Winnipeg Construction X

[FactaNV]

Originally Posted by Unbending

Marketlands? It has a retail and housing component. After demolishing the Public Safety Building, the site has become a gravel surface parking lot for the past number of years.

Man, this project sure is languishing. Wasn't it supposed to start in 2022?

[BAKGUY]

Originally Posted by FactaNV

Man, this project sure is languishing. Wasn't it supposed to start in 2022?

So, might be 2040?

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by WinCitySparky

lmao

Mixed use being the 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 🞵🞵🞵🞵

Wait, when did the Windsor change from a blues bar to a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 🞵🞵🞵🞵?

I joke about it being that third proposal but lets be honest that is what everyone thought would happen when the residents were cleared and there was talk of demolition. It also had a significant surface parking lot component.

The question now is do the future developers also buy the Mitizi's parcel for the million or so ask and make it a larger, corner lot.

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by FactaNV

Man, this project sure is languishing. Wasn't it supposed to start in 2022?

It’s projected to start this fall or early 2024.

[trueviking]

NDP winning the election is good for local architects and builders. The proposal to build 9 schools all at once under a P3 model, will apparently be cancelled....thank goodness.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by trueviking

NDP winning the election is good for local architects and builders. The proposal to build 9 schools all at once under a P3 model, will apparently be cancelled....thank goodness.

This will likely cost tax payers more money.

[wags_in_the_peg]

Originally Posted by trueviking

NDP winning the election is good for local architects and builders. The proposal to build 9 schools all at once under a P3 model, will apparently be cancelled....thank goodness.

so now it'll be 9 schools all with different architects, blueprints, constructions crews so costs might double & take 2x longer? I'm being honest, what was wrong w doing 9 at a time? overcrowding is a huge concern, 35+ kids in classrooms

[WinCitySparky]

Originally Posted by dmacc

This will likely cost tax payers more money.

Money is for spending and investing.

[WinCitySparky]

Originally Posted by trueviking

NDP winning the election is good for local architects and builders. The proposal to build 9 schools all at once under a P3 model, will apparently be cancelled....thank goodness.

No kidding, P3’s are another parasitic scam by the private sector that always leave the public purse holding the bag

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by wags_in_the_peg

so now it'll be 9 schools all with different architects, blueprints, constructions crews so costs might double & take 2x longer? I'm being honest, what was wrong w doing 9 at a time? overcrowding is a huge concern, 35+ kids in classrooms

A single team building 9 schools simultaneously would have meant no Manitoba companies would be large enough to do that work. Some of the larger ones might have been able to team with out-of-town groups, but a significant amount of the money spent would have gone out of the province, leaving many local contractors, engineers, architects, and other consultants shut out of work that they have built their businesses on. These companies all pay taxes and support Manitoba families.

It would also flood the subcontractor market, driving up construction costs for all other projects....Manitoba is a small market that can't handle an influx like that without impact...we saw that when the floodway was being expanded so many concrete piles were being used to build bridges that other projects had to wait for the backlog to pass.

It would not have been cheaper. It would have only meant your children would be paying for it instead of you.

It would also be bad for schools. Each have different needs. Communities have different needs.

If a school wanted to fix a broken door hinge in five years, they would have to apply through the ownershio group and have them do it.

It was tried in Alberta and Saskatchewan...both failed miserably and stopped.

[wags_in_the_peg]

^ ok thanks for clarification. not that I agree with it all but I see your point.

[bomberjet]

Building 9 schools at once via P3 is ridiculous.

I believe there is a place for P3's, such as roads projects. I don't believe there is a place for P3's in schools, or police stations, for that matter.

You're relying on private sector to implement and maintain these assets. In 20-30 years, you are relying on them to have saved the dollars you've paid them for future maintenance. And then actually perform maintenance on said schools.

For roads, this is rather low risk. For your children's education, I would not put reliance on the private sector in this way.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Building 9 schools at once via P3 is ridiculous.

I believe there is a place for P3's, such as roads projects. I don't believe there is a place for P3's in schools, or police stations, for that matter.

You're relying on private sector to implement and maintain these assets. In 20-30 years, you are relying on them to have saved the dollars you've paid them for future maintenance. And then actually perform maintenance on said schools.

For roads, this is rather low risk. For your children's education, I would not put reliance on the private sector in this way.

I mean, it isn't like the private corporations are delivering curriculum, I am more convinced by Vike's take that the main issue is keeping manitoba money in the province. That said, I would generally be in favour of any infrastructure delivery that is done in the most efficient way possible.

[WinCitySparky]

Keeping money in the province is indeed important and having it leave is a major problem. Keeyask hydro dam and the Southwest Water/Sewage treatment plant construction are two examples of major high value infrastructure projects that have caused untold hundreds of millions of MB dollars leave the province because of either an out of province contractor being selected to save money, or high amounts of the workforce being from outside MB.

[Unbending]

Originally Posted by trueviking

NDP winning the election is good for local architects and builders. The proposal to build 9 schools all at once under a P3 model, will apparently be cancelled....thank goodness.

Sounds like great news for developers, architects, and other private companies that make a living from these types of projects. Unfortunately it’s bad news for the students living in the areas that are in desperate need for new schools and the parents paying the tax bill.

[WinCitySparky]

The tax bill is the tax bill. You want schools? We pay the taxes. The schools will get built. We will still pay the taxes. Nobody is getting anything for free. Taxes don’t stop because suddenly somewhere a demand for a school appears. The whole idea all these schools were going to get built simultaneously and instantaneously was never ever going to happen. The schools are going to get built at exactly the speed they were always going to get built. It is not the taxes fault. It’s a decade of failing to start a decade ago. A P3 will have never made the problem magically be solved. Then what, lower taxes to make people feel better? Watch the schools get built even slower. Honestly.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by Unbending

Sounds like great news for developers, architects, and other private companies that make a living from these types of projects. Unfortunately it’s bad news for the students living in the areas that are in desperate need for new schools and the parents paying the tax bill.

may or may not take more time. But they will get better schools for the next 100 years. Schools aren't roads. Quality and design matters....lowest common denominator schools built to maximize profit and cap maintenance costs is not the best priority.

and your children won't be on the hook to pay for them in 20 years.

P3 doesn't make it cheaper...likely makes it more expensive....it just means you pay later.

[WinCitySparky]

^And it doesn’t make it get built faster, that is a fallacy proven time and time again because the forces that control construction expediency have little to do with things either government or the private sector can directly control.

[Unbending]

Good point about lower up front costs often lead to higher costs in the long-run. It’s usually better to pay a little more up front for a better design with higher quality materials, which leads to bigger savings down the road.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by trueviking

A single team building 9 schools simultaneously would have meant no Manitoba companies would be large enough to do that work. Some of the larger ones might have been able to team with out-of-town groups, but a significant amount of the money spent would have gone out of the province, leaving many local contractors, engineers, architects, and other consultants shut out of work that they have built their businesses on. These companies all pay taxes and support Manitoba families.

It would also flood the subcontractor market, driving up construction costs for all other projects....Manitoba is a small market that can't handle an influx like that without impact...we saw that when the floodway was being expanded so many concrete piles were being used to build bridges that other projects had to wait for the backlog to pass.

It would not have been cheaper. It would have only meant your children would be paying for it instead of you.

It would also be bad for schools. Each have different needs. Communities have different needs.

If a school wanted to fix a broken door hinge in five years, they would have to apply through the ownershio group and have them do it.

It was tried in Alberta and Saskatchewan...both failed miserably and stopped.

Was the intent to build these 9 schools simultaneously or just consolidate the plans, designs and engineering while guaranteeing the successful proponent the contracts to build the schools over a determined amount of time? If the later is the case then it sounds better to do the P3 because you're locking in pricing now while also saving on the planning, design and engineering costs.