Welcome Guest! In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away. Click here to get started.


Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
King and Victoria Intermodal Station
(07-21-2017, 05:07 PM)kps Wrote:
(07-21-2017, 04:56 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: That really is insane. There has got to be a way to get around this — perhaps some sort of long-term lease, so the construction (other than the transit terminal itself) is the developer’s project, not the Region’s? I’m not generally anti-labor, but the outcome of the ways these laws are set up is idiotic, and the behaviour of union people who are not opposed to what happened is ethically disappointing.

The plan is (and has been for a long time) to sell the land to the developer and rent back the transit part.

Right.  In which case it's not a regional project, and the developer is not bound by the region's rules.
Reply
(07-19-2017, 01:51 PM)boatracer Wrote: The pre-qualification stage closed on June 30th.  Looks like there was only one submission from a team with EllisDon as the primary.  Not sure if there is something with how the Region posts results to their website or if there was really only 1 pre-qual submission.  This was supposed to narrow down the teams for the actual RFP.

https://regionofwaterloo.bidsandtenders....#Submitted

It is interesting that Perimeter Dev is part of the EllisDon development submission team. Just have not seen or followed these before.
Reply
(07-21-2017, 04:49 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: The important point is that only unionized carpenters can work on municipal construction projects, so anyone wanting to bid on the Hub would have to be prepared to use unionized carpenters for the whole thing (and I would think that since there's expectation of a significant office/residential portion, that would not be an inconsequential portion of the work). I don't pretend to know whether most/some/any jobs around here are done with or not with unionized carpenters, mind you.

This is not just a reply to #Viewfromthe42 but for ALL who post in this thread, who have rushed to judgement seeing unions as the scourge of the earth related to the Transit Hub.

There is nothing in fact linking all or any of the assumptions stated in this thread about the Transit Hub RFPQ linking it to "union workers required". 

The truth is no one here, including myself, knows why EllisDon was the only team to bid for the RFQ.

Just like The Waterloo Record this forum thread section, for the last two months, has become a union bashing forum based on assumptions that are incorrect and just built on the last incorrect assumption and the next and ....  

Facts please, not fiction or assumptions that there is even the slightest connections to union requirements. Just because the unnamed  president of a large country can do this, does not mean that everyone can invent their own truths and then build on the narrative as true.
Reply
I think the architect/lead designer for that team's submission would be Gensler (world renowned with vast experience in transportation): 

https://www.gensler.com/projects/advanced-search?s=title&v=grid&e%5B%5D=architecture&e%5B%5D=aviation-transportation&e%5B%5D=mixed-use&e%5B%5D=planning-urban-design&e%5B%5D=landscape-architecture&e%5B%5D=master-planning
Reply
Hey MacBerry,

Maybe I've been mis-reading, but has there been a lot of "union-bashing"? I asked a clarifying question about it being a "Regional Project" at all, and others have asked similar questions or questioned the effects of the Carpenter's Union certification. Only 1 or 2 posts blamed the Union, and I didn't take it as a deliberate bash... but it needed clarification from me.

I personally am a president of my Union's local, and haven't found minimal comments in the thread to be disrespectful. I support the unions, and it's why I don't shop at WalMart (or Sears Wink ).... or why I don't use self-checkout and/or bag my own groceries at the Zehrs. Just my opinion. Smile

Coke
Reply
There has been little or no _text_ of "union-bashing" but this Carpenters' business has been subtextually used in scape-goating and other negative connotations in a few places. Or at least I've read it that way in a few cases.

Hard to say, in a text-only medium, unless you are explicit (and even then...)
Reply
(07-25-2017, 12:35 PM)MacBerry Wrote:
(07-21-2017, 04:49 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: The important point is that only unionized carpenters can work on municipal construction projects, so anyone wanting to bid on the Hub would have to be prepared to use unionized carpenters for the whole thing (and I would think that since there's expectation of a significant office/residential portion, that would not be an inconsequential portion of the work). I don't pretend to know whether most/some/any jobs around here are done with or not with unionized carpenters, mind you.

This is not just a reply to #Viewfromthe42 but for ALL who post in this thread, who have rushed to judgement seeing unions as the scourge of the earth related to the Transit Hub.

I’m not sure who specifically you mean to address, but I for one am not in general anti-union, just anti-absurd-rules-like-the-one-that-says-that-two-guys-on-a-weekend-can-permanently-affect-the-entire-Region’s-procurement-for-the-foreseeable-future. I’m also opposed to unreasonable opinions wherever they arise, to the extent that I’ve been known to revise my own unreasonable opinions from time to time. As a result, I sometimes sound like a government-basher, a big-business-basher, a small-business-basher, a union-basher, and so on. But I’m actually not.

Having said all that, I now have the impression that the transit hub may not be a case where the issue I mentioned is relevant, so maybe I spoke up too early.
Reply
(07-25-2017, 12:35 PM)MacBerry Wrote:
(07-21-2017, 04:49 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: The important point is that only unionized carpenters can work on municipal construction projects, so anyone wanting to bid on the Hub would have to be prepared to use unionized carpenters for the whole thing (and I would think that since there's expectation of a significant office/residential portion, that would not be an inconsequential portion of the work). I don't pretend to know whether most/some/any jobs around here are done with or not with unionized carpenters, mind you.

This is not just a reply to #Viewfromthe42 but for ALL who post in this thread, who have rushed to judgement seeing unions as the scourge of the earth related to the Transit Hub.

There is nothing in fact linking all or any of the assumptions stated in this thread about the Transit Hub RFPQ linking it to "union workers required". 

The truth is no one here, including myself, knows why EllisDon was the only team to bid for the RFQ.

Just like The Waterloo Record this forum thread section, for the last two months, has become a union bashing forum based on assumptions that are incorrect and just built on the last incorrect assumption and the next and ....  

Facts please, not fiction or assumptions that there is even the slightest connections to union requirements. Just because the unnamed  president of a large country can do this, does not mean that everyone can invent their own truths and then build on the narrative as true.

I have my own personal views on unions, as I've seen them do great things and horrible things, believing that group action is important but also that it can go too far.

In this case, I don't know well enough if this project is in a weird spot where it is big enough that primarily local bidders won't emerge (unless as a sub-partner), but where those big enough to bid don't know our area's available union options (if the requirement for union labour applies here, as has been unclear).


As I've said before, I theorize (without knowing) that the uncertainty over whether you're bidding on building a public transit facility and can recoup costs by building office/residential space no taller than 12 storeys, or perhaps in the range of 25-30 storeys. If you're going to bother investing time and effort in submitting to the RFQ phase, you have to be able to believe that you can be competitive in the RFP phase. What kind of competitive bid on the public facilities you can create will depend a great deal on what kind of cost-recoup you can get, based on non-public square footage you can sell, which is directly linked to density. If the RFQ had gone out clearly stating 25-30 storeys, then you'd have a great recoup potential and more bidders, all giving you a price based on that level of recoup potential. Currently, as I understand it, it went out under the possibility of fewer than 12 storeys of recoup potential, which would be a much greater risk to small players. Worse, we eliminate competition by having it go out under those auspices, and then even if we now say 25-30 storeys are an option, the bidders would have been planning a public facility that could be recouped with fewer than 12 storeys of saleable assets, meaning a lower overall public value, but the extra storeys wind up going solely to increasing their profit margins. Foolish on the Region's part, if that's what is indeed happening.
Reply
Foolish or not, could the 12 storey limit be tied to other factors related to the site and/or zoning? For instance, yes I know that it's a Regional property in some manner of speaking, but the City of Kitchener would be responsible for making sure that whatever development was there fit within its guidelines. For example, don't pretend to know the math that goes into figures bedrooms per hectare etc.

Looking at it another way, is it possible that the Regional analysis also included figuring what was the largest project that Region could handle if, for whatever reason, it was unable to find a private partner?
Reply
The zoning for that site was specifically carved out of all adjacent zoning standards, so as to support a densest-highest-site-in-the-region development.

Even if there were some argument to be made for scaling it back were it a regional project (and I doubt the region will take this on themselves), going in with the possibility of nearly no density allowable would be like going into a negotiation over salary with your boss and making your opening offer the maximum pay cut you'd accept to still be employed, only to add "but I'd really like it if you'd double my salary."
Reply
But what did the RFQ say? Did it have information suggesting any such restriction on density?
Reply
I haven't seen it myself. Since they had a consultation on it, if there was a chosen density, I'd expect the public to know about it. If there hasn't been a publicly announced one, then all three are effectively still possibilities, meaning a bidder can only give you as good a bid as the worst case (lowest density) will allow them. Or, in the current case, because of how unprofitable or underwhelming a bid would be for the low density option, it creates a barrier to entry for bidders who can't reasonably expect to compete, and inflates the price of the project due to low/no competition.
Reply
Somebody catch me up - is it confirmed somewhere that height restrictions have been imposed on potential development of this site?
Reply
You can read all about the details of the RFQ here:

https://regionofwaterloo.bidsandtenders..../#Addendum

There is no need for rampant speculation.

From what I recall, there was a range of possible heights of final build.  From mid-rise to high-rise.  But please, someone take a look at get the direct quote.


[EDIT] oh crap, they've locked down access to the documents. Never mind, there's no looking now.
Reply
(08-01-2017, 09:34 AM)Markster Wrote: You can read all about the details of the RFQ here:

https://regionofwaterloo.bidsandtenders..../#Addendum

There is no need for rampant speculation.

From what I recall, there was a range of possible heights of final build.  From mid-rise to high-rise.  But please, someone take a look at get the direct quote.


[EDIT] oh crap, they've locked down access to the documents.  Never mind, there's no looking now.

Did anyone by any chance download the documents, I would be curious to see them?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)