Everyone can read it.

Here’s where the golden parachute is outlined.

2.7
In the event that UBC should terminate Dr. Gupta’s appointment as President without cause, and Dr. Gupta should not resign his then position as a Professor as above, then, provided consistency with the Employment Termination Standards referenced in paragraph 2.6, UBC will continue to pay Dr. Gupta his Salary as President and will continue to provide all benefits under the Agreement until the end of the Term, except for those benefits listed under paragraph 4. [living in Norm MacKenzie House -Ed]

If the Board had dismissed Gupta without cause, the university would have had to pay him until the end of his term in 2019. This would have meant about $1.74M in salary, plus surely at least another half million in a variety of insurance, pension and other financial benefits. (see correction at the end of this post) May 2016, or about $350,000. He’d also get a year of leave at the end:

8.6

Subject to paragraph 8.7 [about what happens in the case of a re-appointment, hah! -Ed], and provided he has not:
(a) been terminated for cause; or
(b) resigned his appointment as a full Professor within sixty (60) days of being terminated without cause,

Dr. Gupta will be entitled to a one (1) year leave of absence from his duties as President and Professor (the “Leave of Absence”) in order to support his career renewal and professional development according to a plan of mutual benefit to Dr. Gupta and UBC. Dr. Gupta intends to take the leave at the end of his active service with the University as President. For the period of the leave, UBC will pay Dr. Gupta his salary in effect as President as well as the benefits defined in paragraphs 9.1 and 9.2.

It’s clear that resigning does not disqualify Gupta from receiving this leave of absence (nor does termination without cause, as long as he remains a professor). That’s why he’s now receiving his presidential salary and benefits for one more year as severance. As the saying goes, he’s entitled to his entitlements.

It’s also clear that due to the way the contract was written, and in the absence of the Board being able to justify his termination with cause, this was actually the cheaper option for the university. He’s only getting paid to disappear for 1 year instead of for 4.75 years (3.75 for the remainder of the contract and 1 for the leave of absence)! (see correction at the end of this post) 1.75 years (.75 as per the Employment Termination Standards and 1 for the leave of absence.)

**slow clap**

Just another example of the sterling management of the university’s resources that we’ve all come to expect from this current Board of Governors.

Correction (August 11, 5 pm)

Hubert Lai, UBC University Counsel, has pointed out that this article “misinterpreted Article 2.7 to suggest that Professor Gupta would have received four years of severance had he been dismissed. This is not correct. Article 2.7 is explicitly subject to the Employment Termination Standards, which limits severance to a maximum of 9 month where the employee has served in the position for 12 to 17 months.” This is a drastic failure in wonkery which is regretted deeply.

The story is that the Board Secretariat, Reny Kahlon, has recently become concerned about photography and recording during meetings. According to her, the creation of records is the means by which people disrupt meetings, inhibit discussion, attack the board, and distort the truth. There are no cited examples of any of these things having ever actually happened, just the concern that they might. So naturally photos and “recording of any kind” must be banned for everyone!

Er, for everyone except the Board Secretariat, that is. In the hands of the Board Secretariat, who routinely creates a recording of the entirety of every meeting, it is a valuable tool to ensure accuracy and proper documentation of events for the minutes. Hypocrisy has a name and it is Reny Kahlon.

Under her direction, the Board already operates in an extremely secretive manner without this nonsense.

Some important background: The Board usually holds two meetings, Committees and Board. Committees meet first and is essentially a “practice” meeting where they work out the kinks of proposals in front of them. By the time they have a Board meeting, usually about a week later, they are generally just rubber stamping the things they already talked about the previous week. Within each meeting there are two agendas, Open (public) and Closed (private). And within those agendas are items that are either for Discussion/Approval (where the board discusses and/or votes on each individual item) or for Consent (documentation provided, but no discussion occurs, voted on in one omnibus motion).

While there exist legitimate reasons for the Board to deliberate in private, marking items as “Closed” has become a matter of convenience to avoid scrutiny rather than one of genuine necessity. For example, tomorrow’s Open portion of the Board agenda has an item for Approval about raising international tuition. It comes with no documentation, no presentation, and is only allotted 5 minutes. This item did not appear on the Open portion of the Committee agenda the week prior. Motions like this do not appear out of nowhere. Chances are extremely high that in the Closed session of Committees, there was documentation, a presentation, and way more than 5 minutes of discussion.

It also happened this month with the university’s development plans along University Boulevard. A six-part, 240-word motion with 135 pages of supporting documentation has miraculously appeared on the Open Board agenda, where nothing existed on the Committees agenda. In April, it was the university’s billion-dollar annual budget which did not appear on the Committees agenda, then was approved at Board based on a title slide and about 30 seconds of non-discussion. It’s extremely disingenuous to pretend to be making the decision in public while undertaking all discussion and deliberation in private.

The “no recording” policy also fits into this mould – despite being dated May 12, it did not appear on the June 2 Committee agenda and was magically dropped from the sky onto the Board agenda on June 5. To make things more absurd, it is an item for Consent, which means it likely was not subject to any discussion during Committees. It was kept secret for… what reason, exactly? And that’s not the height of the absurdity: approval of Board and Committee minutes, the “accurate documented record” of meetings, never appears on Open agendas. The official public record is considered a private matter. It’s secrecy for secrecy’s sake.

That this motion would even be considered is a symptom of the Board’s greatest weakness: its utter disconnection from the university it governs. The modus operandi of Ms. Kahlon as Board Secretariat seems to be to insert herself as the middle person into any issue that is or could become a problem. Under the guise of protecting Governors, they are isolated from everyone except the administration. The information stream and narrative they receive is often very narrow, and carefully cultivated to support certain outcomes. Alternative viewpoints and information is minimized or suppressed. The result is that the Board becomes the stereotypical governing body that is completely out of touch. Rather than addressing problems head on to find solutions, the strategy results in disputes that are allowed to fester and grow, and only dealt with once they become too big to ignore. Trying to prevent records of the Board’s activities from being generated is just part of that strategy to keep Governors in the dark, and the public too.

Main things I remembered/learned/noticed from this iteration of the plan:

1. The two totally unnecessary infill buildings (charmingly christened B and D) to occupy the little triangular lots between War and U-Blvd are now established fact. They will still block the view of the iconic War Memorial Gym. They would still be better turned into green space. One has already been granted a Development Permit.
2. The administration building on the corner of U-Blvd and University (GSAB) which is now being torn down is now also being proposed as residential development.
3. The Copp building (on the south side of U-Blvd, between Dentistry and Wesbrook), is now also part of the U-Blvd plan, slated as yet more housing development.
4. Both buildings in 2. and 3. are outside the boundaries of the University Blvd Neighbourhood Plan, as defined in the Land Use Plan (LUP). That means that they’re defined as “Academic” and no non-residence housing is to be build on them, making the presented plan an outright transgression of the LUP. Isn’t it funny that the two remaining academic buildings on U-Blvd suddenly reached the “natural end of their lives” at the same time? And even suspending disbelief that that is indeed true, they cannot be sustainably retrofitted, but must be torn down?
5. The new bus loop has been given the larger footprint it needs, with an above-ground pickup/dropoff area at 90 degrees to the current one (in the parking lot of War), and a parking/storage area where the current loop is. The parking/storage area would be covered by a building containing – you guessed it – housing. Think of all those delicious fumes.
6. War Memorial Gym itself is on the chopping block next

General impressions and insights from the event and my chat with the charming Gerry McGeough of C+CP:

• C+CP considers it to be an act of charity (for which they deserve plaudits) not to tear things down. Even perfectly good things. This I learned upon asking the simple question “does every square inch of this area need to be demolished and redeveloped?” whereupon I got the answer “Well, we might not tear down the Gym”.
• The “livable community/mixed-use” jargon has penetrated to the very core of the identity of this project (and of C+CP itself). Criticism of the amount of housing presented in the plan is apparently an attack on this ineffable quality. And it is obvious that the way to achieve it is to max out residential density in every possible way.
• There is a shady internal-financing combination being executed by moving student and staff housing that was slated for the Wesbrook Village into the U-Blvd area (so that more expensive condos can be sold in the former). This is supposedly to finance the loan to renovate the last wing of the BioSciences building. I don’t know the details of that situation, but it’s weird. [Ed: It's explained here]
• C+CP is getting better and better at the consultation game. No, that’s not a compliment. Revisionist history of the area, check. Liberal use of planning-babble, check. Very-brief summary of negative feedback and concerns (without actually addressing them), check. Yeah, it’s better than no consultation, but I still feel like people’s legitimate and unanswered questions are being suffocated under a mass of high-gloss posters.

Now I’m not beating up on Gerry. I liked him a lot (Hi Gerry!), and he took my sometimes intemperate complaining with a great deal of gallantry and good humour. What he didn’t do was ever question the idea that there 1) ideally should be 2) is allowed to be (under the LUP), and 3) can practically be (on top of a polluting bus terminal), this amount of housing in the area. The assumption that “mixed use” communities with mega-housing density is a GOOD THING is gospel truth to the current generation of Vancouver-ish planners.

The idea that there should be housing in this area has been the central (centrally contested, and centrally unchanged) ingredient in the U-Blvd area from the get go. It started with the 1997 designation of this area, and the site of the current bus loop, dubbed Gage South, as a “neighbourhood” to begin with, opening the door to market housing (unlike the other “neighborhoods”, which are all in outlying areas of UBC, this one is in the very core). Years of consultation and opposition (including Neal’s awesome work on this blog), has changed the housing proposed for the area into more student and staff focused, though not exclusively. But it’s still expensive (ie. market), some of it is still on top of a polluting bus loop, and it’s still fundamentally adding a lot of residential density to the academic core and gateway of the campus.

So when I say that nothing’s changed, that’s an exaggeration. The plan itself has changed, and it’s a lot better now than it used to be. But the push-pull dynamics of market housing and commercial spaces vs. academic, student, and community spaces remains the same. This dynamic is not what C+CP’s revisionist history poster would have you believe, and to understand it, people need to remember a bit. Eight years ago, when I was an undergrad at UBC, the footprint of where the Nest is now was planned as an expensive, dubiously safe, and too-small underground bus loop, covered by a mall, with market housing on top. That plan was also sold by C+CP in identical terms of “mixed use” and “vibrancy”, even though it was correctly recognized as the craven commercialization of the centre of campus and widely panned. That plan changed: The bus loop in that location was canceled, the mall was canceled, and the space was given to the AMS and the Alumni centre. I must emphasize that these changes are not thanks to C+CP but despite it. They are due to students that protested and advocated against the commercially-oriented plans, and then funded their own public, student-oriented alternative. UBC now benefits from the fact that the student body essentially forced it kicking and screaming to cancel its plans to commercialize and cheapen the centre of campus, and literally paid for it to be public- and student-space focused ourselves.

The new SUB and Alumni Centre, and the public spaces around the knoll and on the other side of the old SUB are going to be social centre of the campus, as they should be. There really isn’t all that much left to get right. U-Blvd should concentrate on the street-level stuff. The bikes, the buses, the grocery store, the parks and outdoor seating, the traffic improvements to Wesbrook Mall, the artwork. I might even give in and stop mocking the gimmicky “living lab” and “incubator” spaces (whatever they may be) that infest any given mock-up poster. The point is, C+CP – go forth and build the lively mixed-use street of your dreams along U-Blvd. Just understand that there are people here who have memories longer than a goldfish. And we will continue to question the justification, legality, and need for 5-7 stories of (essentially) market residential on top of every build-able square meter.

Last year, a controversial referendum to institute a $500 student fee on commerce undergraduates in order to fund Phase 2 renovations to the Sauder building was a major topic of discussion on this blog due to the fact that we viewed it as a backdoor tuition increase. Amidst ample debate, the referendum passed easily and the board of governors held an extraordinary meeting to put the fee in place. Student fees would fund the entirety of Phase 2, and it was understood by everyone that the completion of Phase 2 represented the end of the Sauder renovation project. Although we were disappointed with the outcome, it appeared that a definitive conclusion had been reached.

Earlier today, the board of governors approved a Phase 3 of Sauder Renovations.

Two weeks ago, no one knew Phase 3 existed. Construction will be starting in April. However, it was discovered that Sauder has cash reserves of $24M, which would have been enough to pay for all of Phase 2, making the entire $500 fee unnecessary. As part of the conditions for Phase 3 to go ahead, Sauder will have to pay $2M back to UBC and $2M towards the mortgage backed by student fees.

Manufacturing Crisis

Phase 3 consists largely of cosmetic improvements to staff and faculty areas of the building.

This additional renovation work includes: academic and administrative office layout and finishes, elevator lobby finishes, washroom upgrades, electrical upgrades, exterior envelope repairs, and window replacement.

Despite the fact that the upgrades proposed in Phase 3 have never previously been considered part of the overall Sauder renovation project, calling it Phase 3 allows Sauder to piggyback these new upgrades onto the project structure of the overall Sauder renovation project. While this approach does make a sense from the perspective of having the same project management and contractors working on everything as a unified whole, it’s also a way of going around the regular approval process for capital projects at UBC.

Normally, building projects go through a multi-step approval process at the Board of Governors. “Board 1″ and “Board 2″ approval levels are concerned with project conception, planning, and design. “Board 3″ approval is a green light to go ahead an execute the project. It took Phase 1 of Sauder almost two years to progress from Board 1 to Board 3.

For Phase 3, the board simply revised the previously granted Board 3 approval for phases 1&2 to now include a Phase 3. This effectively skips the Board 1&2 approval levels altogether. In the documentation, it states: “Executive approval for Phase 3 was granted in November 2010.” The project will go from conception to full approval in the span of a few short months, while avoiding almost all of the checks built into the system.

In the lead up to the fee referendum, Phase 2 was portrayed as extremely urgent. In fact its urgency was due only to the fact that it was already underway; Sauder had started construction without securing the necessary funding. Phase 3 was once again being portrayed as urgent for a similar reason: that it’s necessary to take advantage of the fact that construction crews are already swarming around the building completing Phase 2. It’s urgent because it’s already underway. It’s another manufactured crisis.

What disaster could result from not redecorating office and elevator lobbies? The washrooms still serve their purpose in their current state. The building won’t collapse without immediate exterior and electrical upgrades. It could all be done at a later date. The board was backed into a corner and forced to decide on an “urgent” project in a very short time frame with little or no advance notice.

Sadly, it worked, just like it worked with commerce students. Phases 1, 2 and 3 are all going forward. At the same time, it has significantly eroded the Board’s trust in Dan Muzyka. But it’s commerce students who should feel most betrayed. They were swindled out of millions.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me

Phase 3 is projected to cost $5.7M. (Phase 1 was $46.4M; Phase 2 was $17.9M) Where is the money coming from?

The Phase 3 renovation has an estimated capital cost of $5.684 million. Funding for the project will come entirely from Sauder School of Business reserves. No UBC Central Administration funds will be required. No debt financing will be required.

Translation: Sauder has $5.7M sitting in their piggy bank. The original board documentation contained no other details about financing, which simply raised more questions than it answered.

Scenario A:If Sauder had millions in the bank at the time, why didn’t they volunteer any of it to contribute to Phase 2 renovations in order to cut the student fee by hundreds of dollars? Last year’s student fee referendum amounted to a bailout of the project; why was the fee portrayed as the only available option?

Scenario B: If these funds were generated in the past year, how was such a large surplus accumulated? Why does renovating their own offices instead take precedence over paying back some of the $23M of debt backed by student fees, or any other projects that would improve the student experience?

This post was held back upon request in order to give the board an opportunity to react to the proposal without the administration going on the defensive as a result of public scrutiny. We’re happy to report that in the version ultimately passed by the board more information was provided regarding Sauder’s reserve funds:

“Sauder, which benefitted from better than expected market conditions and from the very strong performance of its programs (…) is expected to end the 2010/11 fiscal year with $24 million in unrestricted reserves.”

Scenario A was true. No hard numbers have been made available but it seems safe to say that at the time of the referendum Sauder likely had enough cash on hand to pay all of Phase 2′s $17.9M cost outright! Sauder told students the project was vital to the future of the school. But it wasn’t vital enough for the faculty to put any of their own money towards it. The faculty dishonestly cried poverty while sitting on substantial cash reserves. At a bare minimum, the student fee should have been hundreds of dollars lower.

Scenario B was also true. Sauder earned a large surplus in the last year although again, hard numbers were not made available. Rather than paying back students who funded an unnecessary bailout, they hatched yet another renovation project. The most detailed FAQ from last year’s referendum asks “Will the Dean continue to seek funding from UBC and the provincial government if the student fee is passed?” The answer starts “Yes, the Dean will continue to raise money from every possible source.” Commerce students should be absolutely furious that Sauder does not consider themselves to be a possible source of funding for the project, then or now. Through the building fee, students were cheated out of millions that the faculty could have paid for, but simply didn’t want to.

To give an indication of how substantial Sauder’s reserves are, the board didn’t ask them to divert any of the funds going towards Phase 3. Instead, they modified Sauder’s proposal to include what amounts to a $4M tax on the project. From its reserves, Sauder must pay back $2M to UBC for their contribution towards Phase 1. Sauder must also pay $2M towards the debt backed by student fees: $440k towards the MBA/ECM/MMOR mortgage on Phase 1 and $1,560M towards the CUS mortgage on Phase 2. This is expected to reduce amortization by 7 years. However, the student fees are still in place and have not been reduced. It’s simply that fewer students will have to pay them. The only beneficiaries are students in years 29 through 35 of the mortgage, who will now pay nothing.

In approving the student fee last year, it seemed that most people knew the rules were being bent, but that the events around the Sauder renovation project were an exception, never to be repeated again. People would have to do better in the future. Less than a year later, Sauder managed to conjure another project out of thin air with questionable funding, presented in a way designed to exploit the system and avoid scrutiny.

Because the project was relatively minor, the board let it go ahead. But they made it clear that what was originally proposed was unacceptable, and caused $2M to be given back to students. The board should be cautiously applauded for this turn of events. The immediate Board 3 approval still gives pause for concern and we wish the funds could benefit students much sooner than 30 years from now. As well, if Sauder continues to run multi-million dollar surpluses, they should pledge to devote a fixed portion of those surpluses to further paying down student debt.

However, it’s a step in the right direction. A few years ago, a proposal like this would have simply been approved as-is and the CUS certainly cannot be counted on to pressure the Sauder administration to repay even a penny. Not only that, the board found a creative solution and was not afraid to use their authority to ensure student interests were taken into account.

On the other hand, Sauder’s administration has been a model of unscrupulous behaviour throughout the entire renovations process. The project’s scope was expanded from $41M to $69M and was pushed ahead even when proper funding wasn’t accounted for, manufacturing a crisis that others were expected to clean up. They attempted to institute their own student fee, and then when that failed, bent the rules by going through the CUS, while misleading students about the urgency of the project and withholding their own substantial cash reserves. Unfortunately, most commerce students are unlikely to be upset by all of this, publicly at least. They should be thankful that the board stood up for them, and perhaps they should try it themselves.

President

Jeremy McElroy

VP Academic and University Affairs

Matt Parson

VP Administration

Mike Silley

VP External

Katherine Tyson

VP Finance

Elin Tayyar

Board of Governors

Sumedha Sharma & Sean Heisler

Senate

Justin Yang
Spencer Rasmussen
Thomas Brennan
Imran Habib
Ryan Bredin

Ubyssey Board of Directors

President: Oliver Thorne
Board: Imran Habib; Omri Wallach; Neil Andrews; Martin Matusiak

SLFS

Anthony Bryson
AJ Hajian
JJ MacLean
Aaron Sihota
Jordan Stewart
Kyle Warwick

Voter Media

1) UBC Insiders (That’s us! Thank you so much!) – $450
2) AMS Confidential (Unicorns 4 eva) – $350
3) (tie) Radical Beer Tribune – $275
3) (tie) 11′ Eleven” – $275
5) UBC Vanguard – $250
6) Locust or Bumblebee – $225
7) Tyler’s Blog: Death of Destiny – $175

Full Results

Full results can be viewed at the Simply Voting site. A selection is reproduced below.

President

VP Academic & University Affairs

VP Finance

Elin Tayyar 2341
Arash Ehteshami 1740

VP Admin

VP External

Board of Governors
Sumedha Sharma – 2968 (35.4)%
Sean Heisler – 2375 (28.3)%
AJ Hajian – 1142 (13.6)%
SuperSexySass Sangsari – 729 (8.7)%

Senate
Justin Yang – 2181 (16.1)%
Spencer Rasmussen – 2086 (15.4)%
Thomas Brennan – 1909 (14.1)%
Imran Habib – 1550 (11.5)%
Ryan Bredin – 1542 (11.4)%
AJ Hajian – 1342 (9.9)%
Matthew Campbell – 716 (5.3)%
Eric DiStefano – 595 (4.4)%

Before I start, I want to speak a little as to why its so important to vote. The architectural firm that we pick will absolutely influence the way our building looks. While student consultation will help shape it, ultimately it will be up to the architects to bring our words and ideas to life. This is why its so important to take a little time to watch the videos of the presentations, read the firm profiles at the Ubyssey, (part 1 part 2) or my coverage (left column at the top of this page)! If you don’t take the time, the building could end up being something we don’t want.

Do you want this to be your SUB? (Don't laugh, Paint is hard to navigate)

So, without further ado, in alphabetical order..

Bing Thom Architects

I like BTA because I like their approach to architecture. The Chan is without a doubt one of my favourite buildings on campus and to have the architects that designed the Chan work on our project would be amazing. Another reason I like BTA is because I like their approach to consultation. They mentioned using play-doh to solicit feedback from kids in a library project they recently worked on. This shows me that they are able to identify and target an age group and use an age appropriate medium in order to consult with user groups. I think this is going to be so valuable to our project because we need architects who are willing to fine tune their consulting methods into such a way that most effectively gathers information from their target groups.

HBBH BH

I like this partnership because I really liked their approach to architecture as well. Their identification of how a building should be like a city and also how they want to a build a building that we won’t be sick of in a 100 years really sold me. And how can we forget the design cube. I really hope that they follow through with that idea if chosen. Its partially why I think they are such a great firm. Yes, so I called them cheesy and flashy in my writeup but at the end of the day, its nice that they tried to appeal to students. While I wouldn’t want them to do that in consultations with students (because our students can see right through it) I like that they had personality and weren’t dull. I think they will do a great job if they were chosen as the architects, I would have no problem having them at the head.

Henriquez Partners/IBI

I like that this firm found a way to incorporate social initiatives into their Woodward building. While I don’t think they’ll have a similar opportunity with our project, it’ll be good to have a firm who will look for opportunities outside of the box. I think that they will be effective at going to bat for us if the occasion called for it. Their approach to architecture also really impressed me. They have a history of partnering together which and I loved their answer to one of the student questions. I think they are a great match for the AMS because they seem capable of balancing lots of different competing differences in user groups and partners.

According to their website, “Stantec Architecture and 3XN Architects, together, bring an outstanding depth of relevant experience, significant international design achievements and a very strong Vancouver based “capacity to perform” to this project. Integrating world caliber Design, rigorous Danish Sustainable Design and LEEF Certification experience with Vancouver depth of experience and resources and a commitment to ongoing work together, we are a “naturally” integrated team-we’ll poised to deliver an outstanding, innovative and ground breaking-sustainable SUB Renewal building design.”

UBC Okanangan University Centre (Stantec designed)

Social Media

Website/Pamphlet

The first thing that needs to be mentioned about this collaboration is their sick website. It is by far the coolest website out of the seven architects so kudos for that. They also seem to be lacking on the facebook and twitter front.

Presentation

Their powerpoint presentation was also pretty slick and awesome. One of their points was that the architects can influence the behaviour of the users of the building. They believe that sustainability is not about telling the users what to do but by influencing the behaviour of the users. They emphasized their familiarity and comfort with technology, something that can only help with our project. Something that impressed me about this group was that they looked at the building surrounding the new SUB site and looked for some source of waste energy that we could utilize. They identified the pool as that source of energy.

Consultation and Communication

They plan on continuing to develop the website to include more social parts which will encourage interaction. They also discussed at length the different types of interactive installations they hope to put up in the current SUB during the design stage in order for students to provide feedback. This partnership’s speciality seems to lie in the different interactive media, social and playful interaction and also different 3D scenarios they hope to bring to our project. This is different then anything any of the other firms have offered. They also hope that all these interactive displays can be incorporated into the new building.

An Interactive Media Centre. (That could be you!)

The Team

The best thing about this team is the fact that they have members who are familiar with Vancouver’s environment and also members who are from Copenhagen who will be able to make our building stand out.

Criticism

There were points in the presentation where it felt like S+3XN were molding our project to fit the projects they’ve done in the past, not the other way around. From what I understand, neither firms have done any projects at UBC Vancouver (Stantec has done two buildings at UBC Okanagan). While I am super impressed by the interactive displays and other shenanigans that are being proposed, I can’t help but wonder if they are actually going to engage students or if it will just make it seem like they’ve made an attempt.

Overall

I really enjoyed this presentation; it was awesome to see a firm really try something different technologically when it comes to student consultation. They also proposed some kind of educational process during handover of the building, something to just explain how to use and work the building to ensure that users are getting full use out of it. With all of that into consideration, I don’t know how comfortable I am with their lack of experience on campus and with UBC PT. It is going to be an intense project with the sheer volume of stakeholders and the partnership between the AMS and UBC. It is going to be extremely important in this particular project for our architects to be able to stand up for the AMS and go to bat for us against UBC PT if the times called for it. I am skeptical that this firm will be able to deliver on that level.

]]> http://ubcinsiders.ca/2010/04/the-new-sub-project-architect-presentations-stantec-architecture-3xn/feed/ 11 http://ubcinsiders.ca/2010/04/the-new-sub-project-architect-presentations-henriquez-partners-architects-ibi-group/ http://ubcinsiders.ca/2010/04/the-new-sub-project-architect-presentations-henriquez-partners-architects-ibi-group/#comments Mon, 12 Apr 2010 16:00:54 +0000 Crystal Hon http://blogs.ubc.ca/ubcinsiders/?p=2853 Henriquez Partners Architects / IBI Group

According to their website, “The Student Union Building is the core around which student life revolves – establishing the UBC student body as a community and providing the functions that server and define the community.” Henriquez Partners Architects / IBI Group is a partnership between Henriquez Partners Architects and IBI Group. Together, they have built the Michael Smith Laboratories at UBC.

Michael Smith Laboratories

Social Media

Website/Pamphlet

HPA+IBI seem to be seriously lacking on the social media front. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I can’t seem to find a facebook group or a twitter account for this partnership. This concerns me mainly because facebook and twitter will definitely be the most economical way to reach out and communicate with students.

Presentation

The presentation was centered around the work this partnership did on the Woodward buildings. They showed all the amazing things that they did with this building as well as all the things that needed to be done to manage all the different demands of its future residents. This showed off their capacity to deal with complicated (something that will be necessary on this project), something that is definitely appreciated. This partnership has done over 40 projects over 20 years that have all be on or below budget.

Consultation and Communication

HPA+IBI are very keen on participatory design and sustainability, focusing on more than just environmental sustainability (cultural was mentioned). They believe that community engagement is one of the most important parts of a project, something that I whole heartedly agree with. Besides the standard consultation methods, I don’t think this team brought anything that was out of the ordinary or outside the box.

The Team

The team seems to be geared towards smart building technology. Their specialization was the ability to manage buildings and resources more efficiently. They also seemed to be into the idea of listening to the students and not approaching our project with any preordained design or a design rational. They feel that it is their job to work for more people rather than fewer people. This will definitely come in handy come design period when students are giving their input.

Criticism

They took the example of the woodward project and discussed all the different problems and what their solution and how they came about their solutions. While it was easy for me to make the connections between our project and the Woodward project, I think this presentation could have made the links much more clearer. I would like to have heard more explicitly how they would have applied their skills set to our project. I know that this team has had some experience on campus, I think they should have highlighted it more.

Overall

I loved that they went into depth about a project they just completed. It really showed their capacity to deal with user input, something that will be so important with our students. Their answer to an audience question about life cycle costing really impressed me. I don’t recall the exact question, but their answer was that they want to build a building that inspires people. If the users feel passionate about a building, it means that the users won’t want to tea it down, they’ll find some way to reuse it. I’m a big fan of this answer because if the AMS wants a building that will stand the test of time, then it absolutely needs to be something the students are passionate about!

According to their website, “For nearly two decades, Cannon Design has been nurturing a culture where imagination, invention and creative talent flourish. As a premier, world ranked firm by most any standard in all of our primary markets, we recognize that our continued success relies on more than just what we have done before; it relies on what we do next. Today, our portfolio reflects enormous experience and expertise. Our enduring client relationships reflect our commitment to principles of collaboration and partnership. Our record for effective project delivery reflects our serious discipline in the balance of time, cost and quality. All these things are vital dimensions of our practice; all are the basis of the trust we seek to engender with our clients – trust which, in turn, fuels the kind of strategic optimism and courage that permit the exploration of new possibilities.”

Richmond Olympic Oval

Social Media

Website/Facebook/Twitter

Like the other firms, Cannon has tapped into social media, like Facebook, in order to drum up excitement for their bid for the new SUB project Out of all the firms, they do have the most followers on their Twitter which leads me to think that they’ve been reaching out and are comfortable with social media. With social media being one of the most economical and efficient ways to reach out to students, it will be important to have an architect who can manipulate social media.

Presentation

Cannon has an advantage over all the other architects because they created our program (feasibility study). This is a significant advantage because our program is complicated and intricate parts of our program might have to stay in the current SUB. Having been the firm that created the program feasibility study, Cannon will be significantly more familiar with the program building, making them the most effective at translating our program into a building. They stressed their take on open design during their presentation. This is great because that is what we want; an architect who is going to be completely open to our ideas. They also tuned into the idea that it is really about what the present students wants to say to give to the future students. This will be a difficult issue to mitigate and Cannon has identified it as important.

Consultation and Communication

Cannon plans on using the true and tried methods of communicating with students and communicating the importance of this project. They’ve identified campus tradition as something that needs to be communicated and seen in the new building, something that I’m sure will be communicated to students. This will be important for students to understand and hopefully will attract more students to the project.

The Team

The team Cannon has proposed seems carefully and specifically chosen. The video that was shown at the beginning of the presentation really showed the range and the expertise that this firm possess. I think they have a great grasp on the project and also what the students are looking for from this project.

Criticism

I don’t know if Cannon will be able to inspire and motivate students into participating in the design process. I would have liked to seen more ideas/a vision on how they are going to do our project. They also mentioned something about how our building will have an economic component. They believe that a good design will mean a higher cash flow that will equal better programs. I don’t really see how that fits into the design process of this project; it seemed a little disconnected to me.

Overall

I think the major advantage Cannon Design has is the fact that they wrote the programs helped the AMS make the original decision to start the process of building a new building. It means that they will have the ability to hit the ground running faster. With that being said, this isn’t something that the other firms can’t overcome. I can’t get over the fact that I wasn’t necessarily inspired or excited about our project after their presentation. This is a big issue for me because this project needs architects that are going to be as excited, if not more, than students. They will also need to do so much more work to gather consultation on the project from students. Frankly, I don’t know if Cannon seems up for it.

According to their website, “The new UBC Student Union Building will aim high: to empower, to advocate, to lead by example with ecological, social and financial sustainability. It will be accessible and diverse. It will be an inspirational, dignified space, at home in an exciting landscape” HBBH+BH is a partnership between HBBH and BH. HBBH is responsible for the Marine Drive Residences on Campus.

Marine Drive Residence. (I can totally see my apartment in this photo)

Social Media

Website/Facebook/Twitter/Pamphlet Side 1/Pamphlet Side 2

Their communication methods are pretty standard. The thing I like about their website is that because this team is a combination of two different firms, we have a website that is unique to our project. They’ve used this to their advantage; giving the students a taste of what it would be like to work with them. I definitely encourage you to check out their facebook page and also the website.

Presentation

Their presentation discussed the different aspects that are important in order to make a student union building. HBBH+BH’s early preconceptions of our building are that it needs to be like a city.  There needs to be a main street, a building envelope, rooms and public space. The thing that I liked about this observation is that they highlighted the importance of the hierarchy of space. A space needs to be able to deal with small and large crowds, it needs to be a multi dimensional space and the legacy of the space needs to be preserved while we continue to look forward. HBBH+BH stressed the point that they will not build us a building that cannot be reused in 100 years and that a building should have systems that is easily reusable. The idea that there needs to be a harmony between artificial and natural systems in order to achieve optimum sustainability is something that was identified and yours truly definitely appreciated that.

Consultation and Communication

The idea from HBBH+BH that impressed me the most was the idea of a design cube in our current SUB. During the design phase, HBBH+BH would like to ideally set up a space in our concourse where the design team, and a full-time architect student can set up shop. HBBH+BH proposed this because they would like to fully immerse themselves in the flow and the dynamic of the SUB during the design process to give us the best building they can.

HBBH+BH's Proposed Design Cube

The Team

Everyone on the team seemed knowledgeable and engaged in the presentation. Every person had a defined role and can only help a project of this magnitude. The dynamic between the two principles was easy which made the presentation seem more like a conversation. The two principles seemed charismatic; this will definitely help engage the students who choose to be involved.

Criticism

While I loved their presentation and they were definitely the best prepared, I worry that the slickness of the firm will take away from the actual project. I worry that this partnership will be more about the flash. I also think they are playing up the cheese a touch too much, it almost seems like they’re trying too hard. There seemed to be a lot of good ideas and a lot of them are perfectly feasible, I feel that the architects have under-estimated how much work it will take to get the level of student engagement they are hoping for.

Overall

With HBBH+BH, we would definitely be getting a different level of expertise in the area of building systems. They were the firm which seemed to focus the most on the different things they would put in our building to monitor and adjust our environmental impact. Their suggestion for a design cube in the SUB during the design period and also a green card system for students to keep track of their environmental impact are both amazing ideas; the latter really driving home the point that sustainability should be a social thing as well.