More problems at IGF?

[voodoochylde]

Perhaps an inquiry to determine if there is fraud or criminal negligence involved in this entire process is in order.

 

I'm not sure we need to go quite that far CSI.

[The Unknown Poster]

Yeah I think at this point it seems clear what happened.  They used a popular designer who lacked the expertise to do a stadium project of this magnitude.  There was not proper over-sight to ensure he and the GC brought in the expertise required.  It happens on all levels of projects.

 

Many of the large, expensive new homes in Waverly West have several issues.  It happens.  BBB is doing the right thing and hopefully the issues are rectified at no further expense to the Stadium owners.

 

But I dont think there is anything to indicate this requires a lengthy and expensive inquiry.

[iso_55]

How many tens of millions is this going to cost? Having to redo all the concourses, insulation, mitigate the flow of water through concrete & growth of mould. How many years has this taken off the life of the stadium? This stadium is 100% funded by taxpayers. C'mon we know the Bombers can't pay off their debt. So I think it does.

[LeBird]

Riders are loving this

[The Unknown Poster]

How many tens of millions is this going to cost? Having to redo all the concourses, insulation, mitigate the flow of water through concrete & growth of mould. How many years has this taken off the life of the stadium? This stadium is 100% funded by taxpayers. C'mon we know the Bombers can't pay off their debt. So I think it does.

But why? The stadium owners hired who they hired.

My parents had insulation done at the house last summer. Turns out their work was shoddy and they now have problems. We don't need an inquest to tell us why. We know why.

Unless there is some basis for assuming there was fraud or something untoward done by the government I don't see this as anything but what it is. If BBB recoups costs from the other parties And remedies the issues why should we spend even more money on what amounts to a political witch hunt.

[Jacquie]

How many tens of millions is this going to cost? Having to redo all the concourses, insulation, mitigate the flow of water through concrete & growth of mould. How many years has this taken off the life of the stadium? This stadium is 100% funded by taxpayers. C'mon we know the Bombers can't pay off their debt. So I think it does.

 

How on earth did you come up with a figure of "tens of millions"?!?! 

[iso_55]

 

How many tens of millions is this going to cost? Having to redo all the concourses, insulation, mitigate the flow of water through concrete & growth of mould. How many years has this taken off the life of the stadium? This stadium is 100% funded by taxpayers. C'mon we know the Bombers can't pay off their debt. So I think it does.

But why? The stadium owners hired who they hired.

My parents had insulation done at the house last summer. Turns out their work was shoddy and they now have problems. We don't need an inquest to tell us why. We know why.

Unless there is some basis for assuming there was fraud or something untoward done by the government I don't see this as anything but what it is. If BBB recoups costs from the other parties And remedies the issues why should we spend even more money on what amounts to a political witch hunt.

 

You said it. Maybe there was fraud involved. I just think that a screw up this massive has to be looked into

[iso_55]

 

How many tens of millions is this going to cost? Having to redo all the concourses, insulation, mitigate the flow of water through concrete & growth of mould. How many years has this taken off the life of the stadium? This stadium is 100% funded by taxpayers. C'mon we know the Bombers can't pay off their debt. So I think it does.

 

How on earth did you come up with a figure of "tens of millions"?!?! 

 

Start adding up the cost Jacquie. From what it was supposed to cost to now. Then add in the work that needs to be done to fix things right. How much will it cost just to gut the cement concourses & replace them alone? 

[Jacquie]

 

 

How many tens of millions is this going to cost? Having to redo all the concourses, insulation, mitigate the flow of water through concrete & growth of mould. How many years has this taken off the life of the stadium? This stadium is 100% funded by taxpayers. C'mon we know the Bombers can't pay off their debt. So I think it does.

 

How on earth did you come up with a figure of "tens of millions"?!?! 

 

Start adding up the cost Jacquie. From what it was supposed to cost to now. Then add in the work that needs to be done to fix things right. How much will it cost just to gut the cement concourses & replace them alone? 

 

 

What it was supposed to cost was $200M before the extra $10M in improvements was added. Win the lawsuit and it is going to cost nothing for the repairs listed.

[The Unknown Poster]

How many tens of millions is this going to cost? Having to redo all the concourses, insulation, mitigate the flow of water through concrete & growth of mould. How many years has this taken off the life of the stadium? This stadium is 100% funded by taxpayers. C'mon we know the Bombers can't pay off their debt. So I think it does.

But why? The stadium owners hired who they hired.

My parents had insulation done at the house last summer. Turns out their work was shoddy and they now have problems. We don't need an inquest to tell us why. We know why.

Unless there is some basis for assuming there was fraud or something untoward done by the government I don't see this as anything but what it is. If BBB recoups costs from the other parties And remedies the issues why should we spend even more money on what amounts to a political witch hunt.

You said it. Maybe there was fraud involved. I just think that a screw up this massive has to be looked into

You don't start having inquiries just to confirm there was no fraud. Where do you think the fraud came in? Think the government conspired with the builder to do shoddy work for some reason?

[SPuDS]

Construction company fubar'd this situation.. Should have had quality control checks much more often then they did so not sure who's fault that is but I'd be of the thinking that it's not a tax payer gonna pay situation.. More so that the company or companies that dropped the ball will be on the hook... Be it the actual construction guys or the designers who signed off on flawed plans..

[DR. CFL]

Not sure all this can be lumped onto the construction company. The builder builds to the specs of the plans. If there was faults in the design and the builder builds to the specs why are they necessarily to blame? Asper's architect had zero stadium design experience and a lot of these problems are a result of that. If that isn't negligent what is?

[The Unknown Poster]

Not sure all this can be lumped onto the construction company. The builder builds to the specs of the plans. If there was faults in the design and the builder builds to the specs why are they necessarily to blame? Asper's architect had zero stadium design experience and a lot of these problems are a result of that. If that isn't negligent what is?

I dont think its negligent that the architect had never designed a major stadium before.  If he had done his due diligence and engaged the right experts, he could have designed a great facility.  And for the most part he did.  But Asper was clearly led to believe this guy was capable of doing it and Triple B felt the same way.  At some point you'd have hoped there was some sort of over-sight that would have caught some of these issues that seemingly happened as a result of the architects lack of experience and due diligence and perhaps thats where the general contractor comes in.

[Goalie]

It's not so much the design that is flawed, the design is fine. People need to get that out of their heads.. It's the work that was done that is flawed or even the work that wasn't done.. That's the builder not the architect. LOL, builders build to the specifications, somebody is naive for sure, builders build to get it done on time, they set an unrealistic timeframe for completion and tried to cut some corners, This happens when designing buildings quite often, from houses to skyscrapers to stadiums, it happens more than people think. 

 

The only design flaw, if you want to call it that is there is some puddling on the roof it seems but you know what.... that's not even a design flaw, that's a builder flaw again. It's so easy to point the finger at the architect here but all he did was design it, he didn't build the thing, he just designed it. These issues that were pointed out aren't exactly design flaws, they are quite simply cuz i have no other words to describe it, They are CRAPPY workmanship.

 

Concrete concourse is the main thing it seems, that's not a design issue, that's a crappy job by the people who poured the concrete. 

 

Just a simple question, how do we know the builder followed the architects specifications? Maybe they didn't actually, maybe they decided to cut some corners and get it done when they said it was supposed to be done, that's the biggest issue here, the timeframe, looking at that list, those aren't really major issues outside of the concrete in the concourse, they are minor issues but theres enough of them to make them seem major. But really, not backfilling the stands? how is that an archtiect issue? That's a cut corners to get it done on time issue, the crap concrete? the architect didn't design the concrete, weather stripping? seriously lol, that's lazy workers really, the water on the roof, maybe they didn't build the "rafters" to the proper angle that the architect specified. This is all just a guessing game by people here, has anyone seen the blueprints for the stadium? I haven't, so without seeing them, who can honestly say that the builder followed the architects plans to a tee? Maybe the problem is they didn't and they got caught now. 

[GCn20]

There were conditions placed by the government of Manitoba on the project in order for them to loan the money. Did these conditions contribute to the situation that is now happening. This is what I would like to see answered.

There is no question that at the end of the snowball's roll that corners were cut. Were they cut because of a flawed tendering process. Were they cut because of problems with the mandated build site. Did it create a situation that created an unwinnable situation all the way around.

At the end of the day, Olsen should be left holding the bag. He took on the contract knowing what the conditions were. However, on future capital projects undertaken by Crown agencies or corporations we will not have a bag man.

[GCn20]

It's not so much the design that is flawed, the design is fine. People need to get that out of their heads.. It's the work that was done that is flawed or even the work that wasn't done.. That's the builder not the architect. LOL, builders build to the specifications, somebody is naive for sure, builders build to get it done on time, they set an unrealistic timeframe for completion and tried to cut some corners, This happens when designing buildings quite often, from houses to skyscrapers to stadiums, it happens more than people think. 

 

The only design flaw, if you want to call it that is there is some puddling on the roof it seems but you know what.... that's not even a design flaw, that's a builder flaw again. It's so easy to point the finger at the architect here but all he did was design it, he didn't build the thing, he just designed it. These issues that were pointed out aren't exactly design flaws, they are quite simply cuz i have no other words to describe it, They are CRAPPY workmanship.

 

Concrete concourse is the main thing it seems, that's not a design issue, that's a crappy job by the people who poured the concrete. 

 

Wonder if they were the best qualified for the job in the tendering process, or simply the best they could get with union affiliation.

[Goalie]

 

It's not so much the design that is flawed, the design is fine. People need to get that out of their heads.. It's the work that was done that is flawed or even the work that wasn't done.. That's the builder not the architect. LOL, builders build to the specifications, somebody is naive for sure, builders build to get it done on time, they set an unrealistic timeframe for completion and tried to cut some corners, This happens when designing buildings quite often, from houses to skyscrapers to stadiums, it happens more than people think. 

 

The only design flaw, if you want to call it that is there is some puddling on the roof it seems but you know what.... that's not even a design flaw, that's a builder flaw again. It's so easy to point the finger at the architect here but all he did was design it, he didn't build the thing, he just designed it. These issues that were pointed out aren't exactly design flaws, they are quite simply cuz i have no other words to describe it, They are CRAPPY workmanship.

 

Concrete concourse is the main thing it seems, that's not a design issue, that's a crappy job by the people who poured the concrete. 

 

Wonder if they were the best qualified for the job in the tendering process, or simply the best they could get with union affiliation.

 

Yeah, it makes you wonder. 

[Booch]

for concrete work in civil jobs there is a spec required for said concrete....when being placed they test for slump, air, temp, make cylinders for breaks (could be 3 sets for 7 day, 14 day 28 day for example) to test the mpa of the concrete. The spec for such a structure I can guarantee was not over looked, or was inadequate when plans went through qa/qc and review.

 

The on-site work and inspection though is a different case all together and if the on-site engineer did not order the tests, review them to make sure they met the spec, or were just ignored and hoped would not lead to issues then yes all that work will be re-done by the contractor/Project Management tandem.

 

We keep records of all this stuff when doing projects for our due diligence and in cases such as this where issues arise. If it comes to light that tests were not done, or the results of test show they didn't meet the specs at time of pour, and after the cylinders were broke, then the blame is soley on the Stuart Olson

[The Unknown Poster]

It's not so much the design that is flawed, the design is fine. People need to get that out of their heads.. It's the work that was done that is flawed or even the work that wasn't done.. That's the builder not the architect. LOL, builders build to the specifications, somebody is naive for sure, builders build to get it done on time, they set an unrealistic timeframe for completion and tried to cut some corners, This happens when designing buildings quite often, from houses to skyscrapers to stadiums, it happens more than people think. 

 

The only design flaw, if you want to call it that is there is some puddling on the roof it seems but you know what.... that's not even a design flaw, that's a builder flaw again. It's so easy to point the finger at the architect here but all he did was design it, he didn't build the thing, he just designed it. These issues that were pointed out aren't exactly design flaws, they are quite simply cuz i have no other words to describe it, They are CRAPPY workmanship.

 

Concrete concourse is the main thing it seems, that's not a design issue, that's a crappy job by the people who poured the concrete. 

 

Just a simple question, how do we know the builder followed the architects specifications? Maybe they didn't actually, maybe they decided to cut some corners and get it done when they said it was supposed to be done, that's the biggest issue here, the timeframe, looking at that list, those aren't really major issues outside of the concrete in the concourse, they are minor issues but theres enough of them to make them seem major. But really, not backfilling the stands? how is that an archtiect issue? That's a cut corners to get it done on time issue, the crap concrete? the architect didn't design the concrete, weather stripping? seriously lol, that's lazy workers really, the water on the roof, maybe they didn't build the "rafters" to the proper angle that the architect specified. This is all just a guessing game by people here, has anyone seen the blueprints for the stadium? I haven't, so without seeing them, who can honestly say that the builder followed the architects plans to a tee? Maybe the problem is they didn't and they got caught now. 

Im no expert but I believe there were design flaws.  Wouldnt the sloping of the roof and concourses be from the design?  Wouldnt the lack of insulation etc be something decided in the design phase?  Remember too that it was sort of last minute when they realised they had not designed the Stadium with field access from the stands and had to cut places for stairs.  Also, the best seats in the house, on the 55 yard line, are not seats, but a staircase.  That's a design flaw (though one that every single person who looked at the plans should have noticed, unless Im just way off base and every stadium does that)

 

I love IGF.  It's beautiful.  And compared to what SK is paying and what Calgary is going to pay and compared to what Hamilton is getting for their money and Ottawa, we have a palace.  These are issues, no doubt, and some of them are boneheaded but there will always be issues on any project like this (or really any build, such as a home) where the owners haggle with the builders after the fact over issues.

[The Unknown Poster]

for concrete work in civil jobs there is a spec required for said concrete....when being placed they test for slump, air, temp, make cylinders for breaks (could be 3 sets for 7 day, 14 day 28 day for example) to test the mpa of the concrete. The spec for such a structure I can guarantee was not over looked, or was inadequate when plans went through qa/qc and review.

 

The on-site work and inspection though is a different case all together and if the on-site engineer did not order the tests, review them to make sure they met the spec, or were just ignored and hoped would not lead to issues then yes all that work will be re-done by the contractor/Project Management tandem.

 

We keep records of all this stuff when doing projects for our due diligence and in cases such as this where issues arise. If it comes to light that tests were not done, or the results of test show they didn't meet the specs at time of pour, and after the cylinders were broke, then the blame is soley on the Stuart Olson

if I recall, some people speculated at the time of pouring that there might be issues due to concrete being poured in very cold temps.  I have no idea if that's true or not.

[Tracker]

Some folks have short memories- there were problems with the Convention Center, the Concordia Hospital  as only two examples. And yes, concrete can be poured in cold weather, provided that it is done properly- look at any residential building areas where house basements are poured in all but the coldest weather.

[pigseye]

Why sue the architect then if there were no design flaws? It's pretty obvious from reading the allegations in the SOC that BBB has pointed out design flaws. Some of it is just common sense too. How do you screw up between a wet and dry sprinkler system? One has water in it and one doesn't, one is for cold environments and one isn't. There was a massive disconnect between what was being built and what the owners wanted, the body responsible for that is to blame....hmm BOD.

[Jacquie]

It's not so much the design that is flawed, the design is fine. People need to get that out of their heads.. It's the work that was done that is flawed or even the work that wasn't done.. That's the builder not the architect. LOL, builders build to the specifications, somebody is naive for sure, builders build to get it done on time, they set an unrealistic timeframe for completion and tried to cut some corners, This happens when designing buildings quite often, from houses to skyscrapers to stadiums, it happens more than people think.

The only design flaw, if you want to call it that is there is some puddling on the roof it seems but you know what.... that's not even a design flaw, that's a builder flaw again. It's so easy to point the finger at the architect here but all he did was design it, he didn't build the thing, he just designed it. These issues that were pointed out aren't exactly design flaws, they are quite simply cuz i have no other words to describe it, They are CRAPPY workmanship.

Concrete concourse is the main thing it seems, that's not a design issue, that's a crappy job by the people who poured the concrete.

Wonder if they were the best qualified for the job in the tendering process, or simply the best they could get with union affiliation.

According to jayrock at TEP (he's a draftsman who worked on the project), SOD did the concrete themselves.

[pigseye]

Wonder who mixed and delivered the concrete.

[gbill2004]

Wonder who mixed and delivered the concrete.

I heard Sellinger mixed it himself in his basement to save money.