Category: BoG

If you’re a new reader and would like some background, refer to a few earlier posts:
The AMS and U-boulevard and What’s UBC Properties Trust? (clickies)

Yesterday, the Board of Governors’ Property and Planning committee carried a motion to approve the construction of the tunnel that is to lead to the underground bus loop – an integral part of the U-Blvd development project. This pretty much guarantees the future of the underground bus loop, if the motion passes in the general BoG meeting on Tuesday. Traditionally, all BoG members attend the committee meetings, and the whole board rubber stamps their decision officially in the general meeting. That means, unless a dramatic turnaround occurs before Tuesday, that students can come to terms with the fact that an underground bus loop is coming. UBC Properties trust will start construction of the tunnel and utilities located along U-Blvd will this summer.

Everything in the U-Blvd project above the ground is a different story though. The unpopular design plan, that features shops, market housing, and a paved square in place of the grassy knoll, may not be similar to the final product at all, gaging by the Board’s comments. The Board uniformly felt moved and disturbed by the 2500 signature student petition, and AMS policy, recently brought to bear against the current design. AMS VP Academic Brendon Goodmurphy (after being incorrectly introduced by the chair as the “AVP External”) had the opportunity to give the board a presentation about the petition and AMS policy. He did this clearly, outlining student’s concerns, the petition and the policy (which both call upon the board to refrain from making further decisions until meaningful consultation has occurred), and the AMS’s intentions to move forward and cooperate with the board to make a revised plan happen.

At the proposal of Nancy Knight, from the campus community and planning office, the board agreed to begin a new consultation process around the above-ground portion of the project, to begin in September when students return for fall term and to be concluded in November. This consultation is to be modeled like the “what’s the plan?” consultation which is largely regarded as thorough and satisfactory. This is very exciting – we will see how serious this process will be come September.

President Toope admitted that consultation for the above-ground plans had been rushed and insufficient due to the lateness of their completion (for example, they were only presented to the AMS council last week). He cited juggling design and budget as a major roadblock to the timely design of the project. His comments were extremely sympathetic to students’ concerns about the design of the above-ground plan: “Our desire is to re-engage,” said Toope, saying that the space “should be an enhancement to community life” and needs students’ support. However, the President was staunchly convinced that beginning construction of the underground tunnel and loop would not adversely effect the “re-engagement” or overhaul of the above-ground design. He cited some detailed Translink studies, and the OCP, which respectively recommend and obligate UBC to build a transportation hub in the particular location of U-Blvd and East Mall. Toope said that while the above-ground design has been problematic, and subject to many iterations already, the underground bus loop has been well-planned and studied over ten years since the OCP mandated it in 1996. BoG student reps Darren Peets and Jeff Friedrich raised some questions about whether an underground loop meets the long-term transport needs of the campus, and also questioned whether sustainability objectives of the project were justified. Would the residents of the new neighborhoods use the loop? Is a central station preferable to various routes around campus?

The board in general seemed more eager to make up to “outside commitments” (translink, neighborhoods association, OCP,) than actually look at the essential aims for the project: sustainability and building community. They were also very eager to “move forward” such that when OCP evaluation comes up this year (as every five years) they will have something to show – since the underground bus loop is mentioned in the OCP, and there has been no action. Personally, I was unimpressed by the fire under their asses because of this OCP review. The purpose of the review is…to review, and maybe even change, not to enforce. Jeff Friedrich made the point that simply going forward for the sake of going forward (or to satisfy outside commitments) was unwise when the basic purpose and vision of the project are in question. He also questioned the importance of the commitment to the Neighborhoods given that they will not be using the facility nearly as much as others, having bus stops nearer to their residences.

Both the staff and faculty Board representatives were not comfortable going forward with the underground portion until the whole design was consulted, reviewed and approved. They preferred to move ahead as a whole, after gaining the endorsement of students and community members. This means, as Margaret Orlowski pointed out to me yesterday, that the faculty students and staff reps (ie. the elected members of the people that populate the university) were all against going forward now, while the provincial appointees were in favor.

Essentially though, this is a serious victory for students. Though the committee indeed carried the motion for the tunnel and utilities, and construction will begin as soon as the BoG approves it, they were strongly affected by the petition and Brendon’s presentation about the AMS policy. Their commitment to delay the process again in order to gain real feedback and make changes is very positive. So keep you ears open in November when the consultation finishes. And congratulations to the good people behind the petition for their achievement! (They were out in full force at the meeting yesterday, sporting snazzy t-shirts). It remains to be seen how much the design for the “university square” will end up changing to reflect the priorities of students at the end of the newly created consultation process. These priorities are basically green space, informal study/social space, synergy with the SUB and its renewal process, and local/ethical services. The reason students are mostly still unimpressed with the plan, is that despite some public viewings and feedback sessions, it seems like no substantial changes have actually been made to accommodate these goals. As Jeff says, “student concerns have been consistent, and have remained unaddressed.” Essentially, the consultation since the 2005 architectural contest has amounted to “do you like it?”

That said, the Board, especially President and the chair of the Property and Planning committee seems to have taken the message to heart this time, at least in the scope of student dissatisfaction with the above-ground design. There is an opportunity here to create a really special centre for the university. Part of the AMS and GSS policies toward University Boulevard is to work together with the university to mobilize students in a useful way -whether that be in a consultative or design capacity. Hopefully we can do it right together.

Note: Weirdly, nobody at the Board responds to each other – there is no “debate”. Even if they disagree, they will not engage directly with another person, rather stating their position as if they were speaking to some random audience. The only time people actually speak to each other is when there’s a direct appeal for information. Quite a different style from AMS!!

Once again, this is inspired by Tristan Markle’s excellent letter to the Ubyssey. He identifies UBC Properties Trust as a key driving force in the U.Blvd decision. He’s quite right. But the UBCPT question is one that’s far more broad than UBlvd; in fact, I’d argue it’s a fundamental threat to the University’s governance.

So, what is UBC Properties Trust (UBCPT)? It’s a private corporation, legally separate from the University; however, it is entirely owned by UBC. When any building goes up on UBC land, both institutional and non-institutional, it goes through Properties. In short, it’s a property development firm that hires all the contractors, does all the project management, and leases and services the UNA land. When a project is going to happen (classroom, housing, or anything else), it always goes through UBCPT, whose staff figure out how much it will cost, arrange the people who will do everything, and make it happen.

Basically, the University doesn’t build things – Properties does so on their behalf.

This causes a few significant problems. They can be divided into two areas: Project-specific, and related to governance. These two areas are very closely related.

Governance

• Two members of UBC’s Board are on the UBCPT Board. Three members of UBC’s senior leadership are on the PT Board as well. Why is this a problem? Well, it removes any effective oversight of what PT is doing. The work of PT is rarely criticised at Board. Why? Largely because the most powerful BoG members are essentially responsible. As a direct consequence, institutional decisions about academic priorities and buildings needs are essentially made at the PT stage, which is outside the University.
• There is also no true accountability. UBCPT is only accountable to a) its Board, and b) UBC’s BoG. But neither is the true client, nor is either in a realistic position to actually exercise any real oversight over the other.
• Neither the VP Academic nor the VP Students are directly involved with PT. Which I find odd, as they are the true clients and end users.
• The VP External sits on the Board of Properties. The Campus and Community Planning office reports to the VP External. There’s functionally no independence between the two groups. It’s a sham.
• The real problem is that the University’s mission is to be a University, and all that entails. Properties’ mission is to contribute to the endowment. That’s financial. Which means they have no direct responsibility to make the University a better place; it’s indirect. In theory the BoG should provide some oversight, but it doesn’t (see above).

Project Management

• PT’s job is to keep price down. They call it “value engineering.” Their job isn’t to make a great classroom, it’s to make a passable classroom at value. This, while not necessarily bad, can produce some results that are less than friendly to students. The best demonstration of this? UBlvd itself. As many know, the architects who originally won the design competition quit. Why? Because they couldn’t work within UBCPT’s price constraints.
• Related to the above, UBCPT is driven by dollars in the door. This tends towards long-term thinking. A classic example is LEED construction; it comes at a few million dollar premium during the process, but over the life cycle of the building, it earns its money back many times over. PT is notoriously resistant to LEED building. Why? It makes buildings more expensive in the short term, and PT isn’t the one responsible for long-term costs. The University is. PT is only concerned with short-term (construction) costs, and has no incentive to produce sustainable buildings.
• The dollars in the door phenomenon lends itself to revenue-generating projects. Which brings more value to students? The knoll, or a Starbucks? It depends on how you define value. And that definition of “value,” to the PT Board, is framed in terms of the endowment. That means money. This means social space and mixed use is so much more likely to be retail; the kind of social space where the price of admission is a latte.

In short, there is no oversight, no way to pressure this powerful Board. It’s insulated from the University when convenient. And while it may produce more efficient development, it comes at significant cost.