Since the modern Olympic Games were revived in 1896, no city has ever hosted swimming events in an urban river. Too poopy. But Paris, as we talked about, hopes to be the first. Starting on July 30, the Seine is scheduled to host the swimming portion of the triathlon competitions.
Except, it will depend on water quality. Today's training sessions (scheduled for Sunday, July 28) were cancelled because water tests showed that the Seine is currently below acceptable standards. This is due to heavy rain over the last few days, which I guess overloaded the city's storm network.
So what is clear is that -- 36 years after then-Mayor Jacques Chirac first promised to clean up the river -- the city has only been able to successfully achieve this, sometimes. It's not an easy task.
According to Bloomberg, the clean-up efforts have already cost €1.4 billion. This was spent on doing things like constructing a 50,000 m3 holding basin (about the size of 12 Olympic-sized pools) under the Gare D'Austerlitz. This now holds storm overflow during heavy rain events, in lieu of it going into the Seine.
But this doesn't provide any guarantees as evidenced by today's cancelled training sessions. Presumably, it just makes it less likely for overflow stormwater to get dumped into the Seine. So a cynic might ask: Why bother with all of this?
Well, for one thing, swimming in a river in the middle of a major global city is just plain cool. Look at how the Swiss do it. But another reason could be that you want to create one of the greenest cities on the planet. And if that's the case, then seeing athletes swimming in the Seine is a pretty powerful image.
It shows progress.
I have a very close friend (Peter Vogel) who is in the solar business. He runs business development for a company called Otter Energy. And by volume, I believe they are the largest in Ontario. Since 2009, they have installed over 350,000 panels.
So when Peter and I hang out, I get the benefit of learning about solar. And he is great at reminding me that installing panels on the roof of buildings in Ontario makes a ton of sense from both an environmental and financial standpoint.
Generally speaking, the amount of benefit you will see depends on the building's ratio of roof area to overall building area. Low-rise buildings with a lot of roof area (think industrial assets), are absolute no brainers. But it can also work very well on many other asset classes, including mid-rise multi-family.
Here are some high-level figures that he recently walked me through:
As a rule of thumb, solar in Ontario typically generates between 12-14 kWh's per year per square foot of roof area (usable flat roof).
The average payback period for an install is usually somewhere between 4.5 to 7 years.
However, on income producing properties, the permanent decrease in operating expenses and the corresponding increase in net operating income (NOI) will increase your asset value on day one.
Consider spending $100k on solar panels to increase your NOI -- through lower electricity costs -- by $10k. If you were to then capitalize this increase in NOI by 5%, it would mean your asset value has right away increased by $200k. If the cap rate for this asset is even lower, say 4%, the increase goes up to $250k.
These multiples can get even better with larger installs. Here are some numbers from a real-world 100,000 sf commercial building in Ontario. In this case, the solar system cost about $800k (net) and resulted in annual operating cost savings of about $140k. This means, that at a 5% cap rate, the owner spent $800k to increase the value of their asset by $2.8 million on day one.
Of course, in addition to all of this, you get long-term energy cost certainty. That's worth something too.
The business case is compelling. So I think more building owners should be looking at solar. We are certainly looking at it from a development perspective. If you're interested in learning more, feel free to reach out to my friend. There are a lot of details that help strengthen the case for solar, including depreciation allowances and tax credits.
In my humble and partially biased opinion, two of the greatest places on earth to snowboard are the French Alps and Utah. I say the French Alps because, after 13 years of annual trips, I have yet to find better food and better après parties. And I say Utah because it's, like, pretty hard to beat the greatest snow on earth.
Well today, both of these places were announced as future hosts of the Winter Olympics. France will host the games in 2030 (once it has successfully met certain conditions) and Utah will host the games in 2034. This is exciting.
But it was also entirely expected.
France was the preferred choice since June. And Utah was the only choice for 2034. To host the Winter Games, you generally need to have at least two things: money and snow. And right now, fewer places want to spend the former on something that may or may not generate an ROI, and fewer places are getting the latter.
Remember this post looking at the impact of climate change on the Winter Olympics?
Because of these challenges, there is talk of the IOC adopting a permanent rotation of Winter Olympic cities. And Utah has been eagerly positioning itself to be one of the places. Biases aside, this feels like an obvious choice. Salt Lake City has some of the best and most accessible snowboarding in the world (SLC is a great airport) and -- most importantly -- it still snows there.
Photo by Alex Moliski on Unsplash