Greater Victoria needs to build a large central library in the core of the city. I would love to see something that is a world renowned building and place the idea of library and learning at the core of the city.
Ideally I see this as being a library on the scope and scale of the library in Vancouver. The Vancouver Public Library serves about 550 000 people and the GVPL serves about 300 000, the two libraries are comparable in size so the idea of a public library like the one in Vancouver is hardly unrealistic.
I would go further and make this new library the central library for BC, it should incorporate the BC Legislative library which needs a new home.
It would make sense to make this new central library a central hub of learning in the core of the city. It should house UVic, Camosun, and Royal Roads as educational partners. Ideally it would integrate with the school district, but that is not realistic in my mind.
Something on the scale of 400 000 to 500 000 square feet would seem to be a good starting point. The central branch of the Vancouver public library uses about 350 000 square feet.
I would like to see one public building in this region be the centre point of our region, to be a real landmark and to inspire us to greater things through more pride in our city.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Density and neighbourhoods in the core of Victoria
I have been thinking about the issue of density and the cost of housing in general. There is ongoing sprawl in almost all major cities around the world because the typical family wants to live in a detached house if they can. The upshot of this is that there is an ongoing demand for more suburban neighbourhoods further and further away from the core of a city. Vincent Carroll wrote an interesting piece on this for the Denver Post.
Here in Victoria we see this in the growth out on the Westshore, this is where the new houses and new neighbourhoods are being built. We are not building this new houses closer into the city.
One of the major reasons we have a lot of houses being build out on the Westshore and we have more sprawl is that the core local governments are unwilling to allow a higher level of density. Getting the right to subdivide a lot to something smaller is a task in frustration. In some areas of the city it is impossible because restrictive zoning bylaws. As an example, Oak Bay as a zoning called RS1 - One Family Residential.
RS1 in Oak Bay does not allow a lot size smaller than one acre. There is not a lot of RS1 in Oak Bay, but still this these 36 properties take up 200 000 sq metres of land, about 50 acres of land in the Greater Victoria that only have 36 houses on it. I suspect that these 50 acres of land only house about 100 people. A decent sized lot in this city is around 6500 square feet, the size of a lot in Gordon Head would be about this size. The 36 RS1 lots in Oak Bay could house about 240 Gordon Head homes with a population of around 750 people.
There is no public policy benefit from Oak Bay stopping the subdivision of monster single family lots into smaller lots. The zoning has one purpose and that is to create neighbourhoods to expensive for most people to live in. It also helps keep waterfront property more exclusive by having fewer people that can live there.
Oak Bay also has an RS2 zoning - nothing smaller than 1/2 an acre. If someone wants half an acre, fine, but to stop owners from 1/2 acre from subdividing that to something like 6000 square feet is of no benefit to the city or the region or the property owner. It only supports nimbys from having to deal with more neighbours. Why are we subsidizing these people through restricting landowners from subdividing.
We drop down to RS3 - this is a minimum of more than 1/4 of an acre. This is still twice the size of a decent sized suburban lot. Even the RS4 in Oak Bay is still a large lot at almost a 1/4 acre. The smallest single family lot zoning in Oak Bay, RS5, is still over 6000 sq feet in size.
For someone to even consider subdividing an RS5 lot in Oak Bay, you need to have one over a 1/4 acre in size. There are very few properties in Oak Bay that could be subdivided.
What all of this means is that Oak Bay is forcing more people to live farther out of the core of the city than they need to. If Oak Bay were to allow a more reasonable level of density, there would be space for close to 25 000 more people to live in single family homes in Oak Bay.
Oak Bay needs to drop RS1 size to 12 000 square feet and reduce RS5 to 3000 square feet. The others would step down between the two. Beyond that there should be no red tape to any subdivision. If someone proposes a conforming subdivision, it should be a very inexpensive and quick process to allow this to happen.
Higher density would make for diverse neighbourhoods in Oak Bay, something that is desperately needed in Oak Bay. Diversity of incomes and backgrounds of people in Oak Bay would also mean an improvement for the Greater Victoria School District in the discrepancy between the best and worst schools.
If people want large properties it is their right to own them but their rights should not extent to getting local government to damage the environment through restrictive zoning that encourages sprawl. Oak Bay has a right to zone as they want, but they need to held to account for the fact that a neighbourhood like the Uplands is harming our region and world through forcing more environmental damage.
Another 25 000 people in Oak Bay would enhance retail, transit, and reduce housing prices across the region. It would reduce the use of gasoline through lower commuting distances.
Oak Bay is not the only place that is at fault, much of how Saanich zones is in the same situation. Saanich has large areas that do not allow for subdivision down to a reasonable lot size and the smallest lot allowed in Saanich is 400 square meters, a lot size that not that small at all.
There is no shortage of land in the core of this city that could be subdivided to allow for more detached houses, there are simply local government by-laws in place that stop it from happening. I am sure that if we had a local government remove the restrictions to subdivision that there would be a revolt from many property owners against that. I am suggesting going much further than secondary suites and they catch enough flak already.
I would go further and remove a lot of the zoning restrictions on light commercial and retail. Why should someone not be allowed to use their house in the Uplands as a restaurant? Why not allow boats to built on the shore of Oak Bay? What is wrong with making it easier for people to make a living from their property? Why not make our neighbourhoods inclusive of where we live and where we work? Why shouldn't all neighbourhoods be able to produce wealth for the economy?
In my opinion, the only reasonable restriction has to do with actions of my neighbour doing something that restricts my ability to use and enjoy my property. Local government zoming by-laws have been failure, it is time to move to a better model for the 21st century.
Here in Victoria we see this in the growth out on the Westshore, this is where the new houses and new neighbourhoods are being built. We are not building this new houses closer into the city.
One of the major reasons we have a lot of houses being build out on the Westshore and we have more sprawl is that the core local governments are unwilling to allow a higher level of density. Getting the right to subdivide a lot to something smaller is a task in frustration. In some areas of the city it is impossible because restrictive zoning bylaws. As an example, Oak Bay as a zoning called RS1 - One Family Residential.
RS1 in Oak Bay does not allow a lot size smaller than one acre. There is not a lot of RS1 in Oak Bay, but still this these 36 properties take up 200 000 sq metres of land, about 50 acres of land in the Greater Victoria that only have 36 houses on it. I suspect that these 50 acres of land only house about 100 people. A decent sized lot in this city is around 6500 square feet, the size of a lot in Gordon Head would be about this size. The 36 RS1 lots in Oak Bay could house about 240 Gordon Head homes with a population of around 750 people.
There is no public policy benefit from Oak Bay stopping the subdivision of monster single family lots into smaller lots. The zoning has one purpose and that is to create neighbourhoods to expensive for most people to live in. It also helps keep waterfront property more exclusive by having fewer people that can live there.
Oak Bay also has an RS2 zoning - nothing smaller than 1/2 an acre. If someone wants half an acre, fine, but to stop owners from 1/2 acre from subdividing that to something like 6000 square feet is of no benefit to the city or the region or the property owner. It only supports nimbys from having to deal with more neighbours. Why are we subsidizing these people through restricting landowners from subdividing.
We drop down to RS3 - this is a minimum of more than 1/4 of an acre. This is still twice the size of a decent sized suburban lot. Even the RS4 in Oak Bay is still a large lot at almost a 1/4 acre. The smallest single family lot zoning in Oak Bay, RS5, is still over 6000 sq feet in size.
For someone to even consider subdividing an RS5 lot in Oak Bay, you need to have one over a 1/4 acre in size. There are very few properties in Oak Bay that could be subdivided.
What all of this means is that Oak Bay is forcing more people to live farther out of the core of the city than they need to. If Oak Bay were to allow a more reasonable level of density, there would be space for close to 25 000 more people to live in single family homes in Oak Bay.
Oak Bay needs to drop RS1 size to 12 000 square feet and reduce RS5 to 3000 square feet. The others would step down between the two. Beyond that there should be no red tape to any subdivision. If someone proposes a conforming subdivision, it should be a very inexpensive and quick process to allow this to happen.
Higher density would make for diverse neighbourhoods in Oak Bay, something that is desperately needed in Oak Bay. Diversity of incomes and backgrounds of people in Oak Bay would also mean an improvement for the Greater Victoria School District in the discrepancy between the best and worst schools.
If people want large properties it is their right to own them but their rights should not extent to getting local government to damage the environment through restrictive zoning that encourages sprawl. Oak Bay has a right to zone as they want, but they need to held to account for the fact that a neighbourhood like the Uplands is harming our region and world through forcing more environmental damage.
Another 25 000 people in Oak Bay would enhance retail, transit, and reduce housing prices across the region. It would reduce the use of gasoline through lower commuting distances.
Oak Bay is not the only place that is at fault, much of how Saanich zones is in the same situation. Saanich has large areas that do not allow for subdivision down to a reasonable lot size and the smallest lot allowed in Saanich is 400 square meters, a lot size that not that small at all.
There is no shortage of land in the core of this city that could be subdivided to allow for more detached houses, there are simply local government by-laws in place that stop it from happening. I am sure that if we had a local government remove the restrictions to subdivision that there would be a revolt from many property owners against that. I am suggesting going much further than secondary suites and they catch enough flak already.
I would go further and remove a lot of the zoning restrictions on light commercial and retail. Why should someone not be allowed to use their house in the Uplands as a restaurant? Why not allow boats to built on the shore of Oak Bay? What is wrong with making it easier for people to make a living from their property? Why not make our neighbourhoods inclusive of where we live and where we work? Why shouldn't all neighbourhoods be able to produce wealth for the economy?
In my opinion, the only reasonable restriction has to do with actions of my neighbour doing something that restricts my ability to use and enjoy my property. Local government zoming by-laws have been failure, it is time to move to a better model for the 21st century.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Great Set of Historical Pics of Victoria and region
glenalan54 has a wonderful set of pics on flickr that highlight the history of this area.
I highly recommend you browse through them and see what things were like in the past. He has some great comparisons of locations in the region over the decades.
Glen Mofford is the man behind the picture collection. He also has an interesting blog called Raincoast History.
I highly recommend you browse through them and see what things were like in the past. He has some great comparisons of locations in the region over the decades.
Glen Mofford is the man behind the picture collection. He also has an interesting blog called Raincoast History.
This is from the Journal of Commerce website. I am happy to see that this project is still moving forward, the addition of residential to the Tillicum mall site is an important move towards making this a more important hub of density in the region.
The addition of 30 000 sq feet of retail and 280 000 sq feet of residential will mean the Rio Can owned space on the site will total about 780 000 sq feet. The area also has SilverCity and The Pearkes rec centre which add about another 200 000 sq feet to the site bringing the total site development to close to 1 000 000 sq feet, about 150 000 more sq feet than the new Uptown Centre.
This will make the Tillicum mall complex the largest retail, residential, and recreational development on Vancouver Island. Though I assume this will be passed when the Uptown Centre builds some residential on site.
The addition of 30 000 sq feet of retail and 280 000 sq feet of residential will mean the Rio Can owned space on the site will total about 780 000 sq feet. The area also has SilverCity and The Pearkes rec centre which add about another 200 000 sq feet to the site bringing the total site development to close to 1 000 000 sq feet, about 150 000 more sq feet than the new Uptown Centre.
This will make the Tillicum mall complex the largest retail, residential, and recreational development on Vancouver Island. Though I assume this will be passed when the Uptown Centre builds some residential on site.
July 15, 2009
MUSSON CATTELL MACKEY PARTNERSHIP.
A lower end condo development in Saanich is expected to move ahead, while higher profile projects on Vancouver Island have stalled.
Vancouver Island developer strives to fill lower-end condo niche
Before ground can be broken for a $150-million condo/retail project in Saanich, a new home must be found for two popular restaurants situated at the building site.
Until a new location for the Kelsey’s and Montana’s eateries is finalized, marketing plans and project details have stalled for a project featuring a single podium anchored by one 13-storey and one nine-storey tower.
“Currently there’s buildings where we plan to put the towers,” said Stuart Craig, the assistant vice-president of planning for the RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust.
In May, RioKim Holdings (Tillicum Centre) Inc. (a division of RioCan) got its development permit from Saanich council to build about 300 condo units totalling 280,000 square-feet and another roughly 30,000-square feet of retail space on the ground floor.
The live and shop project is separated by a parking lot from the approximately 50-tenant Tillicum Centre.
RioCan, which owns 300 shopping centres across Canada including the Tillicum Centre, has been negotiating with another conglomerate, Cara Operations, owner of the restaurants slated for demolition and resurrection.
While the two themed restaurants have many years left in their leases, settling the matter shouldn’t be an obstacle to the project, Craig said from his Toronto office.
Yet, ground won’t be broken for the project until summer 2010 at the earliest.
Build-out time is expected to be from 1.5 to two years.
But the still-slumbering economy won’t put the brakes on the project.
That’s unlike other Victoria-area projects, which have bit the dust.
On Langford’s Bear Mountain, what was to host Vancouver Island’s tallest building, a 44-storey condo (part of a luxury, four-tower development which included a spa, restaurant and vineyard) stopped work in October 2008.
The project’s West Vancouver developer, Robert Quigg, cited the anemic world financial markets as the reason for the halt.
Another high-end undertaking, Silkwind, a 23-storey condo to be built in the Victoria suburb of Colwood, has been nothing but a massive hole in the ground since construction ceased in September 2007.
At least two contractors have filed liens against the property.
One reason Craig is so confident that the Tillicum condos will run to completion is because the target market isn’t the upscale client. The bull’s eye is the mid to lower-level customer.
Acknowledging the sizeable military community at CFB Esquimalt and the many people associated with the area’s post-secondary educational institutions, Craig said there’s pent-up demand for condo housing in the $300,000 and less range from new families and singles.
But at Tillicum, one concession has been made to luxury living.
Because the two towers overlook a scenic park, there are plans to include some luxury condos on the top floors, Craig said.
“It will be a pretty attractive building,” he said.
Project architects are Vancouver’s Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership.
Lead architect Mark Thompson said green initiatives will be used both in the building and surroundings.
The building will be set back from the public park’s riparian area and a commitment exists to improve the park along the edge of Colquitz Creek.
The non-native, invasive plants taking over the park will be replaced with native vegetation.
“We’ll take it back to it’s natural habitat,” said Thompson who joined MCM in 1991.
For the building itself, sustainable materials will be used.
Plumbing and electrical fixtures, which reduce consumption, will be installed.
Green roofs will be planted on parts of the buildings.
In what’s called “rain gardens,” rainwater will be collected to irrigate on-site vegetation.
“We try as architects to make these choices as a matter of course,” said Thompson, who has worked on four continents. “It’s more and more becoming the standard.”
The reworked parking lot will feature many trees and instead of blacktop, a permeable surface will be laid out.
“Blacktop absorbs a lot of heat and increases the surrounding temperature,” Thompson explained.
Surfacing that looks like cobblestones may be used. It allows water to percolate through the gaps, reducing runoff and eliminating “heat islands.” The new project will also ensure that the current tenants, including the standalone SilverCity cinema, don’t have sight lines disturbed or see parking spaces reduced.
Three levels of underground parking are planned.
“We’re working with existing tenants,” Craig stressed.
Friday, August 21, 2009
ALR removal application in Langford
This came through my email inbox
You are receiving this email as I have reason to believe you would be interested and concerned about these exclusion applications of ALR lands. ALR land is a provincial issue and you do not need to be a citizen of Langford to be concerned about removal of lands within tyhe City of Langford from the provincial Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR).
Cheryl
-----------------------------------------------------------------
At this past Langford Council meeting on Monday, August 17th mayor & council resolved to “submit a letter report to the Agricultural Land Commission stating that the City would support the exclusion of 3398 Luxton Road ( File No. ALR-06-05)and 3639 Happy Valley Road
(File No. ALR-09-01). Mayor Young confirmed that the City of Langford’s Agricultural Land Reserve Fund would be the recipient of the cash contribution calculated as 20% of the value of the land at the time of rezoning. This would mean Langford would receive no cash when the land was removed from the ALR, but would expect 20% of the value of the land at the time it is rezoned when the proponent would come to the City with a rezoning
application. Rezoning of ALR land is very limited so the first step in most rezoning applications of ALR land is usually to have the land removed from the ALR.
These 2 applications will be, I presume, forwarded by the City of Langford to the ALC shortly for consideration. If you wish to express your opinion on these exclusion applications, or find out if the ALC will be holding any hearings on these properties,
you can write to, or email:
Land Use Planner, ALC
Gordon Bednard
Vancouver Island
Tel: 604 660-7011
Gordon.Bednard@gov.bc.ca
Provincial Agricultural Land Commission
133-4940 Canada Way
Burnaby, BC V5G 4K6
CANADA
Tel: 604 660-7000
Monday, August 10, 2009
Off to Seattle
I am off to Seattle for a few days, when I get back I am going to try and dig a bit deeper on the Johnson Street bridge thing. I am also going to find out what is happening with the Spencer Road interchange
Saturday, August 08, 2009
March 10th Victoria City Council Priority List
This is a press release from the Victoria City Council from March 10th with their list of priorities through to the fall. I am going to try and go through it over the next day or two and see how the council has done with their own list.
The downside for the city council is that they issued a clear list of what they wanted to do and therefore can be held to account for it, on the other hand, they are the only council that offered such a detailed list of what they wanted to do.
The downside for the city council is that they issued a clear list of what they wanted to do and therefore can be held to account for it, on the other hand, they are the only council that offered such a detailed list of what they wanted to do.
M e d i a R e l e a s e
City Council Adopts Seven Immediate Strategic Priorities
Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 For Immediate Release
VICTORIA, BC — City Council has identified seven priorities for the coming months representing the issues Council wants to see immediate action on.
The seven priorities focus on homelessness; affordable housing; council decision making; public communication; harm reduction; infrastructure; and downtown late night issues.
“Council has worked as a team to analyze a number of pressing community issues with the goal of identifying real, sustainable solutions,” said Mayor Dean Fortin. “It’s critical that the community understand what Council is
focusing on so they know what to expect as we move forward.”
Mayor Fortin added, “We’ve hit the ground running in these first months. Already we’ve introduced a number of programs that will help us advance the priorities we’ve set, including the secondary suite grant incentive
program, relaxed zoning for secondary suites, and tax exemptions for affordable housing developments.”
In two weeks, Council will hold a full day planning session to finalize the long-term strategic plan for the three year term of Council. This plan will be shared broadly with the community and will contain short and long term
performance measures that will guide City operations for the coming years.
-30-
INTERVIEW OPPORTUNITY:
Mayor Fortin is available for comment until noon.
Backgrounder
Council has adopted seven key priorities for the next three-six months:
1. Homelessness
Council’s top priority. Everyone who needs a home and support should have one.
*Continue working with the Greater Victoria Coalition to End Homelessness and community partners on identifying opportunities and service gaps
*Explore funding opportunities with other levels of government
*Continue to facilitate current projects underway – Humboldt Valley, Ellice Street
2. Affordable Housing
Victoria will be a community of mixed-use, mixed income neighbourhoods with a vacancy rate higher than 4%.
*Launch secondary suite grant incentive program and adapted zoning regulations
*Pursue tax incentives for strategic affordable housing initiatives
*Expedite municipal approvals for affordable/social housing projects
3. Enhance Council Decision Making - Governance
Enhance decision-making process and governance model to achieve meaningful input on community issues.
*Introduce new governance model
4. Enhanced Communications
Enhance communications with the residents and businesses in the City and Region to make information easier to access and understand, and provide more opportunities for citizens to provide input and participate in City
initiatives.
*Develop a public engagement strategy - a toolkit for effective public engagement on a variety of issues and initiatives
*Produce newsletter three times per year for all Victoria residents
*Redevelop City’s website
*Pursue options for web streaming Council meetings
5. Harm Reduction
Improve the overall health and safety of community. Advance substantial progress – not displace problems.
*Pursue distributed needle exchange model to address immediate health risks
*Consider findings of VIHA-led committees on locations for fixed sites
*Advocate for increased detox and treatment services in the Region
6. Quality Core Service Delivery –Infrastructure
Prioritize opportunities, funding and urgency of projects. Provide quality services now and for future generations
*Determine immediate infrastructure priorities in 20 year capital plan
*Create Department of Sustainability and Finalize Sustainability Framework
*Submit project request to federal and provincial government
7. Downtown Late Night Nuisances
Work with key stakeholders to identify strategies to support a robust and vibrant economy and ensure people are safe downtown
*Strike Downtown Late Night Task Force
*Determine design and technical feasibility for public urinals
-30-
Friday, August 07, 2009
This was posted at Vibrant Victoria, I wonder what happened to the work done in 1999 and if we can get our money back since the promises seem not to have been met?
Blue bridge to get $1-million facelift
Jeff Bell. Times - Colonist.
Apr 3, 1999
(Copyright Times Colonist (Victoria) 1999)
The 75-year-old Johnson Street Bridge is set for a million- dollar refit that will begin within a few weeks.
The project will last about three months. During that time only one lane outbound from Victoria to Vic West and Esquimalt will be open to vehicle traffic, said Clive Timms, Victoria's manager of transportation and development.
At some point during the project the bridge will be shut down for an entire week so that repairs can be done on the main span. It will be in the "up" position during the full closure.
Timms said the repairs will give the bridge several more decades of useful life, and will even help head off the need for repainting - - a job that carries a million-dollar price tag of its own.
Some paint touch-ups will be part of the current project, but the entire bridge will need another coat of its trademark light-blue paint within the next two years, Timms said.
The refit needs formal approval at next week's meeting of Victoria council, but council's committee of the whole has agreed to award the job to Formula Pile & Bridge Contractors Ltd.
The Prince George-based company was the lowest of six bidders at $1,007,585.83. The company maintains a Victoria office and uses "a significant number of local staff," Timms said.
Pedestrians and cyclists walking their bikes will be able to cross the bridge during most of the repair period, Timms said. The only exception will be during the week it is fully closed, and city staff is negotiating for pedestrian use of the adjacent railway bridge during that time.
Work on the blue bridge includes replacement of corroded steel beams that support the concrete decks on either side of the bridge.
"We have to replace those entire deck sections," Timms said.
Several steel members on the main "lift" span also will be replaced.
"That's where we have to do the complete closure with the bridge fully up for a week ."
Councillors will also be considering $900,000 in seismic upgrading to the Point Ellice Bridge within the next several weeks, Timms said. Work on the first phase of the Point Ellice Bridge upgrade could overlap the work on the Johnson Street Bridge since Point Ellice crews will be working below the bridge from a barge, and won't be affecting traffic.
Timms said he hopes that the first phase of the Point Ellice Bridge project will be completed this year, with the second phase to be done during the first half of 2000.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
The bridge once more
In a May 21st Powerpoint Presentation there are some budget details, I have major concerns about what is presented there on page 10 of the presentation.
This is listed as a Class C estimate - this means it is for giving you a ballpark of which you will be operating within, it is not meant to be used for making firm spending commitments.
The cost estimates have very few details.
Mathematically the budget is very flawed, when one is making an estimate of costs you can not put down numbers that are as accurate as they are listing. There is a listed cost of $62 731 724 for the bridge - someone is trying to say they have costed this out to the last dollar. Statistically the costs can only be estimated to the nearest $10 000 000, any more accurate than that indicates a lack of understanding of statistics and margins of error and compounding of errors.
As it stands, we have no budget in place for the bridge replacement, all we have is an very early estimate of the costs. We are being asked to go ahead to with this bridge with no idea of what the bridge will be and what the budget will be for the structure.
Page 12 of the powerpoint has the timelines - they are tight beyond belief. The contract is it to be awarded mid November, but construction is to start several weeks before then on the east piling, in fact the timeline has the east side piling more or less complete before the contract is finalized.
The design is not going to be complete before June of 2010, work is going to be underway already on the new bridge. How do you finish the design that long after you sign the contract?
Meanwhile the steel for the bridge has some wildly optomistic timelines. The steel fabrication will be starting one month before it gets delivered to the fabricator, in fact the timeline calls for the fabrication to start the same day the steel is ordered. I assume this is an error on the timeline.
How can you know the timeframes for the frabrication of the steel if you do not know the design or who is available to do the work?
The timeline calls for the main deck to be built four weeks in January of 2011.
Are we keeping the old bridge? I see nothing in the budget or timeline for the removal of the current bridge.
Apparently we will have a design for the bridge in September based on when the plan calls for applications to be made under the Fisheries Act. When will the public get to see the plan and comment on it?
This is listed as a Class C estimate - this means it is for giving you a ballpark of which you will be operating within, it is not meant to be used for making firm spending commitments.
The cost estimates have very few details.
- We do not know the design of the bridge.
- I do not see where the cost of the removal of the current bridge is included
- We do not know what the road alignments will be, especially on the east side of the bridge.
- We have an item that is "GENERAL" for $3 510 822 - no idea what is included in this.
- There is an engineering cost of $5 301 272 - no listing of what that will include.
- There is a listing of $3 274 000 for "Other" in the construction of the bridge.
- There is a contingency of 30%, $13 253 181. Prudent, but without a design and harder details it says to me that there is no real sense of what it will all cost.
Mathematically the budget is very flawed, when one is making an estimate of costs you can not put down numbers that are as accurate as they are listing. There is a listed cost of $62 731 724 for the bridge - someone is trying to say they have costed this out to the last dollar. Statistically the costs can only be estimated to the nearest $10 000 000, any more accurate than that indicates a lack of understanding of statistics and margins of error and compounding of errors.
As it stands, we have no budget in place for the bridge replacement, all we have is an very early estimate of the costs. We are being asked to go ahead to with this bridge with no idea of what the bridge will be and what the budget will be for the structure.
Page 12 of the powerpoint has the timelines - they are tight beyond belief. The contract is it to be awarded mid November, but construction is to start several weeks before then on the east piling, in fact the timeline has the east side piling more or less complete before the contract is finalized.
The design is not going to be complete before June of 2010, work is going to be underway already on the new bridge. How do you finish the design that long after you sign the contract?
Meanwhile the steel for the bridge has some wildly optomistic timelines. The steel fabrication will be starting one month before it gets delivered to the fabricator, in fact the timeline calls for the fabrication to start the same day the steel is ordered. I assume this is an error on the timeline.
How can you know the timeframes for the frabrication of the steel if you do not know the design or who is available to do the work?
The timeline calls for the main deck to be built four weeks in January of 2011.
Are we keeping the old bridge? I see nothing in the budget or timeline for the removal of the current bridge.
Apparently we will have a design for the bridge in September based on when the plan calls for applications to be made under the Fisheries Act. When will the public get to see the plan and comment on it?
Johnson Street Bridge - a bit more
I was looking through the City of Victoria's powerpoint of April 2nd 2009. In this report consulting engineering firm of Delcan had construction times estimates of 24 to 48 months for a new bridge. They also had estimates of $35 to $40 million to replace the bridge. We already see that number having been breached in what the city wants to borrow for the project.
It concerns me that Delcan found the timeframes for a a $35-$40 million dollar bridge to be two to four years. I fail to see how something could be done in the 17 months they have planned for at the moment.
I am also wondering what life will be like without any bridge available to anyone from November 2009 to March 2011. There is no way the traffic could be handled over the Point Ellice Bridge. The city has not yet released anything on how the traffic issues will be dealt with. The second busiest bus route in this region, the #6, crosses the bridge. The bridge is also an important cycling access into to downtown from all over the region because of the galloping goose. What are the plans to manage these issues during the project?
Also interesting to see is that as of January of this year the City of Victoria did not have the bridge on its priority list. Scroll to page 31 on this link. This was a list of projects that were ready to start construction as soon as the money as approved. At that time replacing the Crystal Pool was on the list as a priority that was a ready to begin construction, as were many more. Has the city gone forward with any of the others? Will the city be going forward with any more of them given that they city told the feds it was ready to break ground on all of them?
It concerns me that Delcan found the timeframes for a a $35-$40 million dollar bridge to be two to four years. I fail to see how something could be done in the 17 months they have planned for at the moment.
I am also wondering what life will be like without any bridge available to anyone from November 2009 to March 2011. There is no way the traffic could be handled over the Point Ellice Bridge. The city has not yet released anything on how the traffic issues will be dealt with. The second busiest bus route in this region, the #6, crosses the bridge. The bridge is also an important cycling access into to downtown from all over the region because of the galloping goose. What are the plans to manage these issues during the project?
Also interesting to see is that as of January of this year the City of Victoria did not have the bridge on its priority list. Scroll to page 31 on this link. This was a list of projects that were ready to start construction as soon as the money as approved. At that time replacing the Crystal Pool was on the list as a priority that was a ready to begin construction, as were many more. Has the city gone forward with any of the others? Will the city be going forward with any more of them given that they city told the feds it was ready to break ground on all of them?
The Johnson Street Bridge Replacement
The city of Victoria is proposing replacing the Johnson Street Bridge - aka the blue bridge soon, in fact in just under 20 months. I do not know where I sit on the idea of replacing the bridge, but the process seems to be suffering from some problems of how it is engaging with the public and the high financial risks it presents to the city of Victoria.
The bridge itself is now 85 years old and showing some effects of being that old, there is nothing indicating that the bridge needs to be replaced quickly, but certainly in the next years something needs to be done with the bridge. The biggest issue is that the bridge may not survive an earthquake. Frankly there many more important public buildings that should be sesmically upgraded before the bridge, the relative risk to human life is very low on the bridge versus somewhere like City Hall or the Crystal Pool.
This being Victoria, any change is being opposed by someone, there is a group of people opposed to getting rid of the bridge. I personally see no benefit in keeping the current bridge, it is an ugly eyesore on the inner harbour. The city would be much better off with the bridge being replaced with something architecturally interesting and harmonious with the inner harbour - not that I have any faith that any process would have us get a bridge that is something amazing.
Meanwhile Ross Crockford, Yule Heibel and Mat Wright have started a website to deal with the process the city is using (or not using) in relation to the bridge replacement. My biggest concerns are all related to the process in use to replace the bridge and the costs for the bridge.
Issues I have:
The city has decided to go with a new bridge instead of refurbishing the current bridge. The cost estimates for the a new bridge has been put at $63 000 000, the cost to refurbish puts it at $25 000 000. As I understand it, the project is not to be a public/private partnership. Based on that fact alone, the costs to the public sector are at significant risk of rising a lot. If one looks at the sort of research done by people like Bent Flyvbjerg of Oxford, it is realistic to plan for a cost over run of 20-40% over the numbers in front of us at this time.
Since we have a dollar value assigned to the bridge but no design and we have a tight timeframe, this indicates to me that there is a very high risk of siginificant cost overruns. I would not be surprised if as construction begins the costs will rise. Based on what seems to be a lack of competive bidding process and the lack of detailed work up front on the site, I would expect that the final bridge cost to come in at between $80 000 000 and $100 000 000. I believe it would be better to to start thinking of this as a $100 000 000 bridge and be happy if it is cheaper at the end of the day, this would be the prudent way to think about it.
There is also a long history in public bridge construction of deadlines not being met. For the city to get the federal support they have applied for, they construction has to be complete by March 2011. The federal government has made it clear that this specific funding has to be spent on projects completed by March 2011, various cities have not applied for the money because they knew they could not complete on time. We have less than 20 months to that deadline and no design.
With no design, you do not know what equipment, people, and materials you need to build the bridge. Without knowing that, you can not plan for how long the bridge will take to build. I fail to see how you can propose a budget and then ask one company to design and build a bridge for that amount.
The city is talking about being able to start work in the water by November 2009 - this is less than 12 weeks away. This means that the bridge design has to be done in the next few weeks, realistically I would say you need to have the final design in place by Labour Day. The in water design will have to be commented on by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans - good luck in getting them to answer in a timely manner with no modifications.
If the city were to sign a contract that had firm deadlines and firm cost controls, I would be less concerned. A good contract from the city would have severe finacial penalities for delays in constructions and a guarantee that the price will not break $63 000 000. I doubt this is what will happen.
This bridge is the biggest capital project the city has ever undertaken that I know of. The cost of this bridge is compareable to the Yoho Bridge project on highway #1 in the Kicking Horse Canyon. The big difference, other than the scale of the projects as the Kicking Horse Canyon project was much bigger, is that the Kicking Horse Canyon bridge was built as a P3 and a great example of how well they work. Nothing in what I have read says the city is looking to a P3 to control costs.
I suspect that process will go ahead without any real input from the public and will leave the residents of the city with a bill of roughly $43 to $53 million as the residents of the city will have to foot all the cost overruns. There is a potential the city will have to cover the full $80 000 000 to $100 000 000 of the bridge if the March 2011 is not meant.
My final questions for the City Council:
The bridge itself is now 85 years old and showing some effects of being that old, there is nothing indicating that the bridge needs to be replaced quickly, but certainly in the next years something needs to be done with the bridge. The biggest issue is that the bridge may not survive an earthquake. Frankly there many more important public buildings that should be sesmically upgraded before the bridge, the relative risk to human life is very low on the bridge versus somewhere like City Hall or the Crystal Pool.
This being Victoria, any change is being opposed by someone, there is a group of people opposed to getting rid of the bridge. I personally see no benefit in keeping the current bridge, it is an ugly eyesore on the inner harbour. The city would be much better off with the bridge being replaced with something architecturally interesting and harmonious with the inner harbour - not that I have any faith that any process would have us get a bridge that is something amazing.
Meanwhile Ross Crockford, Yule Heibel and Mat Wright have started a website to deal with the process the city is using (or not using) in relation to the bridge replacement. My biggest concerns are all related to the process in use to replace the bridge and the costs for the bridge.
Issues I have:
- How do you come up with a cost for a new bridge if there is no design on the table yet?
- Who will decide on the design of the bridge?
- What is the impact of not having a bidding process to build the bridge?
- Why is there no discussion of using a public private partnership in this case?
- On what basis was MMM Group Limited engaged on the project? How many of their bridges have been built on time and on budget? This is the company that went 30% over budget on the Confederation Bridge.
- Who will be on the hook if the project goes over time?
- Who will be on the hook for cost over runs?
- On the list of capital project priorities for the city, where is the bridge ranked?
- Why now and why so quickly?
- Given the short timeframes, is there not a large risk of not being finished by March 2011 and therefore leave the city on the hook for the whole bill?
The city has decided to go with a new bridge instead of refurbishing the current bridge. The cost estimates for the a new bridge has been put at $63 000 000, the cost to refurbish puts it at $25 000 000. As I understand it, the project is not to be a public/private partnership. Based on that fact alone, the costs to the public sector are at significant risk of rising a lot. If one looks at the sort of research done by people like Bent Flyvbjerg of Oxford, it is realistic to plan for a cost over run of 20-40% over the numbers in front of us at this time.
Since we have a dollar value assigned to the bridge but no design and we have a tight timeframe, this indicates to me that there is a very high risk of siginificant cost overruns. I would not be surprised if as construction begins the costs will rise. Based on what seems to be a lack of competive bidding process and the lack of detailed work up front on the site, I would expect that the final bridge cost to come in at between $80 000 000 and $100 000 000. I believe it would be better to to start thinking of this as a $100 000 000 bridge and be happy if it is cheaper at the end of the day, this would be the prudent way to think about it.
There is also a long history in public bridge construction of deadlines not being met. For the city to get the federal support they have applied for, they construction has to be complete by March 2011. The federal government has made it clear that this specific funding has to be spent on projects completed by March 2011, various cities have not applied for the money because they knew they could not complete on time. We have less than 20 months to that deadline and no design.
With no design, you do not know what equipment, people, and materials you need to build the bridge. Without knowing that, you can not plan for how long the bridge will take to build. I fail to see how you can propose a budget and then ask one company to design and build a bridge for that amount.
The city is talking about being able to start work in the water by November 2009 - this is less than 12 weeks away. This means that the bridge design has to be done in the next few weeks, realistically I would say you need to have the final design in place by Labour Day. The in water design will have to be commented on by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans - good luck in getting them to answer in a timely manner with no modifications.
If the city were to sign a contract that had firm deadlines and firm cost controls, I would be less concerned. A good contract from the city would have severe finacial penalities for delays in constructions and a guarantee that the price will not break $63 000 000. I doubt this is what will happen.
This bridge is the biggest capital project the city has ever undertaken that I know of. The cost of this bridge is compareable to the Yoho Bridge project on highway #1 in the Kicking Horse Canyon. The big difference, other than the scale of the projects as the Kicking Horse Canyon project was much bigger, is that the Kicking Horse Canyon bridge was built as a P3 and a great example of how well they work. Nothing in what I have read says the city is looking to a P3 to control costs.
I suspect that process will go ahead without any real input from the public and will leave the residents of the city with a bill of roughly $43 to $53 million as the residents of the city will have to foot all the cost overruns. There is a potential the city will have to cover the full $80 000 000 to $100 000 000 of the bridge if the March 2011 is not meant.
My final questions for the City Council:
- Who came up with the $63 000 000 amount for the bridge? What is is based on?
- When it becomes clear $63 000 000 will not be enough, will the city scrap the project?
- If construction starts and the timelines can not be met, will the city abandon the project?
- Will the city take concrete steps to ensure there is no liablity of more than $21 000 000 to the city of Victoria under any circumstance?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)