Quote:
Originally Posted by lrt's friend
To be honest, I really don't understand the proposal anymore because it keeps changing. How can we take it seriously? Why wasn't this done 10 years ago, 5 years ago, 2 years ago, even 1 year ago? This is an act of desparation and even obstruction. The only reason why this is happening is because another plan is already on the table and has been approved by City Council. No plan can be perfect and that is always the argument, that we can do better. Of course, another more perfect plan is always possible. And the argument can be made, that if we accept a 'new' perfect plan, another more even perfect plan will be presented again. Ultimately, inaction becomes a very real possibility.
|
Actually I was very supportive of the Design Competition.
As far as I can see the only thing obstructionist has been a sole source bid (charged to be illegal and before the courts)that stopped a democratically voted open competition dead in its tracks.
The new proposal is a balance of what everyone has been asking for, but will be submitting under several sections of the procurement By-Laws, not the least of which a call for open competition.
Being realistic the City will naturally block that request so two other doors, which are much harder to close will be entered.
Who is to say that this is desperate? Typically large design firms do not enter into projects that don't have a good chance at winning.
What I find desperate is zoning for a project that has not submitted a final plan or blocking open tender competitions.
This is not about inaction, this is about an alternative, with costing, with timetables and with the backing of internationally recognized stadium/park and project management specialists.
Nor is this re-inventing what has been asked for, namely:
1. Stadium
2. Green Space
3. Self supporting financial model with attractive retail opportunities and
4. Relieving the City of the responsibility of managing the park.
What it is presenting is a competitive alternative that will be responsible to the taxpayer, heritage, the greater community and the local community.
And there is nothing wrong with that.