Leaders Gather to Talk About The Future of Climbing

Industry Roundtable. Photo: CBJ
Industry Roundtable. 
In Golden, CO last week an informal group of leaders in the climbing industry gathered to discuss the future of climbing. Organized by Earth Treks’ founder Chris Warner, the roundtable included Presidents and key staff from Earth Treks, American Alpine Club, American Mountain Guide Association, Access Fund, USA Climbing, Climbing Wall Association, Climbing Business Journal, Petzl, and Walltopia. The idea behind the roundtable was to bring organizations that are helping to grow indoor climbing and groups that support and advocate for outdoor climbers into one room to talk about the the challenges and opportunities facing a sport that is seeing rapid growth in participation. The meeting featured short presentations by each of the attendees followed by open discussion about the issues each group is facing, and how the groups might work together to address the challenges.

Indoor Problems

It was evident from the meeting that the industry is facing two distinct problems. The first centers around the lack of consistent practices across climbing gyms. Several attendees expressed concern that many gyms were not following the industry practices set forth by the CWA, creating unneeded risk and liability for these facilities and putting the insurability of the industry as a whole at risk. The safety of routesetters came up several times. While the industry is not specifically regulated by OSHA, almost every climbing gym is subject to the agency’s workplace safety requirements. Some climbing gyms have adopted practices to improve worker safety: ladder skids to improve stability on foam flooring, ear protection from loud impact drivers and safety glasses that protect eyes from metal shards from bolts. These practices, however, are far from the norm. Some of this inconsistency is self imposed. One attendee brought up the point that there is no specific safety standard for flooring; the current guidelines only call for an attenuating surface with no standard for performance. The group also discussed the fact that AMGA, CWA and PCIA all offer competing certifications for Climbing Wall Instructors, which adds confusion to the marketplace. The most promising discussion area that could promote consistency came from the AAC. In the US there is no commonly accepted belay instruction method, so every gym instructs and tests for belay competence differently. The AAC is developing a new certification program aimed at the climber (rather than the instructor, as the CWI certification does) that would teach the fundamentals of belaying as well as single pitch sport techniques like rappelling and fixed anchor evaluation. If constructed properly, this certification could be adopted by every gym in the country and climbers would have access to a universal belay card. This has the promise of improving competency and safety amongst climbers while saving time and angst by eliminating belay tests when certified climbers visit different facilities.

Outdoor Problems

The second major problem facing climbers is the issue of acceptable behavior and safety at the crag. Like many other outdoor sports, climbing areas are seeing ever increasing numbers of users. Unfortunately, it has become apparent that not all of these new users are acting in a way that is safe, sustainable or desirable. The group suggested that one reason for this conflict was that American climbers lack a training culture. Warner shared statistics from Earth Trek’s four climbing facilities in Maryland and Colorado which showed that while thousands of users are eager to learn how to climb at their facilities, only a tiny fraction are willing to spend time learning safe outdoor climbing skills or outdoor ethics, even when these classes are provided free of charge. Travis Herbert, Education Director from The Access Fund suggested that industry groups “need to make it cool to be stewards” of the outdoors. He also suggested that the social norms need to change so that it “doesn’t count” if you sent a v15 but trashed the crag in the process. The climbing media, particularly groups that put out popular climbing videos, and the elite athletes that are featured in them, can play an important role in making ethical outdoor behavior fun, approachable and normal.

What to do next

The indoor climbing industry is growing quickly, with roughly three new gyms opening in the US every month, but all attendees agreed that we as an industry have been slow to develop a coordinated response to these issues. “The industry is booming and we no longer need to fight internally for resources,” Warner said. “The timing to act is now, if we wait it will be harder to facilitate conversation.” One idea that emerged from the group was to form a Climbing Alliance that would facilitate better coordination and leadership on solving these problems. Could this alliance raise $1 million for an outreach campaign to educate climbers and help define what it means to be a good member of the climbing community? Could it help every gym in America provide consistent climber training and enforce safety standards? This was the first time all of these groups had been in one room at the same time and it led to some great conversations and a true starting point from which to move forward.

Mesa Rim Chooses Entre-Prises for Second Gym

mesa-2-drawing Press Release Mesa Rim Climbing and Fitness is not a new name in the climbing facilities business. They currently operate one of the largest facilities in the country, located in San Diego, CA. Now with 4 years of success they look forward to opening a 2nd location in 2015 with the same business model. “Building a modern climbing facility requires a very tight partnership between the climbing wall builder, building architect, building structural engineer, and construction company. We were immediately impressed by the expertise and innovation EP brought to this partnership, and the high level of collaboration. The EP product will allow Mesa Rim to progress the design of climbing gyms, with elements of classic climbing angles coupled with innovations in climbing terrain and space design. We look forward to building another successful facility.” – Mesa Rim Owners Bob Kain and Ian McIntosh For Entre-Prises, we are excited to showcase our experience and quality with our newest MozaiK innovations and classic Freeform, real rock sections. The design continues to evolve with about 27,000 sq. ft. of total climbing surface and over 150 climbing lines. Lead walls should reach over 50ft tall along with bouldering zones, natural crack features, electronic articulating training walls and the first indoor 15-meter speed climbing wall rounds out a few of the facility’s features.

From Lexington: The Property Hunt

from-lexington-4 This is the fourth installment in our From Lexington series that chronicles the journey of starting a climbing gym. by Chris Shotwell We started looking for a location for L’Escalade while still living in California. Our impulse was to try to shop for commercial real estate in the same manner that we would shop for a house. We registered for Loopnet and began cruising through the available options. As we worked through the process, it became clear that the listings for commercial property typically don’t provide some of the most pertinent information for a climbing gym! At least 70% of the listings that we were looking at didn’t provide a clear height (the distance from floor to ceiling before you encounter obstructions such as fire sprinkler heads, lights or rafters). We decided that we would have to call some brokers and let them handle the fact finding. Because we had a very clear vision of the facility we wanted, it was easy to set the criteria for our location. We knew that we would require a building with at least 25,000 square feet and a large section with a 50′ clear height. We also knew that we needed a location that was easy to access from multiple points in the city and with significant parking availability. People do a lot of driving in the Bluegrass region; Lexington is definitely not a walkable city. All of the brokers we contacted immediately balked at finding a building that was well located in Lexington and had 50′ of clear height. Additionally, many commercial brokers don’t seem to want to work with relatively young people. We left messages with many agents that never bothered to return our call, which created serious obstacles to locating someone to work with us. We did eventually find a broker, but it took far longer than we anticipated. Our research turned up a couple of less than ideal candidate properties, all either lacking the height or parking that we were looking for. After a couple of fruitless months, we discussed our remaining options.

Bad Options, Good Options

At this point, we knew that we would either need to compromise on our offered amenities, pick a shorter building and “pop the top”, or build ground up. Because we are extremely passionate about the programs that we want to offer, we never really considered making major cuts to our offerings. After looking at available real estate, we decided that nothing we saw had the right combination of layout and parking space to make popping the roof a viable option. Additionally, we didn’t want to go through the headaches of major zoning and construction without being able to design and build our dream facility. We finally decided that our best option was to immediately seek out land for development. Switching gears let us quickly identify some possible sites for our project. We did lots of research through Google Street View and tried to get an accurate idea of what the general area of each site was like. Once we had a few likely candidates, we left California, traveled to Lexington, met with our broker and toured several sites. These sites were scattered all throughout the city, and varied in general attractiveness and accessibility. We settled on a site that was very accessible and in a fairly industrial area. We contacted our attorney and asked him to write up an offer for the parcel, making sure that we had appropriate contingencies for our development.

Lawyers, Brokers, Offers, Oh My

The first piece of advice we received when we decided to build from scratch was to work with a local real estate attorney. There are several reasons to do so, but there were two that we considered very important. First, we were uncomfortable having a broker write our due diligence requirements. Having to cancel a contract on a commercial parcel for a reason not considered contractually acceptable is very expensive, far more than the additional cost of having an attorney write your offer. Second, depending on the community you are looking to build in, it can be helpful to have someone that has local connections to help push things through. Our attorney was expensive, but we consider the advice and assistance we received to be worth more than what we paid. The response from the seller on our initial offer was disheartening. Our broker indicated that another offer had been submitted for multiple parcels held by the seller, meaning that it would be quite hard for us to obtain this property. The details of the response basically said that we could have the land if we would give up all due diligence, but this was not acceptable to us. Even more frustrating for us, the other offer was made by a broker that was represented by the same firm as our broker. While this isn’t necessarily improper, we felt like we were getting taken for a ride. We improved our offer financially while maintaining our contingencies, and crossed our fingers. While this process was playing out, we started to explore our other options. We knew that we would likely be able to win this parcel, but decided that we should investigate alternatives before getting into a bidding war. Our agreement for exclusivity with our broker was set to expire shortly, and we already felt like we were receiving poor communication. What were we doing offering on parcels without knowing that there there was already a very competitive offer? We resolved to wait for our agreement to expire and move forward with a different broker.

Starting Over

After we fulfilled our obligation to our first broker we contacted a highly recommended firm in Lexington about a parcel suggested by our attorney. Our first broker must have overlooked it because they considered it to be too small. However, this latest parcel was located very close to downtown Lexington and was zoned in a way that allowed greater lot coverage. The allowable lot coverage is a percentage of the lot that you can cover with your improvements. In our situation, improvements would be the building, parking, and signs. In reality, it was by far the smallest of the lots we inquired about, but when we factored in the required set backs and easements, this lot was functionally bigger than any other we had seen. The location was far better than the first we offered on: it is blocks away from a university, a couple miles from the center of downtown, in an up and coming neighborhood with growing attractions and located right off the major beltway in Lexington. This was exactly the kind of parcel we were searching for. We canceled the offer on the first parcel and began developing an offer for the new location. This time, we were aware from the beginning that there was competition and decided to include a a provision that our offer was only available for 24 hours. It was almost immediately countered, we re-countered, and it was finally accepted in principle. Some minor negotiation on terms and timing ensued, ending quickly with a signed agreement and the clock starting on our due diligence period.

Confirming the Property’s Potential

The due diligence process for a project of this size has two major stages. Each of these stages must be completed successfully before it is worth continuing pursuit of the property. First, we had to verify that the property had no existing issues. This meant ascertaining that the title was properly held, there were no environmental issues (such as toxins dumped in the ground,) and the soil was appropriate for supporting the building. Everything checked out, which let us move forward with the next stage of due diligence. Second, we needed to determine whether we could use the site to operate our intended business. As our facility is an unusual project for Lexington, no zoning exists where it would be automatically approved. We knew from our early discussions with our attorney that the project would be subject to a Board of Adjustments hearing. We began the process by having general site plans assembled by a local architectural firm. This allowed us to show that we could erect a properly sized building and supply adequate parking on the site. As part of the process we had to prove that the building and its operation were appropriate and non-disruptive to our neighbors,such as providing a plan for screening the lot from our residential neighbors. Additionally, the Planning Commission had to review the shadow cast by our building to ensure that the building would not cover someone’s home in a perpetual shadow. Fortunately for us, due to the orientation of the property and our design requirements, the 50′ section of our building would be located as far away from our neighbors as possible, which put the shadow of the tall portion fully on our property.

Neighborly Relations

Our attorney suggested that we meet with our potential neighbors in an open forum to ensure that we provided clarity on the project before our formal meeting with the Board of Adjustments, where it is typical for them to ask for any objections to the proposed project. If the community doesn’t understand your design and operations, they are far more likely to object. This open forum would give us an opportunity to directly address concerns and make necessary changes in advance of our Board of Adjustments meeting. The meeting was held in the backyard of the ‘unofficial mayor’ of our adjacent street. As the meeting got underway, it was instantly apparent to me that people were most interested in understanding our operations and having their anxieties heard. Nicole and I mingled with the local residents to make sure all their worries were addressed. The most comical concern relating to our project concerned a famous stray dog named Smiley Pete that hung around downtown in the 1950’s. There was major disquietude by the people of Lexington that Smiley Pete was buried on the parcel we were buying, and that his body would be disturbed during our construction. We fortunately were able to sidestep this issue; Smiley Pete is buried on the adjacent lot, not ours. We also heard concerns about the staying power of our business, the security of our premises, getting a speed bump on the street to slow down cut-through traffic, the location of our dumpster and whether Nicole and I would be involved in the day to day operation of the business. Through our discussion we were able to satisfactorily address all of their concerns, which set us up to go into the meeting with the support of our neighbors.

Approval

Finally, we arrived at the Board of Adjustments meeting. As the review of our case got underway, we realized that all potential objections had been settled at our open forum meeting. Twenty minutes of questions and answers on whether we were planting conifers, what types of lighting we were using, and how we would coordinate with the local community ended in a vote on the project — it was unanimously approved. Following a brief period allowed for appeal, we showed up to close on the property. We were fully anticipating being downtown for a couple of hours and planned our entire day around the event. The actual time to close was about 30 seconds! After months of effort we walked out the door with full ownership of the property. From Lexington is a CBJ original series written by Chris Shotwell about the trials and tribulations of opening the L’Escalade Climbing in Lexington, Kentucky.