Winnipeg Construction VIII

[cllew]

I only thought that the medical profession was like that. Just replace bomberjet's list with specialist, family doctor, Fellow, resident and intern and see how snotty they can be.

Was there not a disagreement a few years ago between APEGM (the engineers assoc) and the MAA (architects assoc) about who could design and stamp drawings. Didn't it come down to one group though they were better than the other?

[trueviking]

Yup. Engineers thought their degree, be it electrical, mechanical or whatever, came as a two for one deal and they should also be able to practice as architects.

Next they will argue they should be allowed to be lawyers too.

[Labroco]

My experience in Toronto, Vancouver and Mississauga in particular has been very civilized.

One submits 25 copies and they are spread to all departments at once. You are given an online tracking code to follow the application. As all departments comment or question on the file, you can follow up with the individual
( telephone number attached!)

As issues are addressed, they fall off the form until you are clear!

While it is still timely at least you know exactly where you stand.

My experience in Wpg. with the City has been challenging...

12 months for a sidewalk permit and fencing and we were just being civic minded.

8 months for a plumbing permit to add two washrooms in one of my warehouses in the East Exchange.

If I was a tennant or business who had a true deadline or needed an occupancy permit I would be dead!

I'm very reluctant to start a large project here but it's in my DNA to try !

What are your thoughts on the new Centre Venture appointment?

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by Labroco

My experience in Toronto, Vancouver and Mississauga in particular has been very civilized.

One submits 25 copies and they are spread to all departments at once. You are given an online tracking code to follow the application. As all departments comment or question on the file, you can follow up with the individual
( telephone number attached!)

As issues are addressed, they fall off the form until you are clear!

While it is still timely at least you know exactly where you stand.

My experience in Wpg. with the City has been challenging...

12 months for a sidewalk permit and fencing and we were just being civic minded.

8 months for a plumbing permit to add two washrooms in one of my warehouses in the East Exchange.

If I was a tennant or business who had a true deadline or needed an occupancy permit I would be dead!

I'm very reluctant to start a large project here but it's in my DNA to try !

What are your thoughts on the new Centre Venture appointment?

I've heard good things about her, but I'm not sure what another bureaucrat with a planning degree is supposed to accomplish. A serious comment for a moment though, and this goes directly to Labroco given his holdings. CentreVenture spent almost three years devising and passing this new surface lot program and the program may as well have been rolled out as somebody's master's thesis. Once again, It ignores nearly every market fundamental our city is faced with and it's a nearly worthless carrot given that the existing and projected downtown vacancies already significantly cut into the taxable net income of the property rendering the incremental amount of little value. Why do we bother developing these programs is we're not paying attention to any of the exogenous variables that dictate their success? And I get that CV doesn't have any resources left at its disposal after a series of poor decisions, but incentives are going to have to take the form of hard cash if they want anything to happen. The prospect of a lower tax bill in an area fraught with risk isn't going to do it.

That's my problem with CentreVenture. They almost only exist to give the appearance of doing something. I don't see how a bureaucrat with no development experience intends to change that.

[theanarchitect]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Not a slight or a blanket statement. It's all about egos in the world of architect vs engineers vs their techs vs the rest. Seems th e more money you spent on your education, the bigger a dickhead you are. The eit's I work with strut around like they're the king of England. Meanwhile they have very little knowledge about anything practical, for obvious reasons. I find with more senior engineers, they just shrug everybody else off because "they're stupid". So you can never win. I do know some very knowledgeable, down to earth senior engineers, but they can be hard to come by. If you know some, hold on tight!

This is my first post. I am an Architect in Winnipeg. I think Winnipeg is great and I believe it bears lots of potential to be even better in the future. English is also my second language, therefore I apologize in advance if I fail to make sense grammatically somehow.

I would like to respond to a couple comments above.

Architects and Engineers are professional practitioners who hold an official seal given to them by the jurisdictions they practice under. They stamp their seals on the construction documents they have worked on and sign them off before the documents are issued for construction. The construction documents are basically legal documents that initiate a project and all parties refer to them until the project is finished completely. When an Architect, or an Engineer signs off a document with their seal, they take full responsibility and liability on the documents. Which means if a project goes south for some reason their profession, practice, seal, licence, assets, etc. all will be under the threat of total destruction.

They cover themselves by closely reviewing the progress of constructions they are involved because in case of a problem, or a legal action, insurance claim etc. their door will be knocked on first. If the GC or builder has done everything according to the documents (which RARELY happens) the whole liability will be on the shoulders of the A & Es. You might call the action of protecting all the assets and goodwill they have built all their lives simply an expression of ego my friend, however if you can manage to see the facts of construction through the eyes of an A or E, you would call that a protection against liability.

And I think being a dickhead has nothing to do with how much money you have spent on your education. It's totally about the volume of your responsibilities. The more responsibility you have the more dickhead you NEED to be in order to keep the operations you are responsible for moving. Again, it's an action that needs to be taken for protection against liability.

Unless you hold similar liabilities for a project, it's not fair to address an authorized professional as a King of England like person who calls all others stupid. We respect all trades and practitioners involved in a project, however respect does not mean compromised authority. The person who signs the fine print and pay the others always say the last word, call it ego or not.

And finally, the parts of the National Building Code does not define the involvement of Architects by the numbers they have. Part 3 and Part 9 does not define the Building Types either.

Part 3 is about Fire Protection, Occupancy Safety and Accessibility and Part 9 is about Housing and Small buildings. You might be building a single family house (Part 9) and still need an Architect. You might be building an office building or a store yet not need an Architect at all. An architect refers to the whole NBC when he or she needs to analyze it for a project. And even though the NBC is not the Bible, it's the primary legal document that lawyers will refer to to figure out who failed their responsibilities and how.

Refer to this link below provided by the Manitoba Association of Architects to evaluate when an Architect and/or Engineer would/could be required.

http://www.mbarchitects.org/docs/Bldgs-Req-Arch_rev1.pdf

One thing that I blame my fellow colleagues and Engineer friends with is not really trying to educate the public, clients, builders and trades about who we really are and what we really do.

My words above are my personal ideas and comments and does not cover any official organization I belong to. However, I hope they have clarified a few things about the NBC and the basic duties of Architects.

Thanks and wish you all a happy new year!

[Biff]

^^^great first post Anarchitect and welcome to the forum.

Happy New Year all.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by theanarchitect

This is my first post. I am an Architect in Winnipeg. I think Winnipeg is great and I believe it bears lots of potential to be even better in the future. English is also my second language, therefore I apologize in advance if I fail to make sense grammatically somehow.

I would like to respond to a couple comments above.

Architects and Engineers are professional practitioners who hold an official seal given to them by the jurisdictions they practice under. They stamp their seals on the construction documents they have worked on and sign them off before the documents are issued for construction. The construction documents are basically legal documents that initiate a project and all parties refer to them until the project is finished completely. When an Architect, or an Engineer signs off a document with their seal, they take full responsibility and liability on the documents. Which means if a project goes south for some reason their profession, practice, seal, licence, assets, etc. all will be under the threat of total destruction.

They cover themselves by closely reviewing the progress of constructions they are involved because in case of a problem, or a legal action, insurance claim etc. their door will be knocked on first. If the GC or builder has done everything according to the documents (which RARELY happens) the whole liability will be on the shoulders of the A & Es. You might call the action of protecting all the assets and goodwill they have built all their lives simply an expression of ego my friend, however if you can manage to see the facts of construction through the eyes of an A or E, you would call that a protection against liability.

And I think being a dickhead has nothing to do with how much money you have spent on your education. It's totally about the volume of your responsibilities. The more responsibility you have the more dickhead you NEED to be in order to keep the operations you are responsible for moving. Again, it's an action that needs to be taken for protection against liability.

Unless you hold similar liabilities for a project, it's not fair to address an authorized professional as a King of England like person who calls all others stupid. We respect all trades and practitioners involved in a project, however respect does not mean compromised authority. The person who signs the fine print and pay the others always say the last word, call it ego or not.

And finally, the parts of the National Building Code does not define the involvement of Architects by the numbers they have. Part 3 and Part 9 does not define the Building Types either.

Part 3 is about Fire Protection, Occupancy Safety and Accessibility and Part 9 is about Housing and Small buildings. You might be building a single family house (Part 9) and still need an Architect. You might be building an office building or a store yet not need an Architect at all. An architect refers to the whole NBC when he or she needs to analyze it for a project. And even though the NBC is not the Bible, it's the primary legal document that lawyers will refer to to figure out who failed their responsibilities and how.

Refer to this link below provided by the Manitoba Association of Architects to evaluate when an Architect and/or Engineer would/could be required.

http://www.mbarchitects.org/docs/Bldgs-Req-Arch_rev1.pdf

One thing that I blame my fellow colleagues and Engineer friends with is not really trying to educate the public, clients, builders and trades about who we really are and what we really do.

My words above are my personal ideas and comments and does not cover any official organization I belong to. However, I hope they have clarified a few things about the NBC and the basic duties of Architects.

Thanks and wish you all a happy new year!

Thanks for your comments. To clarify, we are referring to the city's requirement for an architect irrespective of the code. We simplify by referring to 'Part 3' or 'Part 9' because that gives a broad enough understanding of the reference point.

Within the context of the city, they'll refer certain Part 9 buildings to Part 3 plans examiners because it has a corridor. It still doesn't require an architect and it's still not a full 'Part 3' building even though it has certain Part 3 code aspects. Given that you're an architect, you'll understand - but most won't - that anything considered a 'Part 3' building as denoted by the city's own documentation (in quotes, of course), requires a statutory declaration from all consultants including the architect. So, at least as far as the city of Winnipeg is concerned, a 'Part 3' building (regardless of occupancy class) requires an architect and anything 'Part 9' doesn't. And size is one of the considerations. You can have a 'Part 9' building all the way through to the size of it, but breach that 600m2 and you're into 'Part 3' as the city sees it. That's how you'd get a single-family residence that required an architect.

[Cyro]

Tache Promenade project which includes adding a treetop lookout which faces the Red River and overlooks the CMHR. Estimated to cost $3.6 million, also $1 million being given by Winnipeg Foundation for project.

Located near the lookout would be a guiding light sculpture, dedicated to the Grey Nuns, paid for with a $200,000 commitment by the Winnipeg Arts Council.

These projects all come from the city's 2014 Go to the Waterfront plan, which outlines the city's 20-year vision for Winnipeg's waterfront.

Source

[esquire]

^ That would be quite a nice focal point for Tache.

Speaking of waterfront beautification, I wonder if there is still any life to the Centreventure "Heart of Gold" plan? In particular, I liked the proposed footbridge over the Assiniboine from McFadyen Park to Fort Rouge Park... it would be great to see that built one day.

[Cyro]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ That would be quite a nice focal point for Tache.

Speaking of waterfront beautification, I wonder if there is still any life to the Centreventure "Heart of Gold" plan? In particular, I liked the proposed footbridge over the Assiniboine from McFadyen Park to Fort Rouge Park... it would be great to see that built one day.

Winnipeg's River Bank(s) are one of the few natural landscape features we were blessed with, I hope it get's approved.

I'm not familiar with the 'Heart of Gold Plan' ? Do you have any links to what is being proposed? We may have discussed it already but it's slipped my mind. Thx

[esquire]

^ I just looked it up... wow, it's from 2007, older than I thought. I guess the plan must be stale by now.

http://www.centreventure.com/PDF/Heart%20of%20Gold%20Plan%20presented%20to%20EPC.pdf

[Cyro]

^ Ah yes thx. 07-09 plan. We can probably file that one away...

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ I just looked it up... wow, it's from 2007, older than I thought. I guess the plan must be stale by now.

http://www.centreventure.com/PDF/Heart%20of%20Gold%20Plan%20presented%20to%20EPC.pdf

Given how many initiatives are left to be accomplished within that plan, why are we moving into even more costly planning exercises for areas that are already somewhat addressed or obviously lack resources to be so?

It doesn't make any sense to me.

[esquire]

^ Good question. CV has lost its focus since its early days when it was tasked with selling off surplus city properties.

[1ajs]

does cv have a 5 year plan anymore?

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ Good question. CV has lost its focus since its early days when it was tasked with selling off surplus city properties.

It's difficult when they don't have any money. They were supposed to be selling off surplus city properties at steep, steep discounts and providing gap funding for projects that couldn't sustain themselves given the downtown market. Now that they've made a couple critically bad decisions, there's no money to provide the gap funding, and they see their property bank as appreciating assets they can use to cover their debt. Deep down they know their stock is still almost valueless, but they won't take the public heat. So their mandate is now totally turned around.

Ironically, their inability to carry out their mandate is making CV one of the primary barriers to development in the downtown. The city - very reluctantly and with a good house-cleaning - needs to wipe the slate clean with CV's balance sheet and start over. Stop this SHED nonsense, and get back to representing the interests of downtown instead of just Longboat.

[trueviking]

^Yup.

It's inevitable that will happen. The sooner they bite the bullet, the better. A new head is the time.

It's interesting they chose an NDPer as their head. I am optimistic good things will come from the change.

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by trueviking

^Yup.

It's inevitable that will happen. The sooner they bite the bullet, the better. A new head is the time.

It's interesting they chose an NDPer as their head. I am optimistic good things will come from the change.

Honestly, I don't know her from Eve, but the existing human resource infrastructure at CV - including Ross who's now gone - had burned every bridge with nearly every developer in the city outside of Longboat and Qualico. To me, while strange given the likely outcome of the upcoming election, her political affiliation should be meaningless. We just need people around there who don't have 15 years of animosity and mistrust behind them.

And I say that genuinely. This new program CV has going for the surface lot subsidy is just government going through the motions given that almost nobody who owns property in the downtown or is a capable developer will have anything to do with the organization in its current form.

But, I am holding out hope...

[esquire]

^ How have they burned bridges with developers?

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ How have they burned bridges with developers?

I won't provide specific examples in the interest of keeping people's business quiet, but many promises over many years requiring significant investment from developers that were never seriously being considered, anyway. The back-room RFP steering, promises of funding that never materialized, promised sales of property to developers at certain values only to change the expected price at the last minute rendering the project unfeasible and the entire investment sunk. Taking years and years to pay out TIF money well past project benchmarks.

Many, many reasons. And I could go on. Ross didn't walk the plank for nothing. Don't believe what the newspapers write about Ross' glory years. Without Katz, Sheegl, Thorgrimson, and the likely soon-to-be relieved Joshi, the fiefdom crumbled. All of their old contacts are now anathema. Having to attract other developers back to the table to continue the mandate wasn't happening with a guy whose arrogance had offended nearly every property owner in downtown in his time.