Sorry but that is probably one of worst ideas. Even when stadiums are built with future expansion in mind it winds up being a whole lot more to do then doing it during the initial build. One only has to take a look at the Big-O to take a look at what kind of mess that brings. Even take a look at the cost of retrofitting BC place.
Olympic stadium was an engineering disaster. One can not compare it to the norm…that is just not fair. Who builds a 500ft tower to propel a roof open…come on…really? That was one of the greatest structural engineering fubars of all time…it might actually crack the top 15, and that says a lot considering some of the company. Retractable design has also come a long way in the over 40 years since the original design of the O. You can’t use it as a comparison, that is just wrong.
As for BC, well, BC place was never designed to have a retractable roof…hence the exoskeleton like supports for it, the very reason why it is so costly…that is a pile of extra building materials. As for the not opening in rain…well, sorry, that is common…close it before the weather shows up…not rocket science.
One has to look at stadiums that were done right, and follow their lead… University of phoenix stadium, Qizhong, Oita, Amsterdam Arena (perhaps not the prettiest, but it works damned good!), Reliant stadium, Millennium stadium, Miller Park…I could go on and on.
You are choosing to look at 2 obscure examples, not the norm. Yes, you have to look at jobs that went bad to learn what to avoid, but try to mold a project after one that was successful. Do you stop building bridges because there have been issues? No…but bridge building has become more and more efficient over time…just like domes.
“One only has to take a look at the Big-O to take a look at what kind of mess that brings. Even take a look at the cost of retrofitting BC place.?
That is a horrifically sheltered statement. So pessimistic it actually does disturb me…sorry, I am not trying to attack or make you feel bad, but while one must proceed with caution, one must also have a positive outlook and look for the silver lining…the good examples in life to follow, not tunnel in on only dark moments thereby creating such pessimism and fear.
also, I have worked on stuff that was designed for future expansion considerations. It has always went really well...often better than new construction. The advantage of working off existing structure is that the foundation is already here. IE, you typically don't have to scaffold the whole darned thing in. Yes, the demolition required overrides that cost, but it isn't a terrible amount. And yeah, expansions cost more than thy would upon initial construction...that is called inflation. Cost over-runs are however generally less, because you typically have a very narrow window for alteration and surprises when expanding something like this. I generally have found retrofit jobs t be the most profitable, because design is so precise and easy for an experience bidding group.
depopulationINC and leeinq - sorry to take so long to reply but I wanted to research some of what you said to see if I was incorrect in my earlier posts about GST and Taxes.
Firstly, there are groups including municipalities, other forms of government and non-profit groups that can apply and do recieve a portion or all, depending on classification, of the GST they have paid over the year directly re-imbursed by the federal govenrment. In this case, I do not believe, because it is supposed to be a P3 that it would qualify for much of a refund. As for writing the GST off as a deduction, yes the builderswould do this but it would be classed as an expense and lower their income by the amount of the GST. Which would mean if they paid 10.5 M in GST that they would not pay tax on 10.5 M so even if they were paying at 40% (likely much lower) they would only recieve 4.2 M back. I'll grant you that the feds did not get 10.5 M but they did get to keep 6.3M.
As for the assesertion that this could be applied to equally to a hospital, yes it could and it could also be applied to every municipal project out there. In many ways it already is as the government (municipal, Provincial and Federal) is the primary funding agency for these projects. You cannot convince me that the govenrment does not factor in the amount of money that they will recieve back in taxes when they calculate the true costs of infrastructure.
The building of this project is not designed to be the creation of jobs, if it was, it would have been started in 2008. What a great short term stimulus. This project will be extra work in an already strong economy so why couldn't the Federal government return the amount of tax revenue that they will recieve from it if that amount will make the project go. They would not be diverting one cent from the buiding of schools, hospitals, libraries or infrastructure but would be facilitating sport and recreation.
I also checked in with a major (international) building and construction company where i know an estimator who works in their bidding department. The labour portion of a project like this will typically run 50% in Saskatchewan. It would run 40% in Alberta but that is because Saskatchewan has 3 weeks of mandatory paid vacation whereas Alberta starts at 2 (2% increase in cost) and Alberat does not pay overtime until after 44 hours/week whereas Saskatchewan pays OT after 40 hours. (A little off topic but here for comparison). My estimates of the amount of income tax deducted would remain correct at about 67.5 M.
Add in the 6.3 from GST and the would stand to take in about $74 M if the project goes ahead. If they were to agree to that amount, I'd still bet that the project goes ahead.
So here is where it stands as of March 1 if they say NO. The feds recieve $0 and spend $0. Revenue neutral, and they have no additional money for hospitals or any other infrastructure.
If they say YES to contributing $74M. The Feds take in $74M and spend $74 M. Revenue nuetral, and they have no additional money for hospitals of any other infrastructre BUT they have NOT diverted any money away from the construction of hospitals or other infrastructure.
good post, and I agree, except with the 50% on labour. in my experience of large scale jobs like this, it is not the case...maybe 10 years ago, but since metals have tripped in price it is no longer the case. There were up well over 400% from a decade ago prior to the Beijing Olympics, but rolled back a lot when construction slowed there.
Also, Alberta does not get OT after 44 hours. They get OT after an 8 hour day, and can work up to 4 hours on Saturday at straight time. Splitting hairs, I know...just clearing that up.
I am not sure exactly how the GST thing works, but when I am looking at a job I budget a 63% return on GST/HST/PST, 75% on placement positions, 60% on term, and 40-70% on work-term (summer student) placement...depending on exactly what they are being hired for...you get less for uni, more for techs, etc.
depopulationINC
You are correct about the OT and I am not absolutely certain about the GST refundable for this project. I am not trying to be antagonistic or say that I am right. My point is that the Feds could easily facilitate this project by contributing a substantial amount of cash without diverting any money away from any other much needed infrastructure projects. To tell the truth, the greatest benefit for me would not be the stadium portion but getting the rail container yard out of downtown Regina. That is really what I am concerned won't happen.
haha...yeah...the rail car yard is an eye sore. Regina a decade ago was often refereed to as the "dirty city." There has been a lot of effort put into smashing that reputation, and it is now a very beautiful city. A decade ago, you could not have paid me to live there, now I would recommend it to people.
Cleaning the rails up would be another big step.
Oh, and I have mixed feelings on "forgiving" GST on such projects. If you do this for one, where do you draw the line in the sand? That is a huge issue...I get what you are saying, but it opens a can of worms that you can not even imagine...something politicians avoid like the plague.
I still think that, as a stimulus a coupe years back, the government should have suspended the GST, not lowered interest rates, thereby encouraging people to take on more dept....sorry ... leading off topic.
The problem is that if the feds give the 100 million for the Riders stadium cause let's not kid ourselves, they can try and hide this as much as they want, it is what it is. It will be used as a political weapon by the idiot mayor in Quebec city for his 400 million hockey rink, Same in Edmonton with Katz and Montreal will want to refurbish the Big O its coming.... So its not the 100 million that's the problem , its the other billion that will be demanded from the other provinces. Kind of like giving 100.00 to one of your kids, you got to give each of them a hundred bucks and when you got 10 kids...
“idiot mayor in Quebec city” please explain this vulgar statement? Idiotic would be NOT using it to get funding for your city…what is fair for one is fair for all. If Quebec gets funding, I would be pissed if Saskatchewan doesn’t as well. The difference is that this “Idiotic” mayor in Quebec City already said they are building, with or without Federal funding…in other word…‘we want this, if you chip that is great, but we are building it.’
The Sask government is sitting with its hand out saying ‘we want this, please fund 25% or we can not build it, even though we were hardly effected by the recession and are booming like no time in the past.’
HfxTC - please please please tell us why you choose to make such a shameless attack on this Quebeqian? I for one DO NOT appreciate it.
I still believe that Feds should stay out of this kind of stuff unless it involves some kind of international games.
By definition, Our Federal government is responsible for matters such as national defence and foreign policy, maintaining currency and national inflation, National reserves / banking, copyright and trademarking, postal services, RCMP, employment insurance, citizenship and immigration. these are its primary duties (sorry if I missed any), and of course there are some others.
On the other hand, Provincial government is responsible for matters such as environment and resources policy and enforcement including wildlife and fisheries, medical aid hospitals, civil rights, social services, holding and management of Crown lands (both federal and provincial), administration of justice, education, non- C1 criminal code, rural transportation and highways…they essentially responsible for shuffling monies where needed and setting policies that effect multiple communities.
Municipal government is responsible for all the local infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc), public transport, bylaws (ie fire control, animal control, zoning), emergency services, parks/RECREATION, ARTS and CULTURE, child care, social services, waterworks, libraries, community growth/enhancement/planning, garbage and recycling…this list goes on and on, but pay special note to recreation, arts, community growth.
I am not suggesting that this is how the hierarchy is broken up…this IS how they are divided. So, on a scale of 1-3, place where the priority of a a stadium should fall for the City of Regina…
It should be:
Municipal - 1
Provincial - 2 (okay, I will admit that with the moniker of “Saskatchewan” Roughriders that this is elevated a bit.
Federal - 3, and honestly, not really even on the map.
Bet you they dont build a 400 million dollar rink in QC without federal tax dollars funny how that works.
Why is he an idiot ? Because issuing altimatums and intimidating other Canadians into giving you money is something we've seen too often out of Quebec and it is embarassing to some of us. So as far as I am concerned he's an idiot.
Regina fans might think back to the Olympic Stadium in montreal in the 80,s. It was only in the past year that the taxpayers of Montreal finally paid the tab. It was referred to as The Big Owe. The original roof was supposed to be retractable but the designer did not understand the winds of a Montreal winter. A few years after the Olympics these taxpayers paid to have a "permanent " roof installed which also could not stand up the the aforementioned winter and, I believe Quebec taxpayers are now considering putting yet another roof in place. This debacle's cost is now in the billions. Vancouvers roof was replaced last year and, To's Sky Dome is deemed by some as obsolete. Tax payers should look with great concern at which could be another white elephant.
if you actually read anything on this, you would see that Quebec City is building, with OR without federal assistance, the proposed hockey arena. Yes, they asked if assistance was available, who wouldn’t.
As for the money’s that changed hands years ago, well, that was from a very corrupt Liberal party at the time, thinking they could BUY unity.
Same comment as above with the addition that it is the Saskatchewan government that has laid down said ultimatum. They have bluntly said that without Fed support the project will be a no go and that they will likely not support a revamped project down the road.
Your argument is completely blind. What you are saying completely contradicts what is actually happening. I understand you have an underlying bitterness, and that is fine, but your argument is unfounded, and what you are arguing as points against Quebec leaders is what the SK leaders are doing. If you want to raise a point, make it at least somewhat valid.
Why is it that every time a stadium is being considered, the Big O is mentioned as what likey will happen? Yet there are dozens of stadia built all around the world each year by big and small cities that don’t live the same bad experience. Sure one must be wary to not let happen as what happened in that case, but it is not the norm for stadia.
And BC place is doing a complete makeover, yet everyone keeps saying they are paying $600 million to “replace the roof”. That is simply not the case - it is earthquake-proofing, redoing the seat configuration (larger seats throughout the whole building), more exec boxes, the whole nine yards. In fact, the roof didn’t even need replacing - they just want to replace it with a retractable roof.
As for SkyDome, I have been to it several times and, frankly, the problem is not (IMHO) the building. The people (or lack thereof) in it, maybe … they don’t create atmosphere when they don’t show up or, if they do, sit on their hands. Regina is looking at a 33,000 seater, not 56,000 - not the same.
Sure, buildings big and small need maintenance and that has to be included in the cost projections. But sometimes buildings (i.e. Taylor Field) need replacing and that also has to be considered in planning for the future. No matter what is done, there is a cost.
I agree legal, except that BC's roof actually did need replacing...it was leaking badly.
Also, as far as the skydome goes, it was considered one of the top facilities in the world when it was built 20 whatever years ago (I believe it was ranked # 2). How is that a white elephant Niagra? I do however feel it is not a great place to watch a football game, but hey, it was built with the Jays in mind, not the Argos.