buildings
Active Member
we all have our own reasons.
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
itom987
Senior Member
Getting the damage fixed benefits both sides in the dispute. There is no need to wait to get it fixed.
jwroller
New Member
Exactly.
The issue again being the contractor and the theatre group are just avoiding it.
So much misleading and guided information from the theatre Roxy camp out there.
It would be beneficial to have the south building made whole by addressing the damages they cause so they can move past it.
But like I previously stated access won’t be granted until there is a resolve in that regard.
The Roxy’s prominence and aesthetic in that area isn’t lost on the owner.
He wants the building finish just as much if not more than anybody outside of the Roxy themselves.
Clearshades
Senior Member
Is it the issue of lack of finance due to the impending legality?
northlands
Senior Member
My guess: Roxy is suing the contractor Chandos, Chandos is suing the consultant Group2, neighboring property owner is suing everyone, and nobody is winning aside from the lawyers.
SarcasticMarmot
Active Member
I think jwroller told us everything. They are clearly connected to the whole fiasco to have such a visceral reaction to a tasteless joke.
Seems the south building owner won't grant access until Roxy admits fault and fixes any damages to their building, and Roxy won't admit fault while the whole thing is in legal dispute for fear of admitting more liability than is necessary.
The adult thing to do would be to get the buildings fixed, then let the lawyers sort out who pays after the fact.
David A
Senior Member
Well, this doesn't reflect well on either party, but it looks particularly bad for the building that remains unfinished and I wonder if there is potential for damage because of exposed elements.
So they may need to be the ones to step up and act like adults first, regardless of who did or said what.
So they may need to be the ones to step up and act like adults first, regardless of who did or said what.
Clearshades
Senior Member
In terms of access, I'm not sure what the airspace regulations, or if there is one, there is alternative ways without direct access to the other structure.
Clearshades
Senior Member
Insurances don't work that way as they don't know what got damaged from the construction.
Dubas
Active Member
Platinum107
Senior Member
Wow, so this wall is going to be unfinished for the foreseeable future because the Theatre Network didn't do their due diligence? That's really disappointing, and I hope eventually this can be fixed because having an exposed wall like that on the side of a building looks so strange and can't be good for the building as a whole.
kcantor
Senior Member
There’s only so much an unsophisticated owner can do when it comes to due diligence - you don’t know what you don’t know.
There’s also only so much an architect can do although they should certainly know more than the owner.
This is something that the GC or CM should have raised as they’re responsible for the logistics involved in developing:/executing/completing a construction plan but we don’t know what the architect or owner advised in this regard, if anything (including “don’t worry about that” or “we’ll deal with that when the time comes”).
What we don’t know here is who told who what and when. We also don’t know what involvement the insurance company might have had.
What we do know - and I do have some bias in this regard - is that TN should have had a development manager from the beginning capable of representing their interests with all of the other stakeholders and team members making sure issues or potential issues like this are addressed before the fact and not after the fact. Unfortunately too many people think this is an expense they can avoid and this is what happens.
There’s also only so much an architect can do although they should certainly know more than the owner.
This is something that the GC or CM should have raised as they’re responsible for the logistics involved in developing:/executing/completing a construction plan but we don’t know what the architect or owner advised in this regard, if anything (including “don’t worry about that” or “we’ll deal with that when the time comes”).
What we don’t know here is who told who what and when. We also don’t know what involvement the insurance company might have had.
What we do know - and I do have some bias in this regard - is that TN should have had a development manager from the beginning capable of representing their interests with all of the other stakeholders and team members making sure issues or potential issues like this are addressed before the fact and not after the fact. Unfortunately too many people think this is an expense they can avoid and this is what happens.