innsertnamehere said:
There hasn't been financial burdens, all cost increase have come from scope creep. (Addition of PATH tunnel, additional historic preservation)
Click to expand...
All?

globeandmail said:
Two high-level sources – one involved in an oversight capacity and another involved in the construction – say “tens of millions” have been wasted. Neither could be named because of confidentiality issues with the city.
Click to expand...
 
TrickyRicky said:
That is understood.....but, surely, if internal issues with the contractor/construction manager have caused delays and financial overruns it seems a bit illogical that that financial burden should fall on the client.
Click to expand...
They don't necessarily fall on the client. Most of the time, the contractor has to eat it. It usually bites into their big safety net that they've built into the price (if they're smart).
TrickyRicky said:
^Can happen but isn't it hard to really say sometimes what is scope creep and what is incompetence? If I were a client or the owner and I had impunity to use scope creep as an excuse couldn't I massively massage the numbers in my favour?
Click to expand...
There is certainly always going to be a risk that a contractor that is losing money is going to use extra work or additions to the contract as an opportunity to make up for losses. That situation can happen on any project. But that is exactly why the client retains consultants, whose specific job is to look after their interests and evaluate contractor performance, claims, invoices, etc.

If the contractor has "wasted tens of millions of dollars", that doesn't necessarily mean any addition financial burden is placed on the client. Construction contracts don't really work like that. Contractors bid a price and are generally held to that price. If the client and their consultants have evaluated any claims well, then they might have negotiated additions to the scope for fair prices, which means they've come out ahead. The only way to know for sure would be to evaluate the additions to the contract on a case-by-case basis and determine if the City ended up paying a fair price, or an inflated price.

Financial overruns can also occur due to unforseen circumstances, especially when you're dealing with the unknown that the contractor can't be expected to fully know from bid documents. In that case, financial overruns are expected, and can't be looked at in a black & white manner.
 
Last edited:
Heading home from A day in T.O. (one last shot)

From yesterday wile visiting the city.
image.jpg
image.jpg
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    92 KB · Views: 2,390
  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    92.2 KB · Views: 2,389
Last edited:
Great. It was a rather silly idea brought forward by Denzil Minnan-Wong and supported by the Sir JAM fan club, people like Steve Paikin.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
No to renaming Union Station - yes to naming the forecourt after Sir. John A MacDonald - per July Exec Committee Report:

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2014/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-70795.pdf

An excellent course of action.

AoD
Click to expand...

I hope that settles it. I really don't understand this zeal to (re)name something! anything! after Sir JAM. As dumb ideas go, it's par for the course with DMW, but it's puzzling coming from otherwise seemingly intelligent councillors such as Ainslie.
 
the lemur said:
I hope that settles it. I really don't understand this zeal to (re)name something! anything! after Sir JAM. As dumb ideas go, it's par for the course with DMW, but it's puzzling coming from otherwise seemingly intelligent councillors such as Ainslie.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, only 37% of respondents to the online survey expressly wanted something else named for Sir JAM. But as long as a plaza pacifies Paikin et al. let's get that done and over with and put the idea of naming (or especially re-naming) anything else after him to bed.
 
ShonTron said:
Interestingly, only 37% of respondents to the online survey expressly wanted something else named for Sir JAM. But as long as a plaza pacifies Paikin et al. let's get that done and over with and put the idea of naming (or especially re-naming) anything else after him to bed.
Click to expand...

That was pretty much my take on it as well. If they really were hell-bent on naming something for Sir JAM, I would not have had a problem with it as long it was something that a) didn't have a name yet/didn't exist yet or b) replaced a name with no known historical significance. As it was, the argument put forward by Paikin, DMW, et al. seemed to amount to 'Sir JAM was awesome! We gotta name something after him! C'monnnn!'.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
No to renaming Union Station - yes to naming the forecourt after Sir. John A MacDonald - per July Exec Committee Report:

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2014/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-70795.pdf

An excellent course of action.

AoD
Click to expand...

AOD: I will second this motion - this time the City took the obvious practical move and decided not to re-name Union Station
itself but instead to honor him with "The Sir John A. MacDonald Plaza" outside the building - a good move that I support for
historical reasons - like keeping Toronto Union Station named as it is...

LI MIKE
 
Forget Union Station, renaming that LCBO in the PATH after Sir John A would be more apt. :D

"The Sir John A MacDonald Memorial LCBO"
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top