river to Quebec. My discussions with Council colleagues indicate that the vast majority of members of Council do not favour holding a divisive referendum on the issue of gaming. Instead, we should let the best proposal come forward based on industry expert opinion and make a decision, as we are elected to do on many issues each and every day.

I recognize that the idea of expanding gaming in the City of Ottawa may not be met with unanimity, but I also believe that given our City’s positive experience with gaming, residents would support a modest expansion of gaming in Ottawa. I also believe that at the end of the day, individual residents are best able to decide whether or not they want to use a gaming facility in our community – it really comes down to an issue of personal choice.

Again, I thank you for sharing yours with me as it is always welcome.

Sincerely,

Jim Watson

Mayor

City of Ottawa

No to downtown casinos

Ottawa's mayor Jim Watson has come out in favour of building a casino in downtown Ottawa and wants city council to get the ball rolling within a couple of weeks. Here is my letter to him and city council:

I am not against the city of Ottawa having a casino within its city limits but I am against the creation of a casino in downtown Ottawa for three reasons. A downtown casino would foster an increase in gambling, create a large facility which cuts itself off from the life of the city, and provide minimal economic benefits at best.

I believe that a government should tolerate vices but should never be in the business of promoting vice. The province of Ontario permits people to purchase cigarettes and alcohol but discourages their use through punitive taxes. The city of Vancouver created the Insite supervised injection site for users of illegal drugs because they recognize that there is a portion of their population which will use drugs regardless of laws against them. They provide a place where some of the harms associated with drug use can be alleviated. However, they do so in a clinical environment with strict rules in place that do nothing to encourage drug use. Providing outlets for gambling like the OLG Slots at Rideau Carleton Raceway are similar to Insite in that they provide a place for gamblers to go without resorting to illegal alternatives. Building a full casino in downtown Ottawa would be akin to adding mood music and comfortable couches to Insite. It encourages casual visitors and glamourizes the activity of gambling. For a casino to be successful in the city would require a large clientele. This could only be achieved through the application of marketing techniques to encourage more people to gamble than would otherwise choose to do so. This is not something that should be promoted by a responsible government.

One of the aspects of creating a successful casino that is universal is the concept of separating a casino's customers from the outside world. Any casino will be built with no windows, no clocks, and every incentive possible to keep gamblers inside the confines of the building. Unlike a football stadium where people come to the neighbourhood before a game to eat at the surrounding restaurants, watch the game, and then flood back into the neighbourhood for drinks or other activities, a casino aims to capture customers for as long as possible. There is no need to leave to get food, there is no indication that you've spent much longer than expected, there's always an ATM available in case you run out of funds. In short, a well managed casino does everything possible to ensure that its customers engage as little as possible with the city that it resides in. The ByWard Market is a wonderful place in the summer because the businesses located there each help attract customers who are then more likely to frequent the other businesses in the area. The life of our great neighbourhoods is often linked to the people who are outside walking around, moving from place to place. People watching is a wonderful thing but a casino aims to confine all of these activities in a single building that shuts itself away from all neighbouring businesses.

The economic problem with a casino extends beyond just the questionable benefits to businesses in the immediate neighbourhood surrounding the casino. The revenues from a casino derive from two potential customer types: local residents and tourists. Tourists who are looking to gamble these days have many options to choose from. There are large casinos in Montreal, southern Ontario, Connecticut, and even Gatineau. For gamblers who want the total experience, the lure of Las Vegas is always hard to resist. What exactly would cause tourists intent on gambling to choose Ottawa over any of these other venues, all of which are either closer or which will provide a far grander experience? It seems that we would be pursuing an incredibly small market. This leaves local residents who would certainly form the vast majority of casino customers. For these people there are two possibilities: spend more of their disposable income or shift their spending to a casino from another business. I assume that nobody wants Ottawans saving less money so that they can gamble so the hope would be that the Ottawa casino steals business from other entertainment businesses. For those people travelling to the Lac Leamy Casino, they would presumably also be willing to travel outside of downtown Ottawa for a similar experience. Placing a casino in downtown Ottawa just increases the likelihood that those shifted spending dollars will be stealing business away from other "night out" options in Ottawa itself rather than bringing any net benefit to Ottawa.

In conclusion, I see nothing wrong with the city of Ottawa building a full fledged casino but to reduce the harmful effects on the residents and businesses of Ottawa it must be placed well outside the city centre.

Thank you,

Grant McSheffrey