HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4081  
Old Posted May 5, 2015, 4:40 AM
cjones2451's Avatar
cjones2451 cjones2451 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Port Moody, BC
Posts: 699
What repairs have been completed so far and are they on time to get everything done by the Women's World Cup?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4082  
Old Posted May 5, 2015, 2:56 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 5,881
Coming out of the Bomber Fan Fest this past weekend it was confirmed the concession signs were removed for the stadium remediation work and not FIFA. They have been working to add extra insulation to the concession stands. It looked like that phase of work was pretty close to complete so it should be done in time for the world cup.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4083  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 9:46 PM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 7,641
$30M to fix this lemon, are you fricking kidding me!

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/spo...303945721.html

Hope the links work with the Freeps new draconian pay wall!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4084  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 11:00 PM
Danny D Oh Danny D Oh is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 872
Would be tragic if it weren't so predictable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4085  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 11:16 PM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 7,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny D Oh View Post
Would be tragic if it weren't so predictable.
So fixing the old stadium for $60M was out of the question but spending $220M on a NEW stadium and $30M two years later to fix it made much more sense to the speNDP, the incompetents running the Blue Bombers and our very own Nostradamus David Asper! Well done!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4086  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 11:36 PM
Danny D Oh Danny D Oh is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrskylar View Post
So fixing the old stadium for $60M was out of the question but spending $220M on a NEW stadium and $30M two years later to fix it made much more sense to the speNDP, the incompetents running the Blue Bombers and our very own Nostradamus David Asper! Well done!
I don't even care about the money as much as the lies and use of this project as a political pawn. Just do it right and be honest.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4087  
Old Posted May 15, 2015, 11:43 PM
blueandgoldguy blueandgoldguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,755
30 million...this just keeps getting better and better. Interesting that Ray wan is part of the lawsuit. Thought it would just be Stuart Olson. Anyone know what air structure feasibility is?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4088  
Old Posted May 16, 2015, 6:45 AM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is online now
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 13,440
They cancelled the bubble. It was a actually purchased. They've sold off a couple of the pieces. The stadium is not designed to work with a bubble anymore.

Many of the issues alleged were design problems, not construction. The reason the architect and contractor are being sued. In turn the engineers will be included with the architect.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4089  
Old Posted May 16, 2015, 7:01 AM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is online now
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 13,440
It's an odd article. Garry obviously isn't well versed in the legalities of construction. Funny he says the architect's renderings had deficiencies. I think he meant construction drawings.

The arguments that the client knew about deficiencies, the timeline was rushed and the budget insufficient are not likely to be an acceptable defence. None of those things forgive negligence.

Issues like the the press boxes not meeting cfl requirements are unfortunate but not likely winable in a lawsuit. It was an added cost but they didn't pay for something they didn't get. Same with the sprinkler system and plumbing insulation.

The owners need to prove negligence. They need to show that mistakes were made beyond what is typically acceptable. Having to add exit stairs from the field for concerts, probably not, tearing out all the handrails, probably. No drains in the upper deck, probably.

It will be interesting to see where it ends. BBB cast a wide net and threw everything at the wall. How much sticks we will see.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4090  
Old Posted May 16, 2015, 3:27 PM
Dillweed Dillweed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 181
Remember when Asper was going to build this stadium and the budget was $135 million. When I read that I said to myself "WTF kinda stadium are they gonna get for that price. Even spending $200 million I'm not too surprised to hear about these repairs needed for IGF Field, It sounds to me that there were corners cut and rushed from the beginning.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4091  
Old Posted May 16, 2015, 7:32 PM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 7,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dillweed View Post
Remember when Asper was going to build this stadium and the budget was $135 million. When I read that I said to myself "WTF kinda stadium are they gonna get for that price. Even spending $200 million I'm not too surprised to hear about these repairs needed for IGF Field, It sounds to me that there were corners cut and rushed from the beginning.
That doesn't explain the major oversights in design, the shoddy workmanship, the delays, and the poor location chosen for the stadium!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4092  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2015, 4:27 AM
Jets4Life Jets4Life is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: True North
Posts: 1,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrskylar View Post
That doesn't explain the major oversights in design, the shoddy workmanship, the delays, and the poor location chosen for the stadium!
It was always a horrible location. At the least, it's better than the half-baked idea to put the Stadium in the middle of Point Douglas. To reroute roads, underground facilities, and construct a footbridge from St.Boniface, would ahve set us back $600 million.

Why did they not just accept the Canada Inns design near Assiniboia Downs?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4093  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2015, 12:35 PM
snowmobile snowmobile is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 156
Federal $$$ only at the university site
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4094  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2015, 3:32 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 5,881
1. The proposal CanadInns submitted was actually for the former Canada Packers site, including a fully covered stadium which would have caused funding issues and was a plan that even to outsiders seemed to not be well developed (ie cost similar to IGF but with a full roof).

2. I still maintain the Downs/Red River Ex site would have been ideal. The site has minimal traffic issues with the Ex already. With the Headingly by-pass being built just north of the site they could have built an interchange and helped traffic move even more efficiently.

3. In terms of the federally money, saying it could only happen at U of M is false. U of M could have declared whatever site they wanted as a "new sports focused campus location". Maybe I missed something there...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4095  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2015, 3:45 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
U of M was fine, they just had to make sure the road and transit transportation infrastructure was there before the stadium opened. In classic Winnipeg style, neither got done.

On the road front, the City caved to the NIMBYs south of the U of M and effectively blocked off an area where people could have parked and then dispersed through after games. No new road infrastructure at all that I can think of either apart from, IIRC, expanding the turn lanes from Pembina to Chancellor Matheson. Things that probably should have been done include turning University Cr. and Chancellor Matheson to 6 lane roads with proper AT paths so that peds/cyclists don't block traffic.

On the transit front, the SW transitway will be built a full 7 years after the stadium, although the actual IGF BRT station will open for 2017.

The stadium site is manageable and not really any less convenient than Polo Park in terms of where it's situated in the city, but when you do next to zero infrastructure upgrades to handle the influx of game traffic, it's not surprising that it will cause a few bumps. But for what it's worth, the process has become much smoother since the first few games at IGF in 2013... remember, even the old Winnipeg Stadium caused monster traffic jams when it first opened in 1953, and there were only around 12,000 seats back then.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4096  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2015, 7:33 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 5,881
U of M was less than an ideal site for the stadium. In order to access the site all traffic needs to funnel through Pembina HWY at some point. Even without the extra stadium traffic that route already had capacity issues.

In terms of infrastructure, you really did not need more lanes, you just need to convert the existing two-ways roads into event time one-way streets.

In terms of active transportation, that is where the plan was truly short changed. After the missing transit station the biggest missing piece is the pedestrian and active transportation bridge from the east side of campus to south St Vital. For Pembina access, instead of adding it along the existing roads put it next to the transit access they are adding.

Any sense on the interim plan for transit once the IGF station is built? I would guess that inbound will use University Crescent and take a small "temporary" spur on the north side of the statidum to arrive at the station. The outbound buses would then continue on the temporary spur back to Markham Rd and out to Pembina.

In terms of the station itself, I would imagine it will be one that allows buses to load and unload but depart individually. For example bus 1 arrives and starts unloading, then bus 2 pulls up, however bus 2 is unloaded first so it is free to pull out and leave while 1 continues to unload. This will matter more for departures than arrivals where some routes might fill up quicker than others. The other question is if the IGF station will become the primary transit site on the Fort Garry campus instead of the current loop used for non-event traffic.

In terms of traffic jams, I am sure MTS Centre would have been worse if people didn't have a few years to figure it out before the Jets came back.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4097  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2015, 11:10 PM
Danny D Oh Danny D Oh is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
U of M was less than an ideal site for the stadium. In order to access the site all traffic needs to funnel through Pembina HWY at some point. Even without the extra stadium traffic that route already had capacity issues.

In terms of infrastructure, you really did not need more lanes, you just need to convert the existing two-ways roads into event time one-way streets.

In terms of active transportation, that is where the plan was truly short changed. After the missing transit station the biggest missing piece is the pedestrian and active transportation bridge from the east side of campus to south St Vital. For Pembina access, instead of adding it along the existing roads put it next to the transit access they are adding.

Any sense on the interim plan for transit once the IGF station is built? I would guess that inbound will use University Crescent and take a small "temporary" spur on the north side of the statidum to arrive at the station. The outbound buses would then continue on the temporary spur back to Markham Rd and out to Pembina.

In terms of the station itself, I would imagine it will be one that allows buses to load and unload but depart individually. For example bus 1 arrives and starts unloading, then bus 2 pulls up, however bus 2 is unloaded first so it is free to pull out and leave while 1 continues to unload. This will matter more for departures than arrivals where some routes might fill up quicker than others. The other question is if the IGF station will become the primary transit site on the Fort Garry campus instead of the current loop used for non-event traffic.

In terms of traffic jams, I am sure MTS Centre would have been worse if people didn't have a few years to figure it out before the Jets came back.

Agreed. The U of M campus is effectively an island with only two routes in the way they restrict traffic on gameday, and three ways out. The two main ways out, and the only two ways in, rely on funneling traffic through Pembina. It's really no comparison to Polo Park or even the MTS Centre which could be exited in multiple ways in all directions.

I feel bad for several people I know, including my parents, who have mobility issues and will never again attend a Bomber game because of the dangerous mess that campus is on gameday. I feel fortunate that I am able to park far away from the stadium and walk onto the campus.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4098  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2015, 3:55 AM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 5,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny D Oh View Post
I feel bad for several people I know, including my parents, who have mobility issues and will never again attend a Bomber game because of the dangerous mess that campus is on gameday. I feel fortunate that I am able to park far away from the stadium and walk onto the campus.
If you are safe to drive of streets every day there is nothing that makes game day any more dangerous. Also if someone such as your parents has a documented medical issue limiting their mobility and has obtained a handicap parking permit the Bombers have access plans in place that include allowing people to be dropped off directly at Gate 1. In terms of accessibility for people with mobility issues IGF is significantly better than the old stadium could have ever dreamed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4099  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2015, 10:47 PM
Danny D Oh Danny D Oh is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
If you are safe to drive of streets every day there is nothing that makes game day any more dangerous. Also if someone such as your parents has a documented medical issue limiting their mobility and has obtained a handicap parking permit the Bombers have access plans in place that include allowing people to be dropped off directly at Gate 1. In terms of accessibility for people with mobility issues IGF is significantly better than the old stadium could have ever dreamed.
Well, adults tend to enjoy having some independence. My parents aren't handicapped, they are just old and don't move as well. The one game I took them to we did the drop-off, and it was horrendous on both ends, way worse on the way out. It's not an impossibility for them to attend, it's just such a hassle to get onto campus, into the stadium, back to their vehicle (the extremely dangerous part for everyone, complete chaos) and eventually home that they won't go as much as they love football and the Bombers. They parked right next to the old stadium and were home in Transcona an hour after the game.

I agree that the stadium has more bells and whistles for people with mobility issues, but the ramps into the stadium are horrible for anyone in a wheelchair, great to gain some speed for a post-game drag race though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4100  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2015, 2:25 PM
The Unknown Poster The Unknown Poster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 996
Dangerous? Not a chance. I live in South Winnipeg, been to the Stadium several times for events and driven the area during events when I wasnt attending. Its not remotely dangerous.

Maybe they should have built 5 stadiums and had one in every part of town, just to satisfy everyone. At the old site, I routinely sat in unmoving traffic for ages on route 90. I grew up on that and it was expected. You knew to leave very early to get to the game on time. You'd sit in traffic trying to leave too. A lot of people would park quite a distance and walk, or end up walking to a restaurant after to avoid the chaos of trying to get out of the area.

Other than the first few games when when they had legitimate issues that they overcame, despite the efforts of Kives to make it seem like the worst thing on planet earth, getting to and from IGF isnt bad at all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:06 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.