Way behind schedule. I predict cost over runs. Looks like the P3 was a farce designed to take accountability and the tender bid out of the project.

It is?

What was the original budget and schedule, and what is it (projected to be) now?

And who (what level of government/what taxpayer pocket) will be responsible for covering the shortfall?

Shortfall? Overbudget? Who pays? Local, provincial,or federal tax dollars? It's you and me, pal. Just varying degrees of having "hands in our pockets". Just varying amounts. What else is new?

Why do you say behind schedule...from what I can see it seems to be moving along quite well (not sure about on budget) but everything else seems to be progressing.

Completely baseless statement Chadermando. It is indeed on time and on budget. Sorry to wreck your "hating".

How about you confirm your "facts" before you go and spread lies.

Maybe it is "behind schedule" because when the University originally began planning and construction, the part of the campus which was to be built to address sports/recreation needs was dropped in order to allow the more important compnents to be built within an original order of magnitude budget.

As far as this particular building at this time goes, it appears to be relatively on time as I recall - to be ready for the fall class start of 2007.

On budget? I suspect it is primarily because of the P3 contractual obligations under which it is being built. Since public money is involved, I am sure that one can find such information out with relative ease.

So, I agree with RC, find out factual information on which such perceptions are based.

Then again, from a public relations point of view, if I was responsible for PR of one of the public "partners" I would take that as an indicator that there are others out there who feel the same way.

Therefore,m I would find an oppoertune way to bring forward a project update reminding people in the community what they can look forward to and letting them know the current situation with respect to on time, on budget.

So, perhaps this is not just opinion 250 looking for an update, but it is someone from the "partners" beginning that community update process.

Anyway, it will be a good addition to the community.

My only beef is, I want to see a perfoming arts building next in line in this community - not at UNBC, as was considered at one time, but downtown.

And if you are very lucky you might...repeat might get to use it between 1 am and 1:30 am...

"My only beef is, I want to see a perfoming arts building next in line in this community - not at UNBC, as was considered at one time, but downtown."

hahahahah go lick some leaves or hug some trees instead. what a waste of money that would be.

-right wing

"...what a waste of money that would be."

Rightwing is in left field.

Diversifying the economy would be a waste? Being a community attractive to health professionals, engineers, entrepreneurs, technologists, archetechts, designers, accountants, students and others would be a waste? Leveraging and expanding an already growing and diversified creative economy would be a waste?

Appropriate creative and cultural infrastructure is imparative for successful recruitment and retention today. Ideas and innovation are required for economic diversification, and they require culture and creativity to develop and expand.

Add to that the fact that companies large and small are finally understanding the fact design and the "soft benefits and features" of a product are required in today's marketplace. Look at successful electronics (iPod) or just about any automobile today - much more attention is being payed to design and the emotional impact of products and services.

Required reading:
A Whole New Mind by Daniel Pink:
http://www.danpink.com/
Revolutionary Wealth by Alvin and Heidi Toffler:
http://www.alvintoffler.net/

Finally, we have no problem in vesting in sports facilities, but arts and cultural facilities are perceived by many to be a waste.

Answer me this: How many people are employed as professinal athletes in Prince George? Not PE teachers, or personal coaches, or sporting good salespeople, etc. Who gets paid to play? No one, except perhaps Bill Mahood as a professional fighter.

Try this one: How many people are employed for producing creative output that could be considered art: words, visual or performance? Hundreds - architects, interior designers, graphic artists, web designers, radio personalites, poets, novelists, editors, fasion designers, choreographers, musicians, landscape designers, photographers, sculpters, painters, journalists, set designers, directors, filmmakers, recording technicians, furniture designers, and on and on.

Show me the money? It's art, the highest and most profitable form of value added opportunity available today. We'd be wise to embrace and leverage it.

But don't take my word for it. Read up on what they think is important in "red neck" Alberta (free pdf download):
http://www.cwf.ca/abcalcwf/doc.nsf/Publications?ReadForm&id=E3E1F838338CC663872572120048CC59

i have to agree. I am not exactly a performing arts kind of guy. I went to a play once or twice. However, i think that a performing arts center is a damn good idea. I went to see handles massiah at the HIGH SCHOOL and though the performance was great the venue sucks, period. This is definately a case of 'if you build it, people will come' as it will be a lot more enjoyable to do so.
I may be a bit red in the neck but there aint no future for PG along those lines.

A couple of words....PG playhouse
What was its surplus last year???

Btw, youd be surprized by how many people are paid to play sports in pg.

rightwing

There are 109 people who get paid over $1,500 per year to PLAY sports in PG. The average of their annual pay according to SatsCan is just over $18,950.

So where is the surprise? That it is that low? Or that high?

;-)

You people seem to forget that it was the City of Prince George and the School Board that built the High School and Vanier Hall, and it was the performing arts people etc; who thought that it was a great idea. A lot of people were upset about the cost at the time. Now a few years later we are complaining about Vanier Hall and want a new facility.

Bottom line.
(1) UNBC
(2) CN Centre, Coliseum, 2-Kin Centres, plus other rinks
(3) New Civic Centre
(4) Two Swimming Pools
(5) New Library
(6) Art Centre
(7) Railway Museum
(8) Regional Museum

Population 1996---78,239
Population 2006---77,148

You can see that even though we have all the best facilities, Universitys, Schools, etc; that the population of Prince George is less to-day than it was 10 years ago. It does not logically follow that if you have the infrastructure that you will attract more people.

Historically people have come to Prince George for two reasons only. (1) To find a good paying job. (2) To start some sort of a business.

To-day we have no jobs available (In fact we have fewer good paying jobs than we had 10/15 years ago) and we have very few if any busines opportunities. Therefore no people coming to Prince George.

With the increase in activity in Prince Rupert/Kitimat/Terrace area, and the booming economys of Ft St John, Dawson Creek, Grande Prairie, Edmonton, Calgary, and Vancouver people will continue to leave Prince George to seek employment opportunitys in other areas.

A performing Arts Centre might be nice for people who live here, but it will do nothing to attract people to this area. We need jobs to do that, and business opportunitys.

Realitycheck, the roof was supposed to be completed by Christmas. It will not be complete until February at the earliest. They should have 15 electricians on site now, but only have two, because they went non-union P3, and are trying to pay residential rates for a commercial job. Most journeymen up on that job in the trades are old slow workers that are willing to work for the residential rates to work in town.

On the upside WIC bonded their subcontractors as part of their P3 general contractor arrangement and so WIC should be the ones to swallow any cost over runs that results from 'their' bid awarding process.

On the other end of the spectrum you have the new student space being constructed that is way ahead of schedule, below budget, with ample qualified contractors and journeymen, paying going commerical rates for union employees, and expected to be complete in February for a September opening.

Night and day difference between the way the two projects are handled and the performance that the university gets for the dollars spent. Public dollars should go to a public bid process and contractors should at least have the ability to post their own bond if performance is to be expected.

Actually the student building or Teaching and Learning building your referring to is not expected till March / April area and is dramatically over budget. Just for fixtures alone it is 150,000 dollars over budget and lots have been cut from the design to try and get it within budget. There has not been a building built at the University that is within budget in years but that is because of how the government estimates these sorts of projects compared to what it actually takes to build and equip them.

"...youd be surprized by how many people are paid to play sports in pg."

and

"There are 109 people who get paid over $1,500 per year to PLAY sports in PG."

What sport? Are you sure StatsCan in not lumping officials into the mix, or coaches or trainers? The soccer officials, I believe hockey officials and high school basketball and volleyball officials are paid a little at least.

I am talking PLAYERS. People that LIVE off their sport, say at least 33% of their income, to make it easier.

What sport? What team? What position?

I forgot about PGARA, so maybe there's someone there, and I have no idea about equestrian. Maybe rodeo??

I have pretty good friendships with the main sports beat reporters in the city, and when I ask them who gets paid to play, they can't think of anyone. Go ahead, ask them. Maybe Kelly Sharp or Hartley Miller can write a column here at opinion250 to identify and explain the development and growth of the the large professional sports industry we have here in PG.

Show me the money!

In the meantime, you can't go anywere without seeing or hearing Prince George produced art. Lots of commercial art in advertising of all kinds and performance art on the radio, to be sure, but PAID art non the less.

Look -- all around Opionion250 -- graphic art! And writing, too!

Government estimates especially Municipal are always flawed. As a general rule they make a case that allows them to go ahead with the project and then worry about the over runs and additional costs at a later date. They know of course that they can always get more money from the taxpayers. The CN Centre is a prime example of a building that was supposed to be self sufficient, and we now find that it is costing the taxpayer approx $350,000.00 per year to operate.

You will find that the Northern Sports Centre will be the same. This facility will be owned jointly by UNBC and The City of Prince George, and operated by a third party. They have projected per annum costs of running this facility of $942,000.00 and projected yearly revenues of $940,000.00, however if you look at how they arrive at the projected revenues, you will see immediatley that for the most part it is wishful thinking, and therefore this facility will be a drain on taxpayers for years to come.

"Now a few years later we are complaining about Vanier Hall and want a new facility"

???!!! get real!!!! it's 40 years later ..... in those days I was heading up the design team to design what was then called Kanata High School which is now called the Earl of March High School ... our firm was doing one school the size of PGSS a year. There was one other firm on Ottawa doing the same. Every single one of them had had a library, cafeteri, full Gymnasium the size of the one at CNC, plus a theatre, plus a track and football field with specator stand for about 800 or so.

The theatre at that school is far superior both acoustically, visual sight lines, multiple use purposes, fly tower, back stage size, etc. than Vanier Hall.

The theatre at the high school led to a very strong program in the arts which resulted in a new, independant theatre being built just recently.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1319/is_n2_v30/ai_18590150

The people in PG in the late 60s may have been happy with it because it is all they knew. They may have been happy to get anything. I am not even going to try to guess why. But to say that in this day and age this is an adequate facility for a community the size of PG is absolutely assinine.

"It does not logically follow that if you have the infrastructure that you will attract more people."

Looka at many of trhe European cities in the last 30 years and you will see the same, except that they continue to build better facilities since the lifestyle is changing. Ever think of that? Grows is not about more people, growth is also about better quality. One of these days more of us will become to realize that little secret of life and society. We have come a long way since the days of living in caves.

Owl. Some of the buildings in Europe were built hundreds of years ago and are still being used to-day. The same goes for other buildings in Canada. Why is it that people in Prince George feel that a building that is 40 years old is outdated. ie: The Police Station on 8th&Brunswick 35 years old, so we need a new one. Vanier Hall 40 years old, so we need a new one.

To continue with your train of thought then we should tear down and rebuild every major building in Prince George, because with a few exceptions, they are all 35 to 40 years old.

My point was that people complained until they got /Vanier Hall, and they will now complain until they get a new performing arts centre.(Probably the same people because when I attend any functions in these facilities I notice that the youngest person present is about 50 years old.

Im not necessarily opposed to the idea, at least with Vanier Hall attached to the school it is unlikely that they will tear it down, like they do to all the other buildings around here, however I suspect that they will tear down the Prince George Playhouse, and shut down Theatre Northwest, and maybe tear down studio 2880, and your new performing arts centre will be the **Old Police Station**.

We may have come a long way from living in caves, but we now live in locked houses, with motion detectors, alarm systems and some people with German Shepards, or Pit Bulls. In addition we do not walk around town after dark, and rarely if ever talk to a stranger. We certainly wouldnt give a stranger a ride in our car. You may think you have come a long way, but then you are setting your standard.

Its like the man said. ****I think I am the smartest man on earth, however I have never asked for a second opinion****

Before we digress too much, let me get back to your original premise that one needs population increase to have "growth".

Read this linked article.
http://www.epa.gov/region1/communities/sprawl.html

In Boston, developed land has been growing seven times faster than the population increase. For the USA as a country, each American today occupies almost 20% more developed land (housing, schools, stores, roads) than 20 years ago.

So, we have not had any increase in population in PG, yet we have new land being developed, while the inner core is dying. Sounds familiar to anyone who knows anything about the history of urban development in North America.

In PG we are not supplying markets increasing due to population increases. We have not had an increase. We are supplying markets increasing due to lifestyle changes.

In Kelowna, GVRD and on the island we are supplying markets growing for both reasons.

So this notion that development only increases as population increases, or increases at the same rate, is not proven in practice. At least not in North America.

No wonder the poor people in PG are confused. They see so called positive changes in PG, but they are not seeing population increases and they are scratching their heads in puzzlement.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-26-100-million_x.htm

"Owl. Some of the buildings in Europe were built hundreds of years ago and are still being used to-day"

Yes, but they have been kept up to date on a regular basis, especially if they are special buildings such as theatres.

Look at this building. It was built in 1447. It is still used today for the same function (a civic and convention centre) it was when it was originally built. But while it may look the same on the outside, its guts are completely new. In fact, as it says, the fully rebuilt inside from the 1950's was again renovated in the 1990's to outfit it to today's technology.

As technology changes and expectations of the public change, old buildings are modernized. There is no need to tear them down, at least not all of them.

http://www.koelnkongress.de/en/guerzenich/historie.html

So, can Vanier hall be brought up to today's standards with a double outside wall to isolate it accoustically from the rest of the school as well as the street? Can the stage area and backstage be brought up to date? can the access be brought up to date? Can the sightlines and distances from audience to the stage be improved? Can the acoustics be improved?

At one time there were some in the community who thought so. After the fiasco of trying to do something along similar lines with the old playhouse, which was a wonderful little theatre, we should have learned our lesson.

Simply put, we need a new theatre to bring PG into today's live entertainment scene at the same level other communities our size are.