The New Police Station Would Put New Hotels To Shame
Tuesday, September 25, 2012 @ 3:45 AM
.jpg)
When you take a drive along Victoria St you will see what many people are asking,”is that the new Performing Arts Center “. No, for those from out of town who are asking, it’s a new police station.
Now let’s see what a police station does.
Well it deals with, for the most part, crime and the enforcement of laws in the city. Who are their main customers? Well again for the most part, people who have broken the law and those in the building who are upholding it.
Now the question you might be asking yourself is why we need a $ 37-40 million dollar building to house the criminals of the area in a facility that would make even the owners of some of the best hotel chains in the country blush? Well we have it.
Now there is another matter should it not be paramount that police officers spend their time out in the field catching bad “people” or is it more important to have the kind of spacious offices that are now under construction?
There was validity to the argument that we needed a new police station, although there were several other ideas presented that did not meet approval and looking at the new facility it is easy to see why.
The core review is merrily moving along trying to essentially put lipstick on a pig. It is no more than a wish list for a select few at city hall and it is being done under the guise that it was the representative of the ,”people”.
Many of those sitting around the table at city hall were around when the new police station was voted on, it is very apparent that the taxpayer was not upper most in the minds of the council of the day when the decision to build a new police station was made.
I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s’ opinion.
Comments
City Hall is watching too much TV Ben.. CSI Miami comes to mind.
Beautiful court house, fancy jail and a palatial palace police station. Who say’s P.G. has no class ?
This building in no way fits in with others in the neighborhood. I believe it is the Scotia building that did a face lift last year? It was not exorbitant but still an improvement and fit in well with others on these blocks. The new police station however, looks totally out of place when compared with others on that corner. This appears to be blatant waste. I cannot see how anyone can justify a building such as this when we are constantly being asked to tighten our belts.
They’re running our city like Al Capone ran new York City.
Why is this still an issue? It’s a done deal, no sense whining about it now, unless that is your M.O.. People had their chance to vote it down and it didn’t happen, so suck it up. It may seem fancy to the untrained observer, but it’s just a building, with a specialized purpose. Don’t let those fancy preserved logs out front fool you into thinking it’s the Grand Hotel of Prince George.
Yes, the building is desperately needed and you’re unhappy why? ..because it’s not squarish in shape like most office buildings?
Oh, and a little side note Meisner, the police do not “uphold” the law, that is the job of the courts. The police for the most part do a very difficult thankless job and shouldn’t have to do it out of a broken down building that’s too small and rains down crap on them, literally.
Your thinking is very short-sighted and narrow, but I understand that can happen as you get old.
No one likes the price tag, but at least it looks good.
“People had their chance to vote it down and it didn’t happen, so suck it up.”
I never voted. Must have been out of town when the city had the referendum on the new police headquarters.
SN — “Why is this still an issue? It’s a done deal, no sense whining about it now”
You ask such easy questions.
This is not about a new police station. This is about an exorbitant design of a new police station. There were two chances to cut the excess which is becoming more and more visible to the general public every day.
The first chance was when the Architects presented their vision of the police station under the Kinsley regime. Look to the administration and Council in place at the time for competency in determining what they should âbuyâ from the point of view of affordability and functionality. The primary purpose of this building is to provide the spaces for the RCMP to do their work properly, not unlike most buildings in the City. The purpose of the building is not to become a city icon such as a City Hall, an Art Gallery, a Museum, a Convention Facility, a Theatre, even an Arena and Library.
So, very bluntly, they screwed it up as far as I am concerned. I suspect, in this case at least, most reasonable people in the city will agree.
They screwed it up again when Stolz suggested, quite rightly so, that the building was too expensive and they struck a committee to reduce costs. Why did they screw it up then? Because they did not remove the obvious frills. Instead, they removed a valid functional requirement of having secure parking on site and underground. When I saw the outcome of that laymanâs exercise in futility, I just shook my head at the incompetency of the administration and Council that I saw.
So, the building is a done deal. What is not a done deal is the mindset and competency of the administration and Council to run this City. We badly need to change it.
This project, once again, shows that there is a disconnect between the need to run the City and the ability to run the City. Add to that the lack of maintenance of infrastructure, the inability to manage to get a proper core review process in place (which really should look at processes such as the procurement of the RCMP building and how to improve them), the misplaced and inappropriate timing of competing to get the Canada Winter Games, and many others that each reader can add to the list.
We moan and groan over what an eyesore downtown PG is. We get a brand new, beautiful building downtown and we moan and groan that the building doesn’t fit in, or that it was too expensive to build. Tough crowd.
It’s a done deal now folks. The bar has certainly been raised for downtown development. Is the new RCMP station nicer looking than it had to be? Absolutely. Personally, I think it looks amazing. If I was in the RCMP and looking for a great place to station myself, I would seriously consider Prince George. Now let’s see some private developers step up to the new standard.
“Now let’s see some private developers step up to the new standard”.
Good luck with that. We’ll be lucky to get any private development of that size in this town for a long ime.
Lool at the time it is taking to get the hotel/condo project deal signed so that they can build it.
BTW, the Barton building is no slouch. Neither is the BDC building.
Quite frankly, the RCMP building is what I would call kitsch. I would take any of the UNBC buildings, but especially the Administration building which has an atrium and uses wood extensively, over the RCMP building.
The ultimate wood building in town from an architectural point of view, in my opinion, is the old Northwood head office buiding. It is a “pure” heavy timber wood structure, not facade applique use of wood. That is what makes it kitsch architecture in my book.
BTW, I forgot about the Regional RCMP building on 5th. Very clean looking, unpretentious building with the requiste inner atrium. I am sure it is a pelasant space to work in. Lots of windows. Not actually sure how many of the office areas in the City building will have windows.
http://www.bushbohlman.com/projectssecure-princegeorge.php
The new 2 storey dental office near the same part of 5th avenue is also a nice new addition.
BTW, the architects who gave us the regional RCMP building also gave us the new Duchess Park HS. Again, a clean, functional design with a great, well lit, central atrium as a gathering space.
As many of you know, I now live in Ottawa after having been born and raised in PG. I was curious to see what sort of impact the new RCMP station would have on the immediate area and the first time I drove by it (in town for a visit), I think I actually laughed.
It is a gorgeous looking building no doubt, BUT it is COMPLETELY out of place when you look at it as part of the overall collection of buildings down on Victoria street. I’ll be perfectly honest here, I think it makes that area WORSE. It sticks out like a sore thumb, the mass of the building looks to be set back from the street more than the other properties and it just plain does not fit in. Much like how the city conducts its planning in other areas, I think it has now turned Victoria street into a mishmash of stuff. As an overall neighbourhood design, it looks horrid. IMHO, they should have stuck with a building that had hard and square lines, perhaps a nice glass front but that blended in with the other stuff around it and brought more cohesion to the area.
I think this project is actually a microcosm of many things that are wrong with PG. Abhorrent planning, a lack of common sense and resources utilized in an inappropriate way.
A new RCMP station was needed, but the task should have been carried out in a different manner. Now the city will have a building for the next 40-50 years that will be yet another legacy of the poor decision making that has taken place over the years. Come to think of it, it will go along great with the encouraged sprawl, the CN Centre/Aquatic Centre being built outside of the downtown core, the spectacular casino development that was supposed to bring so much life and energy to the city . . .
We all know that the City is building this so they can “flip it” to Commonwealth and then sell it back to the City for a profit.
Yes, the new Duchess Park is a great looking building IMHO. 30 years from now it will still be great looking regardless of what is around it. It has a “timeless” look to it. 30 years from now, the new RCMP station will still be attracting comments like “bizarre”, “why there” and “hmmm, I’m not quite sure”.
I guess being the crime capital, we now will have a pretty facade for media relations.
For your information,Sine Nomine there never was a vote on the police station. If the people in the city wanted to have a say in the spending of 37-40 million they would have had to do it by way of reverse petition. Now if that is your interpretation of having a vote on a city matter, this âold âman would like to debate that with you, any place, any time. letâs see how you hold up . Oh I forgot you would have to reveal your identity.
As for the RCMP upholding the law;
Definition of Uphold;
1 to maintain, affirm, or defend against opposition or challenge
2. to give moral support or inspiration to
3. Rare to support physically
4. to lift up
Now if the RCMP doesnât have this as a responsibility then what is it?
Government should serve the people, not the other way around
The new police station while needed did not need to be 37-40 million dollars
In order to perform the function that it is intended to do.
“the police do not “uphold” the law, that is the job of the courts”
That is too bad, because the columns in the front of the building with their bracing at the top to me actually resemble the gallows of old that one sees in pictures of criminals hanging as one enters the town streets warning people entering about the justice metted out when one steals, murders, etc.
Achitects have to be sensitive to some of the symbolism which their pretty add-ons might invoke on the wrong building.
It is the suggestion that the facade is a good one as a backdrop for police media conferences which got me to think of what that might look like to some people as they are viewing it on the Vancouver news … ;-)
Just thought of a new slogan for PG – “Corrections Capital of Canada”
How can PG keep it’s status as crime capital of Canada if we don’t have a fancy police station. Now PG can attract the elite criminal to the city core. Wonder who will get the contract for catering the meals.
To add to Ben’s comments and to suggest to SN that he needs to take some civics classes in high school, not that we have any such courses in Canada, thus the ignorance of some people about such matters ….
In Canada, the Federal and Provincial legislatures create the law as do, to a limited extent, the municipalities.
The upholding or supporting of those laws is the joint role of the police, the courts, and corrections. Without any one of those, the laws of the country cannot be upheld in a modern social system.
So, a quick review for this civics 101 lesson.
Q = What is being upheld?
A = The laws.
Q = By whom?
A = The police, the courts and corrections.
“The official motto of the Mounted Police is simple and to the point: “Maintiens le Droit” (maintain the law). The motto dates from the 14th century …”
Just saying….
lbear posted: “Just thought of a new slogan for PG – “Corrections Capital of Canada””
Yes. Remember the term “Hilton on the Hill” when that building first went up?
I am not sure why it was given that name by the public, but suspect it had something to do with the cost, the comparison to the old jail, and the hovels that those who required financial and physical care assistance were living in for the most part.
So if that is the “Hilton on the Hill”, I wonder what name the RCMP building will eventually attract and stick in the heads of the people who paid for it.
Remember, “Hilton on the Hill” was paid for by the provincial taxpayers …. the police station is paid for by the City taxpayers.
I live in the bowl of Prince George so I frequent Victoria Street and every time I go by the new RCMP building I feel a shudder go through my body just imagining how much taxes it takes to pay for this building. I’m sure that if there was a civic election about to happen there would be drastic changes in what the building would look like. Maybe reconstitute the old RCMP building or perhaps a different location.
And here I thought it was meant as a reminder when they rode their horeses done town streets and these days when they drive their cars
…. “keep to the right” … ;-)
Surefire ….. in my opinion, there is no one on staff who understands such buildings.
They have engineers who are relatively well conversant with civil works – roads, bridges, water, sewer, storm, etc.
They really have no one on staff who understands buildings, whether that is an architect or a highly experienced general contractor.
It is the City Managerâs responsibility to have the right people on staff and it is Councilâs responsibility to ensure that he/she does his job properly.
When UNBC started their campus planning and design they hired an Architect who was on the team of UBC architects and engineers who managed that campus’ continuing development.
Typically on individual buildings like the RCMP building, one should be able to rely on an architect that listens to the client’s needs. In this case, he either did not listen to them or he was not given proper instructions from the City. That is “proper” from the point of view of “affordable and functional”.
Overkill on the RCMP Building.
There must be alot of rich tax payers in this town.
I seem to recall at one point someone making the statement that it was too late to look at more affordable design because of the amount of money spent on conceptual drawings etc.
I do agree that PG was a rudderless ship during Derek Bates tenure, no one in the whole building looking at the big picture.
I agree Ben….Sine Nomine, step up to the plate….
Sometime it is good to revist the water that has now gone under the bridge and look at how it looked when it was still upriver, especially when one has people saying it is too late. It is never too late to prepare for the next time we see water heading towards us that we should be diverting. One looks at that by looking at history and trying to improve as we go along rather than repeating the same mistakes over and over.
blog/view/12815/1/rcmp+building's+tab+of+$46+million+plus+on+agenda?id=140&st=9610
A project that started off in the $20 to $25 million, I think.
blog/view/11296/3/rcmp+building+construction+consultant+on+hold?id=&st=8535
This one goes back to November 2008 under Kinsley when the building had already been scaled back to 2 storeys from 3, but he underground parking was still there.
Reason given? Could not reach agreement with district office to rent top floor … they had built their onw building by that time.
The total planning and design process for that building is a lesson in what not to do.
1. bad site selection
2. bad potential tenants
3. poor design
4. no awareness of “time is money”, especially in Olympic years.
5. poor procurement process
It is all there for someone who wants to do a bit of a research project to map out.
With people like SN saying who cares …. I don’t know?
Administration sure does not. They get paid for logged time not value for work.
Council sure does not. They get voted back in if they have the gift of the gab.
The taxpayers seem to. But they are ineffective at making change. They go for the charisma rather than the brains every time they step into a booth and put an X next to a name. And, of course, they are very forgetful …..
Gus, you make several great points, especially about how this new facility looks when compared to the Police Station on 5th and the new Dutchess Park, both of which look great, but not nearly as ostentatious as the new RCMP building. That said, in the short time I have been in PG, I this is the first time I have ever heard of something “too nice” in downtown PG. So, as a relative newcomer to PG who has historically looked at this downtown as an example of how not to attract anyone to your city, I guess I look at the new ploice building the same way Vincent Vega looked at the $5.00 milkshake. “I don’t know if it’s worth $46 million, but it looks pretty @&%!!^# good!”
I LMFAO when i read all these comments about “Not fitting in” .. when The Library was built .. it certainly didnt fit in …. when the 4 seasons Renovated in the late 80s it certainly didnt fit in
the place will be funtional … and easy on the eyes … curb apeal doesnt cost as much as underground parking …. Take a look at the Cancer center … with a “Living roof” and underground parking
many millions were spent on 90 ish underground spots
Ben Meisner …. the police station was on the councils agenga many times … if people wanted to have a say they should taken that particular monday night and made change
Bowzone wrote: “if people wanted to have a say they should taken that particular monday night and made change”
You suredo not know Council, do you?
I challenge you to come up with a meaningful change anyone ever made while going to Council when something is not on the agenda as a public hearing.
Perhaps you do not understand how the protocol in Council Chamber works.
1. if it is not a public hearing, which none of those cases you cite were, then you can sit and watch and make funny faces to a certain extent, but that is it.
2. one can ask to be heard for up to 10 minutes before the regular agenda of a council meeting starts; however, because it has to be done weeks in advance you would have to know beforehand what will be on the agenda in order to speak to the matter of the day.
3. one can also write letters and petitions to council; we ave seen that work really well when a special interest group flooded the councillors with around 800 or so e-mails ….. it got reconsideration of the matter and, in the end, were rejected.
Here we go again with civics 101 …. It all sounds so easy ….. can I hire you to make change for my pet projects?
If we all agree to having the Hilton on the Hill we should also embrace the Police Palace in our community. IMO Prince George is graduating into a class act city! yea right!
We have the Hilton on the Hill and soon we will have the Police Palace downtown. Both cost a fortune to construct and many for tunes are lost by those who reside in them. What a class act Prince George has become; yea right!
Zack … “nice” buildings will not activate a community. In fact, the type of âniceâ building this is will ensure that that block will remain inactivate for decades.
“active” buildings will activate a community.
Think Vancouver
Think Granville Island
Think Robson Street
Think Denman Street
Think Davie Street
Think 4th west of Granville South
Think Granville South
Even think Granville
Think many streets such as Commercial Drive
I could go on and on â¦.. none have the âniceâ palaces â¦. The ones with the âniceâ palaces, such as Georgia and Burrard north of the Skytrain station, have corporate offices which shut down after the offices close which effectively shuts down the streets.
Also think Yaletown for the opposite of active. But then that is appropriate in a way. Look at the high rises in the West end between Davie and Robson, traditionally feeding those streets with activity. There are no such streets in Yaletown. Comparatively speaking it is a totally built up section of relatively new residences with very few place to go. In effect, it is a Ghetto.
Activating a city is not an easy task, even for those with lots of experience, especially when there is no growth and one developer after another is just interested in building with a sea of parking around them.
Hey I like that”Poplice Palace”
Cheers
Name suggestions for the new building:
Timmy’s Taj
Taser Taj
Timmy’s Taser Taj
Donut Domicile
Cruller Castle
Piggy’s Palace(not PC)
“… the police station was on the councils agenga many times … if people wanted to have a say they should taken that particular monday night and made change”
Make change like getting 4 quarters for a dollar? Obviously this city is not very keen on making changes requested at council meetings once their mind is made up about an issue! I am commenting from personal experiences.
Trying to make change and actually succeeding – good luck with that!
Okay haters. If the police station didn’thave the fancy wood posts and lots of glass and looked like a big box, but still cost lets say $25 million, would you still be outraged at the cost? It seems the beauty of the building is at issue, not just the cost. Building police stations is not a cheap process. Ben seems to be under the impression that the locker rooms will have massage chairs and golden taps. Its a police station with a very nice facade. We did away with the underground parking lot, maybe we you could get rid of running water, toilets, and windows!!! NMG, you clearly have anger and mental health issues. Gus, you need to get a life, you spend way too much time on this website.
Gus. How is Yaletown inactive? It is a rich mix of residential, business, commercial, service, and entertainment. It is pedestrian friendly and one of the most desireable locations in Vancouver. It is as busy at night as it is during the day. Unfortunately, it is also ridiculously yuppie and unless you like living in a 400-500 square foot condo, completely overpriced. I would never want to live there personally, but I love going there when I am in Vancouver. Darn it, now I’m craving the fresh Oysters at Rodney’s.
As far as activating communities goes, I cannot see how the new police station is going to result in an inactive area for decades. That just doens’t make sense. You know what really activates communities? People. Prince George and many other communities in Northern BC are trying to convince more people to consider moving to Northern BC. Is the new Police Station too nice? Lot’s of people on this site think so (ok, it’s way too nice). Is it a bit like building a monument to ourselves? Yeah, maybe. Does it make our downtown look better? I think so. Does it make our downtown safer? Just maybe it does. Does it make a strong statement to the outside world about Prince George taking crime seriously? It certainly could appear that way. Is there a chance it will help recruit new residents to the City? It might, it certainly won’t scare them away.
If we ever get around to building a PAC, maybe we can have them make a more austere building and once it is ready, they can trade places with the RCMP:)
Ben said to Sine Nomine: “Now if that is your interpretation of having a vote on a city matter, this âold âman would like to debate that with you, any place, any time. letâs see how you hold up . Oh I forgot you would have to reveal your identity.”
Maybe I am a cynic, but I have always assumed that some of the “pseudonyms” used by commenters on this site were, in fact, Opinion 250 staff posting comments under their own pseudonyms to either legitimize editorial content, refute other stories, or to generate additional comments. I sure hope I’m not wrong – on of my favourite activities on this site is trying to guess who the commenters might be, especially which of the pseudonyms are actually Opinion 250 staff.
Maybe they should have built it on the Haldi Rd. school site. Cops coming and going at all hours. No NIMBYs there.
Just inside the front door of our new police station should be a small office that could become a needle exchange site. What better place to have it.
We have a strict policy. If youâre good enough to make a comment while you work at 250 news, you are good enough to put your own name to it.
I have lived in Prince George for over 40 years, anyone that knows my wife, or me knows we are not afraid to stand up and be counted.
By the way it takes some time but just as the person who tried to libel us found out during the last election, we do know who is making those comments.
Further Zack.. care to tell the readers how many names you are registered under
I have always suspected Zack of being one of the 73 Opinion 250 staff ….. ;-)
Glad to see you read the comments section to your blogs, Ben.
Yes, we do have a process for opposing projects and it is currently the alternative approval process. I never said the process was perfect, or that I even agreed with it, but it clearly works, just look to the dike project. A democracy requires active participation, perhaps a lesson we’re starting to learn here in this community after that little demonstration of dissatisfaction with Council’s direction on that particular issue. Sometimes you have to put your money where your mouth is if you want something done.
This R.C.M.P. building project has been going on for almost a decade now it seems. I believe Eric Allen tried to champion this cause as well, but never garnered the same support and enthusiasm as in the case of the dike, partly I imagine because people knew, like you did, that it was needed.
Could the building have been built for significantly less than the quoted $24.7 million to design and build it and have achieved the same purpose and utility, I don’t know the answer to that question — do you? Do you have some construction expertise in the area of highly specialized buildings such as this one? I think it’s a little more complicated than just looking at the outward appearance of the 65,000 sq ft building, if you have some facts and figures regarding this, I’m all eyes and ears. The point though, to me, is that it’s a sunk cost now. It’s over because the contract has been signed and the building has reached a significant level of completion. All that is left is to pay for it. I don’t see how pissing and moaning about it now serves any purpose at all. It just seems like sour grapes for the sake of sour grapes and that’s not very interesting.
As to the function of the R.C.M.P., I’m not interested in having a semantic discussion about their role in the justice system. I’ve taken a few law courses over the years, and the practicing lawyers teaching the course all made that distinction really clear to the class. I view their role as to serve and protect; judges administer the application of law. No law gets upheld in this country unless the crown prosecutor and judge make it so.
“NMG, you clearly have anger and mental health issues”
Thanks for the diagnosis uppercandian, but I believe you are being absurd. Mind you, breathing “road dust” and drinking fluoridated water for over 30 years could have an impact on one’s health, LOL ;)
Sure Ben, I have one account. This is it. I may have had another when I first moved here but if I did, I either didn’t use it or have long since forgotten it.
You will see by how many times I post that I don’t really take much time to post with one pseudonym, let alone take the additional time to develop others.
I have always assumed you have administrative access to the site and can see who the posters are. To be honest, I guess I haven’t given it much thought. It’s a blog. People register to comment. I registered my pseudonym to post on this site using my own name and email address. It seems logical that the administrators of the blog would know who is posting.
I am not sure why you would bring up libel. What does that have to do with my comment?
from the city website…. they say 38.9 million.. check the two by laws to get the money and then add them up.
The total revised project cost estimate of the RCMP Detachment Facility is $ 38.9 million which reflects construction cost reductions of $6.114 million achieved through the scope review. Of the total project cost estimate, approximately $24.7 million is attributed to the design and construction components of the work. The cost reductions have been primarily achieved by removing the proposed Emergency Operations Centre and replacing underground parking with surface parking. Design elements that showcase wood construction and energy efficiency have been preserved and enhanced.
I haven’t ever thought you would have more than one pseudonym Gus, that really would take a staff of 73…;)
So, uppercandian, who is this “we: you refer to in “We did away with the underground parking lot”?
Would not be the group you chaired by any chance? ….
In order for you to make a determination that I spend too much time on here, you must be doing a lot of lurking … or posting under a few names … ;-)
I mean, it would be unfair to make a determination like that without some solid factual knowledge. Right?
Whatever the case may be, it is still a free world and certainly one with lots of availability to free speech and writings….. just remember that….
Lonesome sparrow throws out the old donut jokes! Great material, something I would expect from a immature teenager.
Harbinger, what the hell does harm reduction have to do with the police station? Harm reduction is a provincial health matter, not one that I agree with either, but none the less completely unrelated.
Ben and Gus, I want to know how much the station should cost? If all the fancy glass and wood were taken away would you be happier? Or are you upset that they built a new one? Police stations are not your typical building either, the cell block alone costs millions. It’s hard to cheap out on a new station.
This backgrounder also shows $38.9 million:
http://www.princegeorge.ca/publicsafety/rcmpfacility/Documents/RCMP%20Facility%20Backgrounder.pdf
“Now let’s see some private developers step up to the new standard.” .. don’t hold your breath, they would have to convince investors to spend millions of dollars, something that seems to be lacking when using taxpayers money.
The new Police Station is way over priced for what was needed in Prince George.
Keep in mind that we have 124 Police Officers, and 50 Staff. Also keep in mind that the Police work shifts and week-ends. So on any given day there would be less than 80/90 people in the building during day shift, and less during afternoons, midnight, and week-ends. Also a large number of the officers would be in their patrol cars.
The cost of $40 Million doesnt tell the whole story because the money was borrowed, and as a result over the next 20 years we will pay approx $30 Million or more in interest. So we are looking at a minimum of $70 Million for this Monilith.
The City since 2007 had THREE (3) Alternative Approval Process’s to borrow this money, and in effect circumvented the reverse onus option in my opinion, because if the Alternative Approval Process was for the total amount of $38 million instead of three separate amounts over 5 years, they probably would not have been able to borrow the money.
They also bought the property for this building long before the issue ever came before the citizens of Prince George for a vote.
At the end of the day we have a building that reflects our lack of concern for tax dollars, and represents the inability of the City and Administration to be fiscally responsible.
There are other issues that will need to be dealt with in the near future, especially infrastructure, and in order for us to survive without going further into debt, we need to get the attention of the City, Council, and Administration, and stop the foolish spending.
The new Police station is in fact a testament to our Provincialism.
Sine Nomine; 65,000 square feet, really? It does not look that big.
One reason why this police station costs so much to build may be that they have to adhere to at least some federal rcmp standards and specifications, especially in areas such as the cells, which have become ridiculously expensive in recent years.
I assume that this building will incorporate secure areas for weapons and ammunition as well, those are pricey as well. Higher standard of constructon, more expensive materials, hallmarks of federal construction specifications.
metalman.
The PG RCMP building costs $22.7 million to construct a 63,000 sf building. That means it costs $360/sf. That is the construction cost. Then we put on landscaping, design, furnishing, permits, contingency, landscaping costs, etc. which are mostly referred to as soft costs. That brings the total project cost to close to $40million.
Building new police stations is a current pastime in Canada. There are plenty of examples to compare to when it comes to design. Sadly, construction costs and project costs as well as actual size of buildings, which should include volume as well as area with the modern buildings that have some sort of atrium involved, are not readily available in the public domain. The only people that can provide good information on that are quantity surveyors and general contractors.
Reinders has some good experience right across the country with police stations. If I would trust anyone to tell me how much of a premium we are paying for this building compared to others they have built, once one removes the functional parts required to provide the RCMP with the âtoolsâ they need, it would be someone from their estimating and cost accounting department. But they are not going to do that at this stage. It is privileged information and would become a hot potato which could cost them future public jobs. That information is available, but would come from cost consultantsâ mouths.
Building costs are kept quite close to some peopleâs chests. People closely associated with putting together quotes from building contractors do not give away too many trade advantages. We know one thing with some certainty, contractors like Reinders have been around for a while, have across Canada experience, and are apparently not losing money.
They know what contingency they have put in for building a structure that has a high specialty element in it. Believe me, that is high specialty element is not the jail cells. People know how much jail cells cost. No contingency is needed for that. And they are not all that costly. We, that means the architectural office I contracted to at the time, designed and supervised the renovation of jail cells in about 20 RCMP stations throughout the province from Williams Lake, which had the largest number (around 10 if I remember correctly) to small detachments in wood framed buildings. Of course, we did not do the PG cells since they were just starting their 10 year or so waffling of building a new building. The money was there to upgrade the cells due to a large number of suicides, so they were made more secure from that point of view â windows, sleeping platforms, toilets+basins, CCTV cameras, observation ports, cell doors. Based on that and other building construction experience , a jail cell is really no more âspecialâ or costly than a public washroom.
Handling special wood, especially putting in interior and outdoor living walls (yes, this building has those) and whatever else there might be draws the complex or unknown factors in which have elements of âunusualâ risk involved. They are an estimators nightmare. Not only that, but they will continue to be a building owner and operatorâs nightmare since the same risk of failure, and ongoing maintenance remain and may even become worse. For instance, Wood Works, while promoting wood as a construction material, still puts these disclaimers out âWood is a cost-effective finish for public buildings, and with PROPER MAINTENANCE, it will remain durable and functional for years to comeâ. We all know the history of maintenance with this City. So, that does not bode well from my point of view. Give it 10 years and an eastern exposure on tall columns which will have the lower half at least exposed to rain and sun cycles, will begin to discolour no matter what the finish. The darker the finish and the further away it is from the natural graying of wood the worse it is.
Here is an example of how to use wood outside which will require no maintenance for a century.
http://www.woodsolutions.com.au/Inspiration-Case-Study/radial-timber-Botanic-Gardens-Cranbourne
So, we have a building that is costing $360/sf for the construction cost.
Regina has a building which is 360,000 sf costing $101 million for the construction part, which works out to $281/sf. That is 22% less than what we are paying. Their building is going to be finished about the same time as outs. Saskatchewan is booming, so construction costs are typically high in those economic situations.
Here is some info on their station
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/property-report/in-pictures-not-barney-millers-police-station/article4461718/?from=4460923
Look through the 3 images presented.
Here is what it says about it: âThe design features a large, atrium-style lobby and extensively uses glass around the building to maximize natural light. The building will include community meeting rooms, service-focused areas for public records checks, a police heritage display and a publicly accessible gymnasium.â
Do we have a publicly accessible gymnasium? How community friendly will our building be? No one speaks or writes about those attributes, so we really do not know. We are building this building and there is a total disconnect in communication about its utility and features for the public. Typical of the mindset in this community.
Info on the PG building
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/phoenix/bcca_20120304/index.php?startid=86
Metalman … 22% less per square foot for a building in Regina which has to meet the same federal standards ……
65,000 square feet is roughly the size of the Save on Foods building in Spruceland. it is one floor, the RCMP is two floors.
It is twice as big as the existing building. In other words, add two floor and you are looking at the same floor area, but not the same volume. That has increased. Volume = heating and cooling costs. No matter how efficient one makes the energy system, the idea is to actually save money as a result, not to build more volume as a result.
At least that is the way I think.
Now, if we could only train a few people at both Halls to think that way, we would be getting somewhere.
An architectural firm launched a lawsuit against the City of Regina to recover costs associated with the construction of a downtown plaza.
The project cost about $12.5 million, which is almost double the original projected budget.
I am assuming that the cost esclation is due to scope changes by the City.
http://www.joconl.com/article/id51367
Doing some “walking with my keyboard” through the internet.
Hotel/condo developers are having problems even in booming Regina.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2012/09/06/sk-capital-pointe-1209.html
Unlike the City moms and dads … I like sharing information …. ;-)
“It’s hard to cheap out on a new station.”
You really do not know how it is done, do you?
When we were designing the first CNC buildings which was a project about the 7 times the size of the police station, the college wanted a “student general activity space” which we provided along the south side. Essentially today’s atriums such s at Duchess Park HS, only 40 years ago, under the watchful eyes of the Ministry responsible for post secondary education. They were the people with the bucks, and they were watching how they were spent at a time of very quick construction cost escalation and high interest rates.
Basically, they said no. It is not a functional education space. And we spent much time on writng justification reports.
So, now that you know my mindset when it comes to justifying the details of building designs, you might understand that in todayâs world there are few who deal with public money who understand the difference between needs and wants when it comes to spaces within buildings.
The City Administration and Council is supposed to act the same as the value for money standards on provincial projects. In my mind, this City has shown that it cannot meet that fiduciary standard of practice.
From the backgrounder:
Three redevelopment options were presented
1.considering horizontal expansion requiring additional land â and this would cost what? Nothing!. They just closed a street for the proposed hotel/condo. That part of Brunswick could be easily closed. Besides, the original building design contemplated a potential expansion across the street. The canopies over the doors are actually the start of possible future bridges across the street, thus not even requiring a closure.
2.a vertical expansion option that contained a substantial cost for temporarily housing the RCMP operations elsewhere â the concrete columns have stubs protruding through the roof. The superstructure could have been build while the lower floors remained operational. There would certainly have been a cost, but hardly substantial.
3.and a third option of constructing a new facility on a nearby parking lot and redeveloping the existing building as a parking structure â redeveloping a flat floor structure as a parking structure? The floor in that building was likely designed for a floor load of 100lbs/sf. Inadequate for parking even if an elevator was built to move cars to a flat floor building.
Again, sharing of public information. Where are those original reports?
This is not about water under the bridge. This is about showing how this City has worked in the past and how this kind of decision making has to change in the future if we are ever to enter into the modern world of governance.
I do not suppose you even understand such matters, do you uppercandian?
Wow, 9 posts in a row. Is that a record?
I have a lot to say on the matter to make some corrections.
Why would that be any of your business JB?
Are you the official site monitor?
Are you on Opinion 250 staff?
So many questions to Daddy …… ;-)
Wow, somebody’s sensitive. Maybe I should have put a winky face after my post to soften it up a bit. ;-)
“We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.” ~ Aristotle
Based on the decisions that come out of city hall it is pretty safe to say the reverse is also true.
Perhaps you are typing faster than some can read gus.
JB … nothing sensitive about it ….
You felt like asking a rhetorical question and I felt like answering with a few of my own to bat the ball back.
I love rhetorical questions …. they typically have much deeper meaning than some realize. ;-)
I guess, lonesome sparrow, that is the ancient wise guy’s way of saying something akin to “leading by example”.
Gus, instead of boring us to death just answer the question!! I agree with you, I don’t think the building needed the glass, the atrium, the decorative wood etc. But a new police station was needed. Im just asking that if they built a 65,000 sf cinder block square that cost, lets say 25 to 30 million, would you still be pissed off? I get it, my property takes are hair shy of $4000 a year!!!
Gus, instead of boring us to death just answer the question!! I agree with you, I don’t think the building needed the glass, the atrium, the decorative wood etc. But a new police station was needed. Im just asking that if they built a 65,000 sf cinder block square that cost, lets say 25 to 30 million, would you still be pissed off? I get it, my property takes are hair shy of $4000 a year!!!
Gus, sorry I just saw you asking me if I even understand such matters, hilarious. You have some ego man to talk to people that way. Gus who pissed in your corn flakes anyways, wait don’t you have a history with no name corn flakes????
I am not talking. I am writing. But I will say it to your face anytime you wish. But you seem to avoid that lately.
I really do not know why someone in your position has to resort to such ad hominem attacks on a public forum.
Wait ….. I think I know ……
As far as answering your question, I did. I can’t help it if you need someone to hold your hand while reading more than 3 words.
Ours costs $360/sf. Regina’s in a booming economy and escalating construction costs costs $280/sf. It has public access in their glassed in foyer which looks more like our Civic Centre, a public museum of RCMP history, even a gymnasium which is accessible by the public ……
I can’t figure out what’s worse, ‘ad hominem’ attacks or a condescending egotistic attitude? Tough call. ;-)
Don’t always agree with gus, but he does do the research to back up his statements as opposed to ” uppercandian on September 26 2012 6:58 PM” post …….already asked and answered by “gus on September 26 2012 9:02 AM” that there were alternatives that were dismissed because ????????
IMO the most salient comment of all is that the city is not meeting it’s fiduciary responsibilities to the taxpayers of Prince George.
As for the condescending attitude….when the time comes to read his eulogy I would give long odds that it will include “did not suffer fools gladly” in some way;-)
Comments for this article are closed.