Construction company Stuart Olson is denying responsibility for deficiencies at Investors Group Field and says the stadium’s owner and the Province of Manitoba "knowingly approved a design without regard for the problems" at the two-year-old home of the Winnipeg Blue Bombers.

 

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sports/football/bombers/Stuart-Olson-alleges-Triple-B-province-knew-about-design-issues-at-Investors-Group-Field-301130091.html?cx_navSource=d-top-story

Wouldn't surprise me if this is true, that Sellinger pushed the flawed design through for political reasons.  But SOD does seem to admit the drainage issue is their fault, and that it'll be fixed by insurance.  And looks like the crawlspace issue has been resolved between SOD and BBB.   

I doubt if anyone short of an architect or engineer would have the ability to assess drainage, structure, mechanical or egress requirements- that is pretty technical stuff. If the architect or engineer puts a stamp on a schematic or blueprint, they OWN it. And the liabilities pass to them.

If the general contractor does not follow the plans exactly or demurs, alters without putting it in writing back to the architect and/or engineer, the contractor is liable.

I doubt if anyone short of an architect or engineer would have the ability to assess drainage, structure, mechanical or egress requirements- that is pretty technical stuff. If the architect or engineer puts a stamp on a schematic or blueprint, they OWN it. And the liabilities pass to them.

If the general contractor does not follow the plans exactly or demurs, alters without putting it in writing back to the architect and/or engineer, the contractor is liable.

 

That's a really black and white way of putting it.  Many parts of this project changed constantly to be functional in any sense.  Engineers are ensuring structural safety first and foremost, not necessarily function and cost.  If there was some tragedy, like a collapse or something, the liability stuff would be relevant.  This is about cost overruns, money.

I know nothing. But I would assume that every issue has a paper trail back to someone who aporoved it as stated above. If that group aporoced IT without doing due diligence too bad.

 

I doubt if anyone short of an architect or engineer would have the ability to assess drainage, structure, mechanical or egress requirements- that is pretty technical stuff. If the architect or engineer puts a stamp on a schematic or blueprint, they OWN it. And the liabilities pass to them.

If the general contractor does not follow the plans exactly or demurs, alters without putting it in writing back to the architect and/or engineer, the contractor is liable.

 

That's a really black and white way of putting it.  Many parts of this project changed constantly to be functional in any sense.  Engineers are ensuring structural safety first and foremost, not necessarily function and cost.  If there was some tragedy, like a collapse or something, the liability stuff would be relevant.  This is about cost overruns, money.

 

You are correct to some extent. Engineers look after structural and mechanical issues, as well as drainage. Architects look after people movements and accomodations, delight (visual appeal) and so forth. Function is a shared responsibility, but the cost is the responsibility of the general contractor who must use materials approved by the architect and/or engineers who set the specs. The cost can be either fixed at an amount by contract or cost plus a certain percentage, but either way all construction materials must meet building codes and the specifications.

I don't post much here, but I thought I might add some info on this topic. I am an engineer and have worked with Stuart Olson in the past. They are very good at covering themselves during jobs, and I have no doubt that they followed the design that the architect and engineers had on the plans. In my past experience all they ever did was push paper around, and did very little actual work.

 

This is the standard practice if there are issues like this on a construction project. If an agreement can't be worked out behind doors to fix the issues, then you sue everyone involved, whether or not that party was at fault. The insurance company wants to get as many other insurance companies to the table to ensure there is enough money available. 

 

I see the issues being the fault of the architect and engineer not correctly identifying the needs of the facility in the design or not being provided the correct information from the end user to provide a correct design.  If the contractor onsite sees an issue, the send a written question to the engineer and architect for direction. The contractor can't do what they think is best, as they are tied to the plans and instructions from the designer, or then the contractor would take the liability. On small jobs the contractor doing the work would simply discuss with the engineer and it would be worked out. 

 

I think a large part of this comes down to the architect not knowing enough about design on buildings like this, and the rush in the schedule which took preliminary plans done for another site, and forced the designers to create construction plans and provide enough time to review and find issues like this. People make mistakes and there are many layers in which they can be found. I think the rush to get the job done pushed many of those layer away. If you're a contractor on the job and the building is 6 months behind schedule, would you be asking questions about insulation of a room, or just put your head down and build as fast as you can.

How many people here would think that the concourse would need to be designed to support a forklift carrying supplies. What we first think about is the hundreds of people walking around. There are many things like this that can happen on a project like this. Someone makes an assumption, or asked the wrong person to make this assumption and we get to where we are.

 

In the end this will all get worked out. Many people are to blame, and many insurance companies will be paying for this.

SOD is smart to put the heat on the government for rushing the project.  It's an easy target and one that will play well in the media and with the public.

 

In retrospect, wouldnt it have been nice for everyone to take a breath and do it the right away, even if the cost was $240 million?  What really rubs me the wrong way is the sense that maybe certain people knew there would be added cost but took a "we'll worry about that later" mentality.

 

But hey, its a beautiful building.  Problems will get fixed.  Life will go on.

But hey, its a beautiful building.  Problems will get fixed.  Life will go on.

That's the last line at the end of Deep Impact.

SOD is smart to put the heat on the government for rushing the project.  It's an easy target and one that will play well in the media and with the public.

 

In retrospect, wouldnt it have been nice for everyone to take a breath and do it the right away, even if the cost was $240 million?  What really rubs me the wrong way is the sense that maybe certain people knew there would be added cost but took a "we'll worry about that later" mentality.

 

But hey, its a beautiful building.  Problems will get fixed.  Life will go on.

 

This was entirely obvious the whole time in the first plan for the old site and then the move to U of M.  It was a mix of politics from the NDP and Asper trying to make it seem like he could actually complete the project as he proposed it, even though he was hedging hard on two other real estate developments to be able to finance it.  It's too bad that playing loose with the truth interfered with what could have been a great period of time for our city and province.  It's become a trend here though on pretty much everything our civic and provincial governments touch, and that's the scarier part.  Everything is so cheap when it gets approval, and then we get the actual bill.

In retrospect, wouldnt it have been nice for everyone to take a breath and do it the right away, even if the cost was $240 million?  What really rubs me the wrong way is the sense that maybe certain people knew there would be added cost but took a "we'll worry about that later" mentality.

 

What makes you think it would have cost only $240M if they had waited? The plans were approved and the funding in place. Construction had already started with the land prepping. Can you imagine what would have happened if it was suddenly announced that there was a delay.

 

Thing is SOD said they could do it in a year. If they knew they couldn't then it's as much their own fault for the problems than anyone else's.

To me once you start talking about $200 million plus I'm not really hung up on whether it's $210 or $280. It's a major project that will serve the community for decades.

The second it was announced at the U of M site -- a logistical cluster truck -- just to get the government dollars it became a lame duck project. 

 

It pains me that they didn't find a way to build downtown. Such a missed opportunity to create more vibrant city. 

 

Now Regina is doing the same thing. 

The second it was announced at the U of M site -- a logistical cluster truck -- just to get the government dollars it became a lame duck project. 

 

It pains me that they didn't find a way to build downtown. Such a missed opportunity to create more vibrant city. 

 

Now Regina is doing the same thing. 

The second it was announced at the U of M site -- a logistical cluster truck -- just to get the government dollars it became a lame duck project.

It pains me that they didn't find a way to build downtown. Such a missed opportunity to create more vibrant city.

Now Regina is doing the same thing.

How would using up that much space downtown for a seldom used building add to the vibrancy of the city?

 

The second it was announced at the U of M site -- a logistical cluster truck -- just to get the government dollars it became a lame duck project. 

 

It pains me that they didn't find a way to build downtown. Such a missed opportunity to create more vibrant city. 

 

Now Regina is doing the same thing. 

How would using up that much space downtown for a seldom used building add to the vibrancy of the city?

 

 

 

The second it was announced at the U of M site -- a logistical cluster truck -- just to get the government dollars it became a lame duck project. 

 

It pains me that they didn't find a way to build downtown. Such a missed opportunity to create more vibrant city. 

 

Now Regina is doing the same thing. 

How would using up that much space downtown for a seldom used building add to the vibrancy of the city?

 

 

They would find ways to use it. An initiative that involved tearing down the convention centre and making a multipurpose stadium/ CC complex was floated, and dumped. 

 

It was dumped because it was not feasible. 

There might be issues but location isn't one of them.

You would need 4 square blocks to build a stadium downtown - 'bout 900 - 1000 feet long by 700 feet wide.  So you would have to raze another 3 blocks beside the convention centre in an attempt to fit the stadium.  All to create a giant dead zone in downtown for 10 football games and 3 or 4 concerts.  Silly idea.

Not to mention the Convention Centre would never agree to it.

You would need 4 square blocks to build a stadium downtown - 'bout 900 - 1000 feet long by 700 feet wide.  So you would have to raze another 3 blocks beside the convention centre in an attempt to fit the stadium.  All to create a giant dead zone in downtown for 10 football games and 3 or 4 concerts.  Silly idea.

 

Downtown WPG is a sea of surface parking. Its one of the main reasons  the downtown is such a hole compared to similar cities. 

There might be issues but location isn't one of them.

 

Says you. I know hundreds who would disagree, including area residents, U of M faculty, and season ticket holders like me.

 

The location sucks. Lets spill out of the game onto Bison drive and stumble 4 miles to Boston Pizza. Woo hoo. 

Love the location. The walk from BPs on Pemb isn't bad at all. Love parking there, have a drink or two, then wander over...

Good on SOD for not laying down and taking the heat for what was a clearly politically motivated accelerated timeline. I'm not saying SOD was blameless, however, one would have to be blind, deaf, and dumb to not see that politics had turned this project upside down from the get go. I am fairly positive that the taxpayers of Manitoba will end up paying dearly in the end, once again, for the NDPs efforts to move up a couple of poll points. Can't wait for September when this reign of terror will finally stop.

 

Why didnt they build 6 stadiums?  They could have had one in every area of the city so no one complained about location.

 

Im not a fan of Geoff Currier but my favourite call of his was a woman who called to complain about the location.  She said she lived very close to CIS and this new location was just awful because she would have to take the bus to the south end.  He said "and what have the south end residents been doing for years?"  She basically said she didnt care, since it was close to her already then it should stay there.

 

The whiners about traffic, all I can say is drive North on Route 90 to a concert or Football game at CIS, we were used to sitting in unmoving traffic.  Never complained because we grew up on it. 

 

IGF location is perfectly fine.  And guess what, it's down the street from me now.