Downtown Ottawa Revitalization Initiatives

[kwoldtimer]

Half its space is underused or vacant and yet they can't find space for civil servants to work in?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Half its space is underused or vacant and yet they can't find space for civil servants to work in?

As soon as civil servants were asked to clean out their desks during COVID, it was clear that the office would never return to pre-pandemic normal. I am under the impression that many civil servants have received exemptions and do not have to come to the office even 2 days a week.

Ottawa downtown has been changed forever.

“Where applicable, the government will prioritize student and non-market housing in the unlocking of federal office properties,”

Let's hope that we don't ghettoize downtown to make it even less an attractive place to visit.

[eltodesukane]

"...to repurpose existing buildings like L’Esplanade Laurier and the Jackson Building into cultural attractions ..."
Those buildings are nothing special.
Maybe the library should have moved there.

[YOWflier]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Half its space is underused or vacant and yet they can't find space for civil servants to work in?

There is significant exaggeration of the theoretical space “issues”. It is based largely in self interest (to establish barriers for [increased] attendance). Nobody wants to lead on actually fixing this because few want it fixed. This is partly why we’ve seen such a minimum rtw “mandate”, enforcement of which is loose/non-existent, no firm instruction on days of week to attend vs telework, etc.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by YOWflier

There is significant exaggeration of the theoretical space “issues”. It is based largely in self interest (to establish barriers for [increased] attendance). Nobody wants to lead on actually fixing this because few want it fixed. This is partly why we’ve seen such a minimum rtw “mandate”, enforcement of which is loose/non-existent, no firm instruction on days of week to attend vs telework, etc.

Like nobodyl's sailing the ship.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Like nobodyl's sailing the ship.

The Public Service in the capital region has grown by 25% since the start of the pandemic. It makes it almost impossible to do anything without making really hard choices.

https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-...lic-service-national-capital-region.html

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The Public Service in the capital region has grown by 25% since the start of the pandemic. It makes it almost impossible to do anything without making really hard choices.

https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-...lic-service-national-capital-region.html

So cut the 25% and mandate five days a week. In fact one helps you with the other. I am sure something like this is the 2026 Con budget plan.

Helping downtown Ottawa doesn't even make the list of reasons for this though. Ideologically the Cons and most Canadians don't like the idea of WFH for civil servants. A class of workers hard to monitor with frequent motivation problems isn't exactly the ideal choice for WFH. Anyway cutting 25% of civil servants is going to cause a rental and real estate crisis that makes a few vacant cafes in centretown look like a quaint problem to have.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The Public Service in the capital region has grown by 25% since the start of the pandemic. It makes it almost impossible to do anything without making really hard choices.

https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-...lic-service-national-capital-region.html

Not to nitpick, but I think the actual growth shown in that chart is closer to 19%.

But agreed, hard choices are necessary. What I haven't seen is a breakdown of how many of the hires are term hires related to pandemic programs. If that is a big chunk of the increased hiring, then it should be easier to scale back.

Not sure that those people are even predominantly in Ottawa though. And I would expect that they are more likely to be WFH than the pre-existing workforce. The pain may end up being spread more evenly.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by phil235

Not to nitpick, but I think the actual growth shown in that chart is closer to 19%.

But agreed, hard choices are necessary. What I haven't seen is a breakdown of how many of the hires are term hires related to pandemic programs. If that is a big chunk of the increased hiring, then it should be easier to scale back.

Not sure that those people are even predominantly in Ottawa though. And I would expect that they are more likely to be WFH than the pre-existing workforce. The pain may end up being spread more evenly.

I was using 2019 as the base year (151-121)/121

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I was using 2019 as the base year (151-121)/121

Okay, got it. I was looking at 2020. Weirdly 2018-2019 looks like the biggest jump in the chart.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

So cut the 25% and mandate five days a week. In fact one helps you with the other. I am sure something like this is the 2026 Con budget plan.

Helping downtown Ottawa doesn't even make the list of reasons for this though. Ideologically the Cons and most Canadians don't like the idea of WFH for civil servants. A class of workers hard to monitor with frequent motivation problems isn't exactly the ideal choice for WFH. Anyway cutting 25% of civil servants is going to cause a rental and real estate crisis that makes a few vacant cafes in centretown look like a quaint problem to have.

Wasn't most of the civil service growth pandemic related? If that is the case, we didn't have office space for them anyways. So, while we decide sell off office space, that served the pre-pandemic workforce. This all means that we have no desire to get civil servants back to the office.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

So, while we decide sell off office space, that served the pre-pandemic workforce. This all means that we have no desire to get civil servants back to the office.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. They are also fully retrofitting the two largest office complexes in the NCR, presumably to have people come into the office.

Most of what they are selling was end of life anyway, or too cheaply built to renovate.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by phil235

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. They are also fully retrofitting the two largest office complexes in the NCR, presumably to have people come into the office.

Most of what they are selling was end of life anyway, or too cheaply built to renovate.

Regardless of its state, they have disposed of a large amount of office space, not really made any initiative to acquire new office space and increased their workforce by 25%. It isn’t even possible for workers to return to the office in significant numbers.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Regardless of its state, they have disposed of a large amount of office space, not really made any initiative to acquire new office space and increased their workforce by 25%. It isn’t even possible for workers to return to the office in significant numbers.

That's true. There will be a net reduction in public service office space.

I believe the biggest change to the plans is the cancellation of the planned campus at St.Laurent and the Queensway. The buildings to be disposed of are pretty much split between downtown and elsewhere in the city. I was more thinking that in the case of downtown, the disposal isn't necessarily so bad, as it accelerates the demolition/conversion of end of life buildings that were already largely empty pre-pandemic and would have been disposed of anyway. It will likely result in those buildings being filled with people more quickly than would otherwise have been the case.

Obviously "more quickly" is a relative term when dealing with the feds.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by phil235

That's true. There will be a net reduction in public service office space.

I believe the biggest change to the plans is the cancellation of the planned campus at St.Laurent and the Queensway. The buildings to be disposed of are pretty much split between downtown and elsewhere in the city. I was more thinking that in the case of downtown, the disposal isn't necessarily so bad, as it accelerates the demolition/conversion of end of life buildings that were already largely empty pre-pandemic and would have been disposed of anyway. It will likely result in those buildings being filled with people more quickly than would otherwise have been the case.

Obviously "more quickly" is a relative term when dealing with the feds.

Isn't it sensible city planning, to build new office space downtown, especially when we just invested billions for downtown focused rapid transit? I don't think we get quite the same bang for our buck to build residential towers downtown and then build offices in the suburbs. I get that it is wise to have a better mix downtown but it seems that we are building a more car dependent city overall.

Something is not making sense here. We have grown the civil service (the country is growing), we want them to go back to work in the office more often, but we are shrinking the amount of office space, and we wish to convert downtown office space into residential. Where is everybody supposed to go to work?

[vtecyo]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Isn't it sensible city planning, to build new office space downtown, especially when we just invested billions for downtown focused rapid transit? I don't think we get quite the same bang for our buck to build residential towers downtown and then build offices in the suburbs. I get that it is wise to have a better mix downtown but it seems that we are building a more car dependent city overall.

Something is not making sense here. We have grown the civil service (the country is growing), we want them to go back to work in the office more often, but we are shrinking the amount of office space, and we wish to convert downtown office space into residential. Where is everybody supposed to go to work?

I'd guess that the government is banking on the fact that the last of the baby boomers will be reaching 65 by 2030. As of 2022 baby boomers were over 18% of the federal public service nationally - I assume that's true of Ottawa as well. See Figure 7 here: https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-...-federal-public-service-2022.html#toc4-3

So we're in a period where a high percentage of the public service in Ottawa will be retiring. I'd bet that they're planning to make relatively painless "cuts" to the public service by hiring more slowly than the rate of retirement attrition.

I don't think it even matters which party wins the next election - I'm pretty sure they're all going to do the same thing with slightly different spin to it.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by vtecyo

I'd guess that the government is banking on the fact that the last of the baby boomers will be reaching 65 by 2030. As of 2022 baby boomers were over 18% of the federal public service nationally - I assume that's true of Ottawa as well. See Figure 7 here: https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-...-federal-public-service-2022.html#toc4-3

So we're in a period where a high percentage of the public service in Ottawa will be retiring. I'd bet that they're planning to make relatively painless "cuts" to the public service by hiring more slowly than the rate of retirement attrition.

I don't think it even matters which party wins the next election - I'm pretty sure they're all going to do the same thing with slightly different spin to it.

At most 30k of 350k are boomers.
https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-...on-federal-public-service-age-group.html

The boomer exodus happened during COVID.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by vtecyo

I'd guess that the government is banking on the fact that the last of the baby boomers will be reaching 65 by 2030. As of 2022 baby boomers were over 18% of the federal public service nationally - I assume that's true of Ottawa as well. See Figure 7 here: https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-...-federal-public-service-2022.html#toc4-3

So we're in a period where a high percentage of the public service in Ottawa will be retiring. I'd bet that they're planning to make relatively painless "cuts" to the public service by hiring more slowly than the rate of retirement attrition.

I don't think it even matters which party wins the next election - I'm pretty sure they're all going to do the same thing with slightly different spin to it.

I've never such widespread delusional beliefs as Ottawa Civil servants, real estate investors, city officials etc who think a Pierre Polievre led government is going to keep the 100,000 new millennial civil servants doing endless GBA+ analyses and be content with attrition of retiring boomers.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I've never such widespread delusional beliefs as Ottawa Civil servants, real estate investors, city officials etc who think a Pierre Polievre led government is going to keep the 100,000 new millennial civil servants doing endless GBA+ analyses and be content with attrition of retiring boomers.

There is a certain disconnect from reality in Ottawa.

[OTownandDown]

I agree, we're in for a classic celebrity death match pitting personality against personality. The on-paper competition of three people for a single seat, with HR conducting 'audits' when really its just a manager deciding (similar to creating positions when hiring. A tight process but nowhere near difficult if you really wanted an extra body, hence why we're at +20%, an unsustainable growth rate.

I predict a Poilievre stated goal of 90,000 and settling on 100,000. Back to pre-pandemic population.